That's the horsetrading nature of politics. There are 4 Liberal MP's elected from Alberta in the last federal election. How many Albertans are honestly going to start voting Liberal federally for any reason? I suspect not many. Albertans by in large wrote off the Federal Liberals after NEP and the Federal Liberals wrote off Alberta as well. Oil can be $6000 a barrel with pipelines left, right and center and Alberta's economy booming like never before - but Albertans still won't vote in large numbers for the Federal Liberals. JT and Harper are similar in some ways: both received about 39.5% of the popular vote in their respective majority election win, after which both claimed a strong mandate from the people and both couldn't get a pipeline built.
I myself am against the very idea of ANY kind of "coalition" Government and those 3 ass clowns trying to seize power actually pissed off Canadians.Canadians get to vote and there is/was no fucking option/choice on the ballot of "I want an inept French Canadian Liberal/A French Quebecois Seperatist as well as a FILTHY fucking SOCIALIST on the ballot.....it was not a CHOICE.Go that route and next thing you go Canada's electoral system gets infected with Proportional Representation....best example is say the fucking wacked out fucked Green Party that gets say 10% of the vote so they get 10% of the seats in the House of Parliament with not a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning one of those seats via a count of votes.
We have about 180,000 people out of work in Alberta in the Oil & Gas sector over the last 4 years and it is not getting any better.Truth be told this is WORSE than when the NEP hit Alberta......and Trudeau does not give a flying fuck about it just like his POS father(may he rot in hell) though hopefully the UCP win the Provincial election and then stand up for Alberta with a couple of Constitutional challanges.....and better yet Trudeau gets tossed on his ass come the next Federal election and Canada in general will be better off.
Your feelings regarding coalitions doesn't change the fact that in a Westminster style Parliament, a coalition is permissible. Your assertion that a coalition option was not on the ballot also doesn't mean a coalition is not possible. Your feelings on public vote subsidies are irrelevant with respect to how a political party may or may not respond to losing those subsidies. Put another way; you not liking per vote subsidies doesn't in any way invalidate the option for political parties to form a coalition and bring down a minority government. For someone that claimed "facts" in your previous postings, you sure like talking about your feelings.
lol, yeah, cause that was a possibility in the first place, lol
If any and all form of public funding of political parties is/was the goal, why didn't Harper eliminate all public funding of federal political parties? Vote subsidies are merely one aspect of tax money funding political parties. Why not eliminate electoral expense reimbursement? The Lib/NDP/Bloc claimed removal of the per vote subsidy would financially ruin them; fair point on you to point out in fact it did not. However; those who claim the mantra of "my tax dollars shouldn't support political parties that I don't support" only focus on the per vote subsidy and never advocate for the elimination of all tax dollars supporting political parties. Case in point is electoral expense reimbursement. In fact; under the electoral expense reimbursement, technically the more a party spends the bigger the cheque they receive from the public coffers. You are correct that Chretien brought in the per vote subsidy, and you are correct that Harper got rid of them with his majority in 2011. What those who have a visceral dislike for the per vote subsidy never admit/understand that the per vote subsidy was brought in in combination with the elimination of corporate and union donations to political parties and the limiting of individual donations to political parties. Interestingly; those packages of reforms brought in by Chretien actually hurt the Liberals the most (as they historically received the most donations from corporate donations) and helped the Conservatives the most (as they received more in smaller individual donations). In any event; those who hated the per vote subsidies, appear to hate it because it was a Liberal idea/program. Saying nothing for the fact that it eliminated corporate/union donations to political parties. The whole "my tax dollars shouldn't fund political parties that I don't support" argument is merely a Conservative talking point about the per vote subsidy; many repeat it without actually having a wholesome understanding of why it was brought it, what it replaced and how it affected each of the political parties.
Last year I spent approx. $4500 at Costco. However; Costco bought $0 from me. Am I losing a war with Costco? Should I spend $0 at Costco to balance my trade with Costco? If I did this, would I be winning this war with Costco?
Rather than speculating on what would happen if Scheer was as much of a sanctimonious hypocrite as Trudeau, maybe you can explain why the Libs shut down the Justice Committee hearings, why Trudeau will not waive Cabinet privilege for Wilson-Raybould for anything subsequent to her resignation, why he will not waive cabinet privilege so Philpott can speak and how exactly SNC Lavalin in any way qualifies for a deferred prosecution? Read the legislation and case law. If you still think that SNC meets the standard for a deferred prosecution and that Wilson-Raybould was wrong not to interfere with Roussel’s decision I’d love to hear your argument.
