Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/19/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Okay., During this last 30 days, there were 99 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, in which 701 people were killed and 697 injured. I'm not worried about right wing extremists. There aren't enough of them in this country to fill a school bus.
  2. 5 points
    In plain English. "I can't stand the stench of corruption emanating from this government anymore." So who's next?
  3. 5 points
    You find it credible when someone who is supposed to be politically neutral engages in politically partisan criticism? You find it credible for someone who should not have a political opinion to incite and inflame the public making idiotic comments about assassination? You call that credible? If this idiot thought there was an imminent threat to the public he would no the last thing he would want to do is fuel it or incite it by speaking about it. An idiot would understand that, this pea brained moron did not. His comments were out of order and show him to be an opinionated, arrogant, above the law, fascistic creep who bristles at anyone elected or otherwise who disagrees with him. His comments were absolutely unacceptable of any civil servant let alone the Chief civil servant. He has no right or business stating any political opinion which he did. He made numerous legal pronouncements as to the conduct of Trudeau and Butt posed as absolute legal facts when they were not and were simply his subjective political views. Whether Butt or Trudeau or anyone else crossed the line legally he has no authority to say. He has no status to render legal judgement as to any influence peddling. The law is clear, if there is even an appearance of conflict or undue influence, the discussion should be referred to the Ethics Commissioner for screening not this sphincter muscle of a Privy Council head who is clearly partisan in favour of Trudeau and a passive aggressive weasel. He will when all is said and done be fired. He has made his job impossible to perform and I think he clearly came out in favour of Trudeau as he will not be around after the next election and this was his last fart at the wind.
  4. 4 points
    Do you mean like the Muslim women who are now in custody of Syrian free army or Kurds, most of them are saying openly that they agreed with ISIS and the killing, and all that goes with being a member of ISIS and now they want to come home so they can suck of the western tit of free things...so they can start preparing for the next Jihad......and yet many here in the west see those tears and ask why can we not bring them back" That is what sets my evil detector off.
  5. 4 points
    I would like to directly address these comments Mr. Butt stated today that I enumerate. 1-The deferred prosecution has been badly mischaracterized as a get-out-of-jail-free card, instead of a way for companies to make amends while protecting innocent workers, shareholders and pensioners from being harmed. This is a misleading statement by Butt. This is not about “companies”, it is about SNC Lavalin specifically and it is crucial everyone understand the issue is not about deferred prosecution agreements or whether they can be used, it is about what criteria should be considered if using one in this specific case, and whether the specific elements of the crime and the history of the company requesting it make it a reasonable proposition to consider. The deferred prosecution agreement as a possible alternative to plea bargaining or traditional criminal sentencing after a trial was passed into law on September 19, 2018. This law refers to it by the name “remediation agreement”. It can be considered with companies who engaged in “economic” crimes. If allowed it would suspend ongoing or outstanding criminal proceedings. It then would require the company to complete specified undertakings to avoid facing criminal charges and an actual criminal trial. Those undertakings are described as fines, remediation measures, enhanced reporting requirements and allowing independent 3rd party audits and reviews of the company’s compliance procedures. The theory behind it is to encourage voluntary disclosure of misconduct by corporations for having committed criminal activities that probably would have otherwise not been detected by regulators. Its also supposed to hold an organization accountable for bad behaviour and to deter it from doing this kind of behaviour again. The previous remediation agreement discussions in 2017 were general and never specific to Lavalin and its situation. When this was passed it was not done with NO open discussion but at the last second inserted in an Omnibus bill to prevent discussion of it. One must therefore ask, if it was business as usual, why did the Minister of Justice in a government Trudeau claimed would be open and transparent and never hide things in omnibus bills do just that and not introduce it and discuss it in Parliament and why was it not discussed on the floor if it was genuine and the Liberals had nothing to hide? Why did they even keep it secret from their own MP’s on the Legal Committee before they passed it? What this amendment says is that to be eligible (not entitled, its not automatic entitlement, you must show cause why you are entitled) for a remediation agreement, the accused can not be a public body, trade union or municipality. It is also limited to consideration for economic offences, i.e., bribery or fraud, not for crimes of death or bodily injury or would violate the Canadian Competition Act. For this kind of agreement to be considered BEFORE the prosecutor can enter into negotiations as to the specific conditions of the agreement as it pertains to the specific elements of the case, these conditions must first be met: 1-there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence (appears to apply in this specific Lavalin situation); 2-the conduct in question caused no “serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security”, and was NOT committed for “the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group; (Lavalin is not considered a criminal organization at this time or a terrorist group, it did bribe as part of its conduct, Mummar Ghadafi who was said to cause serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security, by killing in his own country thousands of persons who opposed his view, funded terrorist organizations including the bombing of a passenger jet over Scotland and whose groups killed thousands in Chad, Niger, Dahomey, Malawi, Mali, Central African Republic, to name but a few countries); 3-negotiating the agreement must be “in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances” (the question remains does the fact that people might but not necessarily lose their jobs if Lavalin was convicted (there is zero proof of that) over-ride the the public interest to be protected from the criminal activities of Lavalin as well one has to question whether the circumstances were appropriate for these reasons: i-The accused lobbied the government 80 times for the DPA-why was someone with a direct vested interest in a specific dpa and part of an on-going criminal proceeding allowed to do this? ii-The Prime Minister openly stated his concern for intervening and pushing for the DPA was on behalf of the constituents of his riding who might lose jobs-in so admitting this which was again repeated and confirmed by Mr. Butt today, they both acknowledged they knew they had a conflict of interest and it was inappropriate the PM and PMO have anything to do with any discussions as to the DPA because of that conflict; the conflict, was the interest attached to whether the persons in Trudeau’s riding could lose their job versus the need to protect all Canadians from crime and not undermine the neutrality of the court system and have it appear to take into consideration partisan or political concerns as criteria for its implementation. 4. The AG must consent to the negotiation agreement. Ms. Raybould said she made it clear she was against it. Mr. Butt today in effect called her a liar and said he never knew she was against it and yet testimony now shows the Privy Council head and Deputy Justice Minister both knew she was against it and the Privy Council head had told Trudeau this, so how is it Butt did not know? How could he possibly not know Trudeau knew she was against it? Further if Butt did not know she was against it why would he and Trudeau ask for a second opinion? They clearly knew because if they did not know they would have had no need to ask for a second opinion. According to Ms. Raybould the second opinion was told to her to be a political device she could use to cover her own butt if there was controversy over using it. In fact the Privy Council said the same thing as did another PMO official who all said if she was worried about it, get a second opinion. How would they know she was not against it if they thought she was so worried she needed a second opinion? 