Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:05 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,875
I agree with you. And if I was from Alberta, I’d be doubly annoyed. As it is, I feel pipelines are necessary and critical infrastructure. By all means, consultations are needed. But when these have been reasonably done, sometimes one needs to build even if not all stakeholders are fully satisfied — there needs to be a satisficing solution.

With regard to JWR (and I apologize for my mistyping above), I think corporate governance in Canada is often weak. When the US passed the FCPA in 1978, which seems like a good law, Canada and many countries were slow to come on board. After the 2007 market crash there was finally an impetus to add teeth to laws in many countries, and Canada’s law passed under Harper in 2011 seems tough but reasonable.

SNC would certainly have been aware of this law. I’m not in a position to judge how fair a ten year exemption from bidding is — this seems to require a high level of corruption. There is a difference between local “payments” to facilitate things and executives getting rich at the expense of stakeholders. I have read this distinction exists in the American law, and Northern Piper would be in a better position than I to understand to what extent this is true.

JWR seems very principled and did her job, as she was required to do. The job also has a political component which makes it almost untenable and the AG and Justice Minister should be separate positions in my view. Clearly she faced blowback for doing what she was required to do. Since it made no difference to the outcome, the optics are bad (but might be the way business in Ottawa is often done, by any party, even if this is far from ideal). But it doesn’t really compare to Nixon’s crimes, and I believe the media is making too much of it. I think anti corruption laws should be stronger, but differentiate between degrees (and they probably do??).
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 03-02-2019 at 02:07 PM.
  #152  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:29 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,875
Despite reading all the major papers, none of the many stories on this issue discuss the laws in detail. I often wish the news provided much more analysis and much less (often partisan) opinion.

Spending $2m on Qaddaffiís relative was stupid and was presumably illegal. When Conrad Black says ďcompanies donít break the law, people doĒ, I donít think I really agree with him. But he is right when he says the current executives did not do this. Anti corruption laws are needed, but need to make distinctions between levels of wrongdoing. Do they, in Canada? I have no idea. And the reporters should cover this aspect more.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #153  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:44 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
I agree with you. And if I was from Alberta, Iíd be doubly annoyed. As it is, I feel pipelines are necessary and critical infrastructure. By all means, consultations are needed. But when these have been reasonably done, sometimes one needs to build even if not all stakeholders are fully satisfied ó there needs to be a satisficing solution.
Albertans are not just 'double annoyed' - they're enraged. Alberta has given Quebec billions of dollars per year in equalization payments - payments only made possible by oil revenues. Then Quebec repays us by refusing to allow the oil they depend on from even going through their province to market. So Alberta loses over 100,000 jobs, and Trudeau does nothing about it. But when a Quebec company gets in trouble for bribing dictators, suddenly Trudeau is willing to break the law and risk his entire government to protect them and save 9,000 Quebec jobs.

There is not a lot of talk about separation right now - certainly not as much as when Trudeau's dad was in power. But if I were Quebec, I'd be really worried about losing those transfer payments, because I think Albertans are very close to saying, "No pipelines? Well then, no money for you, Quebec." And that sentiment is held by what is likely going to be our next Alberta government.

This year Alberta taxpayers will send $3 billion dollars to Quebec, while having a multi-billion dollar deficit of our own. That's almost $2,000 per household. We give it to Quebec so they can pay for more expansive social programs in their province than we can afford. It's a crazy situation.
  #154  
Old 03-02-2019, 03:10 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Albertans are not just 'double annoyed' - they're enraged. Alberta has given Quebec billions of dollars per year in equalization payments - payments only made possible by oil revenues. Then Quebec repays us by refusing to allow the oil they depend on from even going through their province to market. So Alberta loses over 100,000 jobs, and Trudeau does nothing about it. But when a Quebec company gets in trouble for bribing dictators, suddenly Trudeau is willing to break the law and risk his entire government to protect them and save 9,000 Quebec jobs.

