What Emergency Act?

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,235
5,850
113
Olympus Mons
Whatever this (annual?) thing in Toronto today was….I’m assuming there was more police injuries, shootings, stabbings, assaults (civilians upon civilians as opposed to police upon civilians which doesn’t seem to count) and it’s still going on….than during the entire three weeks of the trucker convoy goat rodeo.


Will Justin/Jagmeet retreat to the Batcave (hidden under Rideau Cottage but Shhhh) and enact the Emergencies Act from under the bed (?) or only if this was to happen in Ottawa?
Good ol' Toronto, the Detroit of Canada. I remember when Toronto was actually a nice place. When I was a kid I wanted to live there when I grew up. Now, you couldn't give me a 6 figure income AND a free luxury home to live in Toronto. What a fucking pit.
 
  • Love
Reactions: taxme

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,212
9,592
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Things are looking rough for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when it comes to how the Emergencies Act inquiry might unfold.

The past month or so has brought out a number of clarifications about what exactly transpired during this winter’s freedom convoy and what went on behind the scenes before and during the controversial invoking of the Act. And many of them expose how a lot of what the federal Liberal government was leading people to believe was just outright falsehoods.
The Liberals insisted that they only brought in the Act after police requested it (my colleague Lorne Gunter found at least six examples of Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino making this claim). However, at committee the heads of both the Ottawa police and RCMP said they never made such a request.

Then there’s Justice Minister David Lametti’s claim that malicious foreigners were funding the convoy. But testimony revealed that no level of law enforcement ever told them this. Finance Canada even testified that the convoy was mostly supported by small donations from thousands of average Canadians.

There are also more inflammatory rumours that some federal politicians were happy to amplify — like claims that convoy participants tried to burn down a residential building. They’ve been mostly debunked by now.

But here’s the thing: All of these damning revelations have occurred prior to the inquiry even getting underway. There’s been some confusion about this but the headlines about news coming from hearings into the Act is actually from a House of Commons committee looking into the matter.

This is just the warm up. The main event hasn’t even begun. And yet the Liberal government’s arguments are already in tatters.

That’s quite something, because this first committee is arguably the one rigged in Trudeau’s favour. During some of the meetings, Liberal MPs on the committee have interjected to try to stop tough questions from being asked and have lobbed softball questions to testifying cabinet ministers. These partisan stunts will be much harder to pull off under Justice Paul Rouleau, the inquiry’s Commissioner.

Trudeau has already attempted to politically interfere in the inquiry by trying to frame the terms of reference — saying the purpose of the inquiry is to probe things like funding and supposed disinformation. The Liberals refuse to acknowledge that a large part — arguably the main part — is to probe their very decision to invoke the Act.

It doesn’t matter though. Because it’s not up to Trudeau to define the scope of the inquiry. It’s up to Justice Rouleau, who is surely aware of how the Parliamentary committee has already weakened the government’s arguments in advance of his work commencing.

Things are looking so rough right now that if this was a court case, Trudeau’s defence lawyer would be pushing for his client to seek a plea deal rather than risk the potential colossal humiliation of going to trial.

There really is no way that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will come out looking good in the final report. He will come across as a leader who had an authoritarian hissy fit because for the first time in his tenure he’d faced serious protests against his leadership and so lied about what was really happening to attempt to justify an extreme over-reaction. This type of democratic backsliding is not a good look for a G7 nation.

What will the real repercussions of this be though? Probably very little and the feds know it. Like when Trudeau was found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act (more than once), there’s very little punishment that comes with it. In fact, when the inquiry report eventually comes out, Trudeau might do what he often does when found at fault: try to flip it around and claim that it’s a teachable moment for everyone except him.

Will it work again? Is there a limit to the number of times Canadians will let themselves be duped? We shall see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,032
8,310
113
Washington DC
Things are looking rough for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when it comes to how the Emergencies Act inquiry might unfold.

