WE really need to get rid of this guy

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I also gotta say... I do like getting back cash from the Government even if it's just a little bit (mine was more than 'a little bit' though).

His logic is correct IF Canada is indeed a significant factor in Climate Change. 1.5% is not significant. Particularly when the big guys (China, India) are doing diddly squat and even increasing their CO2. He also ignores the compound effect of the price of fuel to transportation charges on everyday goods. But other than that he makes interesting points.

 

[petros]

Canada's inflation rate falls to 1.6% in September, raises odds of 50-basis-point rate cut

The chances of a half-percentage point interest rate cut by the Bank of Canada became more likely Tuesday after Statistics Canada reported the annual inflation rate fell to 1.6 per cent in September.

www.ctvnews.ca

So... what would PP do different?

What will foreign investors and lenders do different?

We lost $225B of incoming and outgoing investment under Trudeau.

Its their opinion of Poilievre running Canada not your's, mine or anyone else.

 

[petros]

His logic is correct IF Canada is indeed a significant factor in Climate Change. 1.5% is not significant. Particularly when the big guys (China, India) are doing diddly squat and even increasing their CO2. He also ignores the compound effect of the price of fuel to transportation charges on everyday goods. But other than that he makes interesting points.

If carbon were an issue crypto mines wouldnt be buying natural gas powerplants in Ontario.

A Bitcoin Miner Is Buying Four Entire Power Plants​

byVictor Tangermann
12.14.23, 1:47 PM EST
Hut 8

The sheer, astonishing waste.​

Canuck Crypto​

A company just bought four Canadian natural gas power plants to mine Bitcoin.

Hut 8, one of the largest digital asset mining companies in North America, made its "stalking horse bid," a binding offer to buy out an insolvent company, last month, but only declared the bid successful in a press release this week.
While the takeover is still conditional on the approval of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the news highlights the persistent appetite of miners to snatch up decommissioned powerplants to mine crypto, an immensely power-intensive and environmentally damaging process. Companies have been refurbishing coal-fired power plants to mine cryptocurrencies, despite plenty of local and environmental opposition.

 

[Serryah]

His logic is correct IF Canada is indeed a significant factor in Climate Change.

.... ho boy.

1.5% is not significant.

So because what we do doesn't matter in the 'grand scheme', we shouldn't do anything?

Does that apply to everything or just Climate Change?

I mean... that mentality can be dove tailed into a LOT of life in general. Voting, for example; why should anyone bother when their vote won't matter vs. other people in other parts of Canada? (wait, that already is a topic of conversation... guess you shouldn't bother voting, neither should I, or anyone then)

Particularly when the big guys (China, India)

You forgot the US there and the EU.

are doing diddly squat and even increasing their CO2.

Um, actually...

The Carbon Brief Profile: China

China has the worlds's largest greenhouse gas emissions.

interactive.carbonbrief.org

The Carbon Brief Profile: India

India is the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), after China and the US. Coal power plants, rice paddies and cattle are major sources of emissions, which continue to rise steeply, although per-capita emissions remain well below the global average.

www.carbonbrief.org

Now, are they doing ENOUGH? No. But there's reasons for that, part of it being based on political policies from other countries, part of it internal politics, and part of it because of the "why should we care?" mentality (something y'all share I guess?)

He also ignores the compound effect of the price of fuel to transportation charges on everyday goods.

Not ignored, rather not discussed as it's looped more broadly into the overall stats the report talked about, more than likely.

Fuel has added costs to use, people that need it to transport goods add that cost of transport onto the bill to the people at the end of the line, they throw it onto the goods they sell to make the money back, people buy said good at the increased price but depending on where they live, the money they get back from Government later can offset those funds paid out or however else the program works in that province. (Just today I got my rebate and it was a pretty nice chunk of unexpected change.)

But other than that he makes interesting points.

The biggest being "we can't afford to do nothing".

 

[pgs]

.... ho boy.



So because what we do doesn't matter in the 'grand scheme', we shouldn't do anything?

Does that apply to everything or just Climate Change?