There is not a lot of talk about separation right now - certainly not as much as when Trudeau's dad was in power. But if I were Quebec, I'd be really worried about losing those transfer payments, because I think Albertans are very close to saying, "No pipelines? Well then, no money for you, Quebec." And that sentiment is held by what is likely going to be our next Alberta government.

This year Alberta taxpayers will send $3 billion dollars to Quebec, while having a multi-billion dollar deficit of our own. That's almost $2,000 per household. We give it to Quebec so they can pay for more expansive social programs in their province than we can afford. It's a crazy situation.
Jesus, one does get tired of the whining and crying from Alberta. It would not be so bad, but the spouting of talking points that are inaccurate at best does tend to grate.

"oh, the terrible job losses. Alberta ended 2018 with 21,600 more jobs than in 2017. Most of these in the private sector. But lets not talk about that - better to whine about the past, rather than focus on what is happening NOW.

Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax like EVERY other province. Such a tax, same as every other province, would eliminate Alberta's deficit. But let's not talk about that, because Albertans don't like taxes - they just want stuff, but don't want to pay for it.

And the BS about Alberta "sending money to Quebec" is simplified propaganda at best. Alberta does not cut a cheque and send it to Quebec. This is what simpletons in the bars of Calgary believe. It is just a tad more complex. But makes a nice talking point for the drunk guys at the Ranchman's on Macleod Trail. Quebec gets equalization payments from the FEDERAL government, while Alberta get's none.
This year, Alberta taxpayers will NOT "send money to Quebec". This is a ridiculous oversimplification.

The main whiners I hear about from Alberta are those who listen to the propaganda, and repeat it without even understanding the basics of what they are talking about.

Also whining from undereducated entitled lazy folks, who were laid off from their oil patch jobs where they were paid $30/hour to flip burgers at a camp, or $40/hour to change the toilet soaps in the urinals. Now that they have to find a real job, they are PISSED that they are not paid this much for low-level labour jobs. Idiots.
  #155  
Old 03-02-2019, 06:02 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Jesus, one does get tired of the whining and crying from Alberta. It would not be so bad, but the spouting of talking points that are inaccurate at best does tend to grate.

"oh, the terrible job losses. Alberta ended 2018 with 21,600 more jobs than in 2017. Most of these in the private sector. But lets not talk about that - better to whine about the past, rather than focus on what is happening NOW.
Wow. You go on about 'inaccurate talking points', then quote job gains in 2018, when we both know that the job losses came before that. In 2014, Alberta's unemployment rate was 4.7%. By 2016 it had jumped to 8.1%, while the unemployment rate in Canada overall was just over 6%. That's an almost doubling of the unemployment rate in two years. At the end of 2018 it was still 6.8%, and that's AFTER a huge number of eastern oil patch workers went home and removed themselves from the statistics.

Quote:
Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax like EVERY other province. Such a tax, same as every other province, would eliminate Alberta's deficit. But let's not talk about that, because Albertans don't like taxes - they just want stuff, but don't want to pay for it.
Are you kidding me? Shall we compare Alberta's borrow-and-spend over the years to Quebec's, or Ontario's? Because borrowing money for things you want is the very definition of wanting things you can't pay for. Alberta ran surpluses from 1994 until 2007, and had essentially no debt at all. Then we started electing big-spending governments, and ran ourself into a net debt by 2015. Then we doubled down and elected a left-wing government, which proceeded to spend us into oblivion and we now have a debt of about 40 billion dollars.

But shall we compare that to Ontario? Or Quebec? Ontario's debt is now over 300 billion freaking dollars. Quebec is 273 billion in debt, despite getting billions of dollars per year from transfer payments. Per capita, that's over $60,000, or about five times what Alberta's debt is. Talk about living beyond your means!

Quote:
And the BS about Alberta "sending money to Quebec" is simplified propaganda at best. Alberta does not cut a cheque and send it to Quebec. This is what simpletons in the bars of Calgary believe.
No, it's just that people like you want everyone to think that the other side is full of simpletons. Everyone is aware that there are transfers into and out of the provinces, and that the equalization system is administered by the federal government.