The past month or so has brought out a number of clarifications about what exactly transpired during this winter’s freedom convoy and what went on behind the scenes before and during the controversial invoking of the Act. And many of them expose how a lot of what the federal Liberal government was leading people to believe was just outright falsehoods.
The Liberals insisted that they only brought in the Act after police requested it (my colleague Lorne Gunter found at least six examples of Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino making this claim). However, at committee the heads of both the Ottawa police and RCMP said they never made such a request.

Then there’s Justice Minister David Lametti’s claim that malicious foreigners were funding the convoy. But testimony revealed that no level of law enforcement ever told them this. Finance Canada even testified that the convoy was mostly supported by small donations from thousands of average Canadians.

There are also more inflammatory rumours that some federal politicians were happy to amplify — like claims that convoy participants tried to burn down a residential building. They’ve been mostly debunked by now.

But here’s the thing: All of these damning revelations have occurred prior to the inquiry even getting underway. There’s been some confusion about this but the headlines about news coming from hearings into the Act is actually from a House of Commons committee looking into the matter.

This is just the warm up. The main event hasn’t even begun. And yet the Liberal government’s arguments are already in tatters.

That’s quite something, because this first committee is arguably the one rigged in Trudeau’s favour. During some of the meetings, Liberal MPs on the committee have interjected to try to stop tough questions from being asked and have lobbed softball questions to testifying cabinet ministers. These partisan stunts will be much harder to pull off under Justice Paul Rouleau, the inquiry’s Commissioner.

Trudeau has already attempted to politically interfere in the inquiry by trying to frame the terms of reference — saying the purpose of the inquiry is to probe things like funding and supposed disinformation. The Liberals refuse to acknowledge that a large part — arguably the main part — is to probe their very decision to invoke the Act.

It doesn’t matter though. Because it’s not up to Trudeau to define the scope of the inquiry. It’s up to Justice Rouleau, who is surely aware of how the Parliamentary committee has already weakened the government’s arguments in advance of his work commencing.

Things are looking so rough right now that if this was a court case, Trudeau’s defence lawyer would be pushing for his client to seek a plea deal rather than risk the potential colossal humiliation of going to trial.

There really is no way that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will come out looking good in the final report. He will come across as a leader who had an authoritarian hissy fit because for the first time in his tenure he’d faced serious protests against his leadership and so lied about what was really happening to attempt to justify an extreme over-reaction. This type of democratic backsliding is not a good look for a G7 nation.

What will the real repercussions of this be though? Probably very little and the feds know it. Like when Trudeau was found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act (more than once), there’s very little punishment that comes with it. In fact, when the inquiry report eventually comes out, Trudeau might do what he often does when found at fault: try to flip it around and claim that it’s a teachable moment for everyone except him.

Will it work again? Is there a limit to the number of times Canadians will let themselves be duped? We shall see.
Do y'all have any means besides a no-confidence vote to go after True Dope? Anything equivalent to our impeachment process that could leave the Liberal Party intact, and just take out our boy Justin?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,212
9,592
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Do y'all have any means besides a no-confidence vote to go after True Dope? Anything equivalent to our impeachment process that could leave the Liberal Party intact, and just take out our boy Justin?
Honestly, off the top of my head, not that I’m aware of that will work. If there was the equivalent of impeachment in Canada, like due to multiple ethics violations, accepting money directly or indirectly for themselves or family members from those that wish to curry favour with the government, etc… then so far Justin has done all of that in the last six years plus a lot more…& here we are.

I think the answer is a big “Nope” & it all rests in the hands of Jagmeet Singh, & as long as he gets fed what he wants and needs (as opposed to the rest of Canada) then Justin Trudeau has a free reign to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of what the rest of the population wants or needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,235
5,850
113
Olympus Mons
Do y'all have any means besides a no-confidence vote to go after True Dope? Anything equivalent to our impeachment process that could leave the Liberal Party intact, and just take out our boy Justin?
Nope. Technically our system allows a person to be PM for life as long as enough people keep voting for them, and their party keeps them on as leader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich and taxme

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,032
8,310
113
Washington DC
Hmm. . . so basically it's up to the Liberal Party to vote in somebody else as leader, or the NDP to jump ship, or the people to vote out the Liberal/NDP coalition?

