Charest design a new "Patente à gosse" in replacement of a proper inquire

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lefauve
Charest design a new "Patente à gosse" in replacement of a proper inquire
Lefauve

After to year of unstoped request from the opposition and the population charest decide to put the inquire in place.

 

Unfortunatly nobody will be there on a mandatory base.  More of it they choses a judge named by themself as the inquire president.

 

All Quebecer are livid with anger.

Unionist

Lefauve wrote:

All Quebecer are livid with anger.

All Quebecers... except the chair of the federal NDP caucus:

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-by-guy-caron-ndp-quebec-caucus-chair-o... by Guy Caron, NDP Quebec caucus chair, on the decision of the Charest government to hold a public inquiry on the construction industry[/url]

Quote:
Like many Canadians, Quebec’s New Democrat MPs have closely followed the series of scandals that afflicted the construction industry in the past two years.

"Canadians"?? "Canadians" have been following our scandals? How about, "like many residents of Planet Earth"?

And this: "... in the past two years"? Two years? Quebecers have been demanding a public inquiry for more than two years, but this idiot is a "Canadian" who has only realized there are scandals for the past two years.

But the last straw is the best:

Quote:
The NDP is happy to see the decision of the Jean Charest Government to set up a public inquiry on the corruption and collusion in this sector.

Quebecers - as Lefauve points out - are livid. Charest's inquiry is a transparent fraud. No compulsion of witnesses - no witness immunity - and closed-door evidence at the Commission's whim. And Guy Caron, the "Canadian", is putting his seal of approval on behalf of the NDP on this fraudulent coverup by one of the most hated politicians in Québec?

Who dictates this crap that comes out of the mouths of our Québec MP?? Obviously someone that has never bothered to cross our borders and visit for a while.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

Who dictates this crap that comes out of the mouths of our Québec MP?? Obviously someone that has never bothered to cross our borders and visit for a while.

So if I have this straight all good things said by any Quebec NDP MP are their own words and any idiotic and stupid things are dictated to them by a cabal of non-Quebecers.  Nice conspiracy theory. If he is merely a sock puppet then please, please tell, who is writing his stuff.  If it is not the staff that he directs then whom.  Presumably he has the right to edit press releases sent out under his name. Are you trying to tell me the 59 MP's who are the majority in caucus are being led by the nose. By whom, BC operatives?

I thought the good thing about electing Quebec MP's was that the NDP would have a Quebec voice.  He is to blame for this lame response. He is the Quebec caucus chair and thus responsible. His resume reads well so he should be doing a better job than this press release shows. 

Unionist

That's the full message you got from what I said, NS - that Guy Caron is a good sod, but some non-Quebecer is pulling his strings and making him say bad things?

Look up "irony", then go back and read my post again.

Or, never mind. I'll spell it out. If Guy Caron meant what he said, as chair of the largest NDP contingent in the history of Parliament, he is a shameless idiot who should be removed.

If he simply mouthed what someone else wrote for him, he is a shameless opportunist creep who is not worthy to be a representative of people.

If Québec MPs follow this kind of crap - like congratulating Jean Charest for his crimes - they will deservedly be consigned to the trash heap of history long before the next election. But I like to think that newbies (especially young inexperienced ones) are not yet jaded by the philosophy that states: Offend no one except your foolish electors; be deaf to their needs; never speak your mind.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

Look up "irony", then go back and read my post again.

Or, never mind. I'll spell it out. If Guy Caron meant what he said, as chair of the largest NDP contingent in the history of Parliament, he is a shameless idiot who should be removed.

If he simply mouthed what someone else wrote for him, he is a shameless opportunist creep who is not worthy to be a representative of people.

If Québec MPs follow this kind of crap - like congratulating Jean Charest for his crimes - they will deservedly be consigned to the trash heap of history long before the next election. But I like to think that newbies (especially young inexperienced ones) are not yet jaded by the philosophy that states: Offend no one except your foolish electors; be deaf to their needs; never speak your mind.

Sorry Unionist but yes I did want it spelled out.  I agree totally with this assessment but I wanted it to come out of a Quebec voters keyboard unequivocally and clearly.  I apologize for not getting the obvious especially since I was astounded because you aren't the conspiracy type but then I just took it a t face value.  Hot buttons do that to me often.

After countless threads with a few posters talking about how electing Topp, a francophone Quebecer, will piss everyone in the province off I am not sure what is irony and what is not.

Cool

Lefauve

 

Charest was already on the border of a ravine and he just took a big step forward!

Lefauve

Perhaps he just felt the heat risng, he just decided to do some change to the inquire mandate, 

he just said if The inquire presidente got no result she might ask the permission to constraint the witness.

 

What a sad joke.

But, i don't feel amuse.

Unionist

Lefauve is referring to this sequence of events:

Thursday evening, the Québec Bar Association met and decided that it [url=http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/dossiers/commission-charbonneau/201... not support[/url] Charest's commission of inquiry for some of the reasons I posted above (no power to compel witnesses, no immunity, etc.).

This was the final straw that risked destroying any of Charest's remaining credibility with his own party, whose congress opened this evening.

