[BeaverFever]

peck420 peck420:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No you need a professional who didn’t just show up on the job yesterday and is guaranteed to be replaced next week.

Assigning a judge to the post for 4 years is hardly asking for a non-professional, and is not a person who just showed up for the job.

Why bother responding to posts when you make it so obvious you don't even read them?

*sigh* You don’t understand.

1) Being a judge is not the same thing as being the AG and it takes time for any newcomer to learn the role, lwarn all the intricate details and nuances of the portfolio, and to build relationships with the permanent staff and the various extenal stakeholder groups. Mandatory turnover every 4 years is simply going to guarantee that the person in the role spends most of their term inexperienced on the learning curve.

2) Each new person to the role is going to shuffle and reorganize staff, reset priorities and move responsibilities around within the department in a way that suits their preferences and mindset. That’s just what happens in any business or organization when new leadership comes in.

I mean can you think of any private business that has a policy of intentionally firing its leaders as soon as they’re experienced in the role and replacing them with someone brand new? Consider that the AG oversees projects and cases that take multiple years to come to fruition ....the charges against SNC date back to activities in 2001. How many AGs would have come and gone and changed the directions and priorities on the file under your proposed 4-year term?

3) If you really want the AG to be independent from the politicians, you can’t make the term for the AG the same as the politicial governments otherwise they’ll just find a way to appoint someone with the technical qualifications who has partisan or ideological loyalties and that person will have no incentive to be non-partisan since they know they’re not going to serve the next government anyway.

Our senior public servants faithfully served the previous conservative government, the current liberal government and they know eventually they will have to serve a future conservative or NDP government and therefore they know that compromising their expertise professionalism for the partisan or ideological interests of the political government of the day would be extremely short-sighted and would only cause the next governing party to can them.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

SNC Lavalin is also a major government contractor, and reducing their stock price leaves them vulnerable to takeover. Do we really want sensitive information in foreign hands?

Do we allow them to break the law because of it? What kind of message does that send to other corporations? Have dirt on us and you can do whatever you want?

They aren't charged with breaking the law in Canada. They broke Canadian law . . in Syria.

In Syria, that is how you get things done. If you want a permit, you have to slip the government drone a fiver. You want to build a building, it's going to cost a lot to grease the palms of everyone who wants in on that action.

Now, it was SNC's choice to do business in Syria, but let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have.

SNC is are charged with breaking a Canadian law that prohibits bribing foreign governments. IMO it is an honourable law to have annd should be enforced.

[DrCaleb]

And like I wrote, "let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

SNC Lavalin is also a major government contractor, and reducing their stock price leaves them vulnerable to takeover. Do we really want sensitive information in foreign hands?

Never mind the Quebec pension fund has a 20% stake in SNC. And THAT is a crux of the issue. It's not about jobs.

Considering Butt's destructive policies in Ontario cost thousands of jobs and the federal Liberal policies are killing off 10's of thousands of jobs in the resource sector, I find this sudden concern over the potential loss of fewer than 9000 jobs to be entirely suspect.

Makes me wonder it if would still be "about the jobs" if SNC-L was located in Alberta.

[BeaverFever]

llama66 llama66:

Great. Is it built? or will it die in the epic quagmire of red tape he created to stifle natural resource development in Canada?

What red tape did he create exactly?

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And like I wrote, "let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have."

We’re not. We’re holding a Canadian company up to Canadian standards. It would be hypocritical not to. If they can’t do business in shithole countries without bribing their leaders then I guess they shouldn’t do business there. Their foreign competitors who DO get those contracts should be barred from competing in Canada.

[llama66]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

llama66 llama66:

Great. Is it built? or will it die in the epic quagmire of red tape he created to stifle natural resource development in Canada?

What red tape did he create exactly?

Really?
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-69/

[llama66]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And like I wrote, "let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have."

We’re not. We’re holding a Canadian company up to Canadian standards. It would be hypocritical not to. If they can’t do business in shithole countries without bribing their leaders then I guess they shouldn’t do business there. Their foreign competitors who DO get those contracts should be barred from competing in Canada.

So you are tacitly supporting corruption?