5. Prosecutors must also consider the circumstances in which the offence was brought to their attention and the attention of their investigative authorities. In this case it means, Lavalin did NOT come to the government voluntarily, they ONLY started asking for one once they were told they would be charged. This kinds of agreements contemplate a remorseful criminal taking initiative before they are told they will be prosecuted. Next and this is where most lawyers not just the former AG would not have been comfortable considering a dpa in this case and that is because she would also have to consider: a-the nature and gravity of this offence (and this includes whether this was a one time offence or part of a pattern of behaviour that keeps repeating) as well as the impact on victims-lets be clear, employees of Lavalin would not constitute victims-victims are people who directly not indirectly were the target of the crime which in this case was and remains Lavalin shareholders, not its employees as well as the public at large. In the case of Lavalin shareholders, the directors and officers knowing the company would be charged, sold their shares of the company before the government announced it would proceed with criminal proceedings meaning they used their insider knowledge to sell their stocks before the values dropped. On the day in late 2015 when it was announced Lavalin would be charged its directors and officers had sold all their shares but the average shareholder not having that insider trading saw their stocks drop in value 15-30 percent as a result of the announcement. They now have sued these officers and directors and the case (shareholder rights action) is still pending and would be directly prejudiced if Lavalin were able to avoid a criminal sentence and so for that reason alone the timing of the request for a dpa is WRONG as it can not be done to prejudice the outcome of any outstanding cases attached to it directly or indirectly; b-the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization must be considered which means, if it was just one individual, then the DPA makes sense, but the more wide spread the degree of involvement of senior officers, the less appropriate it becomes-certainly the insider trading done by the senior officers shows wide-spread corruption and a lack of ethics that a DPA would not be appropriate for to try address, its tailored for isolated cases pf behaviour not such advanced and wide spread corruption where something more severe needs to be done; c- whether Lavalin took disciplinary action including termination of any persons involved-the answer here is a loud NO they have not; d-whether Lavalin has made reparations or taken measures to remedy the behaviour that led to the charges-again the answer is a loud NO they have not; e-whether Lavalin has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in the wrongdoings-again the answer is a loud NO they have not. f-whether the organization — or any of its representatives was either: i-convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body; ii- entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar conduct; ii-had any of its or any of its representatives alleged to have committed any other offences. Isn’t it interesting Mr. Butt, Trudeau, the Privy Council head did not know any of the above had to be considered by the AG. They would have you believe they had no idea. This would mean Trudeau, Butt, the Privy Council head would have you believe they were not aware of the following public record with Lavalin which would because of the above make a dpa inappropriate: A-the McGiLL University Health Centre Scandal; in 2010, SNC-Lavalin was part of the consortium that won the $1.3 billion contract to design and build the Montreal University Health Centre's Glen Site, and maintain it until 2044- the contract eventually became the subject of a criminal investigation, and CEO Pierre Huhaime, Executive VP Riadh Ben Aissa and VP Steven Roy were all charged with bribery; Duhaime was forced out in 2012 after an audit found disturbing deficiencies and he was then arrested for making secret payments to sell company as a bribe to get the conrract. He pled guilty Feb.1, 2012 to assisting a public civil servant commit breach of trust. He was let off of 14 other charges. Aissa was charged in 2014 with 16 counts including fraud for 22.5 milion worth of contracts in that same deal and plead guilty to one charge of using a forged document. Roy also was arrested in 2014 but acquitted; B-Bangladesh Scandal; pursuant to an RCMP raid in September of 2012 in regards to a Padma bridge project in Bangladesh at the request of the World Bank’s anti-graft (anti bribery) unit, this led to the World Bank banning SNC-Lavalin in April of 2013 from being able to bid on any of its projects for 10 years for bribing officials in Bangladesh and Cambodia. As a result of this investigation employees disclosed a secret accounting code used to bribe people across Africa and Asia to get projects. Kevin Wallace, who was the Senior Vice President of SNC-Lavalin International Inc., Ramesh Shah and Mohammad Ismail, SNC-Lavalin employees, Bangladeshi lobbyist Abul Hasan Chowdhury and Zulfiquar Ali Bhuiyan, a Canadian citizen with business ties in Bangladesh were all charged with bribery. Wallace, Shah and Bhuiyan were acquitted in Feb. 2017 after an Ontario Superior Court justice threw out wiretap evidence against them. Ismail and Ismail and Chowdhury were acquitted as well; C-Libya Scandal; Lavalin had been doing business in Libya for years, then in November 2011, shortly after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi, a consultant hired by SNC-Lavalin was arrested in Mexico, accused of trying to smuggle smuggle Gadhafi's son and other family members out of Libya and into Mexico. That individual Cyndy Vanier spent 18 months in a Mexican jail before being released. She always said her contract with SNC-Lavalin was to help facilitate the travel of SNC employees in and out of Libya. She was never charged in Canada. However in February of 2015, the RCMP charged SNC-Lavalin and two of its subsidiaries with corruption and fraud in connection with many years of dealings by the company in Libya. To be specific bribing of Libyan officials for construction contracts between 2001 and 2011. In fact bribery scandals and allegations with Lavalin in and outside Canada date back to 1995 and have been continuous inside and outside Canada. So how with such a lengthy history of questionable behaviour would anyone consider a dpa-how would the the pattern of behaviour alone NOT cause any prosecutor to deem a dpa or for that matter plea bargain inappropriate given the repetitive nature of these bribery allegations? 5. All the above said, to qualify for eligibility for a DPA under this new law, Lavalin would also need to accept responsibility for its wrong doings, stop them, accept full responsibility for a history of bribery dating back to 1995 and here is where it gets absurd because they can’t and won’t do it, to qualify for the DPA pay back all money they earned from projects where bribery is involved, AND nput in an actual compliance program requiring every bid they make to be reviewed by an independent third party. Lavalin can not and will not do that so any discussion of the DPA as being simple and done other places is nonsense. In fact it was only used in the US last year 40 times and that should tell you how narrow an application it has when its used. Very few cases qualify for it and keep in mind individuals in the US not just companies can use it and not just with economic crimes. 2-The Canadian government moved ahead with the option to fall in line with the law in other countries like the United States and Britain, he said. What Butt did not say was a dpa has never been used in the US or Britain for such a type of case or as a result of a criminal lobbying the government of the day to directly pressure the prosecutor to use the dpa. It's never happened in the UK or Britain so his statement is misleading. 