Uproar as Liberal cabinet minister's relative appointed interim ethics commissioner

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Lets not annoint Harper to sainthood

Harper was no saint, but lets not accuse him of things that never happened either ?e

And harper did nothing wrong here in the slightest. People lobby the gov't all the time. The CPC did to not tell anyone to buy this guy's water machines - they were told it was something the First Nations were asking for and agreed that if the first nations wanted them and felt it would solve a problem then they would be willing to set up a frame work to pay for it.

And when it was found that he'd been acting unscrupulously Harper called in the cops immediately.

trying to claim that this proves "harper hired a fraudster" is simply not truthful.

 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

 

One of his advisors, Bruce Carson was convicted of fraud, twice

He wasn't his advisor tho, was he. If you read the article he'd worked for harper previous to any of this and wasn't working for the cpc at all at the time.

So some guy who worked for harper once later goes on to commit fraud.... how is that 'harper hired a fraudster'.

There's no need to lie in order to criticize harper.  Some guy who worked for him previously went on to commit a crime one day. Wooooo.

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Harper was no saint, but lets not accuse him of things that never happened either ?e

And harper did nothing wrong here in the slightest. People lobby the gov't all the time. The CPC did to not tell anyone to buy this guy's water machines - they were told it was something the First Nations were asking for and agreed that if the first nations wanted them and felt it would solve a problem then they would be willing to set up a frame work to pay for it.

And when it was found that he'd been acting unscrupulously Harper called in the cops immediately.

trying to claim that this proves "harper hired a fraudster" is simply not truthful.

 

He wasn't his advisor tho, was he. If you read the article he'd worked for harper previous to any of this and wasn't working for the cpc at all at the time.

So some guy who worked for harper once later goes on to commit fraud.... how is that 'harper hired a fraudster'.

There's no need to lie in order to criticize harper.  Some guy who worked for him previously went on to commit a crime one day. Wooooo.

Never accused him of anything. I just provided links. You decide.

I voted for Harper, just saying he was/is not a saint and trying to make him better than XX is foolish. When you are a leader, crap happens and you, as the leader wears it.

He had his share of issues too. Duffygate??

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/06/Stephen-Harper-Abuses-of-Power-2/

https://torontosun.com/2015/06/26/the-cheaters-on-harpers-watch

https://pressprogress.ca/here_are_17_more_friends_stephen_harper_who_are_now_trouble_with_law/

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Never accused him of anything. I just provided links. You decide.

You're involivng yourself in a discussion about this accusation. I never claimed YOU accused him. Don't be so sensitive.

And there's no 'decision', he very clearly wasn't employing the guy while or after he committed fraud.

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

I voted for Harper, just saying he was/is not a saint and trying to make him better than XX is foolish. When you are a leader, crap happens and you, as the leader wears it.

Where did i do that. i simply said he didn't 'hire a fraudster', which was the accusation. 

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

He had his share of issues too. Duffygate??

 

Oh you mean the one where he pressured someone to GIVE BACK MONEY TO THE TAXPAYERS?!?

You know what - i'm ok with more of that kind of scandal I would love it if someone forced Justin to repay the trillion dollars or so he's spent

You're veering off the topic to just attack harper.

And harper was demonstrably better than trudeau. You can't play the game where if someone takes an office pen home then it's the same as embezzling a million dollars.

Harper was't perfect but he was never corrupt. Trudeau is corrupt. Period. 

Harper fired someone from the cabinet for buying 14 dollar orange juice. That's who he was.  Justin just appointed the relative of someone who'd already had to be investigated by the ethics commission to be head of it - after he's been investigated how many times.  That's the kind of person he is. There's a difference.

[ExFlyer]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're involivng yourself in a discussion about this accusation. I never claimed YOU accused him. Don't be so sensitive.

A.......

Oh you mean the one where he pressured someone to GIVE BACK MONEY TO THE TAXPAYERS?!?

You know what - i'm ok with more of that kind of scandal ......

You're veering off the topic to just attack harper.

And harper was demonstrably better than trudeau. You can't play the game where if someone takes an office pen home then it's the same as embezzling a million dollars.

Harper was't perfect but he was never corrupt. Trudeau is corrupt. Period. 

.... There's a difference.

My point, and only point is that all governments have scandals and corruption.

