CARNEY GIVES CABINET MINISTERS THE POWER TO EXEMPT ANYONE OR ANY CORPORATION FROM LAWS FOR 6 YEARS

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

But I can't change it because I'm a Can'tservative...A loser  😭

LMAO!

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Speaking for myself it only underscores that Conservatives are as useless at committing corruption as they are at preventing it.

They just don't try. I'm sure that's a completely foreign concept to you  

And other people are responsible for their own corruption. I know you desperately want the conservatives to be responsible for the liberals corruption but that's just not how it works  

 

[Barquentine]

On 12/7/2025 at 8:29 PM, WestCanMan said:

Dude, a 50-yr-old electrician told me that "Poilievre is too negative and he has never done anything besides work as a politician" this week. 

It wasn't like a communist barista that said that, or a pet-therapist, a BLM rioter with an X burned into her forehead, or a 24-yr-old school teacher... a full-grown working man said that shit. 

CBC's propaganda just works. Somehow, people all over this country still believe what they see on CBC. I'm starting to think that some of these people still secretly believe in Santa but they're too afraid to say it.  

So this  "full-grown working man" tells you the truth as he sees it and it's the CBC's fault?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[Shady]

On 12/7/2025 at 1:48 AM, eyeball said:

Oh just wait until PP has the chance to unleash some well deserved payback once he has his hands on these powers.

Then you'll be like....

Whataboutism.  But why don't you address that actual issue, not some hypothetical.  

On 12/7/2025 at 9:37 AM, Barquentine said:

OMG, do a simple google search on Stephen Harper scandals. Or how he routinely shut down Parliament when things weren't going his way...

 

Is that like the Notwithstanding clause that Alberta and Quebec are so fond of? Allows them to do whatever they want?

Does this override provincial powers?

 

On the face of it this doesn't look good. It's like other countries are doing, centralising more power in the federal leader's office. How it's implemented will be very telling.

"

Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Red Tape Reduction Act to, among other things, authorize ministers to grant temporary exemptions from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament and instruments with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of regulatory regimes to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth.

Conditions:

(3)A minister may make an order under subsection (1) only if the minister is of the opinion that
(a)the exemption is in the public interest;
(b)the exemption would enable the testing of, among other things, a product, service, process, procedure or regulatory measure with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of a regulatory regime to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth;
(c)the benefits associated with the exemption outweigh the risks;
(d)sufficient resources exist, and appropriate measures will be taken, to maintain oversight of the testing, manage any risks associated with the exemption and protect public health and safety and the environment; and
(e)a feasible implementation plan has been developed.

Public Information
14(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a minister must, as soon as feasible after making an order under section 12, make the order and the following information publicly accessible:
(a)a description of the decision-making process and a summary of the reasons for the order; and
(b)a description of the process for providing comments or information to, or requesting information from, the minister in relation to the order."

There are some guard rails.

How would the Conservatives get big projects done? Will they reverse this if they get into office?

The scandals of the Liberal government over the past 10 years dwarf anything of Harpers.  But more whataboutism.

On 12/8/2025 at 5:37 AM, BeaverFever said:

Conservatives hate all those things anyway. You should be creaming your jeans right now. 

Or are you just upset that the exemptions are only temporary and to be granted in exceptional circumstances??

Whataboutism.

[Shady]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

So change that. Make measures against corruption permanent.

Settle the argument once and for all.

Grease or Sand?

You can't change that because laws can be changed through the legislative process.  Perhaps the constitution could be changed, but there's no such thing as a permanent law, nor should there be.  Unless you still think homosexuality should be illegal, etc.

[Barquentine]

On 12/7/2025 at 11:43 PM, CdnFox said:

Younger people who are more exposed to the internet are vastly more likely to vote for Poilievre and support him.

Yeah, if it's on the internet it's GOT TO BE TRUE!

[Moonbox]

19 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah, if it's on the internet it's GOT TO BE TRUE!

Meanwhile...

