ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 After 8 years of opacity and evading accountability a lot of us are expecting a better effort from politicians, especially from those promising change. Illegal? Unethical? Not as far as we know or can see..but there's the rub, you see? And that's the whole point here. It's not illegal. Based on my reading of Kady's article, it's not even against the conflict of interest guidelines, because he's not a lobbyist. Does it look bad? Certainly, which is why he quit. Is it bad? I don't know and I won't know until I can get some context. Has anyone seen the full email? And will Gagnier have a spot in Trudeau's PMO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Laura Peyton was saying on Twitter that this isn't a new revelation. Apparently Gagnier has been working with TransCanada since the spring and the Liberals knew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Trudeau said is gone for along time and then went on a rant about harper not building pipelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Trudeau is all about the pipelines. Anyone who even remotely pays attention to Canadian politics should know this. They'll also support the TPP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Laura Peyton was saying on Twitter that this isn't a new revelation. Apparently Gagnier has been working with TransCanada since the spring and the Liberals knew. Well thats good news for canada as that pipeline is being built which gets our product to port Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Trudeau is all about the pipelines. Anyone who even remotely pays attention to Canadian politics should know this. They'll also support the TPP. Vote strategically then... ABM...anything but a majority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Vote strategically then... ABM...anything but a majority So we can have a do nothing parliament? I like a parliament that gets things done and doesnt get mired in debate. Even though i dont agree with the liberals, maybe a majority for them would result in things getting done such as the energy east pipeline. How about if the party in power blows it, they can be shown the door come election time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Trudeau is all about the pipelines. Anyone who even remotely pays attention to Canadian politics should know this. They'll also support the TPP. So would the NDP. They can pretend with the position they're in right now, but they're not fooling anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 So we can have a do nothing parliament? I would argue that such a description fits the Harper majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 I would argue that such a description fits the Harper majority. Id say the trade deals, the wheat board, and the tfsas are hardly do nothing. If the liberals were to get the pipelines built, i would consider that a major accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Exactly. Hopefully it kills the majority. I was becoming genuinely concerned that if the Liberals pulled even a narrow one off, electoral reform would fall of the radar, or worse be actively assassinated like the second STV referendum in BC. The NDP will almost certainly demand electoral reform as the price of maintaining confidence. Definitely, electoral reform will be better served by a minority government. I question whether the Liberals were positioned to get one anyway, though. I'm still more concerned about the Conservatives getting back in, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 You guys are missing the point. The Liberals can do no wrong. Only the Conservatives are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) A lobbyist is defined by the Lobbying Act. If you don't register as a lobbyist, that doesn't mean that the act doesn't apply. See Section 5 below. It may be a bit ambiguous whether he was actually a lobbyist, but that has nothing to do with whether he was registered as one or not... it has to do with his actions. If he took any of the actions below, then he was a lobbyist; he should have registered as one, and it was illegal to be involved in the Liberal campaign while he was lobbying. I would contend that he did 5 (b )- arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. This means he is a lobbyist, whether he complied with the regulation to register, or not. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-12.4/page-4.html#h-8 5. (1) An individual shall file with the Commissioner, in the prescribed form and manner, a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (2), if the individual, for payment, on behalf of any person or organization (in this section referred to as the “client”), undertakes to (a) communicate with a public office holder in respect of (i) the development of any legislative proposal by the Government of Canada or by a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, (ii) the introduction of any Bill or resolution in either House of Parliament or the passage, defeat or amendment of any Bill or resolution that is before either House of Parliament, (iii) the making or amendment of any regulation as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, (iv) the development or amendment of any policy or program of the Government of Canada, (v) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada, or (vi) the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada; or (b) arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. Edited October 15, 2015 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Definitely, electoral reform will be better served by a minority government. I question whether the Liberals were positioned to get one anyway, though. I'm still more concerned about the Conservatives getting back in, tbh. Are you worried about it being the harper led conservatives or conservatives in general as you and i both know the writing is on the wall for harpers political career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Are you worried about it being the harper led conservatives or conservatives in general as you and i both know the writing is on the wall for harpers political career. If he gets even a plurality, it will be a fight to get rid of him. And if he stays on, I expect he will be around for at least a couple of years yet. Even if he left tomorrow, though, there are lots of things I'd like to see that won't happen in a Conservative government including action on climate change, electoral reform, marijuana legalization, return to evidence-based policy and an end to the insidious downsizing of government. So, the problem is Harper certainly but not just Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I like a parliament that gets things done and doesnt get mired in debate. Then I guess you don't want a parliament at all. The whole PURPOSE of parliament is debate. That has been largely circumvented in recent years, but that IS the real purpose..... ....debate the issues, then settle on a course of action with a votel. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Then I guess you don't want a parliament at all. The whole PURPOSE of parliament is debate. That has been largely circumvented in recent years, but that IS the real purpose..... ....debate the issues, then settle on a course of action with a votel. .... And how long should that debate take? Theres a line between talking about the issues and nothing getting done. That is the advantage of a majority parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 So would the NDP. They can pretend with the position they're in right now, but they're not fooling anyone. Oh, I'm absolutely certain Mulcair supports Energy East. He has already said it. In fact, it was the NDP that suggested refining oil at home to create jobs on the east coast. Too bad he didn't stick to that message out here because he would have gotten more support from Conservatives who are switching to the Liberals now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 He would also sign the TPP. I don't care what he says right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I would contend that he did 5 (b )- arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other person.[/size]With whom did he arrange a meeting and when was it held? I don't recall reading anything about him arranging any meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 He would also sign the TPP. I don't care what he says right now. I just don't see that. The NDP was against NAFTA even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 He would also sign the TPP. I don't care what he says right now. I agree. He said he wouldn't be 'bound by it' then that he wouldn't sign it. But I think he would try to find a way to sign it as he probably follows the conventional economic thinking, ie. that it's good for Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 It would make absolutely no political sense for him to be so opposed to it right now only to turn around and support it later. It also makes no sense that it would be good for Canada, considering they're already talking bail out money for dairy and automotive sectors and furthermore they refuse to release the details before the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I see the Harper campaign/war room guys rousted you out of your MLW slumber! ........ No slumber, a brief family Thanksgiving vacation........ Another interesting tidbit on Mr Gagnier The co-chair of the Liberal election campaign started working for TransCanada Corp. last spring, providing advice to the firm on its controversial Energy East pipeline project at the same time as he was trying to help Justin Trudeau win the next election. TransCanada of course being the company behind Energy East and Keystone XL........."Working" (unpaid of course) for Trudeau (a Member of Parliament), well employed by TransCanada Corp......me thinks this link on the Lobbying Act is getting a few hits.... Of course, Mr Gagnier has confirmed that he has disclosed said employment for TransCanada to the Trudeau Liberals, furthermore, TransCanada suggests many other companies are doing the like....... “It is logical to assume that many companies and organizations would take similar steps in preparing for what the political landscape might look like after October 19th,” TransCanada spokesperson James Millar said in an email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 It would make absolutely no political sense for him to be so opposed to it right now only to turn around and support it later. How so ? He can define his position as the only leader against the TPP and get votes that way. It certainly wouldn't be held against him if he went back a negotiated a 'significantly better deal', even if it was Mulcair himself who assessed that. It also makes no sense that it would be good for Canada, considering they're already talking bail out money for dairy and automotive sectors and furthermore they refuse to release the details before the election. So ... if the dairy industry is impacted then the deal is bad ? I don't think anybody has seen the details of the TPP but this isn't a TPP thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.