Canadian Election

[MigL]

Simple.
J Trudeau has to stay in power.
If he lose confidence of the House, and calls another election too soon, he will be punished by the electorate and lose large.
He has to be willing to make deals with any parties that will prop up the Liberals.

That's what I know.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Simple.
J Trudeau has to stay in power.
If he lose confidence of the House, and calls another election too soon, he will be punished by the electorate and lose large.
He has to be willing to make deals with any parties that will prop up the Liberals.

That's what I know.

So what is it then? Pipeline or constitution? You're obviously pro-pipeline, correct? How does that affect your constitutional stance?

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

My understanding ( I'm not an economist either John ) was that economic stimulus, through deficit spending, is provided in bad economic times, while good economic times allow for balanced budgets and re-payment.
Doing otherwise seems foolish to me.

Well... yes, I think we can all agree to that (at least in general- there maybe short-term exceptions)

And, while I realise it's not the right country, I hope you will forgive me for posting this link.
I'm hoping that someone could do a similar analysis for Canada (and, even the US if they liked)

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/

Here in the UK (and, of course, it may be different elsewhere) the Right wing Conservative government have consistently borrowed more and paid back less. 

That seems to me to be running up "bad" debts.

[rangerx]

I'd rather not post links to my case for security reasons because it's my name v polluter, but let me give everyone some background.

In the late 80's an American towing company tugboat collided with it's barge in stormy weather while attempting a dangerous maneuver. They would later be found negligent.

The spill occurred in American waters, but drifted and washed ashore in Canada. (some washed ashore in America as well)

The Canadian Coast Guard did not track the spill, instead relied on second hand reporting from light stations. When oil began washing ashore, they did not employ equipment for nearly a week (and was ruled deficient overall later in court), when it washed ashore on the high traffic tourist areas and sensitive habitat. The equipment deployed was unable to recover oil and ill equipped to monitor it other than the naked eye.

Volunteers, groups and residents began by collecting dead birds and animals, because they were carrion and contaminating other wildlife. More than 100,000 birds died among unmeasured other animals.

The polluter arrived in my town and gave a public meeting and claimed to "take responsibility for the oil spill".

For 60 days, I was the volunteer coordinator, having deployed 48, 500 man hours to the clean up effort. This was 50% more than all other efforts combined, including the polluter, Coast Guard and other volunteer groups.

After the spill, the polluter "took responsibility" by petitioning the 9th Circuit District Court in Oregon for a Limitation of Liability in Admiralty, an archaic statute in international maritime law. This turned the tables on the victims, causing them to become defendants rather than plaintiffs. We filed our case as a class action, with me as representative. The case had no chance, insomuch as a tactic. Limitation was denied and they were found guilty of negligence and destruction of evidence.

Meanwhile a lower court (5th Circuit) ruled class actions were not compatible with class actions, mainly because full compensation cannot be expected from a limited fund. I didn't particularly like that because it was after the fact, but I understand it as well. It was the correct judgement under the circumstances. With that, the polluter petitioned our dismissal. They prevailed and the class was dismissed, however, given that our work and the spill were not in dispute, the judge lifted the petition barring additional claims and allowed us re-file as individuals. We did so. It was expensive, burdensome and we got kicked from pillar to post through two more courts. In the Supreme Courts of Washington and BC, concurrently. We petitioned in WA, and the polluter in Canada. We prevailed in both. The polluter's claim for our dismissal was denied in Canada and the American Court ruled forum non-convenus. (not convenient for the polluter). We petitioned the Appellate Court in San Francisco. They ruled we have standing, again because the work and spill were not in dispute. They also ruled they were unable to apply compensation for damages because the law of the country where the incident occurred would apply.

We applied to the Supreme Court of Canada. They ruled our claims stand an no statute of limitations apply, but were unable to force an American company to pay.

That's how polluters take responsibility folks. Polluters do not pay, even when found negligent and promising to "take responsibility".

The question of volunteer reared itself a few times as to payment. The court ruled the prerequisite to marine salvage was volunteerism and reasonable costs were within the scope of compensation and damages.

Okay, so they didn't pay, but they didn't silence me either with settlements under NDA. They petitioned the court in a SLAPP suit. It failed. More than ten years of acrimonious, protracted litigation, well into the 2000's and still nothing has changed.

My case stands. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in the case of TMX. That Canada had misrepresented it willingness and ability to act upon the behalf of Canadians during and after oil spills, partially because of how they treated us and mainly because of what the Harper did with the backroom deal with China. There are other aspects to the case as well. 1- Inadequate environmental assessments. 2- The absence of adequate spill response technologies and equipment and 3 - the utter failure to consult in a meaningful manner with First Nations and Regional Districts.

Unless all those conditions change, TMX is going nowhere. Period.


