ISSUES IN THE NEWS
Follow us online at: www.lifestyles55.ne
Facebook: Lifestyles55 Twitter: @Lifestyles55
PUBLISHER Pegasus Publications Inc.
DESIGN Cottonwood Publishing Services
EDITOR Dorothy Dobbie email@example.com
EDITOR EMERITUS Joan Cohen joan.co
ART DIRECTOR Karl Thomsen firstname.lastname@example.org
GENERAL MANAGER Ian Leatt email@example.com
CONTRIBUTORS Dr. Gillian Aldous, Nancy Cooke, Dorothy Dobbie, Hon. Myrna Driedger, John Einarson, Helen Harper, Ian Leatt, Gail McDonald, Fred Morris, Raymond Oakes, Jim Pappas, Marshall Posner, Marilyn Regiec, Krystal Stokes, Trudy Schroeder, Elly Spenser, Lianne Tregobov, Larry Updike, Sherrie Versluis, Nathan Zassman, Wenchao Zheng.
ADVERTISING 1-888-680-2008 firstname.lastname@example.org
SUBSCRIPTIONS If you would like to receive Lifestyles 55, we offer both monthly newspaper and online formats.
To place your order, call 204-940-2700. Subscriptions are $36.00 per year, plus tax. American Express, MasterCard, Visa & cheque accepted. To view a back issue online visit www.lifestyles55.ne
Published monthly by: Pegasus Publications Inc. Madison Square Suite 300 – 1600 Ness Ave. Winnipeg MB R3J 3W7 204-940-2700 www.pegasuspublications.ne
DISTRIBUTION Available at over 100 locations in Winnipeg, Brandon, Steinbach, Morden and Selkirk. If you would like bulk copies of this publication, call Ian Leatt at (204) 940-2707 and arrangement for bulk deliveries will be organized.
EDITORIAL SUBMISSIONS Call Dorothy Dobbie at (204) 940-2716 or email email@example.com
t for more information and guidelines.
Any opinions expressed in columns by our contributors are their own opinions entirely and are not necessarily shared by Pegasus Publications Inc. All information presented by the contributors is the responsibility of the writers.
Lifestyles 55 is published monthly. Reproduction in part or in whole is prohibited without seeking permission in writing from the publisher.
Copyright Pegasus Publications Inc. The SNC-Lavalin affair continues to unravel.
way or another, the government will have explained it all away by saying that what they did was in the interest of the “greater good”. In this case, the greater good being the fate of SNC-Lavalin. Without going too deeply into the boring details of legislation that allows bureaucrats to negotiate a “remediation agreement”, it essentially paves the way to reduce what- ever penalty may have been assessed on a company’s transgression, in this case, brib- ery in another country. The penalty was a 10-year ban from bidding on Canadian government work. The changes to the law were heavily lobbied for by – you guessed it, SNC-Lavalin, who began their efforts back in 2015.
B The question arises: When is it okay, or
is it ever okay, to basically turn a blind eye to a criminal act if the corporation (or the individual) is “too big to fail” (or jail)? Defenders of the pressure put on the
former Attorney General will surely argue that they were merely trying to preserve 9,000 jobs in Quebec, plus save from harm all the other suppliers and innocent bystanders the penalization of SNC-Lavalin would have affected. This is a sort or Robin Hood theory of government: It is okay to steal as long as you give the proceeds to the poor. But is it? I would argue, no. There are many reasons for this,
among them the fact that the perpetrators did not do what they did to benefit anyone but themselves. But more than that, you cannot have two sets of morality. Either bribery (not to mention all the other things the folks at Lavalin have been accused of doing over the past decade and a half) is wrong or it is not wrong. It cannot be wrong for some but not for others.
y the time you read this, the issue will have passed over our heads like a distant, fuzzy cloud. Jody Wil- son–Raybould will have told her truth and, one
To allow the law that the Liberals passed to stand is to slip the thin edge of the wedge into the rule of law that Canada prides itself on upholding.
The defenders will also say that Canada is just doing what some other countries have already adopted. As the Toronto Star put it in defending SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister, “The DPA is a legisla- tive tool, long available in the United States and Britain, to be used when an organiza- tion is charged with an economic crime and where the consequences of proceeding with the prosecution could cause major job loss, harm pensioners, or even trigger an eco- nomic downturn on a national or interna- tional scale.” The premise, we are told, behind asking
Wilson-Raybould to invoke the DPA (de- ferred prosecution agreement) is that to punishing SNC-Lavalin will have dire con- sequences for thousands. This is simply non- sense. SNC-Lavalin is an engineering firm. Its assets are people. If there is need for en- gineering services, the very same people can supply those needs simply by reorganizing
under a different corporate structure or by working for another firm. There will be some disruption, certainly a few corporate execs may be indisposed or maybe even by deposed, but few jobs will be “lost” and the suppliers will just as quickly supply the new entities. I am not trying to be righteous or pretend to a greater
virtue, here. I am sure any government would have been tempted to succumb to the persuasions of this power- ful company, their money and the honey-tongued and high-priced lobbyists. I am just pointing out that simple reason dictates that there can only be one law. That thin edge of the wedge mentioned above can crack open a dangerous Pandora’s Box of exceptions that could quit quickly destroy the rule of law that we live under.
Gillian Aldous Podiatry
Podiatry treatments available Monday to Friday in the office, home visits arranged:
• Difficult to cut, thickened, ingrown, fungal nails • Callus, hard skin, corns • Warts • Diabetic advice and assessment
• Biomechanical assessments and orthotics dispensing if needed
Connect with us online at
t Facebook: Lifestyles55 Twitter: @Lifestyles55
• Advice on footwear Blue Cross coverage accepted
Suite 320, 1600 Ness Avenue, Winnipeg Phone: 204-504-8986 | Email: Gillyp10@Hotmail.co
Is the “greater good” a valid reason to let SNC-Lavalin escape prosecution for financial crimes?
| Page 2
| Page 3
| Page 4
| Page 5
| Page 6
| Page 7
| Page 8
| Page 9
| Page 10
| Page 11
| Page 12
| Page 13
| Page 14
| Page 15
| Page 16
| Page 17
| Page 18
| Page 19
| Page 20
| Page 21
| Page 22
| Page 23
| Page 24