Sunday, July 16, 2017

Barry Ross Sr. · Flin Flon, Manitoba we wer in the black with Harper ,if this is how you think ,soooo sooorrrrry !------------ Julie Ali · University of Alberta Barry Ross Sr. Mr. Harper and crew wasted a ton of cash. Remember the airplanes and the useless submarines? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/.../f-35.../article18325378/ Canada has failed to disclose the full costs of buying controversial stealth fighters, a new independent report says, warning that the true price tag is at least $10-billion higher for a total of $56-billion. *** Mr. Harper wasted this money. And the submarines were a bad purchase. Don't forget the Gazebo junk too. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/.../when.../article582792/ - spending $50-million of public money in the Muskoka region of Ontario for the 2010 G8 summit, and calling it "investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion." Like · Reply · 4 mins---

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-costs-could-double-over-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/

F-35 costs at least $10-billion higher than Ottawa estimates, expert says

OTTAWA — Globe and Mail Update (Includes Correction)
Published Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2014 2:36PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2014 7:58PM EDT
Canada has failed to disclose the full costs of buying controversial stealth fighters, a new independent report says, warning that the true price tag is at least $10-billion higher for a total of $56-billion.
Under the worst-case scenario, the report by University of British Columbia academic Michael Byers predicts, the full lifetime bill for F-35 Lightning jets would hit $126-billion – about $81-billion higher than Ottawa’s working estimate of $45.8-billion.
The analysis, titled The Plane that Ate the Canadian Military, drew a swift rejoinder from F-35 maker Lockheed Martin Tuesday. It said there are gross inaccuracies in Mr. Byers’s work and the calculations are based on “out-of-date” cost information.
“That’s not in line with any economic estimate that anyone has going forward,” Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for F-35 business development, said of the report.
Mr. Byers, who holds Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at UBC, said Ottawa is lowballing the cost of purchasing and operating 65 F-35 jets over three decades.
In the report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute, he said the full bill for buying, operating and maintaining the planes is at least $56-billion and not the $45.8-billion the government has already acknowledged because its bleeding-edge technology is still under development.
“The Harper government has also failed to acknowledge the considerable cost risks and uncertainty associated with a fleet of F-35s – risks that are amplified by the developmental character and the unusually high operating and sustainment costs of these particular aircraft,” Mr. Byers said.
He warned that the F-35 could end up gobbling up significant portions of the military’s budget over the next three decades.
“An additional $81-billion in unplanned cost could destroy the Canadian military, which would be forced to carry most of that cost through reduced expenditures on other equipment, maintenance, infrastructure, salaries and training. Even the ‘moderate’ [case] scenario, which carries an additional $45-billion in unplanned cost, would have profoundly negative, across-the-board impacts on the men and women who serve.”
Two years ago, Ottawa vowed to start from scratch after it received a damning audit of its plans for the sole-sourced purchase of F-35 fighter jets, promising to scour the world market for rival jets.
Today, however, Ottawa is considering two main options for its plans to commit $45-billion to controversial new fighter jets – and both point back to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the clear front-runner, sources said.

Government and outside sources said the process is nearing completion, and the government is facing two main options: continue with its sole-source plans to buy a fleet of 65 F-35 Lighting IIs, or launch a competition that, based on technical and financial data obtained by the government, would lead to the selection of the same aircraft.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/when-building-gazebos-violates-the-public-trust/article582792/