Quote:
It is just a tad more complex. But makes a nice talking point for the drunk guys at the Ranchman's on Macleod Trail.
Attitudes like yours are why Albertans are getting sick and tired. You have to caricature us as a bunch of drunk hicks in CAT hats getting drunk in a bar. Reasonable people can argue over these things without constantly calling the other side names and stereotyping them. Try it sometime.

Quote:
Quebec gets equalization payments from the FEDERAL government, while Alberta get's none.
This year, Alberta taxpayers will NOT "send money to Quebec". This is a ridiculous oversimplification.
The net effect is the same, and you know it. Last year, six provinces got about $19 billion dollars in equalization payments from the federal government. Of that, about $11 billion went to Quebec. Unless you think this money grows on trees, it came from the 'have' provinces. Not in the form of a direct check, but in the form of higher federal taxes. So everyone gets taxed to pay for the 19 billion in equalization payments, but several 'have' provinces do not get those payments. This means there is a direct wealth transfer going on between 'have' and 'have not' provinces, and Quebec gets the bulk of it. Jesus, that's the whole POINT to the program - to move money from wealthy provinces to poor provinces. It's not about whether there was literally a check cut by the Alberta government to Quebec. Nice attempt at deflection mixed with condescension, though.

Quote:
The main whiners I hear about from Alberta are those who listen to the propaganda, and repeat it without even understanding the basics of what they are talking about.
Then argue with THEM when they come along. In the meantime, you are trying to shuck and jive around the fact that BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador are collectively 19 billion poorer this year so that the other provinces can be 19 billion richer. Alberta's share of that going to Quebec alone will be 3 billion dollars this year, as I said. In 2017, Quebec's unemployment rate was 6%. Alberta's was 7.8%

Quote:
Also whining from undereducated entitled lazy folks, who were laid off from their oil patch jobs where they were paid $30/hour to flip burgers at a camp, or $40/hour to change the toilet soaps in the urinals. Now that they have to find a real job, they are PISSED that they are not paid this much for low-level labour jobs. Idiots.
Your posts just drip with hatred. And you have no idea what you're talking about. My family contains oil patch workers. Or did. The high paying jobs weren't going to burger flippers, but to journeyman professionals working long hours in horrible conditions. To the extent that a burget flipper might get paid $20/hr in Grand Prairie, that's because the cost of living in Grand Prairie during the oil boom was insane.

My brother was a mechanical insulator working on refineries and other outdoor facilities in the winter north of Grand Prairie, until the jobs went away. You try it. Oh, and he had to pay $1000/mo for 1/4 of a baseement suite he had to share with three other workers. He got paid a good salary, but very few people are willing to put up with the things he and his co-workers had to put up with. For instance, working ten days on, 12 hours per day, outdoors, then getting four days off. That's a hard life.

That's what you call a 'low level labour job'. Again, why don't you try it? Let's see how long you can last. Or instead, you could try having a bit of sympathy for the kind of workers the left claims to care about.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 03-02-2019 at 06:03 PM.
  #156  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:06 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,684
More incessant whining from people who think they are born smart because of oil under the ground where they lived.

More complete babble from those who think that Alberta or Canadian politicians are somehow responsible for the world price of oil.

Spare me your whining and your ignorance.

Focus your anger on the 40 years of conservative governments that sucked Alberta dry and gave it to the multinational oil corporations.

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 03-02-2019 at 08:07 PM.
  #157  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:16 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,117
So you got nuthin' but ad hominem and hatred. Got it.
  #158  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:33 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,791

The Moderator Speaks


Both of you, lay off the cheap shots.