 

Edited October 23, 2019 by rangerx

[MigL]

Its not one or the other for me, RangerX.
Any pipeline I care about would be coming to Ontario.
TMX is something to be worked out between BC and Alberta.

I might add that there is already talk of 'Wexit' ( I guess the West has learned from Quebec ).
So you tell me the solution !

[rangerx]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

So you tell me the solution !

Simple.

No pipeline until the conditions ruled by the court are met. I listed them at the base of my last post.

All I've heard since is lip service and political quackery. You included.

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in the case of TMX.

Sorry, my knowledge is very limited but hasn't the case only recently reached the Federal Court of Appeal? I.e. the case has not reached the Supreme Court, yet? Maybe it is another case but I vaguely remember Sheer promising to fast-track the case to the Supreme Court, but experts mentioned that there is really no mechanism for that.

[rangerx]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, my knowledge is very limited but hasn't the case only recently reached the Federal Court of Appeal? I.e. the case has not reached the Supreme Court, yet? Maybe it is another case but I vaguely remember Sheer promising to fast-track the case to the Supreme Court, but experts mentioned that there is really no mechanism for that.

You are correct. The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the TMX application. On Kinder Morgan's part, but not the interventions. Mine was not dismissed, based on previous rulings.

My apologies. I ought to have framed it that way.  I was speaking from my standing, not TMX's

[CharonY]

21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You are correct. The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the TMX application. On Kinder Morgan's part, but not the interventions. Mine was not dismissed, based on previous rulings.

My apologies. I ought to have framed it that way.  I was speaking from my standing, not TMX's

Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.

[rangerx]

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.

My standing in the SCOC is one part of a larger group of Canadians with similar standing as a single intervention.

It's complicated. Each are unique in scope, but identical in stance. It had to be that way or they may have been dismissed as well. Appeal courts are not given to making new laws, only upholding existing ones.

Reading back, I noticed one other correction needing to be made.

I stated: Meanwhile a lower court (5th Circuit) ruled class actions were not compatible with class actions, mainly because full compensation cannot be expected from a limited fund.

Should have read: Meanwhile a lower court (5th Circuit) ruled class actions were not compatible with limitation actions, mainly because full compensation cannot be expected from a limited fund.

Edited October 23, 2019 by rangerx

[MigL]

So how exactly are your Constitutional rights being taken away ?
you are free to challenge any decision in the courts, are you not ?
Its not like anyone has used the Notwithstanding Clause to stop such actions.

Yet I don't hear a single peep from you about the rights of Religious Quebeckers ( or even J Singh who wears his Religious symbol on his head ! ) being taken away and the Notwithstanding Clause has been threatened again ( like they did last time ) in Quebec.

Are only your Constitutional rights important to you ?
I think any "lip service and political quackery" are on your part !

Edited October 23, 2019 by MigL

[rangerx]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

So how exactly are your Constitutional rights being taken away ?
you are free to challenge any decision in the courts, are you not ?
Its not like anyone has used the Notwithstanding Clause to stop such actions.

Yet I don't hear a single peep from you about the rights of Religious Quebeckers ( or even J Singh who wears his Religious symbol on his head ! ) being taken away and the Notwithstanding Clause has been threatened again ( like they did last time ).

Are only your Constitutional rights important to you ?
I think any "lip service and political quackery" are on your part !

Obviously you have not read what I wrote, despite accusing me of doing the same.

The Appellate Court in my case, ruled that the law of the affected country shall apply. I applied the to the SCOC who ruled standing but not compensation.

Subsequently, the backroom deal Harper made with the secret Chinese tribunal extinguished our right to even do that.

This isn't about me. It's about us, but you seem unwilling to grasp that, other than to turn it on me for no other reason than your bias.

Simply put, we cannot sue China if an oil sand tanker runs aground here.

And yet you wonder why people are opposed.

Edited October 23, 2019 by rangerx

[MigL]

We were having a perfectly reasonable discussion until you started slinging shit with the comment
"No need to apologize. You're fine with the removal of our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes.
Thank you for clearing that up."
seven hrs ago.
 And speaking of reading each other's posts...
I don't recall ever saying I was in favor of the pipeline.
I said we'll probably end up getting it so that J Trudeau won't have to call another election and to placate the west.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

[rangerx]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

We were having a perfectly reasonable discussion until you started slinging shit with the comment
"No need to apologize. You're fine with the removal of our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes.
Thank you for clearing that up."
seven hrs ago.
 And speaking of reading each other's posts...
I don't recall ever saying I was in favor of the pipeline.
I said we'll probably end up getting it so that J Trudeau won't have to call another election and to placate the west.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Okay fine. Let me put it to you straight up then, so we are clear on the issue. Are you okay with what Harper did, by removing our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes?

Just so you know, Harper also absolved SNC Lavalin of any liability and saddled us as Canadians with that too. Are you good with that or is Justin's part in it your only gripe?

