The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

July 31, 2008

Real Justice in Canada too

 Forbidding any other inquiries cause there is one in the courts is ALSO STILL really absurd. Court delaying tactics that could be easily used thus  next insuring  that real justice is not even carried out in the courts. Often more than one inquiries are required as a balance or check.  Anyone who trusts an often  politically appointed judge is a fool rather for how often do we see now still see the provincial and federal courts contradicting each others too? Certainly do not believe that all justice  is even best carried out, being done in the Queen’s courts, or by the too often  rigged Commissions, masturbating self regulating societies? How often do you even see bad lawyers, bad cops, bad RCMP, bad professionals, bad Politicians, bad alcholics IN CANADA get their rightful dues now? Very rarely!!  

 

 Conservative ex PM Brian Mulroney is a great example of how injsutice was, is being carried out by the courts and  by the too often bad RCMP too.

Groups boycott B.C. police complaint system, call on government for reform 1VANCOUVER – An anti-poverty group and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association say they will boycott the provincial police complaint system until the government makes “urgently needed” changes.

Some do even say :The Gomery inquiry into the Liberals’ “Adscam” sponsorship program scandal, the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry, and other recent investigative hearings by federal parliamentary committees have revealed that when it comes to discovering the truth of many situations of alleged wrongdoing, the federal government’s inquiry system is broken. While parliamentary committees have the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence, and while many opposition party supporters may delight in the hearings that have been held examining questionable ruling party activities in the past few years, during which we have had a minority federal government, these committees’ overall record is not good. Not surprisingly, the MPs on the committees usually have represented their political parties’ interests in these hearings, in votes concerning whether to hold hearings, and what witnesses to call. The recent hearing into the federal Conservatives’ questionable election spending scheme is only the latest example of an ineffective committee investigation (especially given that a civil court case, and a quasi-criminal investigation, are currently examining the same scheme in a much more fact-based, fair and impartial way). At the same time, the federal cabinet’s power to establish a commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act also deserves to be questioned, given the record over the past couple of decades. Justice John Gomery, who was appointed by Paul Martin’s cabinet, has been found by a Federal Court judge to have acted in a manner biased against former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his chief of staff Jean Pelletier, while other Gomery Commission watchers have also noted how Gomery’s final report ignored clear evidence of then-Finance Minister Martin’s knowledge of, and intervention in, the sponsorship program. Conservative Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet have made every decision about the inquiry into the actions of former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s relations with Karlheinz Schreiber, even though Mr. Harper’s own actions are in question, which has resulted in an inquiry that will not examine many significant questions about the situation. Several years ago, then-Prime Minister Chretien’s cabinet and majority government shut down the inquiry into the armed forces scandal in Somalia when it headed in a direction it didn’t like, and restricted the scope of the inquiry into the tainted blood scandal.  And then, of course, there are all the inquiries that were called for by opposition parties or political commentators that didn’t occur during the past 20 years. That was when the Conservatives or Liberals had a majority government and therefore, controlled all parliamentary committees. In other words, whether an inquiry is launched into allegations of wrongdoing by anyone in the federal government, and whether the inquiry is fair and based on evidence, is determined by the whims of either the leaders and MPs of the ruling party, or of the opposition parties. Fortunately, there are two simple solutions to this unethical, ineffective mess that could be made by the opposition parties very quickly this fall (given that they control a majority of seats in the House of Commons and Senate). First, the Inquiries Act should be changed to require approval of a majority of the federal party leaders in the House of Commons to initiate and set the terms of reference for an inquiry, and approval of all party leaders to choose the inquiry commissioner(s) after nominees are screened by the Public Appointments Commission. This change would very likely lead to more inquiries being launched with the support of only opposition parties, but each would be overseen by a qualified person who would be chosen by consensus of all party leaders, not hearings held by unqualified partisan MPs. Opposition parties would pay a political cost if they launched frivolous inquiries that waste the public’s money. A key part of this change is the establishment of the Public Appointments Commission to ensure that inquiry commissioners are qualified. The Conservatives’ Federal Accountability Act allows, but does not require, cabinet to create the commission, and Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet have so far failed to set it up. Second, the Parliament of Canada Act should be changed to prohibit committee hearings on matters being dealt with by an inquiry or a court, until the inquiry or court case is over. This would stop committees from holding redundant, kangaroo-court hearings into subjects that are being examined through judicial processes. Federal party leaders may not agree with these specific proposed solutions, but all should recognize that a so-called mature democracy such as Canada’s should have a mature system that ensures fair investigations of alleged wrongdoing by anyone in the federal government, and that Canadians deserve better than the current system which is riddled with conflicts of interest. Duff Conacher is the Coordinator of Democracy Watch, Canada’s leading democratic reform organization.”  http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/article/370396

And what we always still also do need is real laws, enforced ones, not hypocritical ones..