Trudeau. Yoga. Smiles. Stronger handshakes than Trump. Whatever. Get back on track.
  #159  
Old 03-04-2019, 12:37 AM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,104
...and a nattily bow-tied Pierre Burton, of course.
  #160  
Old 03-04-2019, 01:56 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
And the BS about Alberta "sending money to Quebec" is simplified propaganda at best. Alberta does not cut a cheque and send it to Quebec. This is what simpletons in the bars of Calgary believe. It is just a tad more complex. But makes a nice talking point for the drunk guys at the Ranchman's on Macleod Trail. Quebec gets equalization payments from the FEDERAL government, while Alberta get's none.
This year, Alberta taxpayers will NOT "send money to Quebec". This is a ridiculous oversimplification.
The oversimplification is clearly yours. Look, it's math; who exactly cuts the checks is the misdirection. If the government ships billions of dollars to six provinces and not the other four provinces, those other four provinces are out that money; that's where those tax dollars comes from. (Of course, a percentage of that money is actually borrowed and thus taken from future Canadians, but let's keep this conceptually manageable.) The effect of equalization payments is that the taxpayers of provinces like Alberta are out money, and the taxpayers of provinces like Quebec get the money. Hanging your hat on the fact that income tax is paid the Receiver General is silly; money is transferred from some provinces to other provinces. That's the entire point of the program.

Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter that we could have a pretty complex discussion on. It is, however, the case that the program takes money from some provinces and sends it to others.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #161  
Old 03-04-2019, 02:57 PM
bb49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 392
A woman must always be believed

Some believe Jody Wilson-Raybould.
More will believe Jane Philpott.
And even more will believe the next woman jumping from the sinking Titanic.
  #162  
Old 03-04-2019, 03:35 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
Maybe he just wasn't ready afterall?
  #163  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:08 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,399
He should drop the writ now, the situation is not going to go away and he may as well take his case to the people.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #164  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:12 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
He should drop the writ now, the situation is not going to go away and he may as well take his case to the people.
He can't do that with fixed election dates.
  #165  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:24 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
He can't do that with fixed election dates.
Ah, I thought he had to call an election by X, but could call earlier if he wanted.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #166  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:26 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
Ah, I thought he had to call an election by X, but could call earlier if he wanted.
I believe the only way an election can come earlier is if the sitting government loses a confidence vote.
  #167  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:34 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
It's your comments on Prime Minister Harper, who I believe is the best Prime Minister in my lifetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I agree.
That must be why "the best Prime Minister in [your] lifetime" lost the 2015 election in a landslide, had no choice but to step down as party leader, and later ignominiously slunk out of politics altogether.

As for his current successor, I note that Andrew Scheer recently demanded that Trudeau resign over the SNC Lavalin affair. I cite this as further evidence of my earlier statement that Scheer is a dumbass. This demand is not just absurd and nonsensical, it's the worst kind of political grandstanding, the kind that prompts laughter rather than being taken seriously. It's also politically very stupid. If this controversy continues to grow and more serious evidence emerges against Trudeau, what's Scheer going to say then? From a purely strategic perspective, he's already irresponsibly invoked the nuclear option, made himself look like an ass, and left himself no room for escalation.
  #168  
Old 03-04-2019, 05:05 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
That must be why "the best Prime Minister in [your] lifetime" lost the 2015 election in a landslide, had no choice but to step down as party leader, and later ignominiously slunk out of politics altogether.

As for his current successor, I note that Andrew Scheer recently demanded that Trudeau resign over the SNC Lavalin affair. I cite this as further evidence of my earlier statement that Scheer is a dumbass. This demand is not just absurd and nonsensical, it's the worst kind of political grandstanding, the kind that prompts laughter rather than being taken seriously. It's also politically very stupid. If this controversy continues to grow and more serious evidence emerges against Trudeau, what's Scheer going to say then? From a purely strategic perspective, he's already irresponsibly invoked the nuclear option, made himself look like an ass, and left himself no room for escalation.
I'm sorry. None of this makes any sense to me. Scheer is political grandstanding because Trudeau interfered in judicial matters? No conservatives are laughing, sorry. And your continued name-calling is frankly immature and uncalled for.
  #169  
Old 03-04-2019, 05:33 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,857
What makes no sense? Describing Harper's ignominious exit from politics, or Scheer's ill-advised nonsensical demands? Notice that at the same time that Scheer was comically demanding Trudeau's resignation, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh stated that (quote from CITY TV) "Wilson-Raybould's testimony underscored his party's calls for an independent inquiry to find out the truth of what happened between the former attorney general and members of Trudeau's inner circle." See the difference? "Trudeau must resign" versus "we need a judicial inquiry to find out what happened". Two opposition leaders of vastly different intellectual calibre.