3- Butt repeated several times invoking the fact he was from Cape Breton to state his sole concern was potential loss of jobs and this loss of jobs is a legitimate public policy concern to discuss. No it was not. Under his dpa law his government passed, potential loss of jobs is NOT a criteria layed out as a legitimate consideration to add to s.718 of the Criminal Code when considering a criminal sentence. As well Mr. Butt would have you believe this was the only consideration he was concerned with when discussing the DPA being used and had no idea of the content of the DPA law passed and what it said needed to be considered. BULL SHIT. Mr. Butt’s job, his very function is to get Trudeau re-elected. He would have you believe he never discussed his major concern was not the loss of jobs, but the back lash a loss of jobs could cost in terms of political support in Quebec. He would have you believe the job loss concern is not attached to the concern it would lose votes for Trudeau. He would have you believe he had no idea his Prime Minister and himself had a direct conflict of interest which should have prevented them from having any conversation about the issue with the AG. He would have you believe you are so stupid and he is so stupid he did not consider this conflict of interest. He would also have you believe you he is so stupid and oblivious to what’s going on around him, he had no idea JWR rejected the dpa and while the Privy Council and Trudeau knew this and the Deputy Justice Minister knew this even though he spoke to Trudeau constantly, he was never told this by Trudeau. BULL SHIT. 4-Ms. Raybould never told me she felt pressured… I only met with her twice. Mr. Butt in saying the above would have you believe he is an idiot. If he met her only twice then how would he no if she felt pressured? More to the point, how would he know that not just him but no one else knew she felt pressured because when he testified he posed his answer to say NO ONE knew she felt pressured or had rejected the DPA not just him. Interestingly he claimed at most he met with her twice and his office only met with her twice a month so how could she feel pressured and it was news to him. So he would have you believe after 80 meetings with Lavalin and himself and the PM, Ms. Raybould didn't know about all these meetings and when the Privy Head told her Trudeau was about to blow up and everyone was worried about the fall out, she would not feel pressured. Then he would have you believe when he asked for a SECOND opinion well hey it wasn't a second opinion since she had none yet and its normal to tell someone to get another opinion its not to second guess any other opinion-she was so stupid and retarded she needed to have another lawyer explain to her what a dpa was, what her role was as the AG, what she could and could not consider because its a new thing. Yes indeed. A former Crown Prosecutor would have no idea what it is when considering whether a criminal trial should proceed and need a former Supreme Court Judge to tell her. This is for those of you who are not lawyers, telling a lawyer they would need to speak to another lawyer to tell them whether murder means killing someone. That is how stupid a comment it is. Also interestingly, when asked for his notes of their conversations this man who keeps meticulous notes has none, couldn't remember his conversations and hey its just a coincidence but also today the Liberals announced they will not allow access to his records or allow Raybould to reappear to address the conversations they had Butt brought up for the first time today. That again coming from a PM who claims to be transparent and open but has deliberately prevented this alleged inquiry from asking vital questions and considering vital evidence. Quite the transparency. In summary the problem with Butt’s narrative narrative in addition to the above was: a-he was silent on the issue of whether it is appropriate a subject of an on-going criminal investigation s be able to lobby the government under ANY circumstance; b-why the dpa was slipped in at the last second in an Omnibus bill and the Liberals now refuse to let Raybould address allegations Butt made for the first time about her, and will not allow her or him to disclose the memos of their conversations or others had with Raybould when this is a government Trudeau loudly boasted would be ethical and transparent politician allowing no one special favours when he ran for office; c-how Mr. Butt is so stupid he had no idea offering JWR the Ministry of Indian Affairs would be an insult to her; d-Mr. Butt believes Canadians are so stupid that they would believe JWR was removed not because of her stand on Lavalin, but ONLY because as he said when they moved Philpott to Treasury they magically had to move her to Indian Affairs and then went oh gee that won’t work so we won't leave her and move someone else, we will move her to Veteran Affairs…no other reason. No one else could handle Veteran Affairs but her. They didn't have one other candidate to fill that Ministry and wait, being shuffled from Justice to Veterans Affairs would not be considered a demotion-again that is like saying you remove someone from being a surgeon to a gp but they wouldn't consider it a demotion let alone he's so stupid he could not anticipate that kind of reaction not just with the Indian Ministry but the Veteran Affairs position; e-how far does Trudeau want to push this script of idiocy and pose his partisan considerations being placed before the country's best needs as acceptable and righteous? Where do we go with this man now that he has established we should not sentence any criminal if that sentence could impact negatively on his being re-elected? What the testimony did today is make things worse. It admitted this government is stupid, incompetent, and then tried to use that as an excuse for its behaviour. It would have you believe it is not capable of understanding what a conflict of interest is or pressure or undue influence and its all innocent normal day to day stuff that goes on. This strategy necessarily will divide the Liberal party further. What it also shows is Trudeau had no problem putting the alleged considerations of his riding before any other Canadians. Is that a Prime Minister anyone wants? Is that leadership or abandonment of leadership? How do you lead when you tell the majority of the country they are expendable because you are more concerned with your own riding than the rest of them? How is that leadership? How is it the PM let alone his toady Mr. Butt could not identify the conflicts of interest let alone believe there was more than one public interest to consider other than the one they became obsessed over? Did anyone here any remorse in Butt? Did you hear even an iota of regret in what he said? He played himself as just a guy putting political considerations of his leader above the rest of the nation as if it was acceptable. Then he called Raybould a liar after saying he would not question her integrity by saying she only raised all her concerns and got upset AFTER she was removed from her office. He would have you believe she is a liar and made the whole thing up in a temper tantrum. That is what he rested his entire testimony on. That was as sleeze bag as it gets and it shows you what level of insults and character and personal attacks he will engage in to avoid taking responsibility for what he did.
  6. 3 points
    Thank you for finally admitting that. For normal people, vengeance never gets past the fantasy stage because our rational minds and moral compasses kick in. And the fear of violent reprisal generally gives pause to vengeance-taking. Islam is an example of what happens when a religion highjacks the rational mind and the moral compass is no longer pointing due North and violent reprisal is mandated in its teachings. I've said before - the difference between Christianity and Islam is that very thing - Christianity is afraid to die. Islam is not. Martyrdom and vengeance-taking are a very large part of the religion. The effectiveness of revenge depends on your beliefs about whether it works. And for Islam, it works. Unless we are willing to cave into Islam's demands, like Britain did when it refused to accept Asia Bibi as a refugee due to a well-founded fear of violent Muslim reprisal, then the world is in for a tough time. We are in for a tough time either way - whether we cave in to their demands or not. So for that reason - I'm all for not caving in to their demands.
