cannuck

Need I remind you this is a political forum, not a history class?

You prevent secret meetings by first of all eliminating partisanship from government. We would then elect people who we know to represent their constituents. PM and Cabinet could then be elected by MP, and PM would not have right of veto nor would that make sense with no party interests to represent. Then you make lobbying illegal, and finally EVERY Cabinet meeting or interface between government and the outside real world recorded and publicly available online. If you need to say it to our representative, you need to say it to anyone interested in seeing/hearing. Oh...and you make recall a workable part of protocols and direct democracy from online votes a part of the process. AND: influence peddling as well as acting on influence peddling are automatic jail time on conviction (which should be easy without secret meetings). Finally, pay MPs enough that they don't need to satiate their greed from backroom deals. Also: penalties for conferring or receiving benefits extend to after elected office.

This is what I strongly suspect. Problem is, it won't be 100% and to collect evidence to sort out those who are legit and those who are good liars would be extremely difficult. Not like they are going to tell on each other to give the infidels the chance to punish the faithful.

They also have a massive debt to a Quebec pension fund, and if they were to leave or default, they would have to give up their crown jewel - the 407 - as that is the security.

Bingo. We have left the Mafia and Hell's Angels alone to run gambling, prostition and drugs. We have left SNC alone to screw up every major project they have entered simply because they have the ear of Power Corp. and the LPC. i.e. they are in Quebec.

Uh...they're not playing.

You would...we don't allow them to break the law - anywhere.

I have several of them - as do my employees.

Thank you. That makes me feel much better. In your position as endorsement of continued criminal activity, I can only assume for your personal benefit, you stand very clearly on the other side of what I (and many others) see as a very clear line.

That's pretty arrogant coming from someone who has argued for weeks to support organized crime and the political mechanism that has not only allowed but supported their criminal activities for decades. Let me put this as simply as I can: Have you EVER done anything that has caused a criminal, or especially a criminal in an elected office to go to jail? Have you ever put any of your money and time (and in this case I mean SUBSTANTIAL amounts of both) on the line to seek out criminal prosecution, defend against improper/illegal prosecution or change the laws of this country? When you have done that, you will have earned the right to criticize the many things I have done in that vein. To that I can add from considerable personal experience: the rule of law in this country is a sham. You, the Little Turd and SNC are perfect examples of that.

I think the law is quite clear. Since Canada has deployed troops and resources under "Operation Impact" specifically engaging with Al Queda, Taliban and ISIL (Daesh) opposing forces, ANYTHING a Canadian citizen (or I believe resident) does in support is an act of treason or high treason. Yeah, bring them back, but it will cost us life imprisonment so cheaper by far to just leave them where they chose to go.

That would only happen in a country with genuine rule of law, some kind of moral compass and a population that gave a shit.

I would not go so far as to be declaring "all Cons = good" nor " all Lib = bad", but there is a very great chasm between the level of influence and the sliminess used to express it between the two. That said: some of our best fun has resulted in putting Conservatives behind bars. You see: a Red Tory is NOT in any way a conservative, because they don't have any respect for the law. There are just not many conservatives in the "Conservative" parties of this country. I admire what Philpot and JWR have done because I believe their motive was one of ethics, not political ambition.

HUGE difference in circumstances. I remember this well, because my Father was a lead instructor in the 1st Surface-to-surface Missile Battery, derived from 1 light ac-ac (anti-aircraft). 1SSM was setting up to use Honest John battlefield tactical weapons, and he was abruptly switching to surface-to-air (i.e. Bomarc and IIRC Hercules) what was the nuclear version of an anti-aircraft gun with a lot bigger bang. Even in my supposed pre-teen innocence, growing up around this stuff was very apparent to me that ANY launch was going to precipitate a LOT of damage to environments and people involved. What is the same is Pearson - a genuine Liberal - lied about what he would do when being elected, and had gone ahead with to allow the Yanks to bring nukes onto Canadian soil. But, it was a very different time and risk of attack from Russia was a very real concern - and that could be expected to be nuclear weapons. Thus the DEW line, Bomarcs, 101 and 104 (I happened to be in business many years later with the RCAF acceptance test officer for the 104 programme - also the worlds's highest time 104 pilot) so have reminisced many times about same. I think Dief was caught up in the same situation - I think in over his head. Why there is absolutely no comparisson is that SNC pushed the Liberals through their usual lying and fabricating "laws of convenience" crap for nothing but money. The Libs responded out of their lust for power to continue to milk the country dry for their cronies. Greed is hardly the same kind of thing one can rationalize or excuse by contrast to leaders trying to deal with a genuine perceived threat of annihilation. I would also argue that a minority government is in no way equivalent to a third year clear majority - they can still do all of the harm they wish with no real retribution (unless, of course, their party falls apart).

