stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) The last minister whom was found to be in conflict of interest was Lawrence MacAulay in 2002, he was forced to step down http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/ethics.html Wilson ruled former solicitor general Lawrence MacAuley breached conflict of interest rules by directing government projects and contracts to friends and family, leading to MacAuley's resignation. Will Harper do the right thing here and tell him to step down from his post? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/22/pol-paradis-conflict-of-interest-commissioner.html A Conservative cabinet minister broke federal rules and gave special treatment to former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, the ethics watchdog said in a report Thursday. Conflict of interest commissioner Mary Dawson said Christian Paradis broke the rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act when he told officials at Public Works and Government Services, the department he headed at the time, to talk with Jaffer about his company, Green Power Generation. "I believe that Mr. Paradis' inclination to help his former caucus colleague, while inappropriate, is easy to understand," Dawson said. "However, ministers are in a position of power and have a special responsibility to ensure that that power is exercised fairly and in a way that is open to all Canadians." Edited March 22, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 @RobertFife: Paradis claims Ethics ruling is an "educational tools to help us understand how conflict of interest rules work." #cdnpoli #ctvnews.ca rofl.. imagine telling your boss that his/her conflict of interest rules are only meant to educate you on how the law works if you get caught kind of like how Lacey on Corner Gas claimed the yellow light was just a suggestion to slow down Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Jack Weber Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) That is so pathetic it's laughable... If I go to work drunk off my a$$,can I then claim that the fact that I would be told I cannot show up for work drunk (in the very least!) an "educational experience"? Edited March 22, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Topaz Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 Nothing is going to happen to Paradis by Harper and we all know it. When you have a PM who has been charged with contempt of Parliament and does really care for Election Canada, the Tories MP know they can do anything and the PM will not come down on them, he hasn't it the past and he won't now. The Tories use the same excuse over and over again....I didn't know. Quote
RNG Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 I am a staunch small c conservative, fanatically so. But Harper is pissing me off so bad................. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
August1991 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) The irony here is that Paradis didn't tell department bureaucrats to "talk to" a businessman in the Beauce; he simply suggested that they meet with a Conservative ex-MP (and spouse of an ex-Conservative). As stand-up comedians would say, that's a throw-away line. (How does a minister get rid of people? Tell them to talk to a bureaucrat.) If the CBC (and other assorted angry anti-Harperites) are trying to bring down The Man with this latest scandal, they are - as 19th century comedians would say - barking up the wrong tree. 21st Century Progressives: always ahead of their times. Edited March 23, 2012 by August1991 Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Posted March 23, 2012 The irony here is that Paradis didn't tell department bureaucrats to "talk to" a businessman in the Beauce; he simply suggested that they meet with a Conservative ex-MP (and spouse of an ex-Conservative). As stand-up comedians would say, that's a throw-away line. (How does a minister get rid of people? Tell them to talk to a bureaucrat.) If the CBC (and other assorted angry anti-Harperites) are trying to bring down The Man with this latest scandal, they are - as 19th century comedians would say - barking up the wrong tree. 21st Century Progressives: always ahead of their times. a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest no matter how small or big Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
jacee Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (How does a minister get rid of people? Tell them to talk to a bureaucrat.) Nice try August ... but you've twisted it backwards: Paradis (the BOSS) told his bureaucrats (employees) to talk to Jaffer. ... Christian Paradis broke the rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act when he told officials at Public Works and Government Services, the department he headed at the time, to talk with Jaffer about his company, Green Power Generation. "Mr. Paradis gave preferential treatment to Mr. Jaffer ... Not to single you out August, but it's disturbing to me how little respect HarperCons have for laws, rules, standards and ethics, like they're just something to figure out a way around. With all the blather and frothing at the mouth about 'law and order' ... but only as it applies to others, not to themselves apparently. Pure hypocrisy. Quote
August1991 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest no matter how small or bigHuh? I see a difference between taking a hostage, and killing the hostage. I also see a difference between stealing a new Cadillac Eldorado and stealing a 1990 Hyundai.stopstaaron, there is "crime" and then there is "crime". Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Posted March 23, 2012 Huh? I see a difference between taking a hostage, and killing the hostage. I also see a difference between stealing a new Cadillac Eldorado and stealing a 1990 Hyundai. stopstaaron, there is "crime" and then there is "crime". your comparisons are too extreme Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
August1991 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Not to single you out August, but it's disturbing to me how little respect HarperCons have for laws, rules, standards and ethics, like they're just something to figure out a way around.With all the blather and frothing at the mouth about 'law and order' ... but only as it applies to others, not to themselves apparently. Pure hypocrisy. A minister simply told government bureaucrats to speak to a potential vendor.What could be more innocent? --- Jacee, I wonder why you maintain a blind trust in any government of the State - as if an NDP government would be any different. Edited March 23, 2012 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) your comparisons are too extreme Extreme? Our federal criminal code wisely treats different crimes differently.For example, I agree that our criminal code should be more lenient for "hostage-taking" than "murder". Why? If you were a hostage, the answer is obvious. Edited March 23, 2012 by August1991 Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 A minister simply told government bureaucrats to speak to a potential vendor. What could be more innocent? specifically with regard to Jaffer: Harper Conservative Minister Paradis contravened section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act related to preferential treatment and subsection 6(1), which prohibits public office holders from making decisions that would place them in a conflict of interest. if you move beyond the press release and read from the actual Ethics Commissioner's report, the Jaffer incident is but one of 8 separate and independent/unrelated instances where Paradis or his ministerial staffers engaged in offering preferential treatment for individuals/companies. what could be more innocent, hey? But really, why have the Act? Why have an Ethics Commissioner, hey August? Quote
