-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Canada PoliERA |OT| Two Years of Sunny Days? That’s Scheer Madness!
- Thread starter Caz
- Start date
- Status
More like what was Trudeau thinking putting her in charge of that portfolio without doing that research first?
I mean, no one can actually say that she was a good Justice Minister, and I've actually held that opinion even before she was shuffled and kicked off of cabinet so...
At the same time, that really has no bearing to the current situation at hand, but it again lends to the narrative that people are trying to craft around her.
Probably that he wanted an indigenous person with a legal background to head up the Justice portfolio so they can get a leg up on reconciliation issues.
But the Justice portfolio is a large portfolio with other responsibilities too... At the same time, the Liberal bench at the time didn't have a lot of seasoned veterans that could've handled Justice, so JWR was probably the most reasonable pick.
At the same time, that really has no bearing to the current situation at hand, but it again lends to the narrative that people are trying to craft around her.
Probably that he wanted an indigenous person with a legal background to head up the Justice portfolio so they can get a leg up on reconciliation issues.
But the Justice portfolio is a large portfolio with other responsibilities too... At the same time, the Liberal bench at the time didn't have a lot of seasoned veterans that could've handled Justice, so JWR was probably the most reasonable pick.
The thing is, JWR and Joyal aren't even wrong about the Courts spinning s. 7 any way they want. It's just what most people don't complain because it leads to what is seen as "social progress".
But don't blame the Courts, blame the drafters.
A model of substance and clarity!
But don't blame the Courts, blame the drafters.
A model of substance and clarity!
In fact, it was likely kept that vague in order to be more broadly interpreted in the future. In the 1980s it was already obvious that the US constitution's major flaw was that it could not adapt to social and technological changes. Allowing modern interpretations and visions of justice to influence the way the Charter is read is a feature, not a flaw.
Yep. The Supreme Court routinely revises and/or strikes down existing laws as times change as well.
By its very nature, our Supreme Court is an activist court.
Sure, but it leads to 9 people deciding what that mumbo jumbo entails. Thank the gods it's so difficult to find real conservative judges in this country. The SCOTUS would have a field day with a provision like that.
This here is also a piece of the puzzle as to maybe 1. Why she was shuffled, 2. Why the PMO got (IMO stupidly) insistent on talking it out with her in regards to Defered Prosecution and 3. Why she ordered her office not to let anyone outside of it see the requested report on the impact a criminal prosecution of SNC would have on jobs.
She didn't agree with the government position on it so she just refused to support it or answer questions on it. And it happened more then once with different bills her department passed.
JWR snubs Senate committee on corporate corruption bill
Former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould angered senators by refusing to give testimony on a change to the Criminal Code that is now at the centre of allegations that she was improperly pressured to help SNC-Lavalin avoid criminal prosecution.
The Criminal Code amendment was stuffed into an omnibus budget implementation bill last year and got little scrutiny from MPs on the House of Commons finance committee.
But when it got to the Senate, the upper chamber's legal and constitutional affairs committee was tasked with scrutinizing the provision, which allows prosecutors to negotiate remediation agreements, a kind of plea bargain, in cases of corporate corruption.
The committee held extensive hearings last May and heard from an array of expert witnesses, including Justice Department officials, who suggested that some questions were best put to the minister of justice. The committee invited Wilson-Raybould but she did not show up. In her stead, the government sent her parliamentary secretary, Liberal MP Marco Mendicino, and Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough.
"It's very unusual to study a bill, especially in the criminal domain, and to not have the minister responsible appear before the committee," Conservative Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu observed at the time. "I would like to know why the minister of justice is not here herself."
Qualtrough said it was her "understanding" that Wilson-Raybould "wasn't available." Qualtrough, who is responsible for the government's broader corporate-integrity agenda, acknowledged that she was "not technically, obviously, representing Justice," but nevertheless "felt myself capable to offer you some perspectives on our government's position on these matters."
Senators on the committee were sufficiently miffed by Wilson-Raybould's no-show to make an "observation" about it in their final report: "The committee notes it did not have the opportunity to hear the testimony of the minister of justice on the proposed amendments that are under her ministerial mandate, although she was invited to appear."
Independent Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal, the chair of the committee, said in an interview that he actually spoke to the government's representative in the Senate, Peter Harder, to see if he could persuade Wilson-Raybould to appear at the committee — to no avail.
"The members were rather frustrated by that," he said.
Joyal said the recent controversy over Wilson-Raybould's role in the SNC-Lavalin case puts her refusal to testify in a different perspective.
"Now, of course, in retrospect ... I can understand that she might not have been at ease with the overall issue of remediation agreements and didn't want to submit herself to questions in relation to that."