I mean... that mentality can be dove tailed into a LOT of life in general. Voting, for example; why should anyone bother when their vote won't matter vs. other people in other parts of Canada? (wait, that already is a topic of conversation... guess you shouldn't bother voting, neither should I, or anyone then)




You forgot the US there and the EU.



Um, actually...

The Carbon Brief Profile: China

China has the worlds's largest greenhouse gas emissions.

interactive.carbonbrief.org

The Carbon Brief Profile: India

India is the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), after China and the US. Coal power plants, rice paddies and cattle are major sources of emissions, which continue to rise steeply, although per-capita emissions remain well below the global average.

www.carbonbrief.org

Now, are they doing ENOUGH? No. But there's reasons for that, part of it being based on political policies from other countries, part of it internal politics, and part of it because of the "why should we care?" mentality (something y'all share I guess?)



Not ignored, rather not discussed as it's looped more broadly into the overall stats the report talked about, more than likely.

Fuel has added costs to use, people that need it to transport goods add that cost of transport onto the bill to the people at the end of the line, they throw it onto the goods they sell to make the money back, people buy said good at the increased price but depending on where they live, the money they get back from Government later can offset those funds paid out or however else the program works in that province. (Just today I got my rebate and it was a pretty nice chunk of unexpected change.)




The biggest being "we can't afford to do nothing".

We could and should be doing nothing to combat climate change . We should do what people have done since the begging of time , adapt . Have you not heard we cannot control the weather . We can and should be spending our dollars cleaning up our local environment, maybe get some clean drinking water to some of the outlying reservations .

 

[pgs]

Beginning of time .

 

[spaminator]

Ontario taxpayers spend $4.3M to settle legal costs in wage-cap law cases
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Liam Casey
Published Oct 15, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read

Ontario taxpayers have forked over $4.3 million in legal fees after the province lost two court cases defending a wage-cap law that was struck down as unconstitutional, The Canadian Press has learned.


Premier Doug Ford’s government passed a law — known as Bill 124 — in 2019 to limit salary increases for broader public sector workers at one per cent per year for three years. At the time, the province said it was done to help eliminate the budget deficit.

The law sparked outrage among the 800,000 workers affected by the bill. Scores of nurses, teachers and public servants brought their grievances to the province’s front door, with vociferous protests at Queen’s Park.

Medical officials said the law contributed to the nursing shortage during the pandemic, a time when hospitals were overrun. The law also contributed to the teacher shortage, education officials have said.

The unions that represent workers affected by the bill took the province to court, labelling the law unconstitutional. The province argued the law did not infringe constitutional rights, saying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only protects the process of bargaining, not the outcome.


In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court agreed with the workers and struck down the law. The province appealed the ruling.

While Ontario used in-house lawyers for its initial case, it hired an outside firm, Lenczner Slaght, to handle the appeal.

In a 2-1 decision earlier this year, the Appeal Court struck down the law, saying it infringed on workers’ Charter rights. The province accepted defeat and, soon after, repealed the law in its entirety. The court left it up to the parties to settle legal costs.

In June, The Canadian Press asked the Ministry of the Attorney General for a breakdown of the costs. Several months later, it has shared the information.

The province settled with the 10 unions that took them to court and agreed to pay them $3.45 million in legal costs, said Keesha Seaton, a ministry spokesperson. The province also paid Lenczner Slaght $856,482 for legal services related to the appeal.


The office of the President of the Treasury Board Caroline Mulroney defended the law and the subsequent legal battle.

“Bill 124 was designed to employ a fair, consistent and time-limited approach that would enable the government to protect front-line jobs and workers for years to come,” said Liz Tuomi, Mulroney’s spokeswoman.

“The government continues to be open, transparent and accountable to the people of Ontario for every tax dollar spent, which can be seen through our seventh consecutive clean audit opinion from the auditor general in this year’s public accounts.”

Last month, Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy, who brought the bill forward when he was president of the Treasury Board, said the law was “absolutely not” a bad idea.


“We ran again in 2022 and got a bigger majority, so I feel very good that the people of Ontario gave us a vote of confidence in the way we’re managing the economy and managing the fiscal path to balance,” he said.