Last edited by wolfpup; 03-04-2019 at 05:34 PM. Reason: Fixed source of quote
  #170  
Old 03-04-2019, 06:43 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
The difference is that Scheer can win this election; Singh cannot. Of course Scheer is going to say things to help further his cause, but it's certainly not political grandstanding.
  #171  
Old 03-04-2019, 08:53 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
He can't do that with fixed election dates.

Sure he can. Just like Harper did in 2008 without having lost a confidence vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_C...deral_election : see the section on "Background"

Whether that would be politically wise is another question, but he can do it.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #172  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:01 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
He can't do that with fixed election dates.

Sure he can. Just like Harper did in 2008 without having lost a confidence vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_C...deral_election : see the section on "Background"

Whether that would be politically wise is another question, but he can do it.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #173  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:06 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
News to me. So what's the point in having fixed election dates then?
  #174  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:08 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
He can't do that with fixed election dates.

Sure he can. Just like Harper did in 2008 without having lost a confidence vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_C...deral_election : see the section on "Background"

Whether that would be politically wise is another question, but he can do it.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #175  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:09 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401
Sorry for the triple post.

Boards is wonky tonight.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #176  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:10 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,511
Double post also due to wonky board.

Last edited by Leaffan; 03-04-2019 at 09:11 PM.
  #177  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:15 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
News to me. So what's the point in having fixed election dates then?
Charitably, it's to increase the political cost of calling an early election so that governing parties are less likely to game the system in that respect.

Less charitably, it's sour grapes from the Conservatives after having been torched a couple times by Chretien using an early election call to the Conservative/Alliance's disadvantage.

Whether Harper's use of the very same strategy at his first opportunity makes one or the other interpretation more likely is left as an exercise to the reader.
  #178  
Old 03-05-2019, 12:33 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
The difference is that Scheer can win this election; Singh cannot.
What does that have to do with the discussion we were having? The discussion was about the stark contrast in how constructive and realistic the two leaders' comments were.

The NDP is not likely to win the election because the NDP has never won a plurality in a federal election. The closest they came was under Jack Layton, and frankly Singh is no Jack Layton. But he's still miles above Scheer intellectually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
Of course Scheer is going to say things to help further his cause, but it's certainly not political grandstanding.
Of course any politician is going to say things to further their cause. The standard of judgment here is whether what they say is laughably stupid. Do you believe Trudeau will resign within the next month or two or six? No? Neither does anybody else.
  #179  
Old 03-05-2019, 06:42 AM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
I'm sorry. None of this makes any sense to me. Scheer is political grandstanding because Trudeau interfered in judicial matters? No conservatives are laughing, sorry.
Your Facebook feed is clearly different from mine. I see plenty of schadenfreude.
  #180  
Old 03-05-2019, 06:52 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
News to me. So what's the point in having fixed election dates then?

It was a political stunt. Everyone knew that the law would have no actual power. It was just piece in their "rein in the government" shtick.
  #181  
Old 03-05-2019, 08:10 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
It is literally unconstitutional to make fixed election dates an absolutely required thing. It is simply not something you can do the way Canada is constitutionally set up to be governed. The "law" is, at best, a guideline.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #182  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:49 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401

How's Trudeau doing, Canada?


Next up: Gerald Butts testifies tomorrow morning.

He is Trudeau's close friend from university and was his principal secretary.

Resigned a week or two ago, although asserting he'd done nothing wrong, which raised some eyebrows.

Will likely be asked about the comment he is alleged to have made: "Anything we do on this file is going to involve interference," which some media commentators have suggested could be the basis for an obstruction charge.

The media has been general respectfully of his last name, except for one headline I saw: "Butts's departure from PMO leaves hole."

At heart, headliner writers all have the souls of ten year old boys.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 03-05-2019 at 07:49 PM.
  #183  
Old 03-05-2019, 10:00 PM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The media has been general respectfully of his last name, except for one headline I saw: "Butts's departure from PMO leaves hole."

