Wednesday, February 13, 2019

In Defence of Justin Trudeau

How soon we forget....
You're probably a bit surprised at the title of this blog piece, given my historic hostility towards Justin Trudeau, a politician I loathe on just about every level.

But Trudeau was elected by a majority of Canadians on an ultra-liberal platform much as Trump was elected on a conservative platform. The real problem for both men politically is that recent presidents and prime ministers, regardless of political affiliation governed from the middle, something that seemed to be well tolerated by voters. Not so for these two leaders who quite frankly scare the bejesus out of those who voted against them, generating a river of angst and a firestorm of hate.
Regardless of what opponents think, both men seem safely ensconced, their support perhaps a bit diminished but solid just the same.

I don't dislike Trudeau for his underlying philosophy, one of radical liberalism, after all, he was voted in on that platform, but rather his cynical and dishonest manner in which he plays to and uses the general good will and intentions of Canadians.
Running on a supposedly pro-environment, pro-women, pro-immigrant and natives rights platform, Trudeau has talked a good game but delivered nothing concrete except one whopping budgetary deficit after another, all the while pretending that he is, what clearly he is not and pooh-poohing criticism with a wave of his hand and a toss of his hair like a king on a throne, offering deflections and fairy-tale answers in Parliament, making a mockery of Question Period, all without an ounce of contrition or guilt over his abject dishonesty.

He reminds me of the flim-flam man in that famous movie, the Music Man, whereby a con artist convinces a town of good and naive people that a new pool table installed recently in town will corrupt its youth and render them indigent and troublesome. He then proposes to form a boys marching band to in order to combat the problem,  and of course, sells the band equipment in the bargain.
Justin too is a con, he is not the kind and gentle political progressive he projects. When push comes to shove and political survival is at stake, Justin is as vicious and nasty as they come, dumping his phoney convictions and punishing those who betray him with evil abandon.

Seeing (Wilson-Raybould) being tossed under the bus certainly is a message to First Nations but also to women across Canada.- Chief Bob Chamberlin, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

Justin is as phoney as a three-dollar bill and is as manipulative as the best of con men, but in the current blow-up over the resignation of ex-minister Judy Wilson-Raybould he was and is, in fact, acting not only in his and the Liberal party's best interest but that of the country as well.

Justin must not be a student of history, otherwise, he'd know that often it isn't the crime that is so damaging, but rather the coverup as in the Watergate Affair that destroyed the presidency of Richard Nixon.  It wasn't insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail, but rather lying about it to the FBI.

In trying to help SNC-Lavelin, Trudeau was looking for political gain, or rather trying to stem a possible political pitfall. Regardless of motive, in my estimation a worthy undertaking.

He tried to intervene in an ongoing criminal prosecution, something that is verboten under the law but can actually be explained away as a necessary evil political necessity. Had he made his case honestly to the Canadian people, he'd be in the clear by now.
But he lied.
He pretended that he did not ask his justice minister to put pressure on federal prosecutors to seek a fine rather than a conviction in the SNC-Lavelin corruption trial, something that would allow the company to survive.

While the opposition parties are having a field day over Justin's woes, it behooves me to ask if they are also opposed to Justin's intervention on behalf of SNC-Lavelin.

Let us examine the underlying facts, legal,  political and economic.

SNC-Lavelin, a large company with thousands of employees has a history of paying bribes to win contracts at home and abroad, with perhaps the most galling bribe, a twenty million payment to executives of a Montreal hospital to secure a contract for the new building.

SNC-Lavelin was born and bred in the corruption-ridden atmosphere of Quebec politics that dates back past the reign of Maurice Duplessis, where every major government contract was tendered with the necessary political or personal bribe attached.
Contracts for snow removal, paving and road building, as well as major buildings and infrastructure, were all subject to the same game of corruption, with engineering firms, construction companies and politicians and government employees all in on the action.

That entrenched system of corruption was exposed in an explosive government enquiry that blew the lid off the sordid system of payola, much to the shock and dismay of hitherto innocent and uninformed Quebecers, especially taxpayers.

There's no forgiving SNC-Lavelin for its dishonesty and corruption which occurred at the highest levels, but the question remains as to whether the Canadian law which imposes sanctions upon conviction including banning the offending company from bidding for government contracts for a period of up to ten years is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Should the thousands of well-paid and productive employees be sacrificed for the errors and criminality of their bosses?
Should SNC-Lavelin be destroyed through a criminal process that would see the company reduced to rubble?

Let us examine the cases of Wells-Fargo in the United States, a company that openly and systematically defrauded its own customers. The United States Justice Department issued a fine of one billion dollars, but did not, in the interest of financial benefit to the country and the company's employees make any attempt to restrict the company's ability to continue.
The same goes for Volkswagen which negotiated a $2.8 billion fine for its scheme to fool regulators over its car emissions.

Just like SNC- Lavelin, plenty of individuals in the company faced the legal music for their malfeasance, but the companies both went on to live. I would remind readers that it was a stunning fall from grace for former SNC-Lavalin CEO Pierre Duhaime who plead guilty to breach of trust in a Montreal courthouse, so it's not like the company bosses got off scott-free.