The province has so far paid out $6.7 billion for retroactive pay increases to broader public sector workers after the law was struck down.

Taxpayers would have been on the hook for those salary bumps either way, but the additional legal costs were a waste of money, leaders of the opposition parties said.

“This is outrageous, and it’s also wasteful, and I would say that people deserve a government that they can trust to spend their money on what matters to them,” said Marit Stiles, leader of the Official Opposition New Democrats.


“Doug Ford and his politicians treat government money like it’s their money — it’s not, it belongs to the people.”

The government had fair warning the bill would be found unconstitutional, said Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner.

“I think it’s just a slap in the face to the people of this province that we have to foot the legal bills of the government’s failure to recognize that wage restraint is unconstitutional,” he said.

“I think it just shows how out of touch this government is with the needs of everyday people that they would waste money on legal fees in support of unconstitutional legislation.”

Ontario Liberal Party Leader Bonnie Crombie agreed.

“It is unacceptable for Doug Ford to have spent millions of your tax dollars to prevent teachers and nurses from earning a fair wage,” she said.

Ontario taxpayers spend $4.3M to settle legal costs in wage-cap law cases

The government passed Bill 124 in 2019 to limit salary increases for broader public sector workers at one per cent per year for three years

torontosun.com

 

[spaminator]

Global Affairs Canada spent $3.3M on booze since 2019
That number could be higher as the department doesn't centrally track alcohol purchases

Author of the article:Bryan Passifiume
Published Oct 16, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 2 minute read

OTTAWA — Dealing with Canada’s reliably-tumultuous foreign affairs will clearly drive one to drink.

Newly-released documents unearthed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation suggest Global Affairs Canada — the government department responsible for Canada’s diplomatic and consular presence around the world — spent at least $3.3 million on alcohol over the past five years.

On average, that’s about $51,000 per month on various alcoholic libations.

“The government is wasting our tax dollars faster than we can say bottoms up,” said the CTF’s Federal Director Franco Terrazzano.

“Is any politician going to look a single struggling Canadian in the eye and try to justify the government spending thousands of dollars on wine tastings and cocktail parties?”



While some purchases were labeled for specific events — including $491.02 to purchase wine for a 2019 event in Ankara, Turkey — others were less specific, including numerous line items labelled “bulk purchase of alcohol,” ranging from a few dollars to a few thousand dollars.

Canada’s consulate in Boston was very specific in their wine orders, purchasing thousands in dollars in bottles from Canadian wineries, including Summerhill Estate, Henry of Pelham and Burrowing Owl Estate Winery.



In Manila, Canadian diplomats spent $4,536.42 on wine for the embassy’s 2023 Canada Day celebrations, $3,240.43 on “bulk purchase of alcohol” in March, a combined $4,798.39 on two separate bulk wine purchases, $723.67 on Crown Royal Whisky, and $1,146.10 for a March 31 purchase of ice wine.


The largest single order came in February 2019 from Washington, D.C., where $56,684 was spent on “wine purchases from special store.”

Other large purchases include a $8,074 bulk alcohol purchase by the Canadian mission in Oslo in October 2020, $6,118.23 spent on wine by the embassy in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, $3,748.82 for a 2022 “alcohol purchase” in Paris, and $4,311.51 spent in 2022 for the purchase of “bulk wine 48 bottles for trade.”

Diplomats in Iceland seemed particularly thirsty, with a Jan. 23, 2020 alcohol purchase of $8,074, followed less than two months later by a second purchase of $2,849.


Invitations for comment to Global Affairs Canada went unreturned by press time.

According to the CTF, just under $2 million of the purchases came from the Canadian Alcoholic Beverages Abroad program — formerly known as the Canadian Wine Initiative, its purpose is to use Canadian diplomats to promote Canadian viniculture around the world.

And that $3.3 million may not be all that Global Affairs spent on worldwide booze purchases, with the CTF confirming they were told by an access-to-information analyst that the department doesn’t centrally track” internal purchases of alcohol.