  7. 3 points
    What you’re saying only adds to this group’s anger and frustration. The solution isn’t to knock them further into the ground but to lift them up. Trump understands what rhetoric appeals to the “deplorables”. He did the wrestling bit and embraces bikers. His policies have made the one percenters richer and his deregulation of environmental policy will hurt the deplorables first. The only response is a fair-minded, inclusive, big tent approach that brings diverse groups together without letting the fringe interests dominate the political discourse. The Dems and Republicans are too far apart right now to achieve this. In Canada we’re also at an impasse. We seem unable to develop our resources while also meeting environmental goals. Our immigration is adding pressure to public services and home prices, even though some of our northern communities don’t have enough people to sustain themselves and need immigrants. It’s a fight for resources and development, but Quebec and BC don’t want it in their backyards. These seem to be the fault lines of the new economy. Yellow Vests versus eco warriors; old economy versus Information Age; old Canada cultural purists versus multiculturalists; protectionists versus Globalists. We need middle ground.
  8. 3 points
    Thank you... I have no problem with immigration as long as it is stable, controlled and suited to the needs of Canada. Islamophobia is a new word created to silence any possible debate about the problems of Islamic extremism, used with the express purpose of stifling any criticism of Islam while not applying the same standards to other beliefs. Definition of racist = anyone disagreeing with a liberal
  9. 3 points
    Aligning yourself with vermin is unlikely to gain much respect for your words. Has it ever occurred to you that you are in the distinct minority in this country. Which means the views of those who want to lower immigration are mainstream and you are the extremist. Only 6% of Canadians told pollsters they wanted to raise immigration vs over 50% who want to cut it. You remind me of Trudeau, who, a few years back, expressed such disdain for conservative views on the niqab and said if he thought those were the values of English Canada he would return to Quebec - and now Quebec has passed a face covering ban! Trudeau wasn't even in touch with the values of his own province, much less Canada's. And neither are you.
  10. 3 points
    Holy crap... just promoted to head of Treasury Board to replace Scott Brison... "It grieves me to resign from a portfolio where I was at work to deliver an important mandate. I must abide by my core values, my ethical responsibilities, constitutional obligations. There can be a cost to acting on one’s principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them."
  11. 3 points
    So the latest liberal legal games involves Trudeau's good friend and alcoholic Seamus O'Regan who he recently promoted from Veterans Affairs - where from all accounts he did a lousy job. Some old veteran wrote a column for the Hill Times complaining that new veterans would get a lot less money because of the changes to veterans pensions, especially for wounded veterans. The ministry decided his numbers were pretty much accurate. Despite that, O'Regan writes his own column saying the veteran is dishonest and his numbers are wrong. The veteran sues for defamation, and the government has, so far, spent about five times more in legal costs than the veteran was claiming in damages. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-spent-60000-to-fight-25000-defamation-case-against-oregan/
  12. 3 points
    History is no longer really taught in western schools. At least, not in the anglosphere. Can't say about Europe. We're lucky if Canadian/American kids learn much about our own history, much less the rest of the world. You hear these supposedly educated people talk about the depredations of Europeans on the rest of the world as if this was in any way unique. The history of the world is that of whoever was stronger preying on whoever was weaker. Few people have much awareness of the Muslim attacks on India, and the incredible slaughter which took place there, nor of the internal fighting in China, or what Japan did to Korea, or what other parts of the world did to each other. All they know is Europeans (whites) conquered and were mean to people. They don't have a contest within which to place that behavior so they compare it to how they think people ought to act based upon today's values. Ie, everyone knows about the slave trade from western Africa to the US but almost no one knows about the thousand year slave trade from Eastern Africa to Egypt and the Arab world. So when you talk about slavery, most people think of the old US south.
  13. 3 points
    You might be surprised as to how many actually DO read and respect your detailed analysis - and copy them to friends. Thanks for the insight.
  14. 3 points
    If Justice was Jody Wilson-Raybould's dream job, why move her at all - even if Scot Brisson had left the Treasury Board? If you feel that continued discussion is appropriate around SNC-Lavalin - then, why did you give up so easily when Raybould - a valuable senior Minister - gave her resignation? Surely, Trudeau can say the same thing he asked her: can you review your decision again? Where's the evidence about the 9,000 jobs that is being claimed to be at risk? Surely, you're not going to rely on SNC's claim about that, eh? Haven't you heard of the term, "bluffing?" Lol, if that's how you guys negotiate - no wonder you didn't get anything out of NAFTA! If saving jobs is so important - what did you do for Alberta and Saskatchewan? Approx. 120,000 jobs were affected! Why not lift the gag on Raybould, and let her speak?