I'm sure these are just the young men who don't have access to the internet though, right?  🤣

Edited December 9, 2025 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

I altered what you said because i can't cope with the truth, but lets be honest most lefties can't 

   True, 

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I desperately need to say you want the conservatives to be responsible for the liberals corruption otherwise my silly shtick falls flat on it face.

  

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Meanwhile...

I'm sure these are just the young men who don't have access to the internet though, right?  🤣

Boomers were the only age group that voted for Carney.  Every other age group voted for Pierre, the younger you go, that larger the margins.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

Whataboutism.  But why don't you address that actual issue, not some hypothetical.  

Address corruption, transparency and accountability you mean? I guess it never occurred to me - you say there's an issue here?

[Shady]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Address corruption, transparency and accountability you mean? I guess it never occurred to me - you say there's an issue here?

Why are you directing your comment to a conservative?  Conservatives have no legislative power.  It seems like you make excuses for left of centre politicians when they're in office.  But you don't do the same when it's a conservative.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

So this  "full-grown working man" tells you the truth as he sees it and it's the CBC's fault?

No, he told me "the truth (😂) as CBC propagandizes", and that's pathetic. CBC doesn't have a problem 1) "with Poilievre's alleged negativity, 2) his alleged lack of meaningful contributions as leader of the opposition, or 3) his alleged lack of a solid private-sector resume from before he became a politician", the only thing that the CBC has a problem with is "any criticism of Trudeau and the LPOC, regardless of its merit":

1. Remember when Trudeau was the leader of the opposition? He was far more negative than PP is, he was FAR more angry and bitter, and the CBC loved it. They actually worshipped the ground that he walked on while he was acting like that. In case you've forgotten, Trudeau's main/only contribution in the HoC as Opp Leader was just b1tching loud and long about $90k duffygate, and after 3 years of CBC leading off their primetime news with all that b1tching about an actual non-scandal, they referred to the 2015 as "a referendum on Duffygate". Does that jive with "the CBC doesn't like negativity from the leader of the opposition", or does it jive with "the CBC doesn't like criticism of their chosen leaders"???? 😉
2. As far as Trudeau's positive contributions go, none of his policy positions were adopted by the CPC gov't because none of them were worthwhile. By contrast, the LPOC turned some of Poilievre's most unpopular policy positions, which were hated by the CBC when PP was saying them, into actual gov't policies which were then adored by the CBC and used as election slogans.
3. Trudeau had nothing on his resume aside from "snowboard instructor" (silver spoon much?) and "substitute drama teacher at a school where he wore blackface and had to quit because of a scandal with an underage girl". The CBC didn't consider that insufficient. Joe Biden was a career politician who never did jack spit before he was elected, and the CBC never questioned his credentials either. So how is it that "a leader of the opposition who has enough foresight to create policy positions which are initially hated by CBC and the gov't, but have enough merit to eventually become adopted by the gov't, adored by the CBC, and then become elections slogans for the gov't", is considered to be unworthy of the PMO due to "his lack of snowboard instructor experience and substitute drama teacher experience"? 😘

Barqy, no intelligent, politically aware Canadian that's over the age of 35 believes that any of the CBC's criticisms of Poilievre come from a place of honesty or integrity. They also never arrived at those random, blatantly false conclusions on their own either. That is "nothing but garbage CBC propaganda coming from the mouth of a person who should actually know better". I.e., it's someone who was successfully/completely brainwashed by the CBC. 

 

Do you honestly believe that Poilievre is negative compared to a circa 203 Justin Trudeau? 🤣

Do you honestly believe that Trudeau's resume was any more PMO-worthy than Poilievre's? Buddy, Trudeau's rise to prominence in the LPOC came mainly from 1) riding his daddy's coattails and 2) CBC propaganda, while Poilievre's rise to prominence in the CPC was 100% due to his hard f'ing work and what he achieved both as a politician and in the HoC.

