I've heard Louise Arbour has been floated as a possible replacement GG. I dated her daughter back when she was on the Supreme Court. She is a very intelligent, even-handed person. I almost think the position is beneath her.

^ good choice!

What were the specific allegations against her? I'm genuinely curious, but not able to find anything in terms of specifics?

The only real allegations against her were that she was just a piece of shit to people in general.

It's hard when it comes to things like this. The company that did the assessment or review promised participants confidentiality. Then there is a legal part where you can or cannot broadcast a person's specific faults ... HR or labour laws?

It just sounded like she was a real b*tch! Enough complaints from employees, certainly not fitting of the office.

This morning new on global they said they contacted the private companies she had worked for in the past and basically sounded the same at each prior job, just a general peice of shit that creates a toxic work place with her attitude and the way she treats others.

Turds assigned posts really turn out nice ��

Back in July, she was accused of creating a, "toxic workplace." Verbally abusing staff, to the point some have quit. I think something big was about to come out from the investigation. Nothing sexual or physical as far as recent reports. I guess leave now while you can. Maybe being out in space scrambled some of her marbles, lol.

Also, pissing off a lot of people usually ends up in someone gunning for you by digging up all kinds of shit on you.

There were reports that she didn't want to resign and the PM had to go and talk with her to give her her 'options'. Bi*ch wanted to hang on to the >$200K job ... of course. Watch how much compensation she gets and a nice fat pension!

LOL! She fucking gets 140k a year pension with 100k a year in retirement to pay for travel relating to her retired roll?

what in the fuck

Maybe it’s time to cut all these gross ties to the crown and England? Turd out here cutting blank cheques to reserves and crying on TV over residential schools yet we still have these govt. appointed positions which are direct connections to the “colonialism”

It pays to know the Trudeau family! ... literally.

Even if we cut out the Govenor General in it's current form we still need someone to be the Head of State. The PM in our system of government cannot be this role so we either need our own Monarch (unlikely) or President like they do in places like Germany or Israel that has basically no power.

Either way we're probably not going to let that position go without be handsomely paid either. But agree we need to cut ties with the British Crown.

If we had a worse turd than what we have now, like a Cheeto, the Governor General can kick the fokker out. The power, as far as I can remember, has never been exercised.

A hysterical person like that French Astoluzer Woman is not a good choice in emergencies.

https://www.gg.ca/en/role/responsibi...utional-duties

Of all the Governors General, she has got to be the worst. The vetting process......... what was it? Oh, look, she's French (bilingual a given), an Astonaut and engineer (somewhat famous)? Give me a break.

List of former Governors General of Canada.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/about/proc...n/app01-e.html

I've noticed a few of the females on that list are journalists.

I think we are a Constitutional Monarchy (Parliamentary System). Unless we rewrite everything, the Governor General will continue to be a thing. "Long Live the Queen!" Yes, I'm an Empire Loyalist. That portrait of the Queen at Strathcona. I was so impressed by it. That and the Canadian Red Ensign with the Union Jack. And of all things, a few Emily Carr prints.

as a side note, the Union Jack is made up of the Kingdoms/Crowns of Scotland, Ireland, England. And, did you know there is a right side up on the Union Jack? It's not symmetrical.

Getting back to the topic of Governors General of Canada. Adrienne Clarkson was one of the more colourful ones. Born in HK. Highly educated and decorated. Even she was without faults/controversy. Loved to spend taxpayers dollars. Anyway, check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrienne_Clarkson

Even Michaëlle Jean, although generally good at her role, I also heard that she likes to expense .. maybe it's that culture and government air that they breathe.

David Johnson was good, maybe males are less maintenance?

Proud boys added to the list of terrorist groups. Any members on RS?


https://globalnews.ca/news/7616542/p...rorist-groups/

BuT ThEy'Re PrOuD tO bE WhItE! WhAtS WrOnG wItH ThAt???

This should be good ... Fifth Estate is doing a doc on WE Charity. It seems like JT threw them under the proverbial bus. Not saying WE is not at fault but JT, Morneau certainly deserves a bit more 'credit' for their part in this.

Kielburger brothers say WE Charity controversy left them 'political roadkill'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kielb...kill-1.5899542

"The irony of ironies is that politicians in this country have the word 'honourable' in front of their name," said Marc Kielburger. "We sat there so many times throughout this entire process and the actions have been of course less than honourable."


The shorthand for the affair, on social media and in headlines, became the "WE Charity Scandal" - a fact lamented by the brothers.

"It wasn't the 'failure to recuse scandal.' It wasn't the 'prime minister scandal.' It wasn't the 'government scandal.' It ended up being the 'WE Charity scandal,'" said Marc Kielburger.

Hahaha this is fucking INSANE!! Like this is full blown Libtardism sorry, this is underlining the govt. is fucking broken

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ous-gun-crimes

So turd is spending 2-4 billion to buy back guns, yet he is getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes such as second offence unlawfully possessing a firearm, smuggling a firearm, commiting a robbery with a firearm etc because these laws are racist???? Lololol

Jesus ducking Christ man..like you couldn’t write this shit. And of course he tip toes around the gun questions as per usual.

The drug stuff I’m fine with, get people help, you shouldn’t be locked away for possession of substances cause you’re an addict etc. But how in the fuck can you say you’re gonna buy back guns from law abiding citizens and then in the same breathe remove minimums for gun related crimes????

Like this shit feels like you’re just waiting for Somone in your family to get robbed and murdered and then the perp gets off because they were actually radicalized in their prosecution and now your moms dead and a native guy is back on the streets before you’ve buried her.

If you commit a gun crime and you’re any race, go to jail, period. Gun crime doesn’t discriminate. Just because you’re black or native and are convicted of a gun crime doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be in jail ffs..

