The sad thing is, the joke, in the end, will be on us, the taxpayer.
But just like the general public can't help but rubber neck at an accident, this too will be a spectacle to be observed with perverse pleasure, lol.
Another Liberal Scandal - Quebec -a la carte - and the menu is corruption.
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
But just like the general public can't help but rubber neck at an accident, this too will be a spectacle to be observed with perverse pleasure, lol.
Indeed, that would be the ideal scenario for PQ, PQ government in Quebec and Harper government in Ottawa. Harper is almost universally despised in Quebec. He will become a convenient punching bag for PQ to whip up the support for a referendum.
Particularly if in the next election Harper ends up with no seats in Quebec (or one or two seats) and if PQ wins, a referendum is highly likely and is highly likely to be successful. At least it has a very good chance of getting 50%+1; I don’t know if it will stand the scrutiny of the Clarity act.
Charest's
Statement Please note and I quote "“It ain't about me,”
Mr. Charest said Premier Charest - Sir it is most certainly about you - and Corruption -and the Construction Industry that charges 30% higher on tenders than in other comparable Provinces for comparable work -
As they Say - It is all about you.
Premier Jean Charest says he will launch a public inquiry into the way judges are chosen in Quebec after a former cabinet minister accused the government of serious ethics violations.
Mr. Charest's announcement Tuesday came a day after ex-justice minister Marc Bellemare said Liberal bagmen influenced the selection of judges.“I think it's important that we be able to address this issue of the integrity of the justice system in Quebec,” he told a news conference.“I want to get to the bottom of this.”
On Monday, Mr. Bellemare dropped a bombshell, saying he was pressured on three occasions to name a judge requested by influential donors during his tenure as justice minister.Mr. Bellmare insists he confronted the Premier twice — in the fall of 2003 and the spring of 2004 — when pressured by influential financiers to make appointments, including judgeships.
The former minister also alleged that stacks of cash were forked over by construction company bosses and funneled into party coffers.
Mr. Charest again denied the allegations and reiterated he would send his ex-minister a lawyer's letter demanding an apology and retraction of the allegations.
Still, the Premier said his most pressing concerns are the allegations against the judicial system and the government, not his personal differences with Mr. Bellemare.
“It ain't about me,” Mr. Charest said.
Oh yes it is.
Jeeez
As the saying goes around here, "shyte or get off the pot" and the phrase should be pointed at Kebec. Or Eli Wallach in TGBU, "If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
Personally I don't care much if it does scoot as long as it forks over for its share of the nat'l debt and quits sucking transfer and eq. payments. I doubt a lot of Kebecers would stay, mostly the separatist types and as Bear says, they'd not get much of the real estate either.
Politics is entertaining sometimes, yes? lol
As the saying goes around here, "shyte or get off the pot" and the phrase should be pointed at Kebec. Or Eli Wallach in TGBU, "If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
Personally I don't care much if it does scoot as long as it forks over for its share of the nat'l debt and quits sucking transfer and eq. payments. I doubt a lot of Kebecers would stay, mostly the separatist types and as Bear says, they'd not get much of the real estate either.
Politics is entertaining sometimes, yes? lol
Quebec is nothing new for those of us who have raised kids. I remember well when they were 4 or 5 and things didn't go their way and they would decide to leave home. Same thing with Quebec. (The kids grew out of it in a couple of years) :lol::lol::lol:
SJP
You know as well as I that the Govt has stated that 50% + 1 does not meet the standards called for in the Clarity Act - and the SCOC as well
Some info for you as you seem to be trolling with that 50 plus 1 BS
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/clarity-act.htm
This legislation was designed to give effect to the opinion in the Quebec Secession Reference rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 20, 1998. On September 30, 1996, the Attorney General of Canada referred three questions pertaining to Quebec secession to the Supreme Court of Canada.
1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada? On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court answered these questions by issuing an opinion.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec do not have, either under Canadian law or international law, the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.
However, the court also emphasized that the rest of Canada would have a political obligation to negotiate Quebec's separation if a clear majority of that province's population voted in favour of it. ,
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
House of Commons to consider question1. (1)
The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.
Extension of time
(2) Where the thirty days referred to in subsection
(1) occur, in whole or in part, during a general election of members to serve in the House of Commons, the thirty days shall be extended by an additional forty days.
Considerations
(3) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state.
Where no clear expression of will
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from(a) a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada; or(b) a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.
Other views to be considered
(5) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.
No negotiations if question not clear
(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.
House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede
2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.
Factors for House of Commons to take into account
(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account
(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;
(b) the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and
(c) any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.
Other views to be considered
(3) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.
Constitutional amendments
3. (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.
Limitation
(2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.