Duffy's issue was that Harpers assistant paid back the senate.

I am not attacking Harper, just providing links making my point. As I said, I voted for him.

I am  not sure about demonstrably but I get your point.

As for the topic, I already said she should have recused herself from the appointment as ethics commissioner as the optics are all wrong.

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

My point, and only point is that all governments have scandals and corruption.

All gov'ts have scandals. NOT all gov'ts have corruption, or tolerate it when someone in their party does. There is an important difference.

Scandal is often a matter of opinion. Consider 'fake lake' with harper - that was pretty much bullshit. They made a nice little scene was was appropriate and someone made fun of it and turned it into a 'scandal' but there was nothing actually wrong with it. Or proroguing parliament - a HUGGGGEE scandal!  When harper does it anyway - totally normal when EVERY OTHER PM IN HISTORY does it, and  justin has and is considering it now.

Scandals are one thing. You can't be in gov't and avoid that.

But .... corruption is different. That is a whole level of wrong. Accepting paper envelopes full of cash under the table at a restaurant is WRONG. Pressuring the minister of justice unlawfully to try to force them to drop criminal charges is wrong.

And as canadians we should ALWAYS seek to utterly destroy parties that partake in actual corruption. The PC started to go that way and were destroyed. The ndp got caught up in corruption issues in BC and were all but wiped out. That is exactly how we should behave.

But liberal voters especially federally seem to be very very tolerant of corruption and that's not a good thing.

 

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Duffy's issue was that Harpers assistant paid back the senate.

Harper's assistant provided a loan. And the senates' money is the taxpayer's money.  I'd love to see someone pressure justin to pay back the gov'ts money he's taken

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

I am not attacking Harper, just providing links making my point. As I said, I voted for him.

Well if your point is that nobody's perfect then sure. Conceded.  But - like i said, there's a difference between 'scandal' and 'corruption'.  Corruption should always be punishable by (political) death.

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

I am  not sure about demonstrably but I get your point.

As for the topic, I already said she should have recused herself from the appointment as ethics commissioner as the optics are all wrong.

True. Not saying your defending the libs. We all agree i think that what she did was not the right thing. And honestly i blame trudeau more than her - if he's encouraging her and saying 'no problem, we'll put in checks and balances no sweat" or the like then i can see her caving.

But - it smaks of something bordering on whataboutism to suggest that somehow it's all ok because "all" politicians are corrupt. They are not - layton wasn't, harper wasn't.

[ExFlyer]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All gov'ts have scandals. NOT all gov'ts have corruption, or tolerate it when someone in their party does. There is an important difference.

Scandal is often a matter of opinion. Consider 'fake lake' with harper - that was pretty much bullshit. They made a nice little scene was was appropriate and someone made fun of it and turned it into a 'scandal' but there was nothing actually wrong with it. Or proroguing parliament - a HUGGGGEE scandal!  When harper does it anyway - totally normal when EVERY OTHER PM IN HISTORY does it, and  justin has and is considering it now.

Scandals are one thing. You can't be in gov't and avoid that.

But .... corruption is different. That is a whole level of wrong. Accepting paper envelopes full of cash under the table at a restaurant is WRONG. Pressuring the minister of justice unlawfully to try to force them to drop criminal charges is wrong.

And as canadians we should ALWAYS seek to utterly destroy parties that partake in actual corruption. The PC started to go that way and were destroyed. The ndp got caught up in corruption issues in BC and were all but wiped out. That is exactly how we should behave.

But liberal voters especially federally seem to be very very tolerant of corruption and that's not a good thing.

 

Harper's assistant provided a loan. And the senates' money is the taxpayer's money.  I'd love to see someone pressure justin to pay back the gov'ts money he's taken

Well if your point is that nobody's perfect then sure. Conceded.  But - like i said, there's a difference between 'scandal' and 'corruption'.  Corruption should always be punishable by (political) death.

True. Not saying your defending the libs. We all agree i think that what she did was not the right thing. And honestly i blame trudeau more than her - if he's encouraging her and saying 'no problem, we'll put in checks and balances no sweat" or the like then i can see her caving.

But - it smaks of something bordering on whataboutism to suggest that somehow it's all ok because "all" politicians are corrupt. They are not - layton wasn't, harper wasn't.

I agree with you. All gov'ts have scandals., Scandal is often a matter of opinion.