“These bureaucrats seem like they’re having a good time, but what value are taxpayers getting from this huge booze bill?” said Terrazzano.

“Billing taxpayers $51,000 a month for booze is mind boggling, but what’s even crazier is this tab is just for one government department.”

bpassifiume@postmedia.com
X: @bryanpassifiume

Global Affairs Canada spent $3.3M on booze since 2019

Dealing with Canada's reliably-tumultuous foreign affairs will clearly drive one to drink.

torontosun.com

 

[Serryah]

The first fifteen minutes discusses my BIGGEST issue with PP and now that's increased.

If you don't see how it's an issue, then congrats, you don't give a damn about Canada either.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Justin Trudeau’s government has survived two confidence votes since the House of Commons returned on Sept. 16, but the Liberals have lost control of the House. Since last Wednesday, the government hasn’t been able to move forward with their legislative agenda as MPs debate two instances of what could be called Liberal corruption.

At issue is the government’s refusal to follow a demand by the House of Commons to produce documents on the government’s green slush fund, the one the Auditor General said was pushing money to Liberal insiders. All three opposition parties joined together to demand the government produce the documents asked for and hand them over to the RCMP.

Parliament’s ability to require the government to hand over documents is an ancient privilege of MPs, but the Trudeau Liberals have refused. Some documents were released, others were either withheld or heavily censored.

The opposition parties complained to the Speaker, Liberal MP Greg Fergus, who issued a ruling on Sept. 26.

“The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with,” Fergus said.

While he urged all parties to collaborate and find a solution, the government made clear it isn’t willing to release more information, and the opposition parties have decided to demand that they do.

In his ruling, while Fergus called for cooperation, he also noted that nothing prevented MPs from demanding the documents and no laws or practices could prevent them from doing so.

LILLEY: Trudeau has lost control of the House of Commons — Toronto Sun

If you can win confidence votes but not move legislation, are you really a functioning government?

apple.news

Liberal MP Sean Casey says he thinks it is in the nation’s best interest for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down in order to avoid a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre???

Casey, who said last week he has been hearing the sentiment that Trudeau should resign from his constituents and agrees with them, spoke to reporters Monday as the House of Commons resumes and ahead of more expected questions about Trudeau’s leadership as his caucus prepares to meet on Wednesday.

Trudeau resignation would be in Canada’s best interest: Liberal MP — Global News

Last week saw four more cabinet ministers tell Prime Minister Justin Trudeau they won’t run for re-election, adding to a growing cabinet exodus and other MP resignations this year.

apple.news

Last week saw four more cabinet ministers tell Trudeau they won’t run for re-election, adding to a growing cabinet exodus and other MP resignations this year.

 

[pgs]

Justin Trudeau’s government has survived two confidence votes since the House of Commons returned on Sept. 16, but the Liberals have lost control of the House. Since last Wednesday, the government hasn’t been able to move forward with their legislative agenda as MPs debate two instances of what could be called Liberal corruption.

At issue is the government’s refusal to follow a demand by the House of Commons to produce documents on the government’s green slush fund, the one the Auditor General said was pushing money to Liberal insiders. All three opposition parties joined together to demand the government produce the documents asked for and hand them over to the RCMP.

Parliament’s ability to require the government to hand over documents is an ancient privilege of MPs, but the Trudeau Liberals have refused. Some documents were released, others were either withheld or heavily censored.

The opposition parties complained to the Speaker, Liberal MP Greg Fergus, who issued a ruling on Sept. 26.

“The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with,” Fergus said.

While he urged all parties to collaborate and find a solution, the government made clear it isn’t willing to release more information, and the opposition parties have decided to demand that they do.

In his ruling, while Fergus called for cooperation, he also noted that nothing prevented MPs from demanding the documents and no laws or practices could prevent them from doing so.

LILLEY: Trudeau has lost control of the House of Commons — Toronto Sun

If you can win confidence votes but not move legislation, are you really a functioning government?

apple.news

Liberal MP Sean Casey says he thinks it is in the nation’s best interest for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down in order to avoid a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre???