Damn, you're really screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,235
5,850
113
Olympus Mons
Honestly, off the top of my head, not that I’m aware of that will work. If there was the equivalent of impeachment in Canada, like due to multiple ethics violations, accepting money directly or indirectly for themselves or family members from those that wish to curry favour with the government, etc… then so far Justin has done all of that in the last six years plus a lot more…& here we are.

I think the answer is a big “Nope” & it all rests in the hands of Jagmeet Singh, & as long as he gets fed what he wants and needs (as opposed to the rest of Canada) then Justin Trudeau has a free reign to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of what the rest of the population wants or needs.
That's where I had an argument with someone elsewhere. He tried telling me that coalitions are a necessary part of a healthy democracy. I tend to agree when a coalition is formed to reign in a runaway majority govt. But when the voters have told you flat out that they only feel safe giving you a minority govt, it's an abuse of the system and an affront to the voters to form a coalition to basically give yourself a majority govt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,343
12,815
113
Low Earth Orbit

2. PARLIAMENTS AND MINISTRIES​

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

THE CONFIDENCE CONVENTION​

An essential feature of parliamentary government is that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are responsible to, or must answer to, the House of Commons as a body for their actions and must enjoy the support and the confidence of a majority of the Members of that Chamber to remain in office. This is commonly referred to as the confidence convention. This complex constitutional subject, a matter of tradition that is not written into any statute or Standing Order of the House, is thoroughly reviewed in other authorities more properly concerned with the subject. [4]

Simply stated, the convention provides that if the government is defeated in the House on a confidence question, then the government is expected to resign or seek the dissolution of Parliament in order for a general election to be held. This relationship between the executive and the House of Commons can ultimately decide the duration of each Parliament and of each Ministry. The confidence convention applies whether a government is formed by the party or the coalition of parties holding the majority of the seats in the House of Commons, or by one or more parties holding a minority of seats. Naturally, it is more likely that the government will fail to retain the confidence of the House when the government party or parties are in a minority situation.

What constitutes a question of confidence in the government varies with the circumstances. Confidence is not a matter of parliamentary procedure, nor is it something on which the Speaker can be asked to rule. [5] It is generally acknowledged, however, that confidence motions may be: [6]
  • explicitly worded motions which state, in express terms, that the House has, or has not, confidence in the government;
  • motions expressly declared by the government to be questions of confidence;
  • implicit motions of confidence, that is, motions traditionally deemed to be questions of confidence, such as motions for the granting of Supply (although not necessarily an individual item of Supply [7] ), motions concerning the budgetary policy of the government [8] and motions respecting the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

CONFIDENCE AND THE STANDING ORDERS​

When the Standing Orders respecting Supply were amended in 1968, it was specified that, in each of the three Supply periods, the opposition could designate not more than two of the motions proposed on allotted days as motions of non-confidence in the government. [9] This was the first time the notion of confidence found expression in the Standing Orders. This rule was modified provisionally in March 1975 to remove the no-confidence qualification; the motions would still be brought to a vote but the vote would not automatically be considered an expression of confidence in the government. [10]

The provisional Standing Orders lapsed at the beginning of the following session and the term “no-confidence” found its way back into the 1977 version of the Standing Orders. No further changes were made until June 1985, when the Standing Orders were again modified to remove the no-confidence provision with regard to Supply. [11]

Meanwhile, in 1984, a recommendation was made that a change be made in the manner of electing a Speaker. [12] This proposal found favour and a variant of it was adopted by the House in 1985. [13] One of these new rules still provides that the election of a Speaker shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the government
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,032
8,310
113
Washington DC
Why ya think BC is moving to decrim simple possession of all drugs? 🤔
Because the brainwave finally hit that outlawing possession did more damage than the drugs ever did?