August1991 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) what could be more innocent, hey? But really, why have the Act? Why have an Ethics Commissioner, hey August?Precisely my point.---- Our vote is the ultimate test of our politicians. But then, we must be informed. For information, I frankly prefer even supposedly independent journalists (MSM) rather than an "Ethics Commissioner". Pierre Trudeau believed in counterweights - and he attempted to create them through the State. Nowadays, Trudeau is viewed as a naive lightweight - a dilettante. But Trudeau's idea was not wrong. In this 21st century, the Internet is the ultimate counterweight. Edited March 23, 2012 by August1991 Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Precisely my point. yes, clearly... it was your entire point! Quite obviously, ethics means diddly squat to you, hey? I'm surprised you didn't follow your standard play and label the Conflict of Interest Act a leftist ploy intended to interfere with legitimate business/corporate interests! Quote
August1991 Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) yes, clearly... it was your entire point!Ultimately, our leaders must face our individual choice in a secret ballot. That was my point.Waldo, if you don't understand this, then I suggest that you go live in a dictatorship for a few years. Fortunately, because of America (Truman/Nixon/Bush/Reagan etc) there are not many dictatorships left in the world. But there are still a few. For example, if you're a woman, go to Riyadh's dictatorship today. You will quickly understand how most people lived in the 1930s - under Soviet and Nazi rule, or colonial rule. Fortunately, the Saudi dictatorship is now questioned from within, and the Soviet regime no longer exists. As Lennon asked in the 1970s: Who could have Imagined? Edited March 23, 2012 by August1991 Quote
jacee Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 A minister simply told government bureaucrats to speak to a potential vendor. What could be more innocent? I think you'd better read up on 'conflict of interest', influence peddling, and the like. No, it's not "innocent" when a Minister influences allocation of PUBLIC money (ie, OUR money) to his friends. It's corruption. Jacee, I wonder why you maintain a blind trust in any government of the State - as if an NDP government would be any different. Hunh? I think I just pilloried a member of the "government of the state". "Blind trust" is not how I'd describe my feelings about ANY government. Quote
Vendetta Posted March 23, 2012 Report Posted March 23, 2012 Huh? I see a difference between taking a hostage, and killing the hostage. I also see a difference between stealing a new Cadillac Eldorado and stealing a 1990 Hyundai. stopstaaron, there is "crime" and then there is "crime". What absolute bullshit. So it is worse to steal a rich man's car than a poor man's car? Typical Conservative logic. As long as the rich aren't affected by new laws because they can afford lawyers to find loopholes and technicalities, we can pass all the laws we want eh? You can bet that the rich won't be affected by mandatory minimum laws like the working class will. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) stopstaaron, there is "crime" and then there is "crime". There is "stupid"then there is "stupid" Edited March 23, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
MACKER Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 The last minister whom was found to be in conflict of interest was Lawrence MacAulay in 2002, he was forced to step down You seem to be forgetting the minister of justice who slept with a woman before appointing her a judge... Quote
punked Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Huh? I see a difference between taking a hostage, and killing the hostage. I also see a difference between stealing a new Cadillac Eldorado and stealing a 1990 Hyundai. stopstaaron, there is "crime" and then there is "crime". I thought with mandatory minimums we were saying that all crimes of the same type need to be treated the same. Hmmmmmmm. I guess that is only for the little people not the people in the Harper government. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) http://www.canada.com/sports/Paradis+stayed+former+Nordiques+owner+lodge+during+federal+lobby+arena+Report/6362785/story.html One day after Quebec City announced it will move ahead — with the help of the province — with an NHL-calibre arena, CTV reported that federal Industry Minister Christian Paradis spent time at the hunting lodge of a former owner of the Quebec Nordiques when federal money was still being sought. On Monday night, CTV reported that Paradis, when he was public works minister in 2009, stayed at the exclusive lodge of Marcel Aubut. At the time, Aubut was seeking federal money for the $400-million project. Edited March 27, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
YEGmann Posted March 27, 2012 Report Posted March 27, 2012 No, it's not "innocent" when a Minister influences allocation of PUBLIC money (ie, OUR money) to his friends. It's corruption. Absolutely agree. Now you have to show what public money were allocated or would have been allocated in the cases of Paradis. Without showing a link to the public money all leftist posturing is just pathetic blah-blah-blah... Quote
jacee Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Absolutely agree. Now you have to show what public money were allocated or would have been allocated in the cases of Paradis. Without showing a link to the public money all leftist posturing is just pathetic blah-blah-blah... No we don't. He tried to influence bureaucrats in the direction of his friend. THAT alone is conflict of interest and corruption of the (purchase) process. Granted it would have been much more serious if Jaffer had been allocated a public contract, and more serious again if Paradis had received money for his 'assistance'. However, it is still conflict of interest and corruption of the process. And Paradis knew that: He knowingly tried to use his influence in the process. For all we know, maybe Paradis would have got a kickback if Jaffer's company got the contract. (Jaffer is a well-documented snake, btw.) Quote
Newfoundlander Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 I've always liked Christian Paradis for some reason. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.