  15. 3 points
    I argue 8 things and explain my positions unlike the Liberal pissantes: 1. The Prime Minister, the Privy Council head and the PMO’s office violated s.121 of the Criminal Code. 2. The Attorney General of Canada has no power or role to withdraw a persecution based on any consideration that lends to the appearance of or is in fact a conflict of interest or based on a partisan consideration which is what Trudeau asked her to do. 3. The Prime Minister, the Privy Council head and the PMO’s office violated s.121 of the Criminal Code. 4. The Privy Council head admitted to acting outside his job description. 5. The fact an action is legal does not make it ethical or acceptable. 6. The current scandal goes to a repeated pattern of showing contempt for the law by Trudeau. 7. The current scandal shows Trudeau is not the feminist he claims he is. 8. Mr. Trudeau claims to understand Indigenous people but clearly shows contempt for them 1-The Prime Minister, the Privy Council head and the PMO’s office violated s.121 of the Criminal Code The operative wording of the Criminal Code section on influence peddling I place in bold. S.121(1) Every one commits an offence who (a) directly or indirectly (i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or (ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or (iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow, whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be; (b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place; (c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official; (d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; (e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or (f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government, (i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender. The above states that neither the Prime Minister or any other government official can give an advantage to Lavalin of any kind or ask the AG to do the same. 2.The Attorney General of Canada has no power or role to withdraw a persecution based on any consideration that lends to the appearance of or is in fact a conflict of interest or based on a partisan consideration which is what Trudeau asked her to do. I urge anyone to go and look up for themselves the AG job description because it is legal fact and public domain and that is that The Attorney General of Canada is the highest-ranking prosecuting officer in Canada and can not withhold a crown prosecution based on a political consideration. It is true on the federal level, the Attorney General is also the Minister of Justice whereas in some of the Canada’s provinces, the attorney general’s office conducts the functions of the Solicitor General’s office as well; but in other provinces, they are separated and each of them performs different responsibilities. However when the Ministry of Justice serves as the AG, the chief law officer of the Executive Council, the Attorney General is obliged to see that the public affairs are administered in accordance with the legal regulations in the country. The well known principle of the rule of law requires that the Attorney General advise the Cabinet of the Government of the dayin order to ensure that the Cabinet’s actions are legal and constitutionally valid and that the rule of law is maintained. Let’s also make this crystal clear. When the AG gives legal advise as to administering public affairs in a legal manner it can NOT be ignored. The Attorney General is in legal factr esponsible for all criminal prosecutions in the country. However, it is true there are certain prosecutions conducted by the provincial Attorney General authorities under the Canadian Criminal Code (not the case at hand). In legal fact the Attorney General of never cause charges to be laid – that ultimate decision is in the hands of the applicable police authority. Let us be as clear as possible., The Attorney General MUST t fulfil theircriminal prosecution duties independently of any political or government pressure precisely because these duties require fairness of the presentation of cases and does not necessarily result in a conviction. . The Attorney General has what is called “Crown’s parens patriae authority” which means the AG has a constitutional responsibility to protect the public interest and public rights in the country. Those public interests and rights necessarily mean the AG must protect the legal system from any real or appearance of non judicial independence. Until Justin Trudeau this has never been an issue and it is so unusual that five former Attorney Generals who do not know her came out in favour of her and have commenced a legal action against Trudeau. 3.The Prime Minister, the Privy Council head and the PMO’s office violated s.121 of the Criminal Code. All of the above have admitted on public record of having attempted to pressure the AG not to pursue a prosecution against Lavalin and felt that pressure was appropriate and legal. In so doing they have admitted to actions that could be in violation of s.121 and they should have known lent to the appearance of violating s.121 and most certainly created a direct conflict of interest between the Prime Minister’s partisan concerns regarding alienating Quebec voters with the public interest of protecting all Canadians including Quebecers from the alleged criminal behaviour of Lavalin. 4.The Privy Council head admitted to acting outside his job description. Again and you can look it up its public domain the Privy Council head’s job is to advise the Prime Minister and elected Government officials in providing objective, non-partisan, public policy perspective. The Privy Council head has admitted on public record his perspective given to the AG was based not on non partisan objective considerations but partisan ones, specifically the need to treat Lavalin differently and favourably due to a fear not doing so would alienate Quebec voters. That consideration of alienating Quebec voters is not and was never the domain of the Privy Council head to discuss or mention to the AG on her role as the AG. 5.The fact an action is legal does not make it ethical or acceptable. Liberals are now trying to argue since Trudeau did not order the AG and only pressured her its not illegal and therefore excusable behaviour. This is not logical. Something most certainly can be unethical but be legal. To determine if what Trudeau did was ethical one I would contend should ask, what is the purpose of criminal sentencing? Is it to allow corporations a special standard of favourable treatment (leniency in sentencing) when they commit a crime because they employ Quebecers who might if unemployed not vote for Trudeau? Is that the purpose? Without knowing anything else does one really need to be told that if we allowed Lavalin leniency on these grounds than necessarily every criminal who runs a business that employs people should be given leniency. Is that in the best interests of the public? Does undermining criminal law act in the best interests of the public? Can you imagine what Liberals would say if the Tories tried to do this. We know what they said. Years ago when Jean Charest as Sports Minister in the Mulroney cabinet called up a Judge in his riding to try influence the sentence for a constituent, the Liberals demanded his resignation. Now with this Prime Minister they cheer him on although as of today a vital cabinet Minister resigned out of protect along with the AG. This is the same Prime Minister while trying to interfere with pressure NOT to prosecute Lavalin in an on-going criminal proceeding told the government of China he can not intervene with on-going criminal proceedings under any circumstance because of the rule of law and thus could not intervene over the Hua Wei extradition matter? Why the disconnect and utter contradiction? Next to find out what the purpose of criminal sentencing is just go to s.718 of the Criminal Code and you will see it does NOT and has never equated a sentencing principal with partisan political considerations. Its primary purpose is to deter crime and serve a message to all citizens NOT to commit a crime. 6.The current scandal goes to a repeated pattern of showing contempt for the law by Trudeau. In fact since Trudeau was elected he has repeated a pattern of showing contempt for the law and being above it: i-he went on vacation paid for and hosted by the Aga Kahn knowing the Aga Kahn at the same time was lobbying Trudeau’s government for funding; ii-rather than test in court whether Kadr was entitled to any financial compensation he chose to pay him off with $10 million dollars in a back room deal usurping the role of the AG at that time and putting the needs of Kadr before a broader policy consideration as to whether anyone committing a crime regardless of age should benefit financially from that crime and in so doing has created a legal precedent to compensate returning terrorists to Canada; iii- knowingly violates a safe third country law that says a refugee coming from a safe third country who makes a claim for refugee status in Canada can NOT and must be sent back to the safe third party to make the refugee claim-what Trudeau has done is to openly violate the law penalizing any refugee claimant coming from the US to a legal port of entry in Canada by rejecting their claims BUT with illegal entrants who break the law and knowingly break it by entering illegally, they are rewarded with an expedited refugee process-this is a flagrant violation of immigration law and the creation of an unfair double standard; iv-had his Foreign Minister pose for the t.v. cameras allowing privileged entry as a refugee to a Saudi Arabian young woman on the grounds and I quote “she reminds me of my daughter” which not only was absolutely completely inappropriate and a subjective bias statement undermining the objective criteria immigration entry consideration should consider but now sets a precedent that anyone who reminds the Foreign Minister of her daughter should be admitted as a refugee. This is how absurd its become 7-The current scandal shows Trudeau is not the feminist he claims he is. Upon being elected and during the campaign, Trudeau stated if a woman claims to be harassed we must take her at her word. However when his AG told him to stop harassing her he persisted and fired her and has told the public not to believe her. He is a classic example of someone who harasses and then asks you not to believe he harassed. In fact Mr. Trudeau et al admitted to pressuring her. Now they would have you believe repeated pressuring is not harassment. 