Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/04/2019 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    You guys can send all your "gay loonies" to me. I'll spend them.
  2. 6 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.
  3. 5 points
    The Liberals have been imposing carbon tax on all provinces, despite push-back from several Premiers, who says that the feds have no business imposing this on their province! As a rebuttal, how many times have I heard Catherine Mckenna - the Minister of Environment and Climate Change - say on tv.... ....."CLIMATE CHANGE KNOWS NO BORDERS!" well, duh? Obviously, THIS climate change, does respect borders! Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-warming-at-twice-the-global-rate-leaked-report-finds-1.5079765 Lol, it's just in Canada! It doesn't say.......North America. It says, CANADA! is it happening on the US side of the border? Nope. Only in Canada! This report proves Catherine Mckenna is either lying when she said, climate change knows no borders, or it does (as this report proves). Of course, it's highly likely, they're both full of............. s***! Boy, just like SNC-Lavalin....the Liberals can't get their story straight!
  4. 5 points
    Real women don't need to hide behind some 'feminist' banner, taxme. Real women tend to stand on their own and value the contributions of men. Real women can think for themselves - unlike so-called 'feminists' who depend on slogans and newspeak but when faced with intelligent logical questions are at a total loss as how to respond.
  5. 5 points
    In plain English. "I can't stand the stench of corruption emanating from this government anymore." So who's next?
  6. 4 points
    I can't establish a case that Realitycheck beats his wife, but I can't exonerate him either.
  7. 4 points
    The issue of the supply ship built by Davie shipyards continues to dog the Liberals. They tried to kill it, originally, apparently on the orders of the Irving family, who had won (bought) the rights to build the ships themselves ... eventually.. some day. Davie had a second ship ready to go but the Liberals, again, apparently on orders from the benefactors, the Irvings, said it was unneeded. Trudeau himself said they had done a study and it wasn't needed. He lied. He does that. All the time, apparently. This reinforces just how tight is the relationship between the Liberal party and certain of Canada's billionaire elites, like those who run Bombardier and Irving and SNC Lavalin. The Left has always tried to portray the Tories as the party of big business but it's really been the Liberals who have that relationship in Canada. Meanwhile the court games between the Crown and Admiral Norman's lawyers continue as he is was pushed out of his job and is being prosecuted (likely on the orders of the Irvings) for pushing the supply ship forward. Military assessment ruling out the need for a second interim supply ship doesn’t appear to exist Conservative leader Andrew Scheer questioned the Liberal government why it was not moving ahead with having Davie provide the second supply ship, the Obelix, to the navy. Scheer said the navy needed the second ship. But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Scheer of playing “petty politics.” “The armed forces did an assessment,” Trudeau explained. “They don’t need the Obelix and for him to suggest that we should buy it anyway is pure base politics, the worst politics. We make our decisions based on facts. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-assessment-supposedly-ruling-out-a-second-interim-supply-ship-doesnt-appear-to-exist
  8. 4 points
    Liberal spin-masters are practically going mad. Their heads now spinning round and round... They must somehow save the movement before the public finds out that this has been nothing more than a Punch-and-Judy puppet show. Now ask yourself, who are the puppet masters, and who are the ones pulling your strings.
  9. 4 points
    It is hate filled people like you jacee that are actually the problem. The extreme left wing and all fringe parties need to be taken down a few notches. And it is happening as we speak ,no matter who you called a racist. Canadians are taking their country back. This is a revolution. Canadian style.
  10. 4 points
    You said this: All the people afraid of Sharia Law and M103 can then openly strut their racist paranoia too. If you think being afraid of Sharia Law is racist paranoia that's your view, but disagreeing with you is not derailing the thread.
  11. 4 points
    I don't like Sharia Law. I would suggest that doesn't make me a racist.