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

They may both be correct. Everyone takes things said to them in different ways

Tricks Tricks:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t think JWR was inappropriately pressured

Well she disagrees with you on that one. Quite heavily.

Maybe as DrC suggests, they could both be right.

This level of pressure may be common for PMOs to exert on important cases, while JWR felt that amount of pressure was too much after she had made her decision.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What isn't up for debate though, is when the PM didn't get his way, he 'demoted' JWR to Veterans Affairs.

^ This.

[peck420]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

1) Being a judge is not the same thing as being the AG and it takes time for any newcomer to learn the role, lwarn all the intricate details and nuances of the portfolio, and to build relationships with the permanent staff and the various extenal stakeholder groups.

Funny how this legal change happens in days in the private world, but will take years in the public one.

$1:

2) Each new person to the role is going to shuffle and reorganize staff, reset priorities and move responsibilities around within the department in a way that suits their preferences and mindset.

Sweet. What are the winning lottery numbers? Your opinion of how this yet to be position functions is not how this yet to be position has to function.

$1:

3) If you really want the AG to be independent from the politicians, you can’t make the term for the AG the same as the politicial governments otherwise they’ll just find a way to appoint someone with the technical qualifications who has partisan or ideological loyalties and that person will have no incentive to be non-partisan since they know they’re not going to serve the next government anyway.

Again, thank you for showing that you don't even read the posts you attempt to respond too. I specifically stated that the sitting government would not be the one to choose the AG, specifically to prevent this.

$1:

Our senior public servants faithfully served the previous conservative government, the current liberal government and they know eventually they will have to serve a future conservative or NDP government and therefore they know that compromising their expertise professionalism for the partisan or ideological interests of the political government of the day would be extremely short-sighted and would only cause the next governing party to can them.

And yet it is done. Frequently.

It is almost like these mythical creatures are humans or something, and make the same predictable mistakes that humans do. They do whatever they are told to do, to maintain continuity of resource income, just like everybody else.

Evidence: The long lineup of whistle blowers that would have been aware of this issue, as it changed from government to government, over decades. Oh wait...what line?

The fallacy in your entire assessment is that government employees are a special breed. They are employees, full stop. They are treated as, and act as, employees. No more, no less. And, they fall victim to the very same problems that private employees fall victim too.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

SNC Lavalin is also a major government contractor, and reducing their stock price leaves them vulnerable to takeover. Do we really want sensitive information in foreign hands?

Do we allow them to break the law because of it? What kind of message does that send to other corporations? Have dirt on us and you can do whatever you want?

They aren't charged with breaking the law in Canada. They broke Canadian law . . in Syria.

In Syria, that is how you get things done. If you want a permit, you have to slip the government drone a fiver. You want to build a building, it's going to cost a lot to grease the palms of everyone who wants in on that action.

Now, it was SNC's choice to do business in Syria, but let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have.

If they didn't break a canadian law, why is there a canadian criminal trial looming?

[llama66]

Because clearly they did break a Canadian law.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And like I wrote, "let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have."

We’re not. We’re holding a Canadian company up to Canadian standards. It would be hypocritical not to.

We're holding a Canadian company to standards that are not illegal in the country where they were performed.

Would we approve if a Canadian company were prosecuted in Russia or China for 'disparaging the State' for comments made in Canada? It is hypocritical to prosecute them for something they didn't do in Canada. It was hypocritical for the US to jail people for doing business with Cuba while in Canada.

I realize that my above statement conflicts with things like going to Thailand to have paedophilic relations, but it is not the same thing because it's also illegal in Thailand.

[peck420]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Didn’t he just spend $5 Billion to buy a pipeline for Albertans?

Nope.

He spent $5 billion to quell growing foreign investment concerns in Canada.

If he had paid $5 billion for a pipeline, we would be almost done with construction.

That being said, I can't actually fault the decision made when it was made. I can certainly fault what led to the circumstances, but when you are that deep in, the choices for exiting become very limited.

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And like I wrote, "let's not hold corrupt shitholes to the same standards we have."

You don't have to agree with the law, but they did break it. Should we just ignore laws we don't agree with?