In an attempt to neutralize the opposition - including planned resolutions by party members - Charest announced in his opening speech that he would allow compulsion of witnesses, if the commission's chair decided in the course of her work to ask the government to expand its powers.

He still didn't move on immunity. He must be saving that for another media moment...

Unionist

Thanks, Bärlüer. Can you clarify? The Commission won't have the "power to summon" until (and if) the Chair requests it at some future date, and Charest grants the request (as he says he would). Before that happens, do witnesses have (criminal) immunity by virtue of the Charter?

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What, exactly, will this Commission be able to do?

Bärlüer

Ken Burch wrote:

What, exactly, will this Commission be able to do?

Not much beyond a mere reflection exercise if it isn't provided with the power to summon witnesses (and to subpoena documents, something that is less often mentioned but that is just as important). Which is the reason for the whole kerfuffle.

Bärlüer

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, Bärlüer. Can you clarify? The Commission won't have the "power to summon" until (and if) the Chair requests it at some future date, and Charest grants the request (as he says he would).

Right.

Unionist wrote:

Before that happens, do witnesses have (criminal) immunity by virtue of the Charter?

OK, forget what I wrote earlier. I was wrong... The answer is in fact "yes". Voluntary testimony is also protected.

Here is the relevant section of the Charter:

Quote:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Bärlüer

EDITED: corrections made to the original post. See my post below for explanation. The parts that are not strikethroughed are correct.

For eventual criminal/penal proceedings against an individual who would be summoned to appear before the Commission, there is no need for the "décret" (or for anything else) to specifically provide for immunity: it is provided for by the Charter. In other words, for criminal/penal matters, the power to summon individuals entails the immunity.

However, for other (civil) proceedings, immunity would have to be specifically provided. The Act respecting public inquiry commissions provides immunity for any proceeding under any law. Since the Charbonneau Commission wasn't enacted under the auspices of that Act, additional measures would thus have to be taken to provide for civil immunity.

Bärlüer

From what I can gather from a very quick review, the "proceedings" would include "royal commissions, statutory boards and tribunals, bankruptcy proceedings and other forms of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings".

So I would be inclined to think that Charest's commission would be included (there are in fact questions about what exactly is the juridical nature of that commission; nevertheless, it'd seem to me it'd fall within the above definition).

As for the other question, sorry, but I don't feel comfortable answering it (don't want to provide anything that could be assimilated to legal advice).

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

OK, forget what I wrote earlier. I was wrong... The answer is in fact "yes". Voluntary testimony is also protected.

Here is the relevant section of the Charter:

Quote:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Ok, I'm now taking full advantage of your legal knowledge here! Laughing

So here goes: What's the definition of a "proceedings" in Section 13? By that I mean - if Charest set up the Commission by executive fiat (which I believe he did or will do) as opposed to pursuant to some statute, does Section 13 (or indeed Section 11) provide any protection at all? This question comes up in the workplace from time to time, when the employer charges an employee with theft (or some other quasi-criminal accusation) and proceeds to a disciplinary interview. The union clearly tells the member that there is absolutely no "protection" attaching to whatever they say to management - even if the employer promises not to call the cops, the records/witnesses to that interview can be compelled by some later tribunal. I.e., a disciplinary interview is not a "proceedings" within the meaning of the Charter.

Do I have that right?

 

Unionist

Thanks! So I still think Charest is perpetrating a smoke-and-mirrors fraud. Or a "patente-à-gosses", as we say!

 

Tommy_Paine

All of Charest's moves have been a lesson on what not to do, in terms of damage control.  Even casual observers see this.  I can't believe his political instincts are that bad, so I have to guess that Charest knows the information that could come out of the inquiry will be explosive-- beyond even the considerations of the next provincial election.  If all he was concerned about was the effect at the next election, then he would have had this inquiry long ago so things could move on.

No, he's desperately hidding something.

Aristotleded24

Tommy_Paine wrote:
All of Charest's moves have been a lesson on what not to do, in terms of damage control.

Have you forgotten which Prime Minister it was whom Charest served under for the bulk of his political career?

Tommy_Paine

 

Tee Hee.

Maybe I am being too charitable in the case of Mr. Charest's intellect.

Aristotleded24

Tommy_Paine wrote:
Maybe I am being too charitable in the case of Mr. Charest's intellect.

Now now, Mulroney knew he had his majority and could do as he so chose, and as a result never bothered with damage control. Is it Charest's fault that his master never taught him this basic political skill?

Tommy_Paine

Mulroney relies upon Robin Sears, senior partner with Jamie Watt's Navigator P.R. for damage control. 

As a tribute to Navigator's and Sears prowess, Mulroney can't even get invited to Tory party functions. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Mulroney relies upon Robin Sears, senior partner with Jamie Watt's Navigator P.R. for damage control. 

As a tribute to Navigator's and Sears prowess, Mulroney can't even get invited to Tory party functions. 

I thought that was in tribute to the brown bags full of money.  But never fear Brian,  Vander Zalm has made a revival as a populist despite the brown paper bags full of cash.