Wilson-Raybould, who was demoted to the veterans-affairs post in January, resigned altogether from cabinet on Tuesday. That followed an anonymously-sourced newspaper article that alleged she was improperly pressured by the Prime Minister's Office last fall to instruct the director of public prosecutions to negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin rather than pursue a criminal prosecution that could cripple the company.
The Montreal engineering giant has been charged with corruption and bribery in relation to government contracts in Libya; if found guilty it would be barred from bidding on government contracts in Canada for 10 years.
She has thus far refused to comment on the allegation, citing solicitor-client privilege. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has denied there was any undue pressure and insists he specifically told Wilson-Raybould the decision whether to prosecute was hers alone as attorney general.
The budget bill was not the only time Wilson-Raybould snubbed the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee. Throughout last fall, the committee tried repeatedly to get her to testify on the government's access-to-information reforms — specifically on a provision that would require judges to publicly disclose their expenses, which some senators fear could undermine judicial independence.
Joyal said Wilson-Raybould "systematically" refused repeated invitations to testify, even though the committee offered to be flexible on the timing to accommodate the minister's schedule. The only response it received was that the minister was unavailable, he said.
"We're having a great deal of difficulty scheduling the minister's appearance before our committee," Boisvenu remarked during an Oct. 3 committee meeting. "It's a habit of hers."
Unlike the budget bill, on which the committee was under pressure to report by a specific deadline, Joyal said he warned Harder that in the case of the access-to-information bill, the committee would sit on the legislation until it heard from Wilson-Raybould. "No minister, no bill."
Indeed, he said the committee was on the point of passing a motion to that effect when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled out of the justice portfolio in January. Within two weeks, he said, her successor David Lametti agreed to testify. He is now scheduled to appear on Thursday.
Wilson-Raybould has appeared before the Senate on other bills, notably those on medical assistance in dying and legalization of cannabis. But her selective approach to which bills she chose to defend publicly raises potential questions about cabinet solidarity.
Joyal, who served as a minister in the cabinets of Pierre Trudeau and John Turner, said disagreements are common around the cabinet table. But once a consensus decision is made, every minister is required to stand by it, whether or not he or she personally agrees with it.
In the case of a minister who personally disagrees with a bill that falls under his or her responsibility, Joyal said: "If the decision of the government is to proceed with the bill, you have no choice than to stand by the bill. And if you don't want to stand by the bill, well, the option is to resign from the portfolio. It's quite clear."
The Criminal Code amendment was stuffed into an omnibus budget implementation bill last year and got little scrutiny from MPs on the House of Commons finance committee.
But when it got to the Senate, the upper chamber's legal and constitutional affairs committee was tasked with scrutinizing the provision, which allows prosecutors to negotiate remediation agreements, a kind of plea bargain, in cases of corporate corruption.
The committee held extensive hearings last May and heard from an array of expert witnesses, including Justice Department officials, who suggested that some questions were best put to the minister of justice. The committee invited Wilson-Raybould but she did not show up. In her stead, the government sent her parliamentary secretary, Liberal MP Marco Mendicino, and Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough.
"It's very unusual to study a bill, especially in the criminal domain, and to not have the minister responsible appear before the committee," Conservative Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu observed at the time. "I would like to know why the minister of justice is not here herself."
Qualtrough said it was her "understanding" that Wilson-Raybould "wasn't available." Qualtrough, who is responsible for the government's broader corporate-integrity agenda, acknowledged that she was "not technically, obviously, representing Justice," but nevertheless "felt myself capable to offer you some perspectives on our government's position on these matters."
Senators on the committee were sufficiently miffed by Wilson-Raybould's no-show to make an "observation" about it in their final report: "The committee notes it did not have the opportunity to hear the testimony of the minister of justice on the proposed amendments that are under her ministerial mandate, although she was invited to appear."
Independent Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal, the chair of the committee, said in an interview that he actually spoke to the government's representative in the Senate, Peter Harder, to see if he could persuade Wilson-Raybould to appear at the committee — to no avail.
"The members were rather frustrated by that," he said.
Joyal said the recent controversy over Wilson-Raybould's role in the SNC-Lavalin case puts her refusal to testify in a different perspective.
"Now, of course, in retrospect ... I can understand that she might not have been at ease with the overall issue of remediation agreements and didn't want to submit herself to questions in relation to that."
Wilson-Raybould, who was demoted to the veterans-affairs post in January, resigned altogether from cabinet on Tuesday. That followed an anonymously-sourced newspaper article that alleged she was improperly pressured by the Prime Minister's Office last fall to instruct the director of public prosecutions to negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin rather than pursue a criminal prosecution that could cripple the company.