At heart, headliner writers all have the souls of ten year old boys.
On CP24, I saw the headline "Butts in hot seat tomorrow".
  #184  
Old 03-05-2019, 11:13 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 84,644
I'm sure he'll help them get to the bottom of this.
  #185  
Old 03-06-2019, 12:55 AM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 17,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogarth View Post
On CP24, I saw the headline "Butts in hot seat tomorrow".
Sadly, I don't get CP24, so I'm glad you posted it. Yes, I laughed. CTV (my usual go-to for news) has been quite respectful of Mr. Butts' name, and they plan to air his remarks tomorrow. I guess we'll see what he has to say.
  #186  
Old 03-06-2019, 07:00 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogarth View Post
On CP24, I saw the headline "Butts in hot seat tomorrow".
We're going to find out who's behind this.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #187  
Old 03-06-2019, 09:05 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 84,644
Somebody's ass is on the line, that's for sure.
  #188  
Old 03-06-2019, 10:11 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,875
Philpott’s resignation hurt. Hopefully there will be no more statements along the lines of “[JWR] was demoted because she doesn’t speak French”.

But at the end of the day, having discussions on how to punish a wayward company is not a hanging crime, and it is unlikely that interference, though aggressive and dubious, constitutes a crime. Some of the media handwringing is overwrought. That said, Canadians don’t like it when one region has the perception of favouritism, and expect the laws to be taken seriously.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #189  
Old 03-06-2019, 10:46 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
That said, Canadians donít like it when one region has the perception of favouritism, and expect the laws to be taken seriously.
Right, the Feds bought a $4.5 billion pipeline project just for shits and giggles not for the benefit of Alberta.
  #190  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:27 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,857
From CBC News -- Butts seems to be drawing a fine-line distinction:
Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former top aide, testified Wednesday there was no intention to pressure Jody Wilson-Raybould to change her mind on the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and official engagements were only meant to ensure she had full facts on the impact of a potential conviction.

"I am firmly convinced that nothing happened here beyond the normal operations of government," he said.

Butts said highly trained legal staff worked on the file to ensure no line was crossed in engagements with the former attorney general. He said the objective was to underscore the impact of a prosecution, including the thousands of jobs at stake.
First we had "too big to fail". Now we appear to have "too big to prosecute".

I'm not sure I understand his logic. "We weren't trying to pressure anyone not to prosecute, we were just explaining that if they went ahead with prosecution it would mean the end of the world as we know it. Just so they understood, you know?"
  #191  
Old 03-06-2019, 09:08 PM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
First we had "too big to fail". Now we appear to have "too big to prosecute".
The idea behind a remediation agreement is that (a) it's quicker and cheaper than a prosecution and (b) it will cause less harm to innocent employees (in this case, the ones not involved in bribery). So I think it's logical that part (b) would apply more to businesses with lots of innocent employees than just one or two innocent employees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup
I'm not sure I understand his logic. "We weren't trying to pressure anyone not to prosecute, we were just explaining that if they went ahead with prosecution it would mean the end of the world as we know it. Just so they understood, you know?"
Or perhaps "You say you don't want to do a remediation agreement, but it's a new idea so maybe you're too dumb/ignorant to know what a remediation agreement really entails. Why don't you ask for a second opinion?"

Last edited by hogarth; 03-06-2019 at 09:10 PM.
  #192  
Old 03-06-2019, 09:57 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,875
I have read deferred prosecution agreements are far more onerous than a simple fine ó that they can be prosecuted if they step out of line, that there is monitoring in addition to fines... Iím sure a lot depends on who is monitoring.

Every Canadian region thinks other parts of Canada profit at their expense. These perceptions are not changed by the fact Canada was hoping to help Alberta by buying expensive pipeline rights. Broad consultation is needed but has practical limits; giving any small group or big province veto power is a terrible mistake. The Liberal tent (and those it is dealing with) includes some sincere environmentalists, folks genuinely concerned about Aboriginal rights and reconciliation, and others more concerned about provincial politics than a national goal. Still, I wish Trudeau had been more direct on this difficult issue.

