This is the important questions…
Hey everyone look over here…while we stick it up your bum from this side.
And you’ll like it because we say so.
|
|
|
Where is Doug Ford?
- Thread starter justride
- Start date
Hey everyone look over here…while we stick it up your bum from this side.
And you’ll like it because we say so.
The guy was asked why he is not testifying....his response: I wasn't asked = a lie. Now they are saying they did ask him and they are asking him to testify. And his response is "I'll see you in court". The guy is the Premier of the Province. Ottawa is part of Ontario. He hid during the occupation so he didn't have to say **** against his nutty supporters 4 months before the election. The next time the Feds pass anything he doesn't like he can shut the **** up because it is a federal matter.
Maybe he was never personally asked. Could have been stopped before it made it to him. Calling people liars when we know very little about what happened isnt right.
Maybe i just made it up and am calling him a liar for no reason and pulled that out of my ass or?:
"The commission has sought to interview Ford dating back to mid-September."
And here is video of his lie (at 1:07.50):
Last edited:
The problem with that logic is that Ontario is part of Canada. The truth of the matter is that it was a local Ottawa policing issue, just like the attempted protest in Toronto was a local Toronto policing issue.
I'd like to know why the CCF and others want him there. What will he add to the commission?
TK4
Well-known member
Ottawa f*cked up, the province f*cked up, the feds f*cked up. The whole question of jurisdiction got lost.
The inquiry is supposed to find out who was responsible AND why JT felt he had to invoke the Act.
Dougie could clarify about what he did (or did not) do, but his lack of transparency makes the whole show look even worse.
The government would never try and slip draconian measures through on an innocuous sounding bill..... oh wait.
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-23 (44-1) - First Reading - Historic Places of Canada Act - Parliament of Canada
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-23 (44-1) - First Reading - Historic Places of Canada Act - Parliament of Canada
parl.ca
Sounds fine, right?
Anyone think any of that needs to be in there?
I don't think any of that is a big concern. The park warden's scope of duties would be narrow... It doesn't give them a free pass to do whatever they please and trample people's rights.
That video is 9 days old..
At that point... Had they asked him to testify...Or.. only requested interviews?
There has literally been emails uncovered in the enquiry where Justin was e-mailing Jim Watson to make plans to team up and make Doug Ford the target. The protest was there for Trudeau and it was Ottawa who polices the area. The thing was a ****-show. Why would Doug Ford want to get more involved then necessary. Sloly asked for 150 OPP and was denied. Where was he expecting this army to come from with a days notice. The Ottawa police could have stopped the trucks from entering the city in the first place like Toronto did. Trudeau could have tried to defuse the situation and spoke to the protestors respectfully the way that Doug did with the ambassador bridge.
Could Doug have done more? yes. but why insert himself into drama needlessly.
It's wild that the Toronto Star is running multiple articles daily about Doug Ford not testifying and even the Globe and CBC are barely even bothering with it.
Could Doug have done more? yes. but why insert himself into drama needlessly.
It's wild that the Toronto Star is running multiple articles daily about Doug Ford not testifying and even the Globe and CBC are barely even bothering with it.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I was watching the inquiry on the ArriveCan app development last night. A small recruiting firm, GCStrategies -- 2 guys working from home -- pocketed $2.7M in fees over 24 months for services related to staffing techs to build ArriveCan, and another $10M in fees under fed gov't sole source contracts that were never sent for bids.
Your Gov't at work.
What classifies an enforcement officer? Does that include police officers?
How did the Province f*ck up? I'm trying to understand your point.
TK4
Well-known member
Doug Ford needs to stop running for cover, and testify now
By running for cover, Ford only calls more attention to himself and raises suspicions of a conspiracy to coverup misdeeds, Martin Regg Cohn writes.
www.thestar.com
Read through the article several times and tried to find the answer, but I am at a loss. Can you point it out?Doug Ford needs to stop running for cover, and testify now
By running for cover, Ford only calls more attention to himself and raises suspicions of a conspiracy to coverup misdeeds, Martin Regg Cohn writes.
Instead of giving the reason(s) that Ford should go, the author provides his own biases in making up reasons for Ford not going.
"No questions please, I’m the premier. No questions at a public inquiry into the federal emergency? Not in my jurisdiction. No followup questions during the provincial legislature’s daily Question Period? Not in my job description." - note these are the author's words and not the Premier's.
After assigning thoughts to the Premier, the author then goes on to explain why these are bad thoughts, and how it is "doublespeak". (unintended irony?)
17 paragraphs in the author finally gets to what the Premier actually said. Then the author implies that the Premier is simply parroting what his office told him to say.
We then get into the part about police standing in and taking the blame for politicians. Which might apply to politicians who were involved in the decision making process. Was Ford involved in that process? We jump to a claim that Ford was involved in an appointment, which was probed and Ford was found innocent.
Next is a claim that Ontario's position at the Emergencies Act Inquiry has fallen apart. "The OPP testified at a parliamentary committee earlier this year that emergency powers dissolved the deadlock and roadblocks at the Ottawa occupation; more recently, an OPP lawyer opined without persuasive evidence that those powers weren’t ever necessary."
Provincial emergency powers? Federal? Both? This line is confusing and contradictory. How did Ontario's position fall apart?
Next comes an assertion that Trudeau, who hasn't testified yet, said that Ford was ducking out so that the Feds would take the lead.
Next is a vague bureaucrat line that may be the writer's entire argument in a nutshell: "Inquiry lawyers also want to ask Ford why he reportedly dismissed crisis meetings among officials as a waste of time; if he believed bureaucrats couldn’t get the job done then, why then is he insisting they are best placed to speak for him now?"
What does that even mean? Who said it? What is the context? What was the value of crisis meetings among officials? How would Ford fix things by being there? If he wasn't involved during the situation, why does he need to take accountability for the results, unless his not being there caused the situation, which nothing in the testimony so far corroborates.
Now we're onto Ford breezing to a massive election victory by losing the public's trust, and how he's losing it again. (?!?)
Finally, an unsupported claim that democratic accountability is lost and Ford loses the war if he doesn't testify.
Can you answer the question? This article doesn't as far as I can tell. Why is he needed?
Edit: They should call Tory and the TPS. How did they resolve the Toronto protest so quickly and easily?
That one is easy. Just like Ottawa, they had a really good idea ahead of time who was showing up and where they planned to cause chaos and they prevented them from getting there. Ottawa police knew everything in advance and let it happen with no resistance. Who thinks digging out an entrenched enemy is easier than stopping their advance? Everything about Ottawa's (OPS, feds, capital police) response was inept and embarrassing. Toronto was proactive and easily dealt with the situation.
The mandate is to examine why the government used the act, not responsibility.
You could argue that examining who did what/or didn't and when could align with the question of 'why'. However, Doug's clear stance is that the situation in Ottawa was not a Political one, it was a Policing one. As the province does not dictate to the OPP about how to do their job, when the city asked for help the province directed them to contact OPP to tap into their additional resources.
He's providing cabinet documents and at least 2 deputy ministers to testify if needed. I don't see what him speaking is going to shine a light on, he's already stated publicly what the province did. The documents and any correspondence are public records, shouldn't be difficult to verify.
|
|
|
|
|