Do you believe that Poilievre contributes nothing? If that's the case, then why were Poilievre's "unpopular policy positions" turned into "the only LPOC actions in the last ten-plus years which were worthy of becoming campaign slogans"?

 

Barqy: try to actually think about those things, verify their accuracy if you need to, and come up with on-point, meaningful answers. This will actually help you grow as a concerned citizen and voter. Think. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

You can't change that because laws can be changed through the legislative process.  Perhaps the constitution could be changed, but there's no such thing as a permanent law, nor should there be.  Unless you still think homosexuality should be illegal, etc.

Yup, this it what it will take alright.

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

   True, 

Liar.

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Shady said:

Why are you directing your comment to a conservative?  Conservatives have no legislative power.

Everyone has the power to change the Constitution.

27 minutes ago, Shady said:

It seems like you make excuses for left of centre politicians when they're in office.  But you don't do the same when it's a conservative.

It only seems like that because you're so ridiculously partisan.

I'm ideological all right but I'm not partisan. I've told you before I'd scrutinize representatives I vote for even more because the last thing I want is for corruption to risk their governments to fall. I had high hopes when Lavalin's Grease hit the fan.

So you don't buy into the idea economics trumps virtue? Greed is good but not Grease?

Edited December 9, 2025 by eyeball

[Legato]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everyone has the power to change the Constitution.

It only seems like that because you're so ridiculously partisan.

I'm ideological all right but I'm not partisan. I've told you before I'd scrutinize representatives I vote for even more because the last thing I want is for corruption to risk their governments to fall. I had high hopes when Lavalin's Grease hit the fan.

So you don't buy into the idea economics trumps virtue? Greed is good but not Grease?

That's many words to say when I say I'm not a Liberal which means I am but you peoples are making false accusations.

 

[CdnFox]

 

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm clearly one of the most dishonest posters here and changing what you say is just one example of that, but i just don't understand why everyone thinks i'm a liar!!!

Yeah, it's a mystery  

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everyone has the power to change the Constitution.

How?

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I know I'm being dishonest about the issue but if i tell the truth my whole narrative falls apart. 

Yeah, 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Legato said:

That's many words to say when I say I'm not a Liberal which means I am but you peoples are making false accusations.

You say you're not a Liberal? Prove it.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You say you're not a Liberal? Prove it.

He already did. He said something intelligent.  

This is how we know you are a liberal.

[Moonbox]

50 minutes ago, Shady said:

Boomers were the only age group that voted for Carney.  Every other age group voted for Pierre, the younger you go, that larger the margins.

You mean that the only demo that favored Poilievre was 18-34, and that every other demographic, from older millennials to Gen X, to Baby Boomers and the elderly, voted against him.  

Regardless, I just posted a recent survey that shows what that age group actually thinks about little PP, and it ain't pretty.  

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah, it's a mystery

Only because you can't tell the difference between shit and Shinola, especially your own.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'll admit i'm a liberal but so what?

Aha!  LOL

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Aha!  LOL

See, like shit and Shinola you can't tell the difference between liberal and Liberal.  You bozos don't even try.

[Shady]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You mean that the only demo that favored Poilievre was 18-34, and that every other demographic, from older millennials to Gen X, to Baby Boomers and the elderly, voted against him.  

Regardless, I just posted a recent survey that shows what that age group actually thinks about little PP, and it ain't pretty.  

No, 55 and under all went Conservative.  People over 55 but especially over 65 went hard for Carney, because they were irrationally scared by Trump.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

You mean that the only demo that favored Poilievre was 18-34, and that every other demographic, from older millennials to Gen X, to Baby Boomers and the elderly, voted against him.  

 

Nope. Sorry. 

Everyone up to about 55 either preferred PP or was about even, only the older voters preferred the libs. 

Once again you have math problems and you get things wrong as a result. 

 

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

See, like shit and Shinola I can't tell the difference between liberal and Liberal.  That's how i  know i'm a liberal

Well... fair enough i guess.