Casey, who said last week he has been hearing the sentiment that Trudeau should resign from his constituents and agrees with them, spoke to reporters Monday as the House of Commons resumes and ahead of more expected questions about Trudeau’s leadership as his caucus prepares to meet on Wednesday.

Trudeau resignation would be in Canada’s best interest: Liberal MP — Global News

Last week saw four more cabinet ministers tell Prime Minister Justin Trudeau they won’t run for re-election, adding to a growing cabinet exodus and other MP resignations this year.

apple.news

Last week saw four more cabinet ministers tell Trudeau they won’t run for re-election, adding to a growing cabinet exodus and other MP resignations this year.
View attachment 25312

The good ship Liberal is floundering on the rocks . A pretty sight .

 

[Ron in Regina]

The first fifteen minutes discusses my BIGGEST issue with PP and now that's increased.

Ok, I made it through the first 15 minutes (& 40 seconds) of the above piece. Wow…that dude is hearing what he wants to hear & not what Trudeau “actually” said.

If a Conservative was actually involved directly in foreign interference, Justin Trudeau would’ve said a Conservative is directly involved in foreign interference without the and/or’s, etc…with three possibilities and one of them may/might be true, etc…so in the end, Trudeau actually said nothing….though in a breathy and dramatic manner.

Trudeau “could” have said a Conservative IS Directly Involved without naming anyone…if a Conservative was actually involved, but he “didn’t,” and that’s the important part of the smoke & mirrors.

On Wednesday, Trudeau told the foreign interference commission, which was established last fall, that he has “the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, or at high risk of (?), or for whom there is clear intelligence around, foreign interference.”

What Parliamentarian isn’t potentially, or at risk or, or at high risk of foreign interference? It was a crafted word salad said under oath to imply something without saying actually anything with the “or at high risk to” qualifier in the middle to cover EVERYONE regardless of whether they’re involved or not…& then singled out his only real threat to his leadership.

If you don't see how it's an issue, then congrats, you don't give a damn about Canada either.

I see it as an issue, so I listened to what Trudeau actually said and in turn what he didn’t say in his monologue (really makes me wonder who coached him between the morning and afternoon sessions of his testimony).

Because I listened to what Trudeau actually said, as opposed to the spin put on by the guy in the video, in the “My Way Or The Highway” type thing….

If you don't see how it's an issue, then congrats, you don't give a damn about Canada either.

…does that mean I don’t give a damn about Canada (?) because I’m capable of analytical thought & thus seeing the verbal sleight-of-hand for what it actually was?

Was Erin O’toole, for example, affected by foreign interference? At risk of, or was at high risk of being exposed/affected by foreign interference in the Canadian election process? As the target of a foreign campaign and not the beneficiary of it? Does O’Toole meet the criteria for the breathy and moistly dramatic performance?

 

[petros]

Ok, I made it through the first 15 minutes (& 40 seconds) of the above piece. Wow…that dude is hearing what he wants to hear & not what Trudeau “actually” said.

If a Conservative was actually involved directly in foreign interference, Justin Trudeau would’ve said a Conservative is directly involved in foreign interference without the and/or’s, etc…with three possibilities and one of them may/might be true, etc…so in the end, Trudeau actually said nothing….though in a breathy and dramatic manner.

Trudeau “could” have said a Conservative IS Directly Involved without naming anyone…if a Conservative was actually involved, but he “didn’t,” and that’s the important part of the smoke & mirrors.

On Wednesday, Trudeau told the foreign interference commission, which was established last fall, that he has “the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, or at high risk of (?), or for whom there is clear intelligence around, foreign interference.”

What Parliamentarian isn’t potentially, or at risk or, or at high risk of foreign interference? It was a crafted word salad said under oath to imply something without saying actually anything with the “or at high risk to” qualifier in the middle to cover EVERYONE regardless of whether they’re involved or not…& then singled out his only real threat to his leadership.

I see it as an issue, so I listened to what Trudeau actually said and in turn what he didn’t say in his monologue (really makes me wonder who coached him between the morning and afternoon sessions of his testimony).

