Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


Popular Content

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

  1. 8 points
    You guys can send all your "gay loonies" to me. I'll spend them.
  2. 7 points
    Did you really think it would be anything else? Did anyone think that this hundred million dollar waste of time would challenge any of the progressive narratives or cast any shade on the natives themselves for their behaviour? Of course not! It's all the fault of those evil white people! We're committing genocide by... letting native men kill native women... Not that we're exactly letting them. Investigations into the murders of native women are just as intense as those of white women, and the solution rates are virtually identical at 88% for natives vs 89% fo white women. Oh, and by the way, native men are murdered at a much higher rate. But the inquiry wan't concerned with them. Men, even native men, are of little concern these days. So they want there to be harsher penalties for anyone who harms a native woman than one who harms a white woman or man. As if native women were some kind of special group placed on a podium to be protected above all others. How this is supposed to gel with the demand for lower sentences for natives offenders is never gone into. Are they to get longer time in front of the healing circle if the person they kill is a female native? The inquiry was only supposed to look into the violence perpetrated against native women over the last thirty years, but you knew it wouldn't confine itself to that. And you knew our craven, spineless prime minister would get on his apology stool again and accept full blame on our behalf. Instead he was quick to say the justice system has failed them - without explaining how. The inquiry report uses the word 'genocide' dozens of times, and the lead progressive in charge stated baldly "This report is about deliberate race, identity and gender-based genocide," Which, of course, is so much bullshit. I think most Canadians will hear this and shake their heads in contempt at the idea that we're committing deliberate genocide on anyone, much less native women who are being killed by their drunken, drugged up spouses and relatives. I know Scheer won't have the balls to say anything about this, but I wonder what Bernier's response will be. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-inquiry-on-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-calls-on-all-canadians-to/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-violence-against-indigenous-women-and-girls-is-not-a-relic-of-canadas/
  3. 6 points
    From the article above: “If your political party has been caught obstructing justice — as the political party led by Justin Trudeau assuredly was, in the SNC-Lavalin scandal — what’s the one thing you need to avoid, at all costs? Getting caught obstructing justice again, of course. And that’s what the Trudeau regime’s prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would have exposed: Senior Trudeau government officials, implicated in a scheme to use the criminal justice system to punish an alleged whistleblower. In this case, the second-highest-ranking officer in the Canadian Forces.” The Liberals are pure scum, top to bottom. It’s bad enough that they need to move shipbuilding contracts to their SNC-type buddies, but they were actively destroying a man’s life to punish him for exposing their corruption and greed. Lmao at all the SJW types who think of the Liberals as knights in shining armor for everyday Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  4. 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.
  5. 5 points
    Genocide is the intentional mass murder or elimination of a people. Calling Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples genocide is a lie.
  6. 5 points
    Blather. Harper did nothing whatsoever to try to ban abortions or bring back the death penalty. And unlike the Republicans he seemed quite fixated with fiscal conservatism and bringing the budget back into balance. Also unlike them he didn't seem much interested in a strong military. And Scheer so far seems to have less courage than Harper. If you want to know what Scheer will do just check the polls. He'll do what the polls say would be best to do.
  7. 5 points
    Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Given the alternative, another four years of Trudeau, Scheer stands head and shoulders above him. Then again, a radish would make a better PM than Trudeau.
  8. 5 points
    No, he's too arrogant, too self-centred, too stupid to see the writing on the wall.
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. 5 points
    In plain English. "I can't stand the stench of corruption emanating from this government anymore." So who's next?
  12. 4 points
    Why doesn't AOC go to Mexico and complain to them about not accepting the Guatemalans, the Hondurans and other Central-Americans?
  13. 4 points
    You just proved in two sentences your total stupidity. When did the Republicans advocated for no taxation at all? When did the poor start killing each other for no reason? Are you that debilitated? Bin Laden was a billionaire. It's all about indoctrination, islamic indoctrination to be accurate.
  14. 4 points
    Fake Melania mystery from earlier may be example of Turkish face-swap technology in use! Prototype Fake Melania was quickly spotted by sharp-eyed patriotic Americans. More advanced version of face-swap technology may not be so easy to detect! Why would Turkey replace Melania with Fake Melania? What happened to real Melania during swap?? My sources tell me this could be project to build cyborg super-soldiers, similar to on Six Million Dollar Man TV program. Call him the Six Hundred Million Euro Man! Turkish cyborg super-soldier will be able to run very fast, jump over fences, and bend steel bars as well as other things. Project could work with Turkish 2400MHz microwave weapon, imagine a super soldier who can cook falafel with his bare hands. -k
  15. 4 points
    Total b.s. Scheer is nothing like Trump, but he could use a bit more chutzpah
  16. 4 points
    Trudeau is a case of herpes. Just when you think its cleared up, pow its back again. Canadians should have never got into bed with him. The best thing we can do now is use a contraceptive. Sheer is an appropriate name for a prophylactic.