I believe JWR was likely asked many times about this. I am prepared to believe some of these requests were slightly aggressive. I doubt she was physically threatened, I donít know if she thought she would lose her job. But Iím not sure that this degree of pressure, though inappropriate, is tremendously unusual in business or politics. Harper, who I respect, was known for running a tight ship too and for making personal views the party policy.

The fact the World Bank banned SNC for ten years over concerns in multiple countries says something, if after this violations did continue.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #193  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:56 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogarth View Post
The idea behind a remediation agreement is that (a) it's quicker and cheaper than a prosecution and (b) it will cause less harm to innocent employees (in this case, the ones not involved in bribery). So I think it's logical that part (b) would apply more to businesses with lots of innocent employees than just one or two innocent employees.
Except, as mentioned above, the prosecutor is not permitted to take "the national economic interest" into account, nor "the identity of the organization or individual involved". So if the prosecutor is not allowed to take jobs into account, nor that it's SNC Lavalin, how can the AG be pressured into doing precisely that?
  #194  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:25 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,306
Good news! Mr. Trudeau has addressed the issue and it turns out it's all just a misunderstanding and poor communication. Nothing to see here. Time to move forward.

I may not be entirely convinced.
  #195  
Old 03-07-2019, 03:28 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 84,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogarth View Post
..."You say you don't want to do a remediation agreement, but it's a new idea so maybe you're too dumb/ignorant to know what a remediation agreement really entails. Why don't you ask for a second opinion?"
Worst. Beatles lyric. Ever.
  #196  
Old 03-07-2019, 06:58 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
Good news! Mr. Trudeau has addressed the issue and it turns out it's all just a misunderstanding and poor communication. Nothing to see here. Time to move forward.



I may not be entirely convinced.


But did he send Jody roses? Gals love roses when a guy's not been treating her right.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #197  
Old 03-08-2019, 06:47 AM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Except, as mentioned above, the prosecutor is not permitted to take "the national economic interest" into account, nor "the identity of the organization or individual involved". So if the prosecutor is not allowed to take jobs into account, nor that it's SNC Lavalin, how can the AG be pressured into doing precisely that?
I'm not sure what not considering "the identity of the organization" means, and I don't know what factors they are allowed to look at. So I can't comment on that.

I think that Trudeau is within his rights to ask her to double-check that SNC Lavalin is not eligible; maybe the prosecution service made a legitimate error in their assessment, for instance. Pestering her on ten different occasions is ridiculous, though.
  #198  
Old 03-08-2019, 10:57 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,875
The problem is that a “Chinese wall” does not work with one individual who wears two hats. As the AG, the law seems clear she can’t take into account the identity of the company, jobs, etc. and as the Justice Minister advising Trudeau, giving political advice is expected. It’s barely workable; these are not mutually compatible jobs. They should be separate. They will be. There is probably a reason this hasn’t happened, and dollars to doughnuts this type of thing has happened before. Now that doughnuts cost a dollar, this phrase has become equivocal.

The problems in this case are the degree of coercion, a degree of ignorance and desperation on the part of the Liberals, the independence of JWR and the fact Canada has few big infrastructure companies and SNC is both globally influential and Quťbťcoise.

This is a very Canadian crisis. JWR stick to her guns and the decision did not change. The entire judicial system is not at serious risk. This is not a Trumpian effort to subvert the law, although Trudeau took threats literally.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 03-08-2019 at 11:01 AM. Reason: Doughnuts
  #199  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:40 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Right, the Feds bought a $4.5 billion pipeline project just for shits and giggles not for the benefit of Alberta.
Let me know when that pipeline benefits Alberta. Until then, the most likely reason for the purchase was to bail out the company that realized its investment was going nowhere due to the environmental protests and legal challenges of the sort that Trudeau actually approves of.
  #200  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:45 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,875
Itís not just the political and economic costs of protests and consultation. Companies canít value the risk accurately, and if you canít put a price on it then you canít buy insurance against it.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017