Because I listened to what Trudeau actually said, as opposed to the spin put on by the guy in the video, in the “My Way Or The Highway” type thing….

…does that mean I don’t give a damn about Canada (?) because I’m capable of analytical thought & thus seeing the verbal sleight-of-hand for what it actually was?

Was Erin O’toole, for example, affected by foreign interference? At risk of, or was at high risk of being exposed/affected by foreign interference in the Canadian election process? As the target of a foreign campaign and not the beneficiary of it? Does O’Toole meet the criteria for the breathy and moistly dramatic performance?

Background on Mr/Ms IPA is a elementary teacher in Metro Vancouver.

Says a lot.

 

[Serryah]

Ok, I made it through the first 15 minutes (& 40 seconds) of the above piece. Wow…that dude is hearing what he wants to hear & not what Trudeau “actually” said.

Your opinion.

And if it's just Trudeau's testimony you're focusing on... you really, REALLY missed the point.

If a Conservative was actually involved directly in foreign interference, Justin Trudeau would’ve said a Conservative is directly involved in foreign interference without the and/or’s, etc…with three possibilities and one of them may/might be true, etc…so in the end, Trudeau actually said nothing….though in a breathy and dramatic manner.

Mmn... no. Because it's still all alleged with investigations still going on.

Trudeau “could” have said a Conservative IS Directly Involved without naming anyone…if a Conservative was actually involved, but he “didn’t,” and that’s the important part of the smoke & mirrors.

Because investigations are still going on. To say under oath that the Con IS directly involved could have gotten a purgery charge on him if it ends up not what they are thinking in the end.

On Wednesday, Trudeau told the foreign interference commission, which was established last fall, that he has “the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, or at high risk of (?), or for whom there is clear intelligence around, foreign interference.”

Yep.

What Parliamentarian isn’t potentially, or at risk or, or at high risk of foreign interference?

There's at risk, and then there's at risk enough for investigations on this level. Love how you're downplaying though.

It was a crafted word salad said under oath to imply something without saying actually anything with the “or at high risk to” qualifier in the middle to cover EVERYONE regardless of whether they’re involved or not…& then singled out his only real threat to his leadership.

If you say so.

Again, he has to be careful. And on top of it, not to break the law in regards to the information he's privy to.

I see it as an issue, so I listened to what Trudeau actually said and in turn what he didn’t say in his monologue (really makes me wonder who coached him between the morning and afternoon sessions of his testimony).

And then you heard only what you wanted to hear.

Because I listened to what Trudeau actually said,

Nah, you didn't really.

as opposed to the spin put on by the guy in the video,

Yeah... because he's obviously a Lib shill, right?

(except, he's not, and has issues with Trudeau too so calling what he put up "spin" is amusing AF)

in the “My Way Or The Highway” type thing….

Trudeau's always had that "my way or highway" thing. So not sure why you'd be surprised or whatever.

…does that mean I don’t give a damn about Canada (?) because I’m capable of analytical thought & thus seeing the verbal sleight-of-hand for what it actually was?

It means you don't give a damn about Canada if you ignored the actual point - Regardless of Trudeau's good or bad testimony, the entire point is that PP is pushing for Trudeau to break the law, and PP has absolutely NO concerns what so ever about interference from outside countries/sources in Canadian politics.

Was Erin O’toole, for example, affected by foreign interference? At risk of, or was at high risk of being exposed/affected by foreign interference in the Canadian election process? As the target of a foreign campaign and not the beneficiary of it?

There was an investigation into it. What did it say?

Does O’Toole meet the criteria for the breathy and moistly dramatic performance?

....

 

[Ron in Regina]

Yeah... because he's obviously a Lib shill, right?

I didn’t say he was a liberal shill, but he is a shill, I’m assuming for upvotes or whatever.

I listen to the words that Justin Trudeau actually said as opposed to the spin. To each their own though. If by actually listening to what he said as opposed to what he implied means, in your perspective, that I don’t give a damn about Canada, in your opinion, OK.