So Trudeau tried to get his justice minister to put pressure on crown prosecutors to come to some sort of similar arrangement with SNC-Lavelin, one that would allow the company to survive after a massive fine.
He wasn't supposed to do it, but I applaud him for the effort. That is what Prime Ministers are supposed to do, that is to fight for the survival of an important Canadian employer, for the benefit of employees and the economic well-being of the country.

As for Judy Wilson Raybould, her refusal to do Trudeau's dirty work is understandable but ultimately counter-productive to the well-being of the country.
When at first Trudeau demoted her, I assumed it was out of retribution but have come to realize that it was rather to install another minister more attuned to doing what Trudeau (and myself) rightly deemed necessary.

It is perhaps ironic that for all Trudeau's ridiculous and downright stupid policy gaffes and wasteful spending, he is being skewered for something that actually makes sense.

Sometimes politicians do some pretty under-handed manoeuvres to secure a good outcome. I invite readers to take in the film "Lincoln" starring Daniel-Day Lewis, chronicling his back-room deals, many underhanded and illegal, in an effort to pass the 13th amendment which freed the Black slaves.
The same goes for the film "All the Way" starring Brian Cranston as LBJ who also used some pretty under-handed methods to pass his greatest achievement, the Civil Right's Act.

I won't put Justin in the same room with these guys, but I hope readers will understand that behind closed cabinet doors some pretty dirty machinations are undertaken, hopefully for the greater good.

In the case of Justin and SNC-Lavelin, he is in the right, fighting for its survival. He is paying the political price for having those machinations undertaken by himself on its behalf spill out from the cabinet cone of silence.

I can't say I feel bad for him but remain amused that his undoing may be over what I characterize as good and necessary intervention, instead of over his many idiotic policy failures.

Now many of you, especially those in the rest of Canada have a sore spot for Quebec companies that receive preferential treatment, but I would beg you to consider this.

Even without corruption, SNC-Lavelin is a profitable tax-paying giant that employs thousands of hard-working men and women who honestly work at a high level, providing for their families and paying their fair share of taxes.
SNC-Lavelin cheated and should be punished, but killing it off because of ill-conceived laws that are out of step with our competitive allies is wrong. It is a disservice to its employees and the taxpayers of Canada.

Regardless of the motives or methods, I applaud Justin Trudeau for his effort to save the company.

7 comments:

  1. SNC-Lavalin not Lavelin. Laws are for the little people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see. Well-paying jobs in Quebec are to be protected, but well-paying jobs in the oil & gas sector in Alberta are dispensable. Let's be serious: Trudeau's is trying to save his own ass by not alienating Quebec voters. THAT'S the reason he cares so much about SNC-Lavalin. He's already torched his chance out west.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right U R, Diogenes! Actually, it has become the norm, especially for Liberal governments to kow-tow to Quebec at every turn. Sorry, Phil, two wrongs don't make a right. Liberal governments MUST yield to Quebec over Alberta because the former is the meat of their base. Alberta traditionally is true blue in most federal elections, but now with an NDP (provincial) government in Alberta, this is a shock to the system.

      What kills me is how Ontario sits like a compliant puppy dog while it gets little reward for more often than not, giving the Liberals its majority governments, yet Ontario holds three of every eight constituencies in parliament. Ontario is in fiscally rough shape right now yet Quebec is still getting the lion's share of equalization payments. How stupid are Ontarians when they hold the balance of power, and are easily the kingmakers? It should be Ontario that is catered to, or else!

      Lavalin, Bombardier live off the government teat, federally and Quebecally (I guess I just added a new term to the English dictionary--Québecallement in French!) Of course, with disproportionate amounts of money going from Ottawa to Quebec City for decades, it's easy to make the Quebec government look like generous heroes. Ottawa pays most of it!

      Sorry, Phil, score one for Jody for being honest. As far as I'm concerned, Bombardier for sure should have become defunct with the death of J. Armand Bombardier because it's constant injections of good government money chasing a bad organization that have kept Bombardier alive this long. There are ALWAYS endless cost overruns over budget, they're ALWAYS WAY behind in producing what they promise (ask Toronto Transit about waiting endlessly for their new streetcars, being rolled out at a trickle of what was promised) and there are ALWAYS problems with whatever they produce. It's just a vicious cycle of lack of production, cost overruns, late delivery, government bailouts, etc. etc. etc.

      Lots of good money chasing bad, and Trudope tried to coerce his minister to lie. I can't believe that you or anyone else who thinks acting honourably deserves condemnation. Trudope and his top advisor, Gerald Butthead, are the ones who should face the music, but of course that judicial inquiry with a partisan panel will sweep it under the rug. If Lavalin and Bombardier can't do the job, give other Canadian organizations a chance, or even help build them if they show they can do things right. The old incompetent and inefficient dinosaurs with horrid track records must be left to die!

      Delete
  3. "Should the thousands of well-paid and productive employees be sacrificed for the errors and criminality of their bosses?
    Should SNC-Lavelin be destroyed through a criminal process that would see the company reduced to rubble?"

    I do not necessarily agree or disagree with your opinion Mr. Berlach, but please check Enron and Arthur Andersen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would argue that there was very little criminality conducted by Enron and its management. The guy that got over 20 years was scapegoated and should never have spent a day in prison.

      Delete
  4. Here's a backroom deal I can get behind: SNC-Lavelin and all its employees get to survive in exchange for pipeline east.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [Nudge-nudge-wink-wink] Cheeky, Tony...cheeky!

      Delete