8-Mr. Trudeau claims to understand Indigenous people but clearly shows contempt for them. On being elected Mr. Trudeau claimed Canada’s ethical standards failed to live up to the Indigenous peoples’ expectations and he would change them to honour the ethical codes of Indigenous peoples. Since being elected he has done absolutely nothing for aboriginals despite numerous promises and appointing not one but two Ministers neither who has achieved any new policy or implemented any new law or paid off any outstanding litigation cases for treaty violations. The Truth Commission Trudeau created fell apart. Not only that he had the nerve on capital hill during a protest to walk in and out of a teepee of protesters declaring to the press he was and is the only Prime Minister ever to do anything for the indigenous peoples. Then to add to this absurdity, he knowingly hired his AG stating she was Indigenous and he hired her among other reasons for her reputation as a truth seeker, i.e., an elder in her community who comes from a long line of elders who uphold a high ethical standard of integrity in any dealings. Then when she lives up to this reputation he fires her for refusing to go outside her job description and allow herself to do something unethical, i.e., be influenced by a non legal consideration to undermine a criminal trial. Let’s be clear the charges against Lavalin came in 2015. When the officers of Lavalin knew they would be charged triggering a share devaluation they remained silent but used their insider knowledge to sell shares at a high value before the announcement was made. On the day the announcement was made that they were being charged, all officers had sold their shares and the stocks devalued from $25 to $14 dollars. Shareholders finding out about this insider trading then filed a class action law suit which is still pending and would be prejudiced by a lenient criminal sentence. Summary Never in the history of a ruling government in Canada has a Prime Minister acted so blatantly conflicted and in such a clumsy manner in failing to keep partisan interests detached from non partisan legal proceedings. One only has to review the cases on influence peddling. Nowhere have we seen such behaviour. The closest to it was John A. MacDonald taking kickbacks on the rail road or Marcel Duplessis in Quebec, Joey Smallwood and Bennet in Newfoundland, and WAC Bennet in B.C. all who were accused of patronage and kick backs but never lobbied or tried to interfere with a criminal proceeding. Not even the Irving and McCain empires in and influence in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick tried to influence an on-going criminal trial. In fact I challenge anyone to find any Canadian government that allowed a criminal to lobby 80 times in 3 years as Lavalin has done from 2016 to 2019 with the Liberals to try influence their sentence. Let’s also be clear. In addition to a criminal fine, officers in Lavalin face jail time AND most importantly the sentence may prevent Lavalin from being able to get any federal contract for 10 years. That is what Trudeau panicked over. He fired his AG when he could not pressure her knowing he could not order her. He now has chosen an AG who says he will consider interfering but 5 former AG’s have already challenged that and we will have if this continues probably many lawyers and law associations maybe even the Law Societies of Canada challenge Trudeau and his AG if they try interfere and force a deferred prosecution order to prevent a trial. Let’s also get one other thing clear. In a plea bargain, any agreed plea must still be presented to the Judge for approval and the Judge will not grant it if it ignores s.718 considerations or appears in conflict with them which Lavalin considerations would. Knowing that Trudeau sought in a deferred prosecution agreement to have the trial or proceedings stopped so a Judge could not get involved to review the appropriateness of the pleadings. It is a deliberate run around of the court’s jurisdiction and role to influence a political consideration. Here is what makes it even more disgusting and unethical. Trudeau said in his last campaign he would never pass an omnibus bill to hide an unpopular law-he would openly discuss that law. Trudeau since elected has demonstrated he will NOT answer questions in Parliament. He out and out refuses showing contempt for the Opposition with canned scripted answers that do not answer the question. Not only that but the deferred prosecution agreement passed by his government was planted inside an omnibus bill in the last second to pass it through so there would be no debate on it. His own Justice committee MP did not know it was passed and disagreed with it and said so publically! Can it get any more ridiculous? Oh you bet. Now Liberals are trying to claim the AG was not qualified to do her job. Yes this coming from people who have no problem feeling the PM’s qualification of being a drama supply teacher at a private high school for less than one year constitutes sufficient training to be PM of Canada.
  16. 3 points
    She would never do that. if the party had any brains they would move into damage control now and ask Trudeau to step aside Kudos to Philpott for showing integrity...who is next
  17. 3 points
    It is very telling that the ones giving the super feminist the boot to the family jewels are all women. First it was Leona Alleslev, then JWR and now Jane Phillpot.
  18. 3 points
    He did a lot. He saved soldiers lives by buying equiptmnent sole sourced so it would not take 30 yrs for delivery. He took us thru a worldwide recession that if the3 idiots took over we would have been screwed. He was a steady hand and he never embarrassed us on the world stage .He was actually respected on the world stage. Now we are heading for another big recession and guess what, because of trudeaus wild spending we will have no wiggle room.
  19. 3 points
    All the more reason you shouldnt hand out citizenships too lightly. For one thing, dual citizenship shouldnt be allowed.
  20. 3 points
    Citizenship revoked. That would be my decision. Also I would ask for regime change here in Canada as our leadership is obviously now supporting terrorism.
  21. 3 points
    If this was Harper the media would be hounding him wherever he goes. Let see if they go after trudeau.
  22. 3 points
    I wash my hands of many things especially the Privy Council Head, Justin and the weight issues of Jody, Doug (the other one) and the Foreign Minister who insists on dressing like a stuffed sausage. I want decorum and dignity in office and people who understand the need to taper and modify garments to fit their contours.
  23. 3 points
    You are right. There is a leak and has been for awhile suggesting Trudeau lost control of his cabinet and inner office over what he did. When polls suddenly drop the rats panic. Here is a sure sign of panic. You will note yesterday down in the polls where was Justin, why of course off at a funeral in Halifax where he had no reason to be giggling and crying and making sure the cameras focused on him instead of the funeral for 7 refugees that died in a fire. Justin once again showed what a whore he is and how he uses any opportunity, even the deaths of people in fires for political photo shoots. CTV and CBC or should I say Pravda and Tass News agencies zeroed in on both him giggling and then shedding a tear. Its pathetic crass exploitation of tragedy to try revive his image and it was disgusting and why I have no time of day for this individual. Someone send him to the Philippines to pick up the trash we are dumping their. Have him go there and shed a tear for the dumping and discuss a carbon tax with the President of the Philippines and lecture them on his concerns for the environment. He can pose on a beach and cry with a dolphin,
  24. 3 points
    The fact they fired Butt Boy means the caucus sided with Judge Jody on this one and Trudeau had to save face on an inside revolt particularly when he has posed himself as a champion of indigenous peoples and women both of which she is. Its all about politics. The SNC discussion was all about arranging a plea as SNC is on very shaky grounds and the imprisonment of an executive or ban on fed contracts with SNC could tip it into bankruptcy causing thousands of lost jobs in Quebec. This federal government is committed to SNC, Bombardier and Quebec Hydro at all costs to get Quebec votes. Pretty much the same applies for any government running Canada. No one should be surprised by political interference discussions. I am not so sure this is the only government that has done this. The Liberals though went so far getting elected criticizing Tories for doing this. They also said they would never pass omnibus bills but passed one changing the law to sneak in the right to make a deal with SNC hoping no one would notice. This is why this government is particularly nasty. it claims it would balance the books by 2019 and never run a deficit after that date then does an abrupt change in November of 2018 announcing hugge deficits to run into 2024. It ran claiming it was above board with ethics and there is your PM travelling on vacation with someone lobbying the government for donations. This is a PM who said no one was above the law and pays a terrorist $10 million while claiming he has no money for terrorists. This is someone who then rewards illegal entrants to Canada with the rights of refugee hearings and work permits signaling all legitimate immigrants they are fools for following the law. This is a government void of any ethical compass and should be tossed out on its slimy butt.
