Raitt meets with lobbyists most often

[jdobbin]

http://www.canada.com/Raitt+meets+with+lob...3470/story.html

Embattled Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt has met with lobbyists more than any other member of the Conservative cabinet, records show.

Raitt, who came under fire earlier this week for describing the nuclear isotope shortage as ``sexy,'' has met with 102 lobbyists since she was sworn in last fall, including representatives from energy companies EnCana, Suncor, TransCanada, Imperial Oil and Shell Canada.

Raitt's spokesman, Steve Outhouse, attributed the number of such meetings to his minister's portfolio, saying it requires her to meet often with people from the renewable energy, oil and gas and forestry industries.

Part of the 2008 legislation on disclosure that Harper put in place.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

http://www.canada.com/Raitt+meets+with+lob...3470/story.html

Part of the 2008 legislation on disclosure that Harper put in place.

Gee, is it any wonder the government will start carving off little pieces of AECL now?

[Argus]

http://www.canada.com/Raitt+meets+with+lob...3470/story.html

Part of the 2008 legislation on disclosure that Harper put in place.

So? Is there any evidence she is taking bribes to alter legislation, like your ministers did?

[jdobbin]

So? Is there any evidence she is taking bribes to alter legislation, like your ministers did?

Never said there was. I have no problems with the legislation.

Which ministers are you referring to from past Liberal governments?

Edited June 14, 2009 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Never said there was. I have no problems with the legislation.

Which ministers are you referring to from past Liberal governments?

Uhm, all of them I'd say. It was well known that you guys tailored almost all your legislation related to business according to the requirements of the lobbyists who funneled money into your campaigns.

I'm not saying the Tories are completely above that - but since donations from corporations and lobbyists are now illegal, the only way they could actually profit from pleasing such lobby groups would be to take money in brown paper bags under the table in Italian restaurants.

Like, well, your guys did.

[Smallc]

Uhm, all of them I'd say.

Ahhh, so then since you would say that, I'd assume you'd have proof of it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ask Mulroney how it is done.......

[Moonbox]

Ahhh, so then since you would say that, I'd assume you'd have proof of it.

He's talking about how the Liberals got the vast majority of their funding from large corporations...presumably the same corporations who lobby the government.

Ever wonder why the tax payers are getting screwed in the US over the auto bailout in favor of UAW pensions? Take a look at who Obama's biggest campaign contributor was. I'll give you three guesses.

[Smallc]

Yes, the Liberals did get funding from corporations....and if it was still allowed, it's quite conceivable that the Conservatives would be getting the same funding now...because they're the government, and the corporations are trying to win favour.

Just because corporations are willing to donate doesn't mean that a majority (or even necessarily any....although there are always a few bad apples in any bunch) of cabinet ministers are going to be swayed. I'm sure it happens, but to claim that all (or almost all) ministers were doing it is almost certainly false.

What is shown here is that we're lucky to have many more rules to keep politicians honest in this country in today's world. We've learned from mistakes, and we continue to do so.

[capricorn]

Yes, the Liberals did get funding from corporations....and if it was still allowed, it's quite conceivable that the Conservatives would be getting the same funding now...because they're the government, and the corporations are trying to win favour.

As far as I know, Conservative have always enjoyed receiving small contributions from a large number of donors. Had the rules not been changed, corporate donations would have certainly put the Conservatives way ahead of other parties in donations while they are in government.

[Smallc]

That is very much correct I would say. Only now are the Liberals learning how to solicit donations in small amounts from large numbers of people.

[Randy Nicholas]

Argus, the point is that even though it is illegal for corps to make direct contributions to parties now, she still gives THEM most of her ear.

Points toward another level of corruption in the government, like secret rewards. Maybe they don't get campaign funding (doesn't matter, all parties have suckered enough Canadians into handing over their money willingly to pay for party hack salaries and tv commercials), but they get a sweet ceo job after they lose their seat or something like that.

In any case, partisanship is so juvenile it's not even funny. Do you honestly think that were he conservatives in charge during the sponsorship scandal that it wouldn't still have gone down the exact same way? Sure the named companies and individuals would change, but the crux would be identical.

Clinging to partisan politics in some childish 'us vs. them' mentality is a complete waste of constructive time.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[jdobbin]

Uhm, all of them I'd say. It was well known that you guys tailored almost all your legislation related to business according to the requirements of the lobbyists who funneled money into your campaigns.

And Tories now tailor legislation for what reason then?

I'm not saying the Tories are completely above that - but since donations from corporations and lobbyists are now illegal, the only way they could actually profit from pleasing such lobby groups would be to take money in brown paper bags under the table in Italian restaurants.

Can't recall any Liberal MPs doing that. Do you have any names that you are referring to? Because your blanket statement of all of them is suspect.

Like, well, your guys did.

I think the only envelopes of cash that went to people would appear to be ex-Tory government people in the Mulroney government.

Edited June 14, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

Meeting with the most lobbyists could simply be because the most lobbyists ask to speak to her and a lot of ministers don't get any requests to meet.

Another thing we've failed to determine is if she meets with MORE or fewer lobbyists than ministers of previous governments.

[Argus]

Meeting with the most lobbyists could simply be because the most lobbyists ask to speak to her and a lot of ministers don't get any requests to meet.

Another thing we've failed to determine is if she meets with MORE or fewer lobbyists than ministers of previous governments.

She's the energy minister, and the govenrment is in the process of developing/implimenting new legislation to encourage a variety of pollution and emission control standards and schemes. OF COURSE everyone involved, from environmentalists to manufacturing, tourism, and big business, as well, of course, as all the various energy sector entities, large and small, and everyone trying to get funding for their particular project of wind/tidal/corn syrup fuel is going to want to meet with her.

[benny]

She's the energy minister, and the govenrment is in the process of developing/implimenting new legislation to encourage a variety of pollution and emission control standards and schemes. OF COURSE everyone involved, from environmentalists to manufacturing, tourism, and big business, as well, of course, as all the various energy sector entities, large and small, and everyone trying to get funding for their particular project of wind/tidal/corn syrup fuel is going to want to meet with her.

Public consultations are the place to deal with such matters, not private meetings.

[Moonbox]

Thanks for your input benny, but there's nothing wrong with meeting in private.

[benny]

Thanks for your input benny, but there's nothing wrong with meeting in private.

About conflicts of interest!?