Scandal and corruption are also the opinion of who is making the accusation and charge.

She, being so long in the ethics office, should not have taken the job.

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I agree with you. All gov'ts have scandals., Scandal is often a matter of opinion.

Scandal and corruption are also the opinion of who is making the accusation and charge.

welllllll - scandal definitely, sure. But corruption is a little bit less 'opinion' and is a little more tangible and definable i think.  We can debate whether or not it's a scandal to buy 14 dolllar OJ or spend 6 grand on a hotel room or not, but for example influence peddling is pretty cut and dry.

And in this case while no law is broken i think 100 percent of people can agree that it has teh APPEARANCE of corruption if not the reality of it, and that is the issue.  SO -  a little more 'definable' universally if you will.

44 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

She, being so long in the ethics office, should not have taken the job.

Probably not. It LOOKS like corruption and that erodes people's confidence in the institutions

[ExFlyer]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

welllllll - scandal definitely, sure. But corruption is a little bit less 'opinion' and is a little more tangible and definable i think.  We can debate whether or not it's a scandal to buy 14 dolllar OJ or spend 6 grand on a hotel room or not, but for example influence peddling is pretty cut and dry.

And in this case while no law is broken i think 100 percent of people can agree that it has the APPEARANCE of corruption if not the reality of it, and that is the issue.  SO -  a little more 'definable' universally if you will.

Probably not. It LOOKS like corruption and that erodes people's confidence in the institutions

You  - corruption

Me - politics

Both - bad optics

Edited April 3, 2023 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You  - corruption

Me - politics

Both - bad optics

LOL - well fair enough We'll leave it there then shall we?

[BeaverFever]

What doesn’t seem to be reported on that thread is that while she is currently related by marriage to a cabinet member, she does currently hold the #2 job in that office so she would be the logical choice to succeed an outgoing leader especially on an interim basis and she has worked there for over a decade, having been hired there under the Harper government. 
 

HOWEVER

More relevant is that Dominic and by extension this person belong to a political dynasty that includes a former Governor General. These dynasties wield influence and have private personal connections in both parties.    I’m not saying she’s unqualified for her current job as she is the #2 or for the top job. But I AM saying I bet many talented people who COULD have become just as qualified or better never even got the opportunity to rise up to that level because they’re not part of the elite networks. 
 

So….Only the #2 job is qualified to move to the #1 job…fair enough. But too often in both the private and public sector, the full story is that only the #3 job is qualified to move to the #2 job and so on, until it reaches down from the top to the ‘junior elite’ job that is always hired via private referral and not promoted from within the ranks. So the only people who move to the elite ranks are those whose social circles already include those who are in the orbit of senior elites. For everyone else there’s a glass ceiling although a few get lucky.
 

Being “QUALIFIED” is only part of the story. Being given the OPPORTUNITY is often the bigger part of the story. 
 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:31 PM, eyeball said:

Note Leblanc's ethic's violation, not to mention it's flagrant blatancy, was during his tenure as Fisheries Minister.

DFO is probably the most unabashedly corrupt institution in Canada.  Some economists look at fishing communities the way coal miners look at canaries, when either suffer and die it says there's something wrong. In the case of canaries it's an abundance of toxic gases in the case of fishing communities its toxic mismanagement.

Fishing communities have been dying off for decades - you have to wonder if Canadians even care.  I doubt Conservatives care or they would have noticed and done something about it by now.

I mean this has been going on for DECADES now.

I've been fishing now and then on a few lakes, and have barely caught anything in the last 10 years, to the point of alarm IMO.  The lakes I go to are very overfished, its quite sad actually, when I was a kid I would catch fish all the time.  I imagine this happens in commercial fishing too.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The lakes I go to are very overfished

The lakes you go to are very mismanaged. Probably by neglect and incompetence, real deliberate overfishing is usually the result of a sectoral (often commercial or sport) lobbyists talking an official somewhere into getting an opening extended or a quota adjusted.

Climate change could also be the cause - an issue that's probably subject to more mismanagement than anything else.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The lakes you go to are very mismanaged. Probably by neglect and incompetence, real deliberate overfishing is usually the result of a sectoral (often commercial or sport) lobbyists talking an official somewhere into getting an opening extended or a quota adjusted.

not my area