GLOBE EDITORIAL

When building gazebos violates the public trust

The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 09, 2011 7:30PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 3:55PM EDT
Misled. The Auditor-General report's may not use the word, but that's what the federal government did to Parliament, and therefore to Canadians, by spending $50-million of public money in the Muskoka region of Ontario for the 2010 G8 summit, and calling it "investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion." Governments always play fiscal shell games, so why be moved to outrage this time?
First, even by standards of the cynic, the process was brazenly irregular. Muskoka is hundreds of kilometres from any border - a conveniently available existing line item was used as cover for the unrelated spending. There was no documentation around the choice of the 32 projects, which included new logistics centres that performed no G8-related logistics, new runways for airports where no G8-related planes landed, and gazebos and other goodies of marginal connection to the G8, all in Tony Clement's riding.
Second, it put good public administration at the mercy of politics. Some modest tweaking of any kind of government spending for political gain is to be expected. But professional public servants ought, at least, to be at the table, to bring some rigour to the process. Instead, they were absent. The report does little to dispel a picture of Mr. Clement and then-infrastructure minister John Baird, two experienced ministers who should have known better, sitting down together, alone, to pick projects.
Third, think of the findings not just retrospectively, but prospectively. This is the government that wants to cut $11-billion in program spending over four years. It has set up a formal strategic review, but will it act with self-discipline to make sure that the G8 infrastructure spending process does not repeat itself? And is it going to make spending truly transparent, or will it still empower itself to move around tens of millions of dollars at the stroke of a pen, with no disclosure?
Finally, until the Auditor-General came along, the government's other watchdogs had fallen asleep. The government is right on one point: This whole affair was hidden in plain sight. The $50-million program was announced in February, 2009, and the offending mislabeling of parliamentary appropriations took place in November, 2009. By following the money (and seeing where the trail stopped), a diligent MP could have sounded the alarm.
This is an opportunity for a reform of government policies around spending oversight and disclosure. The government's reputation for fiscal prudence depends on such a reform.
Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY


http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-ask-questions-about-canada-s-submarines-1.2260419

Editorial: Ask questions about Canada’s submarines

TIMES COLONIST
MAY 21, 2016 12:37 AM


Canada’s four submarines could be called floating money pits — except they don’t float that much. They spend more time being repaired than they do sailing, and now two of them are headed for drydock for the better part of a year so faulty welding can be fixed.
This is the latest of the problems that have plagued the subs since Canada bought them secondhand from the U.K. in 1998. That purchase has turned out to be a financial and operational disaster.
It’s time to ask some hard questions: Do we need these costly vessels? Can we afford them? At what point do we stop pouring money into repairs?
HMCS Victoria and its sister, HMCS Chicoutimi, will be docked at Victoria for several months because several hundred welds need to be inspected, and repaired if necessary, before the submarines can return to the open sea.
Being docked is what the subs do best. Put into service from 1990 to 1993, the four Upholder submarines were decommissioned in 1994, as the U.K. decided to go with an all-nuclear submarine fleet. They sat in the saltwater until 1998, when Canada bought them to replace its aging Oberon submarines, naming them after Canadian cities — Victoria, Chicoutimi, Windsor and Corner Brook. They became known as Victoria-class submarines.
Victoria was commissioned by the Canadian Navy in December 2000, the first of the four vessels to go into service, but it wasn’t declared fully operational until 2012. All of the subs have been plagued with problems, spending vastly more time being repaired and maintained they spend moving about in the water. The original purchase price of $750 million has been exceeded by subsequent costs.
The challenge with a secondhand flivver is trying to determine how much fixing up to do — it just keeps costing more and more money to keep it going, and after you have spent all that money, you still have an old jalopy.
That’s a glib comparison — a submarine is a vastly complex vessel, and maintenance is constant, even for new submarines.
But these are not new submarines, and they weren’t in good shape to start with.
“It was apparent from the start that the submarines were flawed,” wrote defence analysts Michael Byer and Stewart Webb in the Times Colonist in 2013. “Initially, the British experienced problems with the diesel engines, which were designed for railroad locomotives and not the rapid stops and starts required of submarines. They also struggled with defects in the torpedo-tube slide valves that are supposed to prevent the inner torpedo doors from opening while the outer doors are ajar.
“The British decommissioned the submarines in 1994 and just tied them up to a wharf. There, they languished in salt water for four years awaiting a buyer, and another two to six years before Canada took possession of them. During this time, the submarines suffered serious corrosion, to the point where the diving depth of HMCS Windsor remains restricted to this day.”
That doesn’t mean the subs have been useless — they have been used to help curtail the international drug trade and with other operations the Navy has been involved in. But the cost has been high.
Should they be replaced? Australia intends to build 12 new French-designed diesel-electric submarines at a total cost of $43 billion US. If Canada followed that example, it would, at least, be a boon for the domestic shipbuilding industry, but at a heavy cost to the national budget.