  17. 4 points
    I think there are some aspects of the job that he absolutely loves,like being in front of adoring fans, the chance to show off his "acting" skills, taking softball questions from the paparazzi . It's obvious that he's very weak on actual policy and he relies largely on those that helped run Ontario into the ground for advice. He should still be considered the favourite to win the next election but I think he will lose a few seats overall. Trudeau will get largely positive coverage from his median minions since most of them will soon be supported by our tax dollars.
  18. 4 points
    This is our Prime Minister......without the script!
  19. 4 points
    Conservatives aren't bigots. Stop watching CNN. Real bigotry is dividing people into groups like the Libs and Dems do. Yes there are a lot of christian fundamentalists who favour the Republican party, and some of them have an anti-lgbtq stance, but that's a minority within that voting block. The majority of conservatives don't care about homosexuality. It's just a naturally occurring thing. The strongest consensus that you'll find within the ranks of modern conservatives is a more sensible stance on abortion. It went from within 3 months, to 6 months, to 1 second before the head pops out, to post-natal "I don't like it, kill it." It's insane. "Denying science"? LMAO! Global warming is a hoax and people like Beto O'Rourke who say that "100% of climate scientists agree" it's a thing are straight-up lying to you. You should be ashamed if you believe that, because it means that you have your head in the sand, just getting all your info from one source. I bet that you eat up all the nonsense about how bad the oil sands are too lol. You just watch left-wing media and you memorize, regurgitate, memorize, regurgitate and you don't question anything.
  20. 4 points
    I can't establish a case that Realitycheck beats his wife, but I can't exonerate him either.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 4 points
    I don't like Sharia Law. I would suggest that doesn't make me a racist.
  26. 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?
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 3 points
    No because it happened once and isn't a cultural thing in Québec to shoot people in the streets or in the mosques, churches. It's a cultural thing where Omar comes from.
  36. 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/
  37. 3 points
  38. 3 points
    There you go again. Somebody has to PROVE that they're innocent of slanderous claims. It's absurd and goes against the foundation of our justice system. I don't know if the tapes are real or not. But who cares? Why do you gotta go around peeping into what consenting adults do in their bedrooms? Since Clinton I was told that what happens in people's bedrooms is their own business. Stop being a prude man. What two adults wanna do together on their own time isn't any of my business.
  39. 3 points
    "Telling children they can pick their gender is as fundamentally stupid as telling children they can choose their species. If we did, we'd have classrooms filled with mermaids, aquamen, wizards, gnomes, fairies, and aliens."
  40. 3 points
    The most embarrassing part of the video should be the fact that he said China twice instead of Japan but his "uhs" and stuttering are almost as bad. Still not as bad as India though, where he invited a terrorist to dinner and then blamed it on Pakistan. I mean Bangladesh. I mean Rome. Oh yeah, India.
  41. 3 points
    Being opposed to Islam is no more racist than being opposed to Communism. It's the political, moral and social philosophy which people oppose, regardless of the skin color or background of the followers.
  42. 3 points
    U.S. economy keeps on rolling with President Trump. Numbers include impact of government shutdown. Better than the EU...and better than Canada.
  43. 3 points
    I can see that you hate her. I can also see anybody that disagrees with you is Hitler reborn. But, keep thinking you're the normal one... As mentioned, I'd like you to scream your message from the rooftops. Be sure everybody hears you and knows your position...also be sure they know exactly what you think of those who vote differently than you do. You and Faith...closer than you think. Which is probably why you hate her, eh? But, hey...my dollar store psychology...worth a buck...right?
  44. 3 points
    Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?? Peasant Idle: More witches!!!
  45. 3 points
    There is no excuse to hate anyone. I am disappointed by the Prime Minister, and I won't vote for him again, but I don't hate him. I hate certain ideologies such as communism, or national socialism, but I don't hate communists. I've never met a Nazi so I can't say. I don't like certain ideologies such as Social-Credit (Reform) and republicanism, but I don't hate them. Prime Minister Trudeau revealed himself to be all show and no substance. My disillusion came as a result of the SNC affair which led me to take a critical look at everything else he does. My impression is they (the PM and the PMO) make decisions without thinking them through. I hate to admit it but he is just not ready.
  46. 3 points
    Actually, that type of rhetoric doesn't really require a response as the obvious stupidity lies in the accusation. If you are stupid enough to believe in guilt by association, than there's nothing anyone can say that will make you any less stupid We know of course that this was always going to be the Liberal re-election strategy---Sunny ways was just a smokescreen for what will be a very negative campaign with Liberals calling anyone (as usual) a racist for disagreeing with them. But.... if you believe in guilt by association then here are a few names for them: Joshua Boyle Jasper Atwal Omar Khadr. Hamas Using the Liberal definition of association, Justin Trudeau has some interesting associates.
  47. 3 points
    Candace Owens destroys her inquisitors at the House Intelligence Hearings.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  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


  • Create New...