We know pressure has been applied to the Conservatives, but the incidents of corruption are few and far between. Yes, Mike Stuffie scamming his expense account did happen, but name ANY company or group that has the "Conservative" party/parties in their back pocket in the way that Desmarais/Chretien/Power Corp, Bombardier!!, Irving, Segram/Bronfmann/Kolber, CSL/Martin and a few others do. Think about that: the list of things Power and Bombardier have done within and outside of the law to gain financially from influence and interference would fill ten books. Seagram made all of its initial money as criminals running rum (the equivalent of drug cartells today) and do not hesitate to do things to this very day that often colour outside of the lines. Remember Adscam? Martin would like you to forget, as would Chretien and the golf course deal. And when it comes to the left side of this VERY left of center party, it is really important to remember what Ralph Goodale did to very, very illegally put and keep Andy McMechan in jail when no crime had been comitted because it threatened one of the institutions of the Liberal left - the Canadian Wheat Board. Part of LPC modus operandi for a century has been to use their influence and interference in regulatory, legislative, civil and even criminal procedings for the benefit of their back room. Now, show me the Conservative ones.

Mr. Dressup has the mental capacity of a pre-teen - well even that is an insult to the average 10 year old. Watching him stumble through just about every task since being elected has been painful, not to mention embarrassing in the extreme. The collective arrogance and ignorance of the PMO, CPC but most of all the backroom and the LPC itself is what needs to go down for the count. A grand total of two former cabinet ministers with some sense of ethics and justice is not enough to rescue Canada from Desmerais et al. Worse yet, Mr. Dressup and his Butts have stacked the front bench with a fair portion of complete idiots - which takes the spotlight off of the genuine criminal offenses that have become standard practice in dealing with the friends of the LPC backroom.

I could not agree more, but my feeling is one of a layman. Glad to hear that the professional interpretation of events and the actual law lines up with what I believe is right. While I may strongly disagree with her politics, I did take the time to write to her constituency office, express my appreciation and encourage her to continue to stay the course. Not often I/we get to say good things about the legal profession, but this is certainly one of its better moments.

Rue, you have outdone yourself. Excellent post. I vote you become AG/MoJ. What I would like to hear is your opinion of how the last AG dealt with this situation thusfar.

Yeah, I could easily support proportional voting based on your net tax remittance.

Mr. Dressup and his clown show of a cabinet are just the distraction needed to allow the back room to continue to use their privilege as government to scam the rest of the country for the benefit of Quebec and their cronies. To the question of the thread title: the Kardashians have more substance and intellect.

started, yes, but completed Watt's Bar 1 on line in 1996 and Watt's Bar 2 due now.

Our big mistake in the nuclear side was selling out to SNC. THAT is on Harper. It should have gone to a company or companies interested in developing the technologies, not running it into the ground for a quick buck.

No, only SOME of the culprits from the Ghadaffi affair were fired (and others were let go who were fall guys that had NOTHING to do with it). The criminal activities at SNC go right to the core of corporate officers and the Board of Directors. AND: I am not "assuming" anything, I could easily name names and cite instances. The whole thing needs to go.

He and his entire gong show cabinet have been a horrible embarrassment for the last 3+ years. Keeping to that standard, he will go out with a bang. At least that MIGHT protect us from the LPC for a few more terms. Will take that to undo the damage.

Well, a mere child is leading now (i.e. "Mr. Dressup")