If big tech continues censoring conservatives, that means our days on these platforms may be numbered. Please take a minute to sign up to our mailing list so we can stay in touch with you, our community. Subscribe Now!
According to the National Observer, the Trudeau government announced a confidential deal with SNC, just “four days after Trudeau’s first throne speech in 2015.”
The National Observer article goes into far more depth, and I suggest you give their article a read, and maybe even subscribe to continue helping their public service journalism.
The deal between SNC and the federal government was the first under the new “integrity regime.” No other company has reached such a deal since.
The former Harper government created Canada’s “integrity regime,” in 2015 “to ensure the government does business solely with ethical partners.”
The integrity regime allows businesses to continue operating while working to meet ethical demands. In the case of SNC-Lavalin, that involves working to fix the company’s history of bribery, specifically $48 million paid to secure contracts in Libya.
Although Libya is only one of the many public cases of misconduct SNC-Lavalin faces. For example, in April 2013, the World Bank “banned SNC-Lavalin and its 100 subsidiaries from bidding on projects funded by the development agency for 10 years, citing company misconduct in Bangladesh, as well as in Cambodia.”
Back to the story at hand, this timeline looks awful for the Trudeau government which already faces a serious public and international outcry over their dealings with SNC-Lavalin.
The Trudeau government now appears to have connected themselves to securing a future for SNC-Lavalin from the very first days of their government. Following that early commitment with more and more pressure.
For example, according the Jody Wilson-Raybould, the individual most Canadians believe, she was repeatedly lobbied by the PMO to find a solution to the SNC-Lavalin charges, even though she clearly stated the company does not qualify for a remediation agreement.
According to Gerald Butts though, the AG had the duty to consider all new evidence, making the AG’s decision not permanent.
No new legitimate evidence has been brought forward by anyone, as a drop in stock price does not actually change the facts on the ground.
Instead, the PMO repeatedly lobbied for a second set of eyes. That is not new evidence, that is a different opinion based on the exact same evidence.
What do you think about this rapidly developing story? Join the conversation by commenting below!