The Montreal engineering giant has been charged with corruption and bribery in relation to government contracts in Libya; if found guilty it would be barred from bidding on government contracts in Canada for 10 years.
She has thus far refused to comment on the allegation, citing solicitor-client privilege. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has denied there was any undue pressure and insists he specifically told Wilson-Raybould the decision whether to prosecute was hers alone as attorney general.
The budget bill was not the only time Wilson-Raybould snubbed the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee. Throughout last fall, the committee tried repeatedly to get her to testify on the government's access-to-information reforms — specifically on a provision that would require judges to publicly disclose their expenses, which some senators fear could undermine judicial independence.
Joyal said Wilson-Raybould "systematically" refused repeated invitations to testify, even though the committee offered to be flexible on the timing to accommodate the minister's schedule. The only response it received was that the minister was unavailable, he said.
"We're having a great deal of difficulty scheduling the minister's appearance before our committee," Boisvenu remarked during an Oct. 3 committee meeting. "It's a habit of hers."
Unlike the budget bill, on which the committee was under pressure to report by a specific deadline, Joyal said he warned Harder that in the case of the access-to-information bill, the committee would sit on the legislation until it heard from Wilson-Raybould. "No minister, no bill."
Indeed, he said the committee was on the point of passing a motion to that effect when Wilson-Raybould was shuffled out of the justice portfolio in January. Within two weeks, he said, her successor David Lametti agreed to testify. He is now scheduled to appear on Thursday.
Wilson-Raybould has appeared before the Senate on other bills, notably those on medical assistance in dying and legalization of cannabis. But her selective approach to which bills she chose to defend publicly raises potential questions about cabinet solidarity.
Joyal, who served as a minister in the cabinets of Pierre Trudeau and John Turner, said disagreements are common around the cabinet table. But once a consensus decision is made, every minister is required to stand by it, whether or not he or she personally agrees with it.
In the case of a minister who personally disagrees with a bill that falls under his or her responsibility, Joyal said: "If the decision of the government is to proceed with the bill, you have no choice than to stand by the bill. And if you don't want to stand by the bill, well, the option is to resign from the portfolio. It's quite clear."
Now with the convention that if you refuse to support/defend a bill your government has tasked you with defending as it is your ministry, you should resign, I'm not sure works for an truly independent parliament. But it's also hard not to see how it would put you in bad standing with the higher ups and your cabinet co-workers.
She did refuse a post in Indigenous Services on principal with regard to having to enforce the Indian Act, which seems to be in the same vein of resigning, but less extreme of course.
The writing on the wall for her shuffle was there for a while, but I don't like the PMO's pushy conduct with regards to her decision.
It also seems like they would have left her in the position until the election but then they had an excuse with Brison leaving.
Last edited:
Like I said, JWR is nothing but a grandstander and a blowhard ready to sell out for Conservatives
The JWR affair had layers upon layers, which is why the hot takes on the internet and other news outlets were so dangerous.
So The UCP is planning to go back to the past in terms of education policy besides the consent part for sex education.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ing-class-size-testing-standardized-1.5070660
And kenney is also trying to stoke the flames of alberta separtism at the moment.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ing-class-size-testing-standardized-1.5070660
And kenney is also trying to stoke the flames of alberta separtism at the moment.
Last edited:
Instead of owning the L that defines being a Liberal, they're going to drag this out until the election by trying to insist they've done nothing wrong.
Meanwhile asshole Conservatives capitalizing on their abuse of human rights and Charter freedoms because Khadr is in the news and I keep forgetting how shit they are. At least Trudeau made the right call in that case.
Meanwhile asshole Conservatives capitalizing on their abuse of human rights and Charter freedoms because Khadr is in the news and I keep forgetting how shit they are. At least Trudeau made the right call in that case.
Notley has a fair chance of winning the next election. The UCP knows this, which is why they're trying to shore up the FCP votes and the easily galvanized/outraged to bring them over the top.
Speaking of Quebec: Indigenous, LGBTQ people disproportionately homeless, Quebec survey finds
Immigrants, Indigenous people and members of the LGBTQ community are disproportionately represented among Quebec's homeless population, according to the first-ever provincewide survey into the problem.
Overall, the survey, conducted by Quebec's Ministry of Health and Social Services, found 5,789 people were "visibly" homeless on the day the census was conducted, last April 24.
...
In the latest survey, 72 per cent of those surveyed across Quebec were men, 26 per cent were women and two per cent identified as "other."