But we have learned, over the past eight years, that submarines are not an essential element in the Navy. It fulfilled its role without them, and we should question the need to keep spending billions on these costly vessels.
https://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/7374715-liberals-to-sink-more-money-into-navy-s-subs/

Liberals to sink more money into navy's subs

NEWS Jun 16, 2017
SHARE
OTTAWA — The Trudeau government is planning to spend billions more on the navy's four wayward submarines to keep them operating into the 2030s.
The plan to extend the lives of the troubled vessels is included in the Liberals' new defence policy and comes following calls from senior naval officers to save the controversial ships from the scrap heap.
The actual price of the plan was not revealed in the policy document, which was released to much fanfare last week, and National Defence refused to provide a price tag following multiple requests.
That is despite assertions from the Liberal government that the defence policy was fully costed and following promises of full transparency when it came to the overall plan.
"Detailed costing will be provided in the Defence Investment Plan to be published in due course," National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said in an email.
Defence sources, however, have told The Canadian Press that keeping the submarines in the water for another decade will cost upwards of $2.5 billion.
Without upgrades, the first of the submarines will reach the end of its life in 2022, according to documents obtained last year through Access to Information, with the last retired in 2027.
Some have questioned the wisdom of spending more money on the four vessels, which have been plagued with problems since Canada bought them used from Britain in 1998.
While the Chretien government said at the time that it was getting a bargain by paying only $750 million, the ships have required constant repairs and upgrades just to make them seaworthy for a limited time.
And while a number of experts have called for Canada look to purchase new submarines, rather than upgrading the ones it has, others have said the country doesn't need such expensive vessels.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan this week emphasized the Liberal government's view, previously expressed by senior naval officials, that subs are necessary for protecting Canada's security and sovereignty.
"No other platform in the Canadian Armed Forces can do what a submarine can do," Sajjan said during an event in Halifax on Monday.
"No other platform has the stealth, the intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance capability and the deterrence to potential adversaries that a sub does."
Sajjan added that the government decided upgrading the existing subs — HMCS Chicoutimi, Victoria, Corner Brook and Windsor — was more "prudent" than purchasing new vessels.
The Liberals promised in their defence policy to invest an additional $62 billion in the military over the next 20 years, which includes increasing annual defence spending by 70 per cent over the next decade.
A large chunk of that new money will end up going towards replacing the navy's 12 frigates and three recently retired destroyers with 15 new warships at a cost of between $56 billion and $60 billion.
Previous estimates had pegged the cost of those vessels at $26 billion.
The four submarines continue to generate headlines for the wrong reasons, with the most recent Thursday when HMCS Chicoutimi was hit by another naval vessel while docked at CFB Esquimalt in B.C.
But Rob Huebert, an expert on maritime security at the University of Calgary, said the other three have been involved in a variety of tasks and mission in recent months — even if most Canadians don't realize it.
"The very nature of what they do means that (the military) can't talk about it," he said.
"They're actually exceeding what the navy was expecting them to do in terms of time at sea, interdiction of drugs and co-operation with the Americans. You can't talk about any of that, but it is occurring."
Rather than extend the lives of the submarines, Huebert said he would have liked to see the government start looking for replacements, but that wasn't possible given the huge costs of replacing the frigates.
"What we saw was the defence review was an intelligent decision to do what was necessary to lengthen the life of the subs while making sure the (new warships) are built," he said.
- Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter.