Who’s been pushing for this inquiry to happen for the last couple of years at least, & who has been trying to bury it? Not that it matters I guess. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t give Justin Trudeau much weight in the truthfulness Department after following the scandals of the last almost decade (so far), but neither here nor there, & the truth will come out eventually I’m assuming one way or the other. Perhaps another whistleblower?

 

[petros]

Yeeesh

 

[Ron in Regina]

At issue is the government’s refusal to follow a demand by the House of Commons to produce documents on the government’s green slush fund, the one the Auditor General said was pushing money to Liberal insiders. All three opposition parties joined together to demand the government produce the documents asked for and hand them over to the RCMP.

The Liberal government is still providing redacted documents and withholding others on the so-called “green slush fund” from the House of Commons nearly one month after Speaker Greg Fergus scolded it for doing just that.

Parliament’s ability to require the government to hand over documents is an ancient privilege of MPs, but the Trudeau Liberals have refused. Some documents were released, others were either withheld or heavily censored.

In a letter tabled in Parliament Monday, Commons Law Clerk Michel Bédard told MPs that he had recently received new documents from three government departments relating to Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC). In all three cases, information was withheld.

The opposition parties complained to the Speaker, Liberal MP Greg Fergus, who issued a ruling on Sept. 26.

“All three government institutions provided documents containing redactions and/or withheld some pages purportedly relying on the Access to Information Act,” he wrote to Speaker Fergus about Finance Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

“The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with,” Fergus said.

Testifying to MPs on the Public Accounts committee Monday, Bédard said that meant the three departments are still failing to comply with an order by the House of Commons.

In June, three opposition parties banded together to pass a Conservative motion ordering the public service, the auditor general and SDTC to provide all documents on the latter to Bédard. The motion did not provide for any information to be redacted or withheld.

While he urged all parties to collaborate and find a solution, the government made clear it isn’t willing to release more information, and the opposition parties have decided to demand that they do.

In his ruling, while Fergus called for cooperation, he also noted that nothing prevented MPs from demanding the documents and no laws or practices could prevent them from doing so.

The fact that government organizations are still withholding information that was ordered by the House of Commons in June is significant because it appears to fly in the face of a ruling by Fergus last month that they likely had no right to do so.

“The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with,” he said in a Sept. 27 ruling.

Because of that, Fergus found he “cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established” and suggested the issue be sent to a committee for further study.

In other words, Fergus found the government had likely violated the Commons’ “absolute and unfettered” constitutional power to call for information.

During the committee meeting Monday, Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs were concerned that the government had not only apparently violated an order from the House, but continued to do so since Fergus’ ruling.

Since Sept. 27, the House of Commons has been at a procedural gridlock as Conservatives, the NDP and Bloc Québécois call on the government to fork over all the unredacted documents.

Until the issue is settled, no other business can move forward in the House of Commons unless explicitly agreed upon by a majority of MPs.

Testifying at the Commons Public Accounts committee Monday, Bédard said that only eight government organizations had forked over all their unredacted records on SDTC. The vast majority of others (22) had either withheld documents or redacted them.

“We’re talking about documents, sometimes hundreds of pages, that have been withheld, and redactions that are not only about personal information but also solicitor-client privilege or other motives under the Access to Information Act,” he told MPs.

But he noted that parliamentary privilege, which grants the House of Commons the power to compel the production of documents, “supersedes over ordinary law, so it will prevail over the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and, for example, solicitor-client privilege.”

Government still redacting, withholding 'green slush fund' docs despite Speaker ruling it shouldn't — National Post

Withholding the information is significant because it appears to fly in the face of the Speaker's ruling by Fergus that the government likely had no right to do so

apple.news

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I saw a clip of Guibeault saying he supported Trudeau, and how couldn't he, after all the good he has done for Canada?
He reminded me of Squeeky Fromme.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Today is Tuesday 22 Oct. Tomorrow is this liberal powwow where some 30-ish MPs are supposed to present him with a letter asking Trudeau to step down.

What are the odds that Trudeau will actually show up in Parliament today (?) or is he going to skip this session too?

 

[petros]

30-ish MPs are supposed to present him with a letter asking Trudeau to step down.

And a box of tissues?