You can't stop people from getting high, and you can't stop people from committing slow suicide (or fast). Most societies have tried, they've all failed.

That, gambling, and prostitution. . .
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,040
2,713
113
Toronto, ON
Do y'all have any means besides a no-confidence vote to go after True Dope? Anything equivalent to our impeachment process that could leave the Liberal Party intact, and just take out our boy Justin?
In theory I think the Governer General on behalf of the Queen could dissolve parliament. But non-confidence is the only one by mear mortals. Won't happen since NDP is in bed with Truedope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,343
12,815
113
Low Earth Orbit
Why ya think BC is moving to decrim simple possession of all drugs? 🤔
Because the brainwave finally hit that outlawing possession did more damage than the drugs ever did?

You can't stop people from getting high, and you can't stop people from committing slow suicide (or fast). Most societies have tried, they've all failed.

That, gambling, and prostitution. . .
Now where will the cops get their crack? Pay for it?
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
976
113
Good ol' Toronto, the Detroit of Canada. I remember when Toronto was actually a nice place. When I was a kid I wanted to live there when I grew up. Now, you couldn't give me a 6 figure income AND a free luxury home to live in Toronto. What a fucking pit.

I could remember the good old days, in my younger years, when they use to call Toronto "Toronto the good". Now massive 3rd world immigration has turned Toronto into bad and a war zone where drug dealing gang bangers from Jamaica and other 3rd world countries now pretty much rule the roost. This is what multiculturalism and diversity is still doing and was all about. Destroy Toronto the good. The Marxist politicians of Canada have pretty much succeeded in their destruction of Toronto. (n)
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,235
5,850
113
Olympus Mons
Because the brainwave finally hit that outlawing possession did more damage than the drugs ever did?
Horseshit. All decrimming does is create a "golden time" for the manufacturers and high level dealers. When the previous Liberal govt decrimmed weed the growers and dealers LOVED it. They were really against the next Conservative govt's plan to re-criminalize it.

Now, if they have plans to use the money they save on the legal system to improve treatment and stay clean programs then yeah, there's real merit to the harm reduction argument as long as they follow through on those plans. And if we're also talking about much harsher penalties for being involved in the manufacturing and/or distribution of the shit, then I'm definitely on board.
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
976
113
Nope. Technically our system allows a person to be PM for life as long as enough people keep voting for them, and their party keeps them on as leader.

Just think that with all that the our dear Marxist leader in Ottawa is doing to us all now, and when he is finished with you, and me, and thee, it will be too late to give a phuk any longer. Now this guy wants digital ID or in other words, get ready for the mark of the beast or 666. You and me and thee can now be seen as always spreading mis, and dis, and piss information just because we dare to expose the truth and expose this WEF baboon in Ottawa and what he is all about. We may just be still alive when we all get to see the baboon in Ottawa become the PM for life in Canada. Hey, we never know, eh? :unsure:
 

taxme

Time Out
Feb 11, 2020
2,349
976
113
Horseshit. All decrimming does is create a "golden time" for the manufacturers and high level dealers. When the previous Liberal govt decrimmed weed the growers and dealers LOVED it. They were really against the next Conservative govt's plan to re-criminalize it.

Now, if they have plans to use the money they save on the legal system to improve treatment and stay clean programs then yeah, there's real merit to the harm reduction argument as long as they follow through on those plans. And if we're also talking about much harsher penalties for being involved in the manufacturing and/or distribution of the shit, then I'm definitely on board.

We only have governments today for one reason only. To create havoc, chaos and mayhem, and nothing more. They are being allowed to Keep kick we the peasants in the balls, to keep their power and control over them thru drugs. and get rich at the same time. What a deal, eh? I should probably have gotten into politics decades ago. I could be rich by now and sitting on some nice warm tropical island and not wasting my life on here. Aw well, I have pretty much phkd myself big time now. Call me stupid alright because I deserve it. :(