By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press




http://calgaryherald.com/news/national/justin-trudeau-offers-strongest-defence-yet-of-omar-khadr-settlement-at-calgary-stampede?fb_comment_id=fbc_1397359867014713_1397473217003378_1397473217003378#f33f19638e67b68

Justin Trudeau offers strongest defence yet of Omar Khadr settlement at Calgary Stampede

Published on: July 15, 2017 | Last Updated: July 15, 2017 6:11 PM MDT
Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau during his visit to the 2017 Calgary Stampede. AL CHAREST/POSTMEDIA
Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau during his visit to the 2017 Calgary Stampede. AL CHAREST/POSTMEDIA
Justin Trudeau offered his strongest defence yet of his government’s $10.5-million settlement with Omar Khadr on Saturday, saying he hopes it serves as an example to future governments.
“When governments violate Canadians’ fundamental rights, there have to be consequences and we hope that the message going forward to all future governments is: you can not ignore or be complicit in the violation of Canadians fundamental rights, regardless of what they did,” said Trudeau.
The prime minister spoke at the Indian Village on the Calgary Stampede grounds, initially reiterating what he’s been saying for the past few days: he understands why people are frustrated but he thinks the government would have lost the case to Khadr if they had fought in court, and it would have cost between $30-40 million in the process. Trudeau then went on to offer the more strident human rights defence.
Trudeau spent the day in Calgary, attending two pancake breakfasts in the morning before visiting the Indian Village in the afternoon and rounding off the day at the rodeo.
He’s faced widespread criticism over the past few days over the Khadr payment. Khadr fought against coalition forces in Afghanistan as a 15 year old, before being sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was repeatedly tortured.
The prime minister initially wasn’t planning on coming to Stampede this year due to a scheduling conflict with the United States’ National Governors Association conference in Rhode Island. However, he managed to get to all his meetings at the conference, including a sit-down with vice-president Mike Pence, scheduled for Friday, freeing him up to spend time in Calgary on Saturday.
The prime minister largely had a friendly reception in the city, although he spent most of his time in solid Liberal territory.
Trudeau started the day by meeting Mayor Naheed Nenshi. Neither the mayor nor the prime minister took any questions from the press.
Next he went to the Marda Loop Communities Association Stampede breakfast with Liberal Calgary Centre MP and Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr. The prime minister was greeted by a little girl in a pink cowboy hat, whose cast he signed and a little boy who got him to sign a copy of the Marvel Civil War comic book in which Trudeau appears on the cover as part of the Canadian super hero team Alpha Fight.
Trudeau declined to weigh in on the decision of interim NDP leader Tom Mulcair and the candidates running for the federal NDP leadership, to skip Stampede, simply saying: “I’m not going to comment on decisions that other political parties make.”

He said that several people teased him about his failure to mention Alberta during a Canada Day speech, but they were generally understanding of his explanation that it was a honest mistake.


Julie Ali · 

Congratulations Mr. Trudeau for standing up for the rights and freedoms of citizens. Of course it would have been better if this case had never happened so we're not paying out millions for previous government incompetence but there you go. If folks who are against this payout would imagine what happened to Mr. Khadr happening to them -then I'd imagine that there would be agreement over this payout.
Good job Mr. Trudeau.
LikeReply33 hrs
Peter Fit · 

Shame...
LikeReply63 hrs
Penny Russell Leman
You are wrong. The alleged abuses took place under the Cretien and Martin LIberal governments. Mr. Harper repatriated him, but would never have settled out of court because Mr Khdar's accusations of torture had never been proven in a Canadian court of law. The assertion by Mr. Trudeau that it would have cost 30 - 40 million dollars by all accounts has no basis in fact. His payout of 10.5 million was purely a political move that backfired because the very wealthy trust fund child that is our prime minister is woefully out of touch with the majority of Canadians on this issue.
LikeReply113 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Penny Russell Leman I don't agree with you. Mr. Harper is responsible for this payout. https://ipolitics.ca/.../whos-to-blame-for-the-khadr.../ It was the Harper government’s decision to, from 2008 to 2015, ignore the Charter of Rights, the Supreme Court and Canada’s obligation to rehabilitate child soldiers.