  12. 4 points
    Maybe you guys saw different shows? Maybe the hosts don't write their copy, but they don't read like robots either. Watch Lisa LaFake do her eyerolls or her insinuating tones when she's talking, or her dismissive introductions to stories/videos which run contrary to her narrative. If she is playing a video of Trudeau talking about Duffygate, 3 years into it, it's all amped-up seriousness and "OOohh look at THIS! DUN dun dunnnnnnnn..... If she's playing a video of Scheer talking about SNC while new info is still coming out it's: [eyeroll] "the latest round of character assassination attempts...." I'm not even exaggerating in the least. She actually did use the words "character assassination" a few days back while talking about remarks regarding Trudeau by the Conservatives. Do you think that stupid bimbo ever used the words caracter assassination when Trudeau was talking about Harper or even random Canadians? Like the big bad construction workers invading people's towns, or the broad insult against Canadians in general who were somehow still deemed to be guilty of the hijab cutting attack even after it was determined to be a hoax?
  13. 4 points
    I don't care how big they are. And no this is not just a few bad apples. The corruption is part of SNC-Lavalins culture through and through. 20+ years of corruption and blackmailing the Canadian government under the Conservatives and the Liberals. That's nothing more than a mafia and needs to be taken out. The only one threatening to cut jobs is SNC-Lavalin themselves. They are blackmailing saying that they will move some operations IF they are brought up on corruption charges MORE the reason to do exactly that. Fuck SNC-Lavalin. Just look at how the LRT is going in Ottawa. Exactly.
  14. 4 points
    There are no white supremacist groups in Canada. We had one neo nazi group years ago that had something like ten members but it's no more. Your fear of a vast far right conspiracy is wildly overblown.
  15. 4 points
    Chrystia Freeland did huffs and puffs about Saudi Arabia women's rights, but, now, she is a neutered chi; may be someone in PMO paid her a visit
  16. 4 points
    Well, since this a topic about the alleged rise of the alt right, I will place it in that context. The rising anti-immigration sentiment is clearly being driven by... rising immigration. Hardly a surprise. Now do I think the anti-immigration sentiment would be as high if all the immigrants were from the British Isles? No, of course not. The degree to which the newcomers are different from us in the way they talk, act, look, behave and worship plays a huge part in the rising anger and resentment. Two thirds of Canadians told a recent poll that immigrants aren't doing enough to assimilate. That indicates a worry about the practices of newcomers becoming widespread. It isn't a coincidence this guy in NZ attacked Muslims. Muslims are the primary concern, and with good reason. Secular liberals smirk at the thought of Islam as a threat because most on the left are not very religious at all, and they do not comprehend what it means to be a devoted believer in a religion. They see that most western Christians pretty much ignore the nastier bits of the Christian (and Jewish) religions, and blithely assume Muslims do the same. But the Christian and Jewish faiths as practiced today went through the reformation and enlightenment. They are nothing like what they were centuries ago. No Christian or Jewish leader outside some tiny, isolated sect somewhere wants people killed for working on the sabbath or wearing two different kinds of threads in their clothing. But Islam never went through the reformation or enlightenment. ALL mainstream sects of Islam agree that the koran as written is the absolute word of God. Therefore, if it says gays must die, then gays must die. If it says unbelievers must be distrusted and treated badly, then that is the way it is. There simply is no disagreement on this from any of the major clerical schools or scholars.Thus when you look at attitudes towards gays, Jews, Christians, atheists or monotheists in the Muslim world you find violent prejudice. There are no admitted gays in the Muslim world since homosexuality is illegal in all Muslim countries. There are virtually no Jews left either. There are certainly no admitted atheists since that too is illegal, as is blaspheme and apostasy. It is not an accident that these things are severely punished throughout the Muslim world. The teachings on unbelievers and social values has not altered in hundreds of years. That doesn't mean Muslims in the West are about to attack gays, Jews and women openly and thus go to prison (well, most of them) but as numbers grow in Western countries demands will grow for accommodation towards their social and religious values. And those religion based social values are diametrically opposed to ours. Fear of this, of large numbers of people settling here who are wedded to their religious values and will not assimilate because of that, are what is at the heart of rising anti-immigration sentiment.
  17. 4 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 4 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 3 points
    That doesn't solve anything except anger the woman and make 'patriots' look like jerks.
  22. 3 points
    Right. So the previous government runs the provinces finances into the ground over a period of 15 years, leading to a previous credit downgrade, but somehow the current government of a year is to blame. Lol. Too high of taxes hamper economic growth. Unstrangling the economy needs to be done to help dig out of the massive hole left by the Liberals, who’ve literally maxed out the credit cards.