Edited October 24, 2019 by rangerx
ommission

[MigL]

No , what J Trudeau did wrong was...
"After a six-month-long investigation, Ethics Commissioner Dion issued a report that concluded that Trudeau had contravened Section 9 of the federal Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring Wilson-Raybould."
straight from Wikipedia.

Also, Deferred Prosecution Agreements were only introduced in 2018 by J Trudeau; 3 yrs after S Harper left office.
You might wanna look into that.

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by MigL

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

No , what J Trudeau did wrong was...
"After a six-month-long investigation, Ethics Commissioner Dion issued a report that concluded that Trudeau had contravened Section 9 of the federal Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring Wilson-Raybould."
straight from Wikipedia.

 

I get that. I agree with that, but that does that mean you're okay or not okay with the Harper part as well?

In both cases. SNC and TMX

[MigL]

Sorry. Edited my post.

And no, I'm not OK with the trade agreement S Harper made with the Chinese.

But that's not what we're discussing is it ?
As far as I know neither S Harper nor D Ford were running in this election.

Edited October 24, 2019 by MigL

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry. Edited my post.

And no, I'm not OK with the trade agreement S Harper made with the Chinese.

Thank you.

How about his part in SNC Lavalin.. as to liability?

[MigL]

What part of SNC liability ?
If you have proof, he's now a private citizen and can be brought up on charges.
Please present your proof.

But as I've said, He was not on the ballot in this election.
So what does he have to do with the OP = Canadian Election.

[rangerx]

Government of Canada and SNC-Lavalin Group Reach Agreement on AECL CANDU Reactor Division

SNC-Lavalin became the proud owner of the entire commercial CANDU division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), at a cost of only $15 million, thanks to $17 billion in subsidies by the federal taxpayer over many years. The deal was closed in 2011 by the conservative government of Stephen Harper, who simultaneously gave SNC-Lavalin an additional $75 million subsidy and absolved the company of all liabilities.

This from the nuke industry itself (albeit from a financial standpoint)

https://ocni.ca/news/article/ottawa-sells-aecl-to-snc-lavalin/

"But Ottawa will retain financial responsibility for AECL’s existing refurbishment contracts, including liability for cost over-runs that have plagued projects at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick, and the Bruce power station in Ontario."

In other words, Canada paid SNC-Lavalin $58,000,000 to buy the AECL from Canada. How in the hell does that make any sense? AND we're still on the hook for the liabilities.

It has everything to do with the election, because SNC-Lavalin was an election issue in the conservative playbook. You don't get to pick and chose the parts that suit you and the parts that don't.

Just like Khadr and TMX, Trudeau's hands were tied by Harper's undoings and took the easy way out in every case.

In the case of Khadr, Harper violated the constitutional rights of a youth offender. Trudeau settled or it would have cost more.
Trudeau bought TMX because China was going to take us to the cleaners because of the Harper deal. Again, Trudeau trying to get us out of the weeds on that.
The SNC-Lavalin fiasco, that's on Harper and Trudeau both, but for different reasons.

I'll add this, because I suspect you'll bring up the terrorist thing.

Just so others know.

Omar Ahmed Sayid Khadr is a Canadian who at the age of 15 was detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay for ten years, during which he pleaded guilty to the murder of U.S. Army Sergeant 1st Class Christopher Speer and other charges. He later appealed his conviction, claiming that he falsely pleaded guilty so that he could return to Canada where he remained in custody for three additional years. Khadr sued the Canadian government for infringing his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; this lawsuit was settled in 2017 with a CA$10.5 million payment and an apology by the federal government.
 

I don't like what he did any more or less than the next person, but that doesn't mean his rights as a youth offender could be extinguished.

Edited October 24, 2019 by rangerx

[MigL]

And what about that deal is illegal ?
Is giving Bombardier hundreds of millions and then having them sell the C Series to Airbus for a dollar illegal ?
Is bailing out GM and Chrysler to the tune of a billion dollars and then having them close up  plants all over Canada illegal ?

What J Trudeau did was try to subvert justice by putting pressure on his Justice Minister ( J Wilson-Raybould ).
It has nothing to do with SNC-Lavelin's alleged wrongdoing or not.
It is about a Prime Minister putting Himself above the law, or at the very least, favoring his friends or large contributors to the party.
And he was the only PM found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act by the Ethics Commissioner. TWICE !

And if you can't see the distinction you better stay away from those 'famous' BC mushrooms.

( and you Americans thought your country was polarized, eh ? )

Edited October 24, 2019 by MigL

[rangerx]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

And what about that deal is illegal ?
Is giving Bombardier hundreds of millions and then having them sell the C Series to Airbus for a dollar illegal ?
Is bailing out GM and Chrysler to the tune of a billion dollars and then having them close up  plants all over Canada illegal ?

