What More Of A Disgrace To Canadian Democracy Then An Unelected Taking The PM Chair?

[Barquentine]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

That led Conservative MP Andrew Scheer, the party's House leader, to claim in September that parliamentary privilege had been violated because the government was not complying with a clear directive approved by MPs.

Here’s an excerpt from the RCMP Commissioner’s letter on the matter:

...the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act in the course of a criminal investigation could give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the motion where privacy interests exist could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation.

Former senior parliamentary counsel Steven Chaplin has written that “there is no constitutional basis in the law, powers, and privileges of the House to order documents to be given to the RCMP through the Office of the Law Clerk, particularly when there’s no parliamentary purpose or proceedings for which said documents are to be used or considered.”

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Lying about what other people said is defintely a left wing staple around here,

LMAO!

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You should actually do research and not just work off the headlines.

He's just trolling using headlines as bait.

He probably uses octopus to trap crabs. 🤣

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You should actually do research and not just work off the headlines.

 

3 hours ago, Legato said:

In June, the Conservatives introduced a motion demanding that the government turn over all SDTC documents to the Commons law clerk within 30 days. The clerk, in turn, would turn over those files to the RCMP for a possible criminal investigation into this troubled fund.

MPs passed the motion before rising for the summer break.

Not all of the government's documents were handed over to the clerk by the specified deadline.

That led Conservative MP Andrew Scheer, the party's House leader, to claim in September that parliamentary privilege had been violated because the government was not complying with a clear directive approved by MPs.

Speaker Greg Fergus agreed the documents should be produced, even if it would set an unusual precedent because MPs are requesting documents in order to hand them over to a third party — in this case, the police.

 

 

 

 

 

Speaker of the House of Commons Greg Fergus has suggested the matter be referred to a Commons committee for study. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties," Fergus said.

"The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with."

Fergus said he "cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sdtc-explainer-1.7347506

 

Told ya  

 

Any more stupidity you'd like to get out of your system?  Honestly the only thing dumber than snarkily saying someone should do their research without providing any evidence they were wrong is to do it without having done your research and then having someone prove you're wrong. 

If you don't feel just a little bit ashamed of your performance there then you need to ask your doc to up your dosages. 

 

43 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Here’s an excerpt from the RCMP Commissioner’s letter on the matter:

...the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act in the course of a criminal investigation could give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the motion where privacy interests exist could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation.

Former senior parliamentary counsel Steven Chaplin has written that “there is no constitutional basis in the law, powers, and privileges of the House to order documents to be given to the RCMP through the Office of the Law Clerk, particularly when there’s no parliamentary purpose or proceedings for which said documents are to be used or considered.”

Utterly irrelevant.

The liberals could have launched a challenge if they wished but the house speaker had in fact ruled and he is the authority.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

Here’s an excerpt from the RCMP Commissioner’s letter on the matter:

...the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act in the course of a criminal investigation could give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the motion where privacy interests exist could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation.

Former senior parliamentary counsel Steven Chaplin has written that “there is no constitutional basis in the law, powers, and privileges of the House to order documents to be given to the RCMP through the Office of the Law Clerk, particularly when there’s no parliamentary purpose or proceedings for which said documents are to be used or considered.”

Which does not negate the fact that the Liberals defied the speaker.

You are Barquing up the wrong tree.

[Barquentine]

There's a legal question here. PP could have seen all the documents, but he wouldn't have been able to score cheap political points, so he childishly chose not to see them and shut down the work of our government.

I'm not saying there wasn't a boondoggle here. Probably was - every government has them. But we're arguing points of law and parliamentary rules.

[taxme]

On 2/12/2025 at 7:00 PM, Barquentine said:

And who knows - maybe Freeland will win. Trump doesn't like her so she must have done something right.