  23. 3 points
    It's actually pretty irresponsible to have as big of an investigation as this was and at the end say "we're not saying he didn't do it". I mean really, if a government spent this amount of time and money to investigate anyone and left that kind of caveat without ever processing an indictment...c'mon, there is no limbo area here, either you found evidence or you didn't, just man up and say that there is no evidence to indict, let alone impeach or convict. Mueller seems content to suggest that Trump may still be guilty, but his team is too dumb to find evidence. Mueller would rather admit defeat, admit that Trump is smarter than him, instead of just saying they were all wrong - whatever. Mueller is a douche bag.
  24. 3 points
    Let's get back to the topic shall we? Let's not get into this shit pissing match where Charles has to lock the thread. Trudeau is not going to get elected again,and for damn good reason. (goes back through) OH I see where the thread got derailed, as soon as you started to post it all went 'south'. Ok so, let's see if we can catch up then. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-liberal-smears-of-wilson-raybould-a-disgrace Trudeau has no standard of integrity at all.
  25. 3 points
    BEIJING — China said Wednesday it suspended a second major Canadian canola exporter over alleged safety concerns, further deepening a diplomatic row set off by Canada’s decision to detain a top executive with telecom giant Huawei. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said China’s actions were “scientific and reasonable,” but added that Canada should “take practical measures to correct the mistakes it made earlier” in the bilateral relationship. As I have noted on this site earlier, China pays no attention to rules, laws or agreements unless it suits them. People might remember they already blackmailed Canada by threatening canola imports a couple of years ago. When we gave in they signed an agreement promising the trade was safe until 2020. This simply shows how little the word of the Chinese government is worth. And in their latest arrogant pronouncement they make it quite clear this is being done as punishment for us not releasing their corrupt princess arrested due to Huwai's corrupt financial and trade practices. The reason the Chinese feel free to keep hitting us is because our wimpy, useless selfy loving prime minister and his government haven't got the spine to stand up to them. The kind of people running China will ALWAYS bully, prod and push everyone else to get anything they can. They will never stop until someone stands up to them. Thus far we haven't even begun to approach doing so. Whether it's illegally arresting Canadians in China, flooding Canada with fentanyl, cheating on trade, or breaking agreements, China is a country not to be trusted, a country which understands power and only power. We currently export about $27 billion in mostly agricultural and raw materials to China. But we import over $75 billion in goods, mostly manufactured goods. That is a strong lever to use, and we should do so. Whatever the export loss of Canola, we should double it, and outright ban the import of that amount of Chinese goods, starting with things made in Canada or otherwise easily replaced, like steel, sports equipment, and automotive parts and equipment. We should outright ban Huawie from operating in Canada at all on any level, right down to their cell phones, cut back on Chinese students allowed into our schools, ban all money coming from China for research at our universities, and end Chinese immigration to Canada. If China retaliates we should double the amount of Chinese goods banned. We should also subject every vessel arriving from China to a thorough, top to bottom inspection for fentanyl on the grounds that all the fentanyl in Canada comes from China. And if that means Chinese ships backed up all the way to Hawaii - I'm fine with that. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-must-develop-a-backbone-in-its-dealings-with-china/
  26. 3 points
    Calling Faith Goldy a Nazi makes light of real ones...both historical and the few idiots that still actually cling to the Third Reich.
  27. 3 points
    And you can see how it's fueled paranoia from the weak minds of the Left, who suddenly think white supremacists are under every bed and getting ready to take over the country. Even if they can't actually name any white supremacist groups.
  28. 3 points
    This is such a trash thread. The organized "far right" is no way comparable in Canada to what far left groups have been doing in complicity with the left wing parties, judiciary system, the media and corporate funding who protect, finance and enable them.
  29. 3 points
    Who, in their right mind, would really think that having homosexuals on a coin could reduce homophobia? It's so stupid I can't even comprehend.
  30. 3 points
    Douglas Murray on the hypocrisy of the Left and Islam. Simply brilliant.
  31. 3 points
    That's kind of what I got out of news reports yesteday. They are 'shocked' that someone recorded their conversations. And not shocked by the content? They SHOULD be admissible in court as it's not fabrication on Raybold-Wilson. She did not force those other people to say what they said. I had a feeling that the recordings would tell us a lot more. She did what no one else was willing to do, hold people accountable. And her reward? Getting kicked out of the Liberal party. She had to record because none of this would see the light of day otherwise. Are you ok with 20+ years of SNC-LAvalin corruption sanctioned 100% by our own corrupt government? That is the real question here.