Obviously the Liberals don't want JWR to testify at Committee any more. Same goes for your questions on waiving Cabinet confidentiality; as well as, Cabinet confidentiality is almost never waived (that goes for Cabinets of all political stripes). And there is literally no Canadian case law on DPA's as the inclusion of DPA's into the Criminal Code literally happened in September 2018. More importantly; if there was a previous Canadian company entering into a DPA, there still would be no Canadian case law relating to DPA's. The whole point of a DPA is to avoid a court trial.
Why don’t they want her to testify? Isnt that the pertinent question? Cabinet confidentiality was waived so Wilson-Raybould could discuss what happened before her resignation. Why not after her resignation? The legislation I am referring to is the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. If you read that legislation, the court decisions under that legislation and the recent criminal code amendments made at the behest of SNC Lavalin, you might have a better understanding of the law.
Asking questions to which you will never get a satisfactory answer, in my opinion, is irrelevant. A Parliamentary Committee is in effect a master of their own domain, a motion is voted on, constantly asking "why" simply because one doesn't like how the Committee voted doesn't really matter. Why Cabinet or PMO waived confidentiality for a certain period of time and not another, again, is not relevant. As much as I or you may not like it, the fact is, it is their confidentiality and thus theirs to waive or not waive. It is not mine or your confidentiality to waive. As it relates to COFPA, there is if memory serves, less than 10 times a Canadian company has ever been charged under the Act. And all of them have occurred prior to DPA coming into effect. Therefore, nothing in Canadian COFPA case law can relate to whether a DPA would be permissible in the SNC matter.
Really? And the law under which they were charged, the purposes behind that law and judicial decisions on when there should be leniency under certain circumstances and when no leniency should be granted, have no bearing on whether or not a DPA is appropriate?
COFPA, if I recall was either an OECD or WTO requirement. Perhaps you're not fully clear on what COFPA is. Here's one of the biggest legal issues, in my opinion, with COFPA. Let's use SNC as an example; SNC officials bribe Libyan government officials to get some big Libyan construction contract - who is the victim? Who was harmed? And how is that victim and how is that harm going to be rectified by a trial, which will take years, which will cost the Canadian system time/money? The employee(s) of SNC that did the actual bribing have been terminated, if I recall. So what's the likely outcome of a trial? If found guilty SNC will be fined, and the criminal conviction means no federal government contracts for 10 years (which contrary to the Liberals, will not bankrupt the company). Now that's fine and dandy; but after all that time and expense of a trial exactly what harm has been rectified and what victim has been made whole?
So in order to do business, they bribed a dictator or two, who happened to slaughter who ever displeased him. No one was ever harmed in the making of this movie? OECD WTA requiement? Partially at most. The US was the first western nation to implement COFPA type legislation and pressured every other western nation to adopt it in order to level the playing field. And are you surprised it was a Quebec company that just couldn’t understand that bribery is bad? How unusual for La Belle Province.
How is anything you said relevant? The bribe did not lead to Gaddafi being a a brutal dictator - he was always a brutal dictator. Stop with the morality virtual signaling. My goodness; if you don't want Canadians doing business in countries with brutal dictatorships, just say that, at least that's an intellectually honest position. Trying to bring into the no doubt thousands of people Gaddafi slaughtered as justification for COFPA charge against SNC is a big stretch. On top of that you spew your clear visceral anti-Quebec bias, unreal. COFPOA is basically a "feel good" law brought in by western countries to supposedly "protect" 3rd world and developing countries from big bad western companies from corrupting them with our bribes - it assumes they are pure and must be protected from our unethical practices, saying nothing about the "what if they are already corrupt" scenario.
If you are disgusted with JT's virtue signaling: why virtue signal yourself? If you don't like SNC because it's a Quebec company or they have ties to Liberals or whatever, then say that. But to tie SNC to Gadaffi to try and make a morality argument is nothing but pure virtue signaling (i.e. "My position is correct because Gadaffi is bad"). You obviously don't like Liberals; and it would appear that your bias makes you want to believe that Liberals must have done something wrong in this whole SNC affair, because it confirms your bias - people generally want their biases confirmed, go figure! Here's the only thing, in my opinion, that really matters. SNC will eventually go to trial and probably found guilty, they will pay a fine and they will survive. We will have an election, and if this whole "to DPA or not to DPA" actually matters to voters, we will soon find out.
I am going to remember the PM’s actions as opposed to his brand and will vote acccordingly.
