Re: 2014 -- Scotland voting on separation, and now --> Brexit
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:12 pm
I kind of have to agree with the MOJAG comment. While there may have been some pressure, it isn't a great mystery why that would be.
1. There are jobs at stake. Other parties might want to choose to dispute or ignore this reality but shutting out a big company for a decade from government contracts would be a death knell for some companies and certainly a serious wound for most. When those things happen, the first people to suffer are the rank and file.
2. It is Quebec. Not many outside of Quebec would strongly argue against the idea that Quebec is in many ways the Prima Donna province in Canada. At least Quebecers can thank their separation votes for that. Jobs, economic prosperity in that province are seen as a way to keep the fires of separation under control. Losing a whole pile of jobs, potentially causing a major employer to move or fail is not going to help in that cause.
3. I'm sure it isn't lost on the Liberal's that much of their political future is riding on the province of Quebec. The Liberals with the pipeline issue have dealt themselves a serious blow in the West. Prairie provinces weren't going to vote Liberal anyway and in BC, the efforts of the Feds to push this pipeline proposal through is certainly going to cost some Liberals seats. Add in the falling favour of the Libs in eastern Canada and what do they have left? Quebec! The NDP wave was fluke, the Cons traditionally haven't done that well there especially when they are led by a non Quebecer, so the Libs are going to try and make up their losses there. And what better way to do it than by helping a large Quebec employer avoid a criminal charge and a 10 year Gov. contract ban.
So do I have any doubt that there was some pressure to try and find a way to avoid all these things. Not at all. What does amaze is that so many people think this is some kind of massive novelty. This kind of crap goes on all the time. What we are looking at I suppose is the reaction of a relative political novice in JWR. And yet for all the outrage at impropriety, she still wants to be a Liberal and run as a Liberal in the next election. Frankly, if you are going to stick it to your party the way she has, you'd better be prepared to walk away. I don't generally respect anyone who absolutely closes the door on any issue. You can't work with someone that way. In the same vein, you can't run a Justice System that way either. Rule of Law is important, but not absolute. Having been around the court system in parts of my career, I can state that there are many examples of where by the letter of the law, something should be handled in a certain way, but the circumstances led people on all sides to work towards a better more just solution. Perhaps the case for diversion in the SNC Affair was weak. That shouldn't preclude discussions about it especially when the potential stakes are so high. She chose to handle in the way she saw fit. No one is going to come off unscathed by it, including her.
1. There are jobs at stake. Other parties might want to choose to dispute or ignore this reality but shutting out a big company for a decade from government contracts would be a death knell for some companies and certainly a serious wound for most. When those things happen, the first people to suffer are the rank and file.
2. It is Quebec. Not many outside of Quebec would strongly argue against the idea that Quebec is in many ways the Prima Donna province in Canada. At least Quebecers can thank their separation votes for that. Jobs, economic prosperity in that province are seen as a way to keep the fires of separation under control. Losing a whole pile of jobs, potentially causing a major employer to move or fail is not going to help in that cause.
3. I'm sure it isn't lost on the Liberal's that much of their political future is riding on the province of Quebec. The Liberals with the pipeline issue have dealt themselves a serious blow in the West. Prairie provinces weren't going to vote Liberal anyway and in BC, the efforts of the Feds to push this pipeline proposal through is certainly going to cost some Liberals seats. Add in the falling favour of the Libs in eastern Canada and what do they have left? Quebec! The NDP wave was fluke, the Cons traditionally haven't done that well there especially when they are led by a non Quebecer, so the Libs are going to try and make up their losses there. And what better way to do it than by helping a large Quebec employer avoid a criminal charge and a 10 year Gov. contract ban.
So do I have any doubt that there was some pressure to try and find a way to avoid all these things. Not at all. What does amaze is that so many people think this is some kind of massive novelty. This kind of crap goes on all the time. What we are looking at I suppose is the reaction of a relative political novice in JWR. And yet for all the outrage at impropriety, she still wants to be a Liberal and run as a Liberal in the next election. Frankly, if you are going to stick it to your party the way she has, you'd better be prepared to walk away. I don't generally respect anyone who absolutely closes the door on any issue. You can't work with someone that way. In the same vein, you can't run a Justice System that way either. Rule of Law is important, but not absolute. Having been around the court system in parts of my career, I can state that there are many examples of where by the letter of the law, something should be handled in a certain way, but the circumstances led people on all sides to work towards a better more just solution. Perhaps the case for diversion in the SNC Affair was weak. That shouldn't preclude discussions about it especially when the potential stakes are so high. She chose to handle in the way she saw fit. No one is going to come off unscathed by it, including her.