  32. 3 points
    I agree, I do think they should do it and I don't know why it never happened, even after they received a settlement in 1985 from the Feds and the Company that bought out the pulp and Paper Company; why at that time it was never removed from the water. Trudeau did promised to act on it but never did and of course chose to belittle a protester and of course the Ontario Liberals promised to act on it, but never did. I don't know why it was never done.
  33. 3 points
  34. 3 points
    AGAIN, they are SO ignorant they are playing right into the Conservative's hand. I THINK (no real measure) the people have finally seen the JWR and Phil are the good guys (OK, gals, but this is a politically correct administration, so I can't be sexist or even gender biased) and the Liberal buffoons are showing their true colours.
  35. 3 points
    If the entire world was on-board it might make sense. But taxing Canadians so that Red China & India can continue to pollute unabated is NOT a solution.
  36. 3 points
    It is illogical to pose that a person engaging in lying and/or other unethical acts is owed protection through confidentiality. There are exceptions in specific professional relationships only to preserve a greater need to society to encourage trust in that professional relationship. The purpose and intent of JWR's tape was to expose unethical acts against all of Canadians. In fact it would have been unehical for her to have remained silent knowing the silence might aid and abet the cover up of an unethical act and/or continuation if unethical actions. As well there is nothing unethical about proving someone is lying about you. The fact the tape is inadmssable in court without the consent of the taped person does not make it unethical. A liar is owed nothing but exposure of their lies. Nuremberg trials made it clear all humans let alone politicians have an ethical duty to question and expose wrong and not blindly obey.
  37. 3 points
    ...and your stupid government was outsmarted by Trump...again. At the same time, your stupid government was hosing up the SNC-Lavalin bribery charges.
  38. 3 points
    I thought we had shown there was no such problem, that it was all in your mind, and that your fear of Islamophobia is merely the expressed wariness and suspicion Canadians are feeling about the mass immigration of extremely conservative Muslims.
  39. 3 points
    And over women. I think gods as a concept and religion in the main are a tool, too. Man is not god-made; god is man-made. Hand-crafted, from all natural ingredients. Little wonder religions claim man is made in the image of god; it's because god is made in the image of man, so it's an easy mistake to make, to put the carriage before the horse.
  40. 3 points
    Used to live across the road from the Heatherington public housing project. it was full of immigrants/refugees. Then the government started paying Minto to keep them in our buildings. The place went to hell fast, lots of shootings, stabbings, arsons, vandalism to cars and to interior furnishings and hallways. Glad I got the hell out of there. All the street gangs in Canada (except for the natives) are the product of our immigration and refugee system.
  41. 3 points
    Or just fly to New York, take a taxi to the border, and tell the guys in the doorman outfits "Yeah, I'm a refugee. Get my bags, will ya. Where's my room?"
  42. 3 points
    Why don’t you recommend that one or both of them run for the party leadership and see where it goes? What a joke. Party politics is like a game of Hearts: Don’t start plotting and undermining the party leadership unless you really think you can get all the hearts and total control. I actually think JWR thinks or thought she could do this. Again, let the party membership decide and then let the country decide. My guess is that the Libs are gone in the next election. Scheer should at least send JWR a thank you card.
  43. 3 points
    Jesus never existed. He is unknown to history. The Romans left no records of such a rabble rousing rabbi though they left records co-temporaneous with the time of Pilate who did exist and for whom there is physical evidence. The Essenes, a religious bunch totally involved with the religious politics of the time, left voluminous records, but nary a mention of such a person or such antics as have been attributed the imaginary man. Other historians of the time also failed to mention the son of god was walking among them.
  44. 3 points
    If there ever was a privileged, entitled, 1-percenter who refuses to accept responsibility for themselves, it is on display now.
  45. 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."
  46. 3 points
    Agreed. And in every Muslim country people behave horribly. Every Muslim country is an awful place I would never want to visit, much less live. And so I am extremely unenthusiastic about bringing masses of the people from those countries here. Especially without assessing their views and beliefs.
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...