Freeland is just another traitor to Canada and she actually sits on the board of the WEF globalists. That should tell us all that she does not work for Canada. I guess that Freeland and Trudeau had a little spat as to how they are going to get the WEF globalists Marxist plans for Canada to get implemented. Freeland probably thinks that she can do it a lot faster. But whatever, pretty much all of the liberal party is all on board for the WEF takeover of Canada. Covid and climate change and now Woke was/is just the beginning of the WEF influence on Canada. Just my opinion.  

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Which does not negate the fact that the Liberals defied the speaker.

You are Barquing up the wrong tree.

They liberals will defy anything if it is not in their interest to do so. Turdeau has defied and has committed many ethic violations. See? Being a dictator in Canada works well for him. Nobody dares challenge his authority and power over we the sheeple. The dictator should have been fired by now. Canada is so phkd. 👎

[Legato]

13 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

There's a legal question here. PP could have seen all the documents, but he wouldn't have been able to score cheap political points, so he childishly chose not to see them and shut down the work of our government.

I'm not saying there wasn't a boondoggle here. Probably was - every government has them. But we're arguing points of law and parliamentary rules.

Nothing you just said has anything to do with a legality.

The speaker issued an order, the Liberals defied the order, meaning the Liberals shut down the government

[Barquentine]

Ok. my last post on this topic: "There is no constitutional basis in the law, powers, and privileges of the House to order documents to be given to the RCMP."

[Barquentine]

22 minutes ago, taxme said:

Just my opinion.  

Exactly!

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

There's a legal question here. PP could have seen all the documents, but he wouldn't have been able to score cheap political points, so he childishly chose not to see them and shut down the work of our government.

I'm not saying there wasn't a boondoggle here. Probably was - every government has them. But we're arguing points of law and parliamentary rules.

No that is a lie. It is a dishonest statement. The person with the authority to demand the release of those documents listen to both sides and made a ruling. It is the opinion of you and the liberals that there was illegal issue but they took no action to resolve that or bring it to the courts or anything. If they are going to defy the will of the speaker it is in there court to take the appropriate steps to prove that he was wrong and they did not.

This is 100% entirely completely in its absolute final form the fault of the liberals because they wanted to keep information hidden. That is the only reason that parliament was held up. The person with the lawful authority ordered them to do something and they did not and that's what jammed the parliament.

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Ok. my last post on this topic: "There is no constitutional basis in the law, powers, and privileges of the House to order documents to be given to the RCMP."

Says who. Because if it isn't the speaker of the house then it doesn't matter unless you get a supreme court ruling.

[TreeBeard]

On 2/13/2025 at 6:08 AM, Aristides said:

I think she is qualified but I don't think Liberals have forgiven her for the way she turned on Trudeau. They also know that to have a chance in the next election, they can't choose someone who was so close to Trudeau and such a part of his policies.

Freeland may have saved the Liberals from decimation by “turning on Trudeau”.  
 

Polls have the Libs closing in on the Cons significantly.  This would not have been the case with Trudeau as the Lib leader/PM.  

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Freeland may have saved the Liberals from decimation by “turning on Trudeau”.  
 

Polls have the Libs closing in on the Cons significantly.  This would not have been the case with Trudeau as the Lib leader/PM.  

They don't really. When you analyze them and look at pulling that has more inclusive data the libs have barely moved an inch. They've gone from about 24 to 28 mostly at the expense of the NDP.

Worse the indication is that the people that are considering going for the libs are extremely tentative. Which means they're going to make a decision after they check carney out and carney is not doing well. He's already making gaffs and he's already kind of walking back is promised to get rid of the carbon tax. Information is just starting to circulate which is going to hurt him such as the fact that only a few months ago he moved his entire company and the jobs to the united states.

And that's the tip of the iceberg. So he's going to have a difficult time of it during the campaign.

For all his faults Justin was a known commodity and he was very good at campaigns. I don't think there was any chance he was going to win the election, but he might very well have turned things around well enough to save the furniture.

Now it's also possible that carney will overperform and exceed expectations and will do great, but honestly I'm still thinking he's probably looking at maybe 50 seats. I don't think he's going to turn into the savior the the liberals were desperately hoping for