It's not about illegality. It's about saddling you and me as taxpayers with the liabilities of corporations.

 

Okay Bombardier. My home town in Ontario hosts a facility of theirs. Oh wait. Not anymore. They just recently laid everyone off. I'm not impressed with either they or Canada's performance there. GM and Chrysler, same deal. That's an Obama AND a MAGA thing combined. No angels there worth defending.

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

What J Trudeau did was try to subvert justice by putting pressure on his Justice Minister ( J Wilson-Raybould ).
It is about a Prime Minister putting Himself above the law, or at the very least, favoring his friends or large contributors to the party.
And he was the only PM found to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act by the Ethics Commissioner. TWICE !

No argument there. What's your point? Still putting me in your liberal box?

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

It has nothing to do with SNC-Lavelin's alleged wrongdoing or not.

It has everything to do with SNC-Lavalin. Trudeau's antics were merely after the fact.

I'd dare say had a liberal done what Harper did with SNC-Lavalin, you'd be screaming @+100 db from the rooftops.

Again, just to let our American friends know:

On 19 February 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) laid charges against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and two of its subsidiaries: SNC-Lavalin International Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. Each firm was charged with one count of fraud under section 380 of the Criminal Code, and one count of corruption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. The charges allege that between 2001 and 2011, SNC-Lavalin paid CA$48 million in bribes in Libya to officials in the government of Muammar Gaddafi. They also allege that at the same time, the company defrauded Libyan organizations of CA$130 million.

The company advocated for the rapid adoption of legislation to allow a new type of sentencing agreement called deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and changes to Ottawa's Integrity Regime to amend the 10-year contract ineligibility for suppliers with ethics-related criminal convictions.

On recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Kathleen Roussel, former SNC-Lavalin Executive Vice President Normand Morin was charged in the Court of Quebec in May 2018 with making illegal donations to Canadian federal political parties. The charges, which were unrelated to the federal charges against the company, alleging that from 2004 to 2011.


So again, Trudeau got caught trying to cover up what Harper wrought.

Very, very bad boys, but you seem to only want to tell one side of the story as though all of this is on Trudeau and Trudeau alone. Nothing could be further from the truth on that score.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And if you can't see the distinction you better stay away from those 'famous' BC mushrooms.

I don't use mushrooms or any drugs for that matter. Even if I did, I wouldn't let you tell me what to do about it.

Beside that, if you're going to admonish me for snarky comments, it's hypocrisy to use snarky comments in your next breath.

[MigL]

The courts will decide what to do about SNC-Lavelin's wrongdoings.
You don't seem to understand that our sitting Prime Minister tried to prevent that.
And that is an ethics violation at least, and possibly criminal.

By the way, SNC stock is jumping, now that the BQ can put pressure on the PM to give them Deferred Prosecution, and they have the combined seats to pass it.

I don't put people in Liberal or Conservative 'Boxes'. J Chretien's liberals got my vote every time, as did P E Trudeau. I even voted for P Martin's Liberals ( the first time ), who was a fiscal Conservative, and made all the cuts to the federal contributions to Ontario that M Harris usually gets blamed for in the early 90s. And I voted Socialist ( NDP ) in the last provincial election, so I don't see where your comments are coming from.

"Snark', like offense, is taken, not given.
And you seem to take it whenever things don't go your way.

Edited October 24, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

( and you Americans thought your country was polarized, eh ? )

I only wish our arguments here were over such trifling affairs like y'alls, but alas... we cannot even seem to agree that it's wrong to pull children from their parents and lock them alone in cages to sleep in their own filth on concrete floors.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I only wish our arguments here were over such trifling affairs like y'alls, but alas... we cannot even seem to agree that it's wrong to pull children from their parents and lock them alone in cages to sleep in their own filth on concrete floors.

Most Canadians agree with each other on major points, but diverge on minor ones. And unlike many Americans, we have longer memories and not inextricably aligned to a party.

This last election cycle was said to be about Trudeau, which is true, but as much as folks like MigL would like to say it's ancient history, Stephen Harper was a horrid Prime Minister.

Trudeau's transgressions while serious and inexcusable, pale in comparison to what Harper did to this country. That smell lingers large to this day.

At the very least Trudeau has a modicum of contrition and in it for Canada (albeit badly sometimes), whereas Harper was a double down dictator, in it for himself and the crooks he consorted with. It was the controversial "Barbaric Practices Act" and other anti-Muslim antics that showed his true colors as anti-constitutional, religiously driven racist.

This is a science forum. What Harper did to scientists was reprehensible. As federal employees, he took away their rights to free speech, burned DFO libraries before they could be digitized and trashed our standing as climate leaders, globally. Again, that scent still looms large, despite his departure. He will be a model for conservatism for a while to come too. Doug Ford in Ontario and Donald Trump in America are living, breathing examples of that point.