This inaction resulted in the lion’s share of the $10.5 million paid to Khadr for being wrongfully imprisoned and mistreated. As I told my students in 2008, Khadr eventually would be entitled to a legal settlement from the Canadian government. The longer the government left him in Guantanamo, the larger the sum of money that would have to be paid out. In an entirely just world, that settlement would be paid out personally by Harper and his cabinet colleagues.
LikeReply23 hrsEdited
Julie Ali · 

Peter Fit Shame for what? For doing the right thing? Give me a break.
LikeReply23 hrs
Abraham Shtevi
if this settlement was the right thing to do then why was it a secret
LikeReply62 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Abraham Shtevi I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten us.
LikeReply2 hrs
Penny Russell Leman
Julie Ali Are you saying that the Cretien and Martin governments that were in power at the time the alleged abuses took place are not responsible at all for any of this? Why didn't they repatriate him then instead of leaving him in Guatanamo for Mr. Harper to deal with? They had the power to do so and did not. Making a bad situation worse. And please respond to Mr. Trudeau settling out of court and authorizing the rich payout before a Canadian court of law could rule on the allegations of torture. As I said earlier, his assertion as to the cost has been totally unproven and in fact there is no determination made of how he even came up with those dollar figures. The Supreme Court ruled there had been human rights abuse but they NEVER said that a rich payout was required by the government to address that. I stand by my assertion that the prime minister misread the will of Canadian people to battle this suit to the end, and this award was not necessary or just.
LikeReply12 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Penny Russell Leman The previous governments whether Liberal or Conservatives did not follow the rule of law.This is why we are paying the compensation from our tax dollars. Government incompetence, indifference and failures.
LikeReply11 hr
Penny Russell Leman
Julie Ali Previously you said "Mr. Harper is responsible for this payout", and now you say the previous governments did not follow the rule of law - which I agree with. Having said that now, how do you defend the Prime Minister authorizing this rich payout without the allegations of torture made by an admitted terrorist even being heard in a Canadian court of law? A clear majority of Canadians (regardless of their political leaning) would have preferred to wait until Khdar's allegations or torture and abuse were proven or disproven here before a settlement was determined. It was wrong to not allow justice to run its course in this matter. It is my feeling that Mr. Trudeau will suffer politically for this decision. And rightly so.
LikeReply11 hr
Julie Ali · 

Penny Russell Leman Look, I am not a lawyer. Lawyers have decided this case. Maybe we should believe that the legal professionals know what they are doing as well as the court system?
LikeReply11 hrEdited
Penny Russell Leman
Julie Ali I'm not a lawyer either, but you seemed to have strong opinions and be a reasonably good debater. I also agree that the legal profession should know what they are doing as well as the court system. I am just dissappointed that our Prime Minister did not feel the same and gave away millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to a terrorist instead of letting the Canadian court system do its job. Have a good evening.
LikeReply1 hr
Julie Ali · 

Penny Russell Leman The government wastes a ton of cash. For example the NDP government in Alberta has given a loan of $235 million to big oil for their liabilities in the orphan well program. Why don't we have citizens yapping about this major waste of cash? Why did we give $30 million of federal cash from our tax dollars to big oil to ensure this loan would be interest free? We're giving money --our money to a sector that is sitting on billions of dollars in assets and profits. Why? And yet everyone is yapping about $10 million.We also have billions of dollars wasted by the PCs in the past. No one talks about the Tapcal Trust Fund that is a legacy project of Lougheed and company. A selective accountability is present in Alberta.
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Colin John Wallace
That's fine. Perhaps you could craft some clear guidelines for these idiots who insist on travelling back to countries that have "a dismal human rights record". Tired of them using their new citizenship as cover for their continued activities. Also tired of us taking people who have been booted from other countries, for obviously valid reasons. Arar, the original winner of "6-49 (Halal edition)" was deported from the US. We should have done the same.
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Julie Ali · 

Colin John Wallace Since I am not a politician I am in no way able to craft any guidelines for you. Perhaps you can go to your elected representative for such helps.
LikeReply14 mins
Cat Gunther
Beyond despicable
LikeReply50 mins
Dave Klyne · 

First of all WHY in hell did we bring back a convicted terrorist? Second if we are going to spend money to bring him back whomever was responsible foe negotiating to have him returned, should have been smart enough to have him sign that he cannot sue the Canadian Government for anything! But obviously that was not the case.
Secondly if you know you are right , would you rather pay $10 dollars and admit you are wrong because if you stick to your principles it may cost you $30 dollars? Obviously there are no principles, just give in to the terrorist because you think Canadians are Dumb and forgiving and will go along with it.
LikeReply52 mins
Stephen Martin · 

He was not a convicted terrorist, not in any legitimate court of law. The suit had to do with the liberal and conservative governments' refusal to acknowledge Omar Khadr's rights as a Canadian citizen. That refusal was in the face of three court rulings in his favour. 10.5 million is the cost of reasserting the rule of law.
LikeReply134 mins
Julie Ali · 

Stephen Martin Thank you.
LikeReply14 mins
Barry Ross Sr. · 

Hard to respect this prime minister !
LikeReply11 hr
Julie Ali · 

Hard to respect commenters who don't respect the PM
LikeReply14 mins
John Allan Ambury · 

He is a complete and utter disgrace to ALL Canadians if I travel anywhere I would be sure not to admit I have this loser in charge of our country soon it will be sharia state if he has his way
LikeReply21 hr
Julie Ali · 

No one is asking you to admit anything. He is however our PM. As such he deserves the courtesy of our respect.
LikeReply13 mins
Joan Johnson
Why does Trudeau say it could have been 30 to 40 million when Khadr only sued for 20 million? Don't forget khadr has to pay lawyer fees as well. Just another fuddle duddle.
LikeReply11 hr
Julie Ali · 

I guess if you look at how much we could have paid in lawyers fees if we lost this case, then the cost would have been higher. In the cases where First Nations folks went to court, we paid big bucks for the poor decision of both Conservative and Liberal governments to litigate. http://www.lawtimesnews.com/.../feds-pouring-big-money...

In a year that saw aboriginal concerns take centre stage with the Idle No More movement and Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike, public accounts figures for 2012-13 released at the end of October show Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada with a legal tab of $106 million. That amount far exceeds the legal tab at the Canada Revenue Agency, the department that was next on the spending list. The CRA spent $66 million.
LikeReply9 minsEdited
Brian W. Allan · 

He's lost a lot of support for his government's handling of the Khadr B.S.!! Canada should not be known as a supporter of terrorists which it now is!
LikeReply21 hr
Cliff Moen
The people that say CANADA violated his rights fail to say what CANADA did. Even the Supreme Court is no more specific than saying someone from External Affairs interviewed him while he was sleep deprived and that they gave a transript of the session to the Americans. I bet the Americans had their own transcript long before that.
LikeReply11 hr
Paul Hahrgis · 

There is ABSOLUTELY no defense for Canadian taxpayers to compensate a terrorist
LikeReply41 hr
Julie Ali · 

Please all of you keep commenting. It makes for great blog posts. http://readingchildrensbooks.blogspot.ca/.../when...
LikeReply12 hrs
Bryce Currie · 

If he didn't do what he did he would have violated canadian rights. If you disagree fight to change our rights.
LikeReply2 hrs
Dan Cole
I get it Justin, his rights were violated? Maybe? Sooooo instead of 10.5 million, give him a dollar! Pretty sure that would assuage your guilty feelings? Your decision is the kinda thing that brings down governments.....Not that that would upset me, seeing as how you're an idiot and all!
LikeReply42 hrs
Abraham Shtevi
Trudeau is unfit to govern and he needs to get thrown out in 2019
LikeReply72 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Mr. Trudeau is way better than Mr. Harper and crew. Such an anti-democratic bunch.
LikeReply32 hrs
Scott Chadsey
Julie Ali The alleged abuses of Khadr happened under Chretien and Martin (Liberal governments)
LikeReply32 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Scott Chadsey So what? If both the Liberals and Conservatives did not follow the rule of law then this means only the NDP folks are clean in this junk. It is up to government to follow the laws of the land. If they don't then hopefully successive political parties will pay for their mistakes. Unfortunately both the Liberals and Conservatives were incompetent and we are now paying out of our tax dollars.
LikeReply11 hrEdited
Scott Chadsey
Julie Ali you threw out the castigation of PM Harper. It didn't happen under his Admin
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Julie Ali · 

Scott Chadsey Mr. Harper was anti-democratic.
LikeReply21 hr
William Robert Richér · 

Julie Ali here's reality you would think a new life in Canada would be worth more than money verses killing are troop Harper would said new life or stay were you are ....Trudeau wather spend tax $$ hey thanks for killing our troops
LikeReply1 hr
Barry Ross Sr. · 

we wer in the black with Harper ,if this is how you think ,soooo sooorrrrry !
LikeReply1 hr
Julie Ali · 

William Robert Richér I have no idea what you are saying in your comment. The Conservative and Liberal governments made the mistakes that are costing us big bucks.
LikeReply8 mins
Julie Ali · 

Barry Ross Sr. Mr. Harper and crew wasted a ton of cash. Remember the airplanes and the useless submarines? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/.../f-35.../article18325378/ Canada has failed to disclose the full costs of buying controversial stealth fighters, a new independent report says, warning that the true price tag is at least $10-billion higher for a total of $56-billion.
***
Mr. Harper wasted this money. And the submarines were a bad purchase. Don't forget the Gazebo junk too. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/.../when.../article582792/
- spending $50-million of public money in the Muskoka region of Ontario for the 2010 G8 summit, and calling it "investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion."
LikeReply4 mins
Louise Bonneau
Let's make sure he does not win this one..Keep it on Front Page until September.
LikeReply52 hrs
Terry Britton
How can any military family ever vote Liberal again. Disgusting. The guy planting mines on youtube gets 10 mil. Truly a Justin masterpiece.
LikeReply62 hrs
Cam Gall · 

If we would have lost in court I guess a payout was the practical financial decision, but it didn't have to be done in secret. Publicly do it and let the widow's lawsuit go forward before sneaking him the money. Shame Mr. Trudeau, Shame!
LikeReply83 hrs
Brian W. Allan · 

"he thinks the government would have lost the case to Khadr if they had fought in court" And decided to pay $10 million taxpayer dollars to a terrorist without even a fight! Yup, Canada sure needs a PM like this; NOT! I'm ashamed of Canada's decision in this matter, totally ashamed!!
LikeReply53 hrs
Mike Slowsky
What about holding this so called Canadian terrorist accountable for killing American soldiers and where is the widows compensation since it was a Canadian who killed her husband shouldn't you man up and apologize to her and her family and all family's involved and give them a cheque after all it was a Canadian that killed and wounded thier loved ones.his responsibility to do so as a leader of a country.. in my humble opinion
LikeReply83 hrs
Shelley Cumberland · 

Okay so that means 3-4X the cost for each Canadian to stand tall for your values and what is right, I would have gladly paid that. This was just plain wrong.
LikeReply34 hrs
Donna Larsen · 

What he did was miss an opportunity to create a new precedent against terrorism and dealing with those families who breed terrorism. This case has created a whole new arena for terrorists to further subject youth into terrorism with political protection.
LikeReply185 hrs
Jim Cherewick · 