Ooof... so you're just automatically assuming a criminal is native? That's a pretty shit attitude man.

You're posting a right-wing opinion piece, from a right-wing newspaper. That entire opinion piece is written so facetiously.

Trudeau never said he's removing mandatory minimums specifically for gun crimes :lol

Historically, mandatory minimum sentences are inherently racist, look at the 3-strike rule and mandatory minimums in the states, they are heavily levied against minorities more so than any other community.

He's looking to remove that mandatory minimum requirement, that does not simply mean that gun crimes would be overlooked as a result. The primary reason to remove mandatory minimums is to target drug offences. If say for example crack carries a mandatory minimum of 1 year, by removing that mandatory, a person does not have to be imprisoned when found in possession.

The judge still carries the ability to impose a sentence deemed necessary so for a gun offence, the judge can certainly do so, the only change here is to remove the automatic requirement of a mandatory minimum.

That article is pure propaganda.

He did say for gun crimes, they just played the quote on CKNW and discussed the repercussions of the removal of the mandatory minimums with the host and callers.

My example of a native person was just using the govt. rationale that black and indigenous people are unequally represented in the justice system for these crimes, which as you said above, when it comes to drug crimes etc. Absolutely and they should use that as evidence to put people into rehabilitation programs etc.

But removing the mandatory minimum on gun crime regardless of race is insane. If you’re black, indigenous, Latino etc. And you commit a gun crime with a mandatory minimum, it isn’t racist to be locked up for a year after the second time you were caught with an illegal
Firearm..

If that article is too “right wing” for you, here’s a global article regarding the loosening of the mandatory minimums, opposed by the Alberta justice minister, who’s black!...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7649720/m...um-sentencing/

And please don’t tell me the judges are actually going to be harder on these crimes or more effective in keeping dangerous people off the streets as we’ve seen time and time again, Canadian judges are nortoriously soft and continually let dangerous offenders out into the public without any sort of repercussions for their crimes.

You don’t have to look any further than the recent wave of arrests from the violent shoplifting downtown. In the one example a woman who was arrested for stealing makeup from the Granville London drugs, after her arrest she was found with a huge knife as well as a gun. She had a court order to not posses any weapons or firearms from numerous previous offences. This bitch should be behind bars for 10 years after that.

Honestly, when you create this environment where there are seemingly no repercussions for violent, heinous, crimes, this is when you create a society that lives in fear constantly much akin to the states where people have to answer their doors at night with a weapon behind their back. The only difference is in Canada you’re the one who goes to jail for trying to defend your home/family.

List the mandatory minimums being removed. You do realize this is to assist low-risk, and first time offenders correct?

You do know this was a policy in many states in the US that are being rolled back as well, Harper imposed these minimums, which we've seen simply don't work as planned.

14 (1) Paragraph 742.$1(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the offence is not an offence under any of the following provisions:
(i) section 239, for which a sentence is imposed under paragraph 239(1)$(b) (attempt to commit murder),
(ii) section 269.$1 (torture), or
(iii) section 318 (advocating genocide); an

As you can see above, the bill does not replace any mandatory minimums for attempted murder or violence.

The proposed changes would repeal mandatory minimums for 14 of the 67 offences for which minimums apply under the Criminal Code.

Can you list me the 14 minimums that will be replaced, Honda?

Here's more on the proposal:

Proposed changes to mandatory minimum penalties (MMP) in Bill C-22
MMPs would be repealed for 14 offences in the Criminal Code.

All six Controlled Drugs and Substances Act MMPs would be repealed.

What remains
MMPs would be retained for a number of offences, including:
murder
high treason
sexual offences (including child sexual offences)
impaired driving offences
some firearm offences, including firearms offences connected to a criminal organization.

Like I said, another crap article that over simplifies what they're attempting to change here.

If you do your digging, you'll understand its intent.

Ok, here from the govt. website, these are the offences being changed from mandatory minimums:

To address the over-incarceration rate of Indigenous peoples, as well as Black and marginalized Canadians, MMPs for the following offences would be repealed:

Using a firearm or imitation firearm in commission of offence (two separate offences)
Paragraphs 85(3)(a) and (b): MMPs of 1 year (first offence) and 3 years (second and subsequent offence)

Possession of firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized (two separate offences)
Paragraphs 92(3)(b) and (c): MMP of 1 year (second offence) and 2 years less a day (third and subsequent offence)

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
Paragraphs 95(2)(i) and (ii): MMPs of 3 years (first offence) and 5 years (second and subsequent offence)

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
Paragraph 96(2)(a): MMP of 1 year

Weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition)
Subsection 99(3): MMP of 1 year

Possession for purpose of weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition)
Subsection 100(3): MMP of 1 year

Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized
Subsection 103(2.1): MMP of 1 year

Discharging firearm with intent
Paragraph 244(2)(b): MMP of 4 years

Discharging firearm — recklessness
Paragraph 244.2(3)(b): MMP of 4 years

Robbery with a firearm
Paragraph 344(1)(a.1): MMP of 4 years

Extortion with a firearm
Paragraph 346(1.1)(a.1): MMP of 4 years

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...-repealed.html

Am I missing somthing? So armed robbery, robbery with a replica fire arm, extortion with a firearm, carrying an illegal farm arm, discharge of a firearm, have all had the minimum sentence scapped..

Seems pretty straight forward from the govt. website itself.

As I said, I completely agree with the drug portion of it. However I can’t help myself but think of that Simpson’s episode where Bart is stuck in the remedial classroom

“So we’re going to do away with gun crime..by getting softer on gun crime..”

What's the purpose of a minimum sentence? It sounds like the real issue is judges being too lenient, so why not worry about that instead of some bandaid fix someone tried to put on that? Isn't this like any highly trained professional being micromanaged by someone in another department?