News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 2.6K     3 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 878     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 2.6K     1 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Northern Light said:
Astoundingly, you can't even manage to quote YOURSELF correctly.



If you are found to be guilty of a Federal CRIME, you are a criminal.

That is NOT what has happened in this case. Rather, the Prime Minister was found to have contravened certain rules, contained within the Conflict of Interest Act. Which is not a criminal offense.

Sigh.

I don't even wish to defend his conduct, but you must describe it accurately.
Click to expand...
BurlOak said:
Oops. You used the word criminal, so I search for it and concluded I didn't use it.
I stand corrected. "Guilty of breaking federal law."
Click to expand...

The authority for any level of government to do anything is by enacting laws. Under the Constitution, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to enact criminal law so, by definition, all federal law is 'criminal law'. But not every piece of legislation creates offences and those that do must clearly state so (i.e. 'everyone who does x if guilty of an offence'). I haven't looked at it in a while, but I doubt the Conflict of Interest Act creates offences. It empowers the Commissioner to conduct an investigation and table a report of findings. Period.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Why? What criminal code action would I be convicted of? Especially if we forgo the coverup, I see no crime in replacing the MoJ to push the application of the non-prosecution option for SNC.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no Constitutional law expert, but the way I read the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, they would have to change the legislation.

This highlights one of the problems with our system of having the same person being both the Attorney General and Minister of Justice (and member of Cabinet). There's a division of power between the Executive (Cabinet), Legislative (Parliament) and Judicial branches of governance, and I'm not comfortable with one having non-legislated sway over another. The 'affair' wasn't even an action of the Executive; it was driven by the PMO and there is no legal authority vested in that office that I am aware of.
 
I question has Ontario ever had good governance provincially?

Like I do agree Wynne had a lot of social programs but it pretty much was driven by tons of debt and increased taxes and then Dalton was likely the most corrupt politician this province has seen.
Mike Harris did cuts and the province really seems to hate Bob Rae.
 
Jasmine18 said:
I question has Ontario ever had good governance provincially?

Like I do agree Wynne had a lot of social programs but it pretty much was driven by tons of debt and increased taxes and then Dalton was likely the most corrupt politician this province has seen.
Mike Harris did cuts and the province really seems to hate Bob Rae.
Click to expand...
Fiscally speaking, none in my adult life time (I'm 48). Harris made cuts, but also sold off future assets (Hwy 407), like Wynne selling off Hydro One. Soon they'll be nothing to sell.
 
I was a kid during the Rae days and then in high school when Mike Harris was in power. Needless to say, I developed a severe dislike for that era of PC politics.
 
Videodrome said:
I was a kid during the Rae days and then in high school when Mike Harris was in power. Needless to say, I developed a severe dislike for that era of PC politics.
Click to expand...
Harris was likely the best Premier in your lifetime then.
After 5 years of Rae, it is amazing how quickly Harris got Ontario back on its feet. Basically, both Ontario and Canada were near debt walls. Both federal and provincial cut spending and cut transfer payments. They both cancelled a few big projects (helicopters and Eglinton subway). But they got people to work, and economies recovered - although it took until Ontario took over it's traditional role as the economic engine of Canada before the federal numbers improved as well.
If not for the Adscam and a couple of other major scandals in the Chretien government - it would have been remembered as one of the best in Canadian history.
(It truly was amazing how self-centred the teachers were and how they tried to brainwash their children. I'm hoping that brainwash effect should wear off pretty soon for you.)
 
Both Harris and Ford are such legendary leaders of the Canadian conservative movement--funny how Scheer is too afraid to even mention their names...
 
BurlOak said:
Harris was likely the best Premier in your lifetime then.
After 5 years of Rae, it is amazing how quickly Harris got Ontario back on its feet. Basically, both Ontario and Canada were near debt walls. Both federal and provincial cut spending and cut transfer payments. They both cancelled a few big projects (helicopters and Eglinton subway). But they got people to work, and economies recovered - although it took until Ontario took over it's traditional role as the economic engine of Canada before the federal numbers improved as well.
If not for the Adscam and a couple of other major scandals in the Chretien government - it would have been remembered as one of the best in Canadian history.
(It truly was amazing how self-centred the teachers were and how they tried to brainwash their children. I'm hoping that brainwash effect should wear off pretty soon for you.)
Click to expand...

Yup, a wonderful legacy. He essentially threw away about $400 million already spend, ate about $500 million in penalties and tossed the jobs that would have happened because they would have been built in Canada. The SAR helicopters that were ultimately purchased were the exact same thing and the military spces were altered primarily so that wouldn't happen. All ultimately cost Canadian taxpayers more, created zero jobs and forced the military to fly 55 year old aircraft.
 
The issue i had with Wynne is that her policies were just all about transfering wealth but not even from the super rich but from anyone who had a decent job to those who dont.
 
Jasmine18 said:
The issue i had with Wynne is that her policies were just all about transfering wealth but not even from the super rich but from anyone who had a decent job to those who dont.
Click to expand...

Any number of legitimate criticisms could be leveled at Ms. Wynne; but this is not one of them.

Where did you get this idea from?

Her signature policies in her last couple of years:

- Raising the minimum wage (helping those that work)
- Increasing affordable childcare (helping those that work)
- Creating Universal Pharmacare for youth aged 24 and under, and seniors (by removing the deductibles/copays). Children are typically the expense of those who work, seniors may still be working or retired from a life of same.

Where's the big transfer?

- She did not raise social assistance rates faster than inflation; her only change there was to increase asset limits modestly and allow slightly more earnings for those that got a job before benefits were clawed back.

- Basic Income? Only ever a pilot affecting a few thousand, all of whom were previously on ODSP or OW (already on benefits) and the point of the project was to ascertain whether a bit more money, handed out differently would allow
more people to work, FT or PT and to break the cycle of acute poverty.

Just sayin.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top