Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Singh can't run another election any time soon. He has no money.
There's a lot of posters using the word "corrupt". If that is in reference to SNC, I don't think it's the right word, only because that connotes personal gain (eg. SNC paid Trudeau kickbacks or something). It's clear he went across ethics boundaries by trying to convince a Minister to do something, but that didn't seem to be motivated by greed. It's either "saving Quebec jobs" if you're charitable or "winning Quebec votes" if you're not. Would we be complaining as much if he was phoning the Minister of Environment to try and convince him to impose a lesser penalty or remediation on a big oil sands project rather than shutting it down?
Or maybe I'm wrong and people are referring to something else?
|
As others have responded, you have to look farther back into the SLCL file to get a true appreciation of the corruption. Having spent millions of dollars bribing the horrible Muammar Gaddafi regime of Libya (including hiring prostitutes to entertain his son) to award them government contracts, SNCL could see the writing on the wall and realized they needed a stronger voice in Ottawa to possibly avoid prosecution for their crimes. They encouraged employees to make contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada by promising to reimburse any such contributions with a bonus equal to the amount contributed to the Liberals. This resulted in $110,000 dollars in illegal contributions to the federal Liberals in the last election. As a reward to SNCL, the Liberals consulted with the company heavily in the drafting of the omnibus bill that would potentially allow the company to potentially avoid criminal prosecution for its well-documented bribery. The government also failed to prosecute company executives and party members for their involvement in the illegal donations. The PM then went to the Attorney General, JWR, and reminded her that they had passed a law that allowed for deferred prosecution (euphemism for dropping criminal charges in favour of a slap on the wrist/nominal fine and allowing the offender to continue to have favoured status in bids for government contracts) of SNCL for bribery, and that it would be in everyone’s best interests to do so. When JWR refused, the PM sent his personal attack dog Butts and the head of the Privy Council repeatedly to her to try to talk some sense into her. When she stood her ground and insisted that the judicial branch of the government should remain independent from the legislative and executive branches (basically the only thing that keeps a majority government from having a 4-5 year dictatorship), he removed her from the post to replace her with a more pliable appointee. Then, when the commons justice committee investigating the affair learned that JWR had secretly recorded conversations of Trudeau’s cronies bullying her into compromising the country’s judicial independence, she was removed from cabinet and the party. Of course, we don’t know the full story, because JWR was threatened with prosecution for violation of cabinet privilege if she told the RCMP the truth, and the Liberal-dominated justice committee vetoed a full gathering of information from everyone involved in the sordid affair.
What is already public knowledge already has clear evidence of criminal activity and rampant influence peddling to a corrupt company. But why won’t the Liberals let us know the full story? What else are they still hiding? It’s like Watergate except with all of the witnesses being muzzled with threats of criminal charges for telling the truth (granted, the reporters investigating Watergate were threatened).