You know as well as I that the Govt has stated that 50% + 1 does not meet the standards called for in the Clarity Act - and the SCOC as well
Some info for you as you seem to be trolling with that 50 plus 1 BS
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/clarity-act.htm
This legislation was designed to give effect to the opinion in the Quebec Secession Reference rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 20, 1998. On September 30, 1996, the Attorney General of Canada referred three questions pertaining to Quebec secession to the Supreme Court of Canada.
1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada? On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court answered these questions by issuing an opinion.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec do not have, either under Canadian law or international law, the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.
However, the court also emphasized that the rest of Canada would have a political obligation to negotiate Quebec's separation if a clear majority of that province's population voted in favour of it. ,
THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
House of Commons to consider question1. (1)
The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.
Extension of time
(2) Where the thirty days referred to in subsection
(1) occur, in whole or in part, during a general election of members to serve in the House of Commons, the thirty days shall be extended by an additional forty days.
Considerations
(3) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state.
Where no clear expression of will
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from(a) a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada; or(b) a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.
Other views to be considered
(5) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.
No negotiations if question not clear
(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.
House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede
2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.
Factors for House of Commons to take into account
(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account
(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;
(b) the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and
(c) any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.
Other views to be considered
(3) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.
Constitutional amendments
3. (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.
Limitation
(2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/jean-charest-wont-run-again/article1532455/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/silver-powers/quebecs-ag-failed-in-his-duties/article1533085/
For you legal beagles -
What is the statute of limitations for bribing an Official of the Govt - Ref the allegations against CharestNext -
Can the Que Attorney General be charged for failing to uphold the Law and his duties as described by Law?
Turning a blind eye to corrupting the Judicial Appointments process - Lots of law here to go around
Could both end up in Jail? Along with many others.
If these allegations are any where near truthful it will be the largest corruption Scandal in my opinion in Canadian History.
It will change politics across the Country - Makes Adscam look like pikers -
Own the Judges - Own the Law
Did a quick search - Could not find any Premiers sentenced to jail terms while serving as Premier
From my recollection, it's an indictable offense. There is no statute of limitation in Canadian law on indictable offenses.
I smell a Federal Inquiry -Royal Commission - Harper would be a fool to leave it to Charest to maneuver and influence a decision.
Anything that can or would bring the Justice System and appointments into disrepute would reflect upon the Canadian Justice System
Trudeau did it - as a strong Federalist - So where can Federalists go - To Iggy - No - To the BQ - some but not many - to the Libs - After Adscam they are as welcome as pork( Pun Intended) at a Jewish Buffet
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/president+troubled+allegations/2902579/story.html#ixzz0l1pRNdPR
Since coming to power in 2003, Charest’s government has appointed 140 judges.
When a vacancy on the bench opens up, the justice minister places an advertisement for the position in the Quebec bar’s journal or in a newspaper.
Candidates must have practiced law for at least 10 years and be in good standing with the bar in order to apply.The justice minister then forms a three-member selection committee that interviews candidates.
That committee is composed of a judge, who is recommended by the chief justice of the court where there is a vacancy, a lawyer recommended by the Quebec Bar and a third person who is neither a lawyer nor a judge.
The selection committee then interviews all the candidates and makes several recommendations to the justice minister.
The justice minister chooses a successful candidate in consultation with fellow cabinet ministers.
But Bellemare’s allegations raise questions about whether the selection process is open to outside influences, such as party fundraisers wanting to return favors to donors.
Chagnon said he doesn’t believe that is the case. He said Quebec’s justice system is well respected and he doesn’t think the judicial appointment system can be compromised.
Bellemare favors resigned from the cabinet in April 2004, saying then he was not cut out for politics.
There is no provincial Conservative Party in Quebec. He left Federal politics for Provincial, which is why he "left" the Conservative Party.
So in theory - you COULD be a Provincial Liberal - and a Federal Conservative....and vice-versa....
My point is his being "crooked" has nothing to do with him being a Liberal. Neither does him being a "former Conservative. "
They are all a bunch of crooks. (Just tired of the partisan BS is all)
They are all a bunch of crooks. (Just tired of the partisan BS is all)
That too is awesome. Since I pretty much have stated the same thing repeatedly, you're preaching at the choir. Although out of the three major parties, I despise the LPoC the most.
No problem pegger, we all err from time to time. Your ability to admit it, makes you one of the good guys. Thanx.
I wonder how many of the 309 politicians in Ottawa really "subscribe" to the party they are running under. I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that 200 of them belong to the party they see as the best chance for personal sucess. Anyone care to fine tune that figure? :lol::lol::lol:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
There are only 308 members of the House of Commons.
I don't think so. That number has been constant for years.