Is this a shot at me? I took the time to provide a bunch of quotes from the actual transcripts of the committee to explain to CaptainCrunch and PostAndIn how they were being mislead by Pierre Poilievre and the newspaper articles with hard facts:
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=186
The response I got back was that I was confused and:
I asked CaptainCrunch for the quotes he has attributed to the minister multiple times, and he keeps saying I am confused and not providing them. If they are interested in having a respectful discussion, it needs to start with facts. If they keep failing to provide them, it's not an honest discussion and therefore they shouldn't expect respect but I don't think "failing to acknowledge they are getting played" is especially disrespectful.
------------------------------------------
Also yes, the separation between the justice, legislative and executive branches is something taught in grade 6 social studies, or near enough that grade. That was not meant to be an insult. At least not to anyone but Poilievre.
So Mr.Coffee, in the interest of having a respectful discussion next time, how many times can I ask for someone to provide evidence of the fact that they are relying on before I can call them out as being a liar (or being played by the liar)? Evidentially it's more than 3.