scribblet Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, of course it would be if it doesn't agree with your perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, of course it would be if it doesn't agree with your perception. It has nothing to do with my perception. It has to do with you saying something seems unethical when the Ethics Commissioner has said repeatedly that it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted August 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 I guess you are not old enough to remember howard wilson. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 I know who he is and I don't see how he's at all relevant to this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Come on, he took money from unions as a MOP, and votes on union stuff snd votes in favour, anywhere else and that is bribery, but not when it comes to the wonder boy. The libs have not changed one iota. Thats no different than politicians accepting campaign donations from corporations and then making decisions favorable to them. We have a pay for play politic system... its too bad, but thats just how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted August 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 I know who he is and I don't see how he's at all relevant to this discussion. It shows that wec an have ethic commisoners that don't have a clue about ethics. Taking money as MP from unions and then voting in thier favour, is unethical, plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 It shows that wec an have ethic commisoners that don't have a clue about ethics. Taking money as MP from unions and then voting in thier favour, is unethical, plain and simple.So a problem you have with an ethics commissioner from 20 years ago pertains to the current one how exactly? Are you suggesting that the current Conservative-appointed Ethics Commissioner is "clueless" (your words, not mine)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 It shows that wec an have ethic commisoners that don't have a clue about ethics. Taking money as MP from unions and then voting in thier favour, is unethical, plain and simple. Right on !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 The "conflict of interest" clause I think is more confusing to anyone outside of Parliament than within Parliament. Would you say that its a conflict of interest if a minister brings into a law that helps certains groups with their income, while at the same time that law is helping their relatives too? My understanding from listening to committee meetings, that it when a MP does something that would benefit him/her and their family. So were is the line drawn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Right on !!!So you're saying Stephen Harper appointed an Ethics Commissioner that doesn't have a clue about ethics? Because this thread isn't about commissioners appointed 20 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Your words, not mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 The business existed before he was an mp, but I agree the optics are bad. Not before, during. From the cbc article: "...financial problems that arose from the time he was conducting speaking engagements while he was an MP" From global: “The Liberal leader took over $100,000 in personal payments from unions, including tens of thousands of dollars in his time as MP,” Lobb, MP for Huron-Bruce, Ont., said in the House of Commons on June 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Your words, not mine...Then tell me what the issue is because you seem to be criticizing this Ethics Commissioner for something, but you haven't bothered to flesh out the argument. You're saying what Trudeau was doing is unethical and the Ethics Commissioner, who's responsible for determining conflict of interest, says that it isn't. What are you arguing then? That the Ethics Commissioner isn't doing the job? If that's what you're arguing, then Harper made yet another terrible appointment. If you're not saying that and this Harper-picked Ethics Commissioner does the job just fine, then Trudeau isn't in conflict of interest. So which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 IF Trudeau was truly in conflict of interest, don't you think that both, the NDP and the Tories would be on his case? Haven't heard from them since the commissioner came out with her findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 IF Trudeau was truly in conflict of interest, don't you think that both, the NDP and the Tories would be on his case? Haven't heard from them since the commissioner came out with her findings.The reason you haven't heard the CPC on this is exactly what I'm saying to scribblet. If they attack Trudeau on this now that the commissioner made her decision, then they're stabbing their own Ethics Commissioner in the back and it makes Harper look incompetent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 And given his record on appointments, he doesn't need any more help with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 And given his record on appointments, he doesn't need any more help with that.Exactly. Given his track record, the Ethics Commissioner is incompetent and Trudeau is in conflict of interest, which is probably why he stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Only in your mind. As for 'fleshing out an argument' - for what purpose, it just goes off into never never land most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Exactly. Given his track record, the Ethics Commissioner is incompetent and Trudeau is in conflict of interest, which is probably why he stopped. I personally think that Trudeau should never have been speaking for money while an MP. It may be ethical by the rules, but it really isn't 'right'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 As for 'fleshing out an argument' - for what purpose, it just goes off into never never land most of the time.Gee. For what purpose? I dunno. Maybe because it's part of the forum rules and culture that you articulate and support an argument. If you're going to make a claim about the current Ethics Commissioner at least have the intellectual honesty to make it, rather than imply it and run away when someone presses you on it because it twists your partisan biases into a knot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 I personally think that Trudeau should never have been speaking for money while an MP. It may be ethical by the rules, but it really isn't 'right'.I agree. I think it was part of his job as an MP to attend speaking engagements, so in a sense he was getting paid twice for the same things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 There is also the case of Mark Adler, Conservative MP, who Is involved in a "speaking club", often bringing in other MPs to speak to people who paid money to be there. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/17/justin-trudeau-charity-speaking-fees_n_3454041.html The club has hosted a wide array of speakers, from former U.S. president Bill Clinton to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. But it has also seen multiple appearances by Adler’s Tory colleagues — at least 17 events with Conservative cabinet ministers in the past year-and-a-half alone. Defence Minister Peter MacKay made two appearances, as did Treasury Board President Tony Clement. Ten other cabinet ministers spoke at club gatherings, including Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq earlier this June. Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has also been there twice recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) There is also the case of Mark Adler, Conservative MP, who Is involved in a "speaking club", often bringing in other MPs to speak to people who paid money to be there. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/17/justin-trudeau-charity-speaking-fees_n_3454041.html Your selected quote implies that those speakers were paid. Here's a quote from further on in the article (my bold): Unlike other not-for-profit speaking clubs, such as the Empire Club of Canada and Canadian Club of Toronto, the Economic Club is a profit-making operation. Cabinet ministers and other speakers are not paid to speak, said Stefani Lecker, director of communications. Edited August 13, 2013 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Your selected quote implies that those speakers were paid. Here's a quote from further on in the article (my bold): Adler is paid when other MPs speak there. People pay a for-profit company to hear them speak. The difference isn't that great. Adler is into some shady dealings... What do the Conservative supporters think about Adler's $100k+ gifts from a convicted money launderer? http://o.canada.com/2013/02/13/ethics-commissioner-to-contact-mp-mark-adler-after-report-on-lawsuit-fundraiser/ On Tuesday, Adler said he has reached an out-of-court settlement with Nathan Jacobson, who was convicted of money laundering in the United States in 2008 but is a fugitive from American justice. In court documents, Adler acknowledged that Jacobson provided him with $114,962 in 2009 and 2010 “as a friendly gesture,” but stated that he was not expected to pay the money back. Jacobson sued him and the two have reached a settlement, terms of which are not public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 I betcha all the unethical $$ Trudeau has earned that the Conservatives use this issue in their smear ads though. Coming soon to a TV near you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.