CP OTTAWA – ‘It appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper has failed to meet his own conflict-of-interest rules for declaring gifts received.  Harper has not publicly declared a gift since February, despite being required to do so within 30 days under new guidelines introduced by his minority Conservative government.  However, an official insisted the prime minister is in compliance with the rules because all gifts are in the “process” of being disclosed or still being appraised to establish their value.  “All items are either disclosed properly or are in the process of being disclosed,” said the official, who asked not to be identified.  “Certain items have taken in excess of 30 days due to the time required for proper appraisal.”  Under the new conflict rules in the Conservatives’ public accountability legislation of 2006, all gifts Harper and his cabinet ministers receive valued over $200 must be reported within 30 days.  A compliance manager for Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson told The Canadian Press the office has not received notice of gifts received by Harper since his last report on Feb. 2. The last gift on that disclosure was a framed photo Harper received during a visit to Churchill, Man., in October 2007.  Previous gifts in that report include a desk decorated with antlers Harper received from U.S. President George Bush at a summit in Montebello, Que., Cuban cigars from the Cuban ambassador in Ottawa, and a New York Rangers jersey signed by Mark Messier.  Other gifts on Harper’s list included presents from corporate gift-givers, including a Christmas hamper in 2006 from the chairman of Reimer World Corporation and a Christmas gift from the president of Nestle Canada.  The conflict of interest act carries an “administrative monetary penalty” not exceeding $500 for public office holders who fail to comply with the gift disclosure  requirements of the act, and other provisions.  Opposition MPs blasted Harper.  “They came out with all that rhetoric about being the white knights on accountability but when it comes time, they’re missing in action,” said New Democrat MP Pat Martin, adding the prime minister has an obligation to lead by example.  “These little things are important symbolically and a cavalier attitude toward reporting sends a terrible message.”  Liberal MP Mark Holland accused Harper of violating his own legislation.  The new act took effect in July 2007. ”

As far as Stephen Harper’s pre- election promises, lies to make his government hold himself, all others more accountable, it too was just another big typical lie to get elected, once elected promises are not kept by a clearly  another  immoral politician name Stephen Harper   

and what we also do not need is an other clearly Canadian immoral corporation like Bell Sympatico.

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/pm-stephen-harper-needs-to-get-better-friends-needs-to-repent-himself-too/

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/bell-sympatico-executive-care-sasha-rollins/

This next was so predictable even by me too « Witnessed on July 30, 2008  at 11:32 pm

“Re: http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/dirty-dirty-bell-sympatico/
Dirty Bell yes you are right I am having problems too . I TRIED A FAX, BUT THEY WOULDN’T GIVE ME A REPLY. I Sent all my info to their office registered do you think I get a reply.No! My service was down june 9/08 they sent me a letter of cancellation and then decided I was still activated and they want more money. I said I am not paying for service I don’t have. No contract? they say yes but i say no. I do not have time for this crap. I only ever had one so called contract that was fullfilled the rest were oferrs unfulfilled, really no contracts. I will leave Bell completely if I have to and there are other companies around for phone service. Bell they keep adding money to my bill for internet service I do not have. This is how they make money by stealing from people. If we did that we would go to jail. Sympatico can put it all where the sun dont shine. Truly angered Rose ”  by: Rose on July 31, 2008  at 3:32 pm  

All Bell employees clearly seem wrongfully concerned only about keeping their jobs, by insuring that the customer pays their Bills, but still they do not care about solving the problems the customers are having, even because they have no authority, to deal with the customer’s problems.. I have dealt with them now for 18 months complaining, wrote 300 letters but when it comes to serving, helping the customers they act still like they are all idiots, fools.. they all do need to fired now, not just the managers..

and no one can deny these truths too..

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: