Active Shooter In NS. April 19 2020

[dapaterson]

Zac wrapped up 18 years ago. None of the current senior leadership would have been in anything close to a senior role or really any role tangibly impacted by him. Most of the DComms were junior Inspectors at best. That’s like saying the current crop of company commanders in CAF are a reflection of Vance.

OK, now I feel exceptionally old.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The notion that anyone at the upper levels of something like a police service are “Liberal yes men” is comical. You’re talking about an institution that trends as conservative as the military, if not moreso.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me like the officers who release and go into politics usually make their way to the Liberal party.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Entertaining, but no more realistic than plucking a second tour Captain out a unit in the CAF and making them CDS…

Not realistic but maybe that's what the CAF needs too.

Even when our senior leadership don't appear to have skeletons in their closet they still seem quite institutionalized and oblivious. Heck even our current CDS didn't initially see anything wrong with General Dawe writing a character reference for a sexual offender.

 

[brihard]

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me like the officers who release and go into politics usually make their way to the Liberal party.

Assuming we’re limiting ourselves to former senior officers, I think it’s a toss up? I struggle to think of any senior Mounties elected to the HoC. Obviously there’s Bill Blair from Toronto. Two RCMP senior officers made it to the Senate that I know of offhand- Bev Busson, Lib/ISG (acting commish after Zac) and Vern White, Assistant Commissioner / chief of Ottawa Police, as a Conservative.

I’m not speaking so much to those who end up going into politics, but rather the overwhelming majority who don’t.

Like any institution, policing still has diverse views, but it appeals more to one wing of the political spectrum than others, not unlike CAF. I strongly believe it skews conservative at a distinctly greater rate than the general population.

 

[Haggis]

Don’t forget, Lucki is to testify at the mass casualty commission later this month. They probably want to see how that goes and what she testifies to before they commit to any COA regarding her or Blair.

Isn't she to appear before the Public Safety Committee this month and the MCC in August?

 

[brihard]

Isn't she to appear before the Public Safety Committee this month and the MCC in August?

I could be mistaken? Not sure. She likely appears semi regularly in front of Parliamentary committee on various issues. I don’t know is the standing committee on public safety is examining this matter; parliamentary committees generally occupy themselves with specific studies and pre-planned business.

 

[Haggis]

SECU voted to hear witnesses in relation to the allegations of political interference in the subject investigation. The Committee tried to have someone from the PMO testify but thatbwas voted down by the Liberal/NDP members.

 

[Booter]

Is that because of a lack of women in high enough ranks to replace her with a woman or because the ranking members are not liberal yes men/women?

I would suggest it’s both. Many at the D/Com/ A/Com level currently are all tainted by proximity to some tragedy. We lost, as far as advancement potential, a couple very strong female leaders- because they had names on memos or were associated in some way to something. Usually in a passive way- but still a political issue.

Several were actually passed by when they reached down to take the current commissioner, who was political taint free, for a few reasons. Paulson was actually kindve similar in a way- least impressive candidate.

I don’t think the present government is interested in replacing their choice with a white dude because of scandal. It just would signal the wrong virtue.

In many ways the commissioner is irrelevant to me and my people anyways. We eye roll and move on.

The current commissioner is reaching the end of the usual life cycle for the job, so maybe they allow her to take the hits. Wait for a new story about a protest or a military senior officer and she quietly retires. The timelines wouldn’t be weird at all,

 

[Jarnhamar]

Assuming we’re limiting ourselves to former senior officers, I think it’s a toss up? I struggle to think of any senior Mounties elected to the HoC.

I wasn't very clear, I meant CAF officers.
The CAF is a predominantly conservative organization but retired officers tend to go red when getting into politics.

 

[Booter]

I wasn't very clear, I meant CAF officers.
The CAF is a predominantly conservative organization but retired officers tend to go red when getting into politics.

The red team recruits harder maybe- they know they need a token vet to seem like they care.

 

[Jarnhamar]

SECU voted to hear witnesses in relation to the allegations of political interference in the subject investigation. The Committee tried to have someone from the PMO testify but thatbwas voted down by the Liberal/NDP members.

It's no wonder Canadians are becoming more aggressively angry with politicians.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's no wonder Canadians are becoming more aggressively angry with politicians.

We've been sleepwalking through the last 50 years, people are just waking up.

It's dangerous for any government to spend all of its wealth, supplied by taxpayers, on pet virtue signaling projects, while neglecting its, own citizens. The rhetoric coming from orange and red liberals is anyone not part of their group think are anti Canadian fringe group bent onmthe overthrow of the libeal government, openly and in the press.

 

[brihard]

We've been sleepwalking through the last 50 years, people are just waking up.

It's dangerous for any government to spend all of its wealth, supplied by taxpayers, on pet virtue signaling projects, while neglecting its, own citizens. The rhetoric coming from orange and red liberals is anyone not part of their group think are anti Canadian fringe group bent onmthe overthrow of the libeal government, openly and in the press.

Which pet virtue signalling projects? And how much did the feds spend on same? Last I checked, the single biggest federal expenditure was still direct transfer payments to individuals- stuff like your CPP benefits, or OAS//GIS, or EI. Shortly behind that is federal transfers to provinces, so things like health transfer funding. Those two expenditures are about half the federal expenditures alone. I’m not gonna sit here and do an exhaustive dive into federal expenditures on my little phone screen, but your claim that the bulk of federal ‘wealth’ (weird word choice on your part) goes to ideologically motivated pet projects doesn’t survive the first glancing blow of reality.

The reality is that all governments have mostly similar major spending, most of which is statutorily defined program spending. The stuff that makes up the shiny points of election platforms is from the much smaller slice of the pie that could be called discretionary.

The pandemic, of course, saw major disruptions with the various ‘life jacket’ benefits that kept people and business afloat, but that’s temporary and receding.

So… what are you talking about, precisely?

 

[Dana381]

Not to speak for fishbone but I think he is referring to the majority of the feds discretionary spending going to fund projects that push liberal ideology. Yes the majority of the federal budget goes to pay the bills sort of speak, we tend to talk like that is a given. If I say my friend spends most of his money on motorcycles you automatically assume I mean disposable income and not his mortgage or grocery money.

 

[brihard]

Not to speak for fishbone but I think he is referring to the majority of the feds discretionary spending going to fund projects that push liberal ideology. Yes the majority of the federal budget goes to pay the bills sort of speak, we tend to talk like that is a given. If I say my friend spends most of his money on motorcycles you automatically assume I mean disposable income and not his mortgage or grocery money.

Sure. Allowing for that likely being the case, it’s still a claim he’ll need to show receipts for (and they should be readily available). It should be easy, if true, to point to a sizeable portion (I won’t even insist on a majority, never mind ‘most’) of federal discretionary spending going to such ‘pet projects’. It ought to be easy to give specific initiatives, and attach dollar values from the federal budget.

One error of mine I’ll wear- I quoted CPP as a direct transfer payment to individuals, however it’s self-funded through the CPP investment fund. OAS, GIS, EI, however, aren’t. My curing of direct individual transfers accounting for something like a quarter of the federal budget still stands despite CPP not being part of it.

To claim that Canadians are not being looked after because money is squandered on pet projects is still a claim that requires evidence. In the most recent budget, some of the big discretionary measures cover things like housing affordability and dental care… Tough to claim those are consistent with ‘neglecting citizens’. If he wants to try to attribute Canadians’ anger at the government to specific fiscal measures, it’ll take something more rigorous than just saying so.

 

[lenaitch]

Not to speak for fishbone but I think he is referring to the majority of the feds discretionary spending going to fund projects that push liberal ideology. Yes the majority of the federal budget goes to pay the bills sort of speak, we tend to talk like that is a given. If I say my friend spends most of his money on motorcycles you automatically assume I mean disposable income and not his mortgage or grocery money.

Perhaps then we could look at times when the Conservatives were in power and how much money they spent on projects that push conservative ideology. They are politicians, then have an ideology, they have the purse strings. perfect storm.

 

[Dana381]

Perhaps then we could look at times when the Conservatives were in power and how much money they spent on projects that push conservative ideology. They are politicians, then have an ideology, they have the purse strings. perfect storm.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” Lord Acton

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps then we could look at times when the Conservatives were in power and how much money they spent on projects that push conservative ideology. They are politicians, then have an ideology, they have the purse strings. perfect storm.

Conservatives are generally more fiscally conservative. While the LPC seems to believe one can just print money with no ill effects.

One can see how much money the Liberals have directed to Gun Control Campaigns - which have a very specific target.

 

[dapaterson]

Disbarred lawyer who got kids drunk, and also represented Medellin Cartel members incarcerated in New Brunswick for flying $25M in cocaine, destined for Montreal? Check. Evidence of illicit drug smuggling? Check. Insurance fraud? Check. Tax fraud? Check, check and check.

Oh, and a plot to attack the NB jail and break out the smugglers? Check.

The mass murderer was a thief, a drug runner, and a corrupt tax cheat - Halifax Examiner

The mass murderer was a thief, a drug runner, and a corrupt tax cheat. The financial “misdealings” of the man who murdered 22 people in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2022, who the Halifax Examiner refers to as GW, are detailed in the latest document published by the Mass Casualty Commission...

www.halifaxexaminer.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

OT:

I quoted CPP as a direct transfer payment to individuals, however it’s self-funded through the CPP investment fund. OAS, GIS, EI, however, aren’t.

CPP isn't self-funded. Today's contributors pay today's recipients. There is a fraction covered by investment profits of the funds as well. Basically just taxing today's workers to pay yesterday's.

"Major transfers" are somewhat above 50% of total program spending; "individuals" vs "other levels of government" splits about 55/45.