Indigenous peoples, especially Inuit, as well as immigrants, refugees and those who identified as LGBTQ, were over-represented, compared to the rest of the population.
When asked about the reason for their current situation, 27 per cent of the time the explanation given was addiction.
In 17 per cent of cases, respondents said they were unable to pay their rent or mortgage.
Conflict with a spouse, parent or other person was also a frequent response.
Just popping in to say Jason Kenney is a steaming pile of dog shit, and he can fuck off to hell forever.
Okay byeeeeeeeeeee~
Okay byeeeeeeeeeee~
Because it's just one more thing to keep his base riled up.
Yes, he requires his base to actually show up to vote for him. Like Trump, he just needs a dependable base to show up at the polls to win regardless of whether he actually wins the popular vote.
Mainstreet Ontario: 34/27/26 OPC/ONDP/OLP
Every time I laugh at Americans with Trump I get sent back to reality cus of Ford
Scheer is at 36% nationally as well
its clear the Right Wing is too goddam OP in this country under FPTP
My only issue with JT was him scrapping ER.
I wanted STV or ranked or whatever it was that gave LPC the edge but at this point I'd take PR and live with a perpetual Lib/NDP/Green coalition.
My only ideology is ABC now
Every time I laugh at Americans with Trump I get sent back to reality cus of Ford
Scheer is at 36% nationally as well
its clear the Right Wing is too goddam OP in this country under FPTP
My only issue with JT was him scrapping ER.
I wanted STV or ranked or whatever it was that gave LPC the edge but at this point I'd take PR and live with a perpetual Lib/NDP/Green coalition.
My only ideology is ABC now
At this point, the Philpott-Wilson-Raybould end game is obvious — destroy Trudeau: Neil Macdonald
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-philpott-wilson-raybould-end-game-1.5070419
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-philpott-wilson-raybould-end-game-1.5070419
Liberals need to just boot them out and do their best to change the story if they want to win. Bank on the goldfish memories of voters.
It's not a sure bet but it's a looooot better than repeatedly kicking themselves in the nuts with their schemes. JWR ain't gonna end it on her own.
If I'm them, this is the best option of all bad ones. Political realities aren't great.
It's not a sure bet but it's a looooot better than repeatedly kicking themselves in the nuts with their schemes. JWR ain't gonna end it on her own.
If I'm them, this is the best option of all bad ones. Political realities aren't great.
I would be absolutely shocked if Notley wins, the only reason she was elected in the first place was because the conservatives split the vote and were coming off some terrible controversies. Her track record on employment (though not entirely here fault) has been terrible since she was elected and its only getting worse.
The lack of pipeline capacity, corporate tax increases, and the carbon tax has basically killed any business investment in the energy industry here. That investment is all going south.
When Albertans vote, most of them aren't going to vote based on LGBT rights but on what they feel gives them the best chance of improving their job prospects.
The FCP only has a representative in 25% of the constituencies, I don't think they are a real threat to steal votes, so I'm not sure what the UCP are trying to do here other than push a bunch of potential voters to the Alberta Party who share similar fiscal and economic polices with the UCP but seem to be distancing themselves from the controversies.
Legault's center-right ideology at work:
https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2019/03...-insinuations-de-racisme-visant-les-quebecois
Google TL FR->EN link: https://translate.google.ca/transla...-insinuations-de-racisme-visant-les-quebecois
"I'm sick to be called what I am, so I'm just going to pass a law so I have the right to arrest/penalize you for having said what I am!"
https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2019/03...-insinuations-de-racisme-visant-les-quebecois
Google TL FR->EN link: https://translate.google.ca/transla...-insinuations-de-racisme-visant-les-quebecois
"I'm sick to be called what I am, so I'm just going to pass a law so I have the right to arrest/penalize you for having said what I am!"
Is he going to replace subways with highways?
I'm surprised gutter hasn't called Erksine-Smith a traitor yet.
Monorail.
Monorail.
Well the UCP is nailing the controversy front with how many horrible candidates they've fielded.
Everyone gets a Folks Mobile.
We have our next epic rap battle contenders.
C'est encore plus déprimant que le nouveau sondage Argus le montre comme le PM le plus populaire.
Makes no sense, no sense at all
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...FWGCoxKbl4e3317Yr6Jio5VOGpERocYrJwJ5upd7JlFjk
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...FWGCoxKbl4e3317Yr6Jio5VOGpERocYrJwJ5upd7JlFjk
I will take a wild guess that at least one of them will end up crossing the floor... how close to the election that happens remains to be seen.
Because it doesn't make sense at all. That's how Ford is running the province.
- Status