Staying safe within your own like minded community of jihadist supporters eh justin? Little man go away and stay away!
LikeReply115 hrs
Julie Ali · 

This is a silly comment. Mr. Trudeau had the courage to speak up and do the right thing. Unlike Mr. Harper.
LikeReply13 hrs
Penny Russell Leman
Julie Ali You are wrong. The alleged abuses took place under the Cretien and Martin LIberal governments. Mr. Harper repatriated him, but would never have settled out of court because Mr Khdar's accusations of torture had never been proven in a Canadian court of law. The assertion by Mr. Trudeau that it would have cost 30 - 40 million dollars by all accounts has no basis in fact. His payout of 10.5 million was purely a political move that backfired because the very wealthy trust fund child that is our prime minister is woefully out of touch with the majority of Canadians on this issue.
LikeReply33 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Penny Russell Leman Again. Please read this article:
https://ipolitics.ca/.../whos-to-blame-for-the-khadr.../
It was the Harper government’s decision to, from 2008 to 2015, ignore the Charter of Rights, the Supreme Court and Canada’s obligation to rehabilitate child soldiers.

This inaction resulted in the lion’s share of the $10.5 million paid to Khadr for being wrongfully imprisoned and mistreated. As I told my students in 2008, Khadr eventually would be entitled to a legal settlement from the Canadian government. The longer the government left him in Guantanamo, the larger the sum of money that would have to be paid out. In an entirely just world, that settlement would be paid out personally by Harper and his cabinet colleagues.
LikeReply12 hrs
Lorna Goodwin · 

Julie Ali everyone is silly if they don't agree with you. Typical liberal no one else is allowed to have an opinion
LikeReply50 mins
Sean Henderson
Julie Ali Kahdr is not a Canadian he is a traitor & some one should have shot the POS in the temple on the battlefield!! GFYS Ali .
LikeReply36 mins
Julie Ali · 

Lorna Goodwin Why fall for the Liberal name calling? I have never voted Liberal. But I did vote NDP to kick out the PCs in Alberta and I am glad I did. Voting PC decade after decade got us to this brainwashed state.
LikeReply3 mins
Julie Ali · 

Sean Henderson This remark has been reported to FB.
LikeReply2 mins
Gurpreet Bajwa · 

The most divisive PM ever who follows policy of appeasement for certain religions
LikeReply136 hrs
Julie Ali · 

He did the right thing. I don't think it is divisive to do the right thing.
LikeReply13 hrs
Gurpreet Bajwa · 

Julie Ali with your this comment you have actually provided evidence in support of my factual statement. Just read the names of his commenters on his linked profile and you will see evidence of appeasement and dirty 3rd world politics on his part.
LikeReply12 hrs
Julie Ali · 

Gurpreet Bajwa Oh give me a break. This is ridiculous.
LikeReply22 hrs
Gurpreet Bajwa · 

Julie Ali you got your break with Trudeau as PM. Obviously, truth hurts.
LikeReply11 hr
Julie Ali · 

Gurpreet Bajwa I did not vote for Mr. Trudeau. Just because I think he did the right thing doesn't make me a Liberal voter. I happen to have voted Conservative in the past until Mr. Harper went all anti-democratic. Folks should look beyond the Brand of Conservative and Liberal to performance. Both these ruling parties failed big time.
Truth never hurts;it heals.
LikeReply11 hrEdited
Gurpreet Bajwa · 

Julie Ali question is not about who voted for who, divisive policies hurt everybody especially for a first generation immigrant like me, this is nothing but vote bank politics on your and mine dime. His father was a looser and so is he.
LikeReply11 hr
Julie Ali · 

Gurpreet Bajwa Since his father was the PM and he is now the PM I doubt that they are losers. In my opinion. both of them are winners. I mean they got to the top of the pyramid of power didn't they?
LikeReply1 min

No comments:

Post a Comment