  25. 3 points
    Does this mean the RCMP are going to start probing Butts now?
  26. 2 points
    Surprising that there is not already a topic started to discuss the mass shooting in two New Zealand mosques by an alleged Australian national. This was news around the world but perhaps no longer surprising ? Let's turn to the good old CBC to summarize things nicely: Compare and contrast with previous mass shootings around the world. Is New Zealand "different" ?
  27. 2 points
    Why does someone have to "admire" Islam to disagree with hatred of Muslims? There is much about all organized religions a lot of us do not admire..does that mean we have to hate people who follow these religions? It was disgraceful what happened. Why respond changing the subject to rationalize hating Muslims...that is dumb. We can still be respectful of one another in spite of religious belief differences. The fact Muslim terrorists are killing people does no make the killer of these innocent Muslims any less of an ahole. I disagree with certain ideological beliefs of Muslims but it doesn't mean I hate all Muslims. Anyone being murdered in cold blood should be condemned. We all need to avoid the pies g contest of whose blood is more red. Oh phack the soft pedal..what happened was disgraceful and evil and an attack on all of humanity and this Jew speaks out to Muslims and says damn what happened ...your blood is my blood when this happens and I bow my head in respect.
  28. 2 points
    I'm not sure why the same responses are not required when massacres of other people or religion happen. Does Canada fly the flag at half mast when scores of people are massacred in the U.S. or when Christians are massacred on a regular basis in other countries? This is not to downplay a terrible tragedy, but people do see a double standard in reactions and press coverage, so it's natural to wonder why one religion in particular seems to be given priority and coverage. Certainly if we wish to stand up for equality, peace, liberty and freedom apologizing for Islam is a total contradiction .
  29. 2 points
    Oh for Gods sakes, even Hillary Clinton has admitted that it is the migration into Europe which is driving populism, nationalism and the rise of extremist parties. You are like all the political elites in Europe, who all had the same attitude as people started to complain about the rising number of foreigners, who sneered at them, and imposed laws to prevent them from speaking their minds, who imposed draconion rules on their parties to unconditionally support migration and resettlement. And what did that accomplish? The rise of far right parties, the rise of nationalism, the rise of extremism. I will quote from David Frum once again. "When liberals say only fascists will guard borders, the voters will hire fascists to guard the borders."
  30. 2 points
    The parliament hill guy, and the guy who ran down the soldier on the other side of the river, and the Somalian refugee who ran down a cop to try to steal his gun and then ran down more people on sidewalks in Edmonton and the guy planning to bomb the mall in London who set it off in the taxi instead when police cornered him, and the group that wanted to blow up the CN tower when arrested, and the guys who wanted to derail a train south of Toronto, and the guy arrested on the street two blocks from my freaking house on a terrorism warrant. Still don't know what he was up to but he was reported by his own mosque, and the Kingston guy arrested a couple of months ago... right off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more. NOT the same magnitude.
  31. 2 points
    An interesting article in Quillette today from a person who has devoted much of their live to fighting for the environment and against climate change. All the more odd, then, to see him authoring an opinion piece on why we're damaging the environment and wasting our time trying to fight climate change with wind and solar farms. It's a long piece so I'll excerpt a few passages. But his basic premise is that there is no real way to scale up solar and wind power to serve our needs, that they have catastrophic environmental side-effects, as well as being uneconomical, and that we ought to go with nuclear power instead. ...Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid. Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons. ... As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables. ... Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables. ... Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost. Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power. ...Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant. ... By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste. We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan. Why Renewables Can't Save The Planet
  32. 2 points
    I too have enjoyed the hospitality of Muslim countries. Some of the biggest critics of Islam originate from Islamic countries. I would draw a distinction between polite society where business takes place and the beliefs that people share within their trusted social circles. Some people perform very differently behind the scenes. This is where education and indoctrination come in. What are the prevailing views within the family, social circles, and the wider society? In some Shia and Sunni societies children are raised to believe the West is the Great Satan and that Israel should be destroyed. They aren’t radical ideas in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and swaths of North Africa. Don’t pretend this isn’t the case. We oppose Sharia law here because many immigrants from Muslim countries came here to flee Sharia law. While white nationalist extremism is also troubling, it isn’t tacitly supported by the wider society, though right wing populists have stirred these demons. I also agree that colonial meddling has caused big backlashes throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Indonesia. That’s true, but don’t downplay Muslim versus Muslim hatred and terror, and don’t pin it on the West. The Saudis, UAE, Kuwaities, and Iranians benefitted from selling oil to the West. The Saudis exploit Palestinian labour. How many of these countries welcomed Syrian refugees? I also want to add that I believe most members of all the major religions and most agnostics and atheists are reasonable, decent people just trying to get ahead in life. Same goes for people of different ethnicities. People are people. Not all beliefs, however, are of equal value in terms of personal health and the health and cohesion of the wider society. Some narratives are healthier than others. I say this from a purely humanist, scientific perspective.
  33. 2 points
    How many has Islamic terrorists killed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks I'll help you. It's a wiki. Not imperical but good enough to say more than 50. Thousands in listed terror attacks, thousands injured. Countless islamic murders as well. But Muslims are a victim class right and white people are not according the left wing victim flow chart. Right?
  34. 2 points
    How many gangs in Canada have cut the heads off other Canadians and made videos for the world to see, have you done any research on ISIS torture houses, execution fields where they have started to recover thousands of bodies, just in case you missed that number 1000's and there are dozens of these places, thats genocide on a grand scale, to the point Sweden is launching a plea to the UN to have an inter national court set up to deal with ex ISIS fighters...... how many Canadian gangs have committed genocide,..........Even on a bad day for Canadian gangs they could not do 1/1000 of the shit these terrorists did......
  35. 2 points
    The next liberal government will apologize for this liberal government.
  36. 2 points
    That was dumb as hell. Go find out where Jews come from and where Palestinians come from. Stop repeating what you are to!d without questioning it. By the way your response for someone who clearly hates Jews then denies it less than a sentence later is ridiculous. Figure out what it is you think you are representing. If you wanna play Wahabi warrior don't in the next breath tell people you are a victim of misunderstanding and don't hate Jews. Have the balls to admit you do.. Terrorists aren't misunderstood victims and neither are anti Semites hiding behind the word Zionism then switching to the word Jew a sentence later. Also no Saudi would deny where Jews come from. Lol get back to me when you your voice changes. Someone give him 10 million dollars. He's just a kid until he sits next to you on a bus or plane of course. Kaboom. This ain't no game people. It's one of the downsides of multiculturalism and youth brought up to follow and not question. God bless the cell phone.
  37. 2 points
    I don't know. I just wish there was a way to make people with your sneering contempt for apologizing pay more for the restitution that's also due. I'd get a real chuckle out of that.
  38. 2 points
    Are you F***king kidding me, 3 people have resigned todate, why if there was nothing wrong in the first place would someone out of the blue just resign, and we are not talking about minor cabinet members or butts postion…......... not to mention the ton of questions gone unanswered , and then mr public service guy time in front of the committee are you telling me that all went well, nothing to see here, no smoke......... and you have don't have an answer for what is wrong here.....Funny how 5 previous AG have said there should be a RCMP investigation, for criminal charges...what do they know right....sweep that shit under the carpet...everyone in government are reasonable, for their actions, to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.... This is not how this looks.
  39. 2 points
    I would not go so far as to be declaring "all Cons = good" nor " all Lib = bad", but there is a very great chasm between the level of influence and the sliminess used to express it between the two. That said: some of our best fun has resulted in putting Conservatives behind bars. You see: a Red Tory is NOT in any way a conservative, because they don't have any respect for the law. There are just not many conservatives in the "Conservative" parties of this country. I admire what Philpot and JWR have done because I believe their motive was one of ethics, not political ambition.
  40. 2 points
    We know pressure has been applied to the Conservatives, but the incidents of corruption are few and far between. Yes, Mike Stuffie scamming his expense account did happen, but name ANY company or group that has the "Conservative" party/parties in their back pocket in the way that Desmarais/Chretien/Power Corp, Bombardier!!, Irving, Segram/Bronfmann/Kolber, CSL/Martin and a few others do. Think about that: the list of things Power and Bombardier have done within and outside of the law to gain financially from influence and interference would fill ten books. Seagram made all of its initial money as criminals running rum (the equivalent of drug cartells today) and do not hesitate to do things to this very day that often colour outside of the lines. Remember Adscam? Martin would like you to forget, as would Chretien and the golf course deal. And when it comes to the left side of this VERY left of center party, it is really important to remember what Ralph Goodale did to very, very illegally put and keep Andy McMechan in jail when no crime had been comitted because it threatened one of the institutions of the Liberal left - the Canadian Wheat Board. Part of LPC modus operandi for a century has been to use their influence and interference in regulatory, legislative, civil and even criminal procedings for the benefit of their back room. Now, show me the Conservative ones.
  41. 2 points
    Anyone taking bets that his climate barbie will hang in until the bitter end?
  42. 2 points
    Very true, even 600 million plus of hush money wont keep this quiet.
  43. 2 points
    To tell you the truth, I find it very very heavy irony . JT, a "feminism, minority rights, diversity inclusivity, blah blah ..." advocate, was smoking out by an indigenous woman who he appointed at first becasue of "equal governance."
  44. 2 points
    He says he made a stupid mistake, NO he made a huge criminal mistake, he joined one of the worst terrorist groups in the world, he at the very least knew of the terrible crimes they committed, the UN is still uncovering mass graves containing 1000's of bodies.....did he take part in all of that, perhaps not, but he knew of all this crimes and yet still took part....the only reason he should return is if they have complied enough evidence to convict his guy for life or more, if we can not do that leave him there.
  45. 2 points
    Obsolute Bullshit....it was declared an accident, the soldier did not jam his bayonet into her chest, or she would not be with us right now..... in the course of the soldier taking her down to be arrested, she was accidentally stabbed....as he lost control over his wpn....everyone that was there was put down and searched, no exceptions....including women and children....but then again what did you think was going to happen in an armed resurrection….one that had already seen a police officer killed.... your just a bitter and twisted women that has moved from cause to cause, and now you hate the man....spreading bullshit is not going to help your piont.
  46. 2 points
    First of all, your accusation that "most businesses" in Canada are acting in criminal manner is not only pure BS, but insulting to the people who put their money and time on the line to create the jobs that feed those who actually create wealth. Yes, the list of those close to the backrooms of the LPC I do not include in that statement, but the vast majority of businesses in this country are not organized crime - and do not have the LPC or any other political party in their back pocket. The ten year ban is federal law/regulation. When ANY company makes a living bidding federal work, they know fully well the penalty for being convicted of ANY criminal activity is a ten year ban. SNC knows that, their legal department knows that, the PMO knows that and the PM and his best bud Butts know that. To use YOUR line of reasoning: the mafia, Hell's Angels and a few other organizations probably employ almost as many Canadians as does SNC. Just like SNC, they are a criminal organization (many even based in Quebec), so by your standards, they deserve a slap on the wrist so they can continue employing people in a business that depends upon criminal activity to survive. And don't try to feed me some bullshit that dealing drugs is bad crime but bribing and kickbacks to obtain hundreds of BILLIONS of taxpayer's dollars is just fine, because its a good crime. Yes, you are correct, 10 years may well be a death sentence to a crimnal organization, but as everyone else had explained to you, the work is still going to be done, it will be done by the same workers, they will just work for an honest employer who successfully bids to do so.
  47. 2 points
  48. 2 points
    To bad. Because they certainly don't care about the 120,000 oil workers that lost thier job.
  49. 2 points
    Wilson-Raybauld is the last person the Conservative Party needs as a candidate steeped as she is in the liberal ideology of minorities first and the majority can go hang themselves. Her politics in no way align with those of intelligent thinking Canadians. They do align well with those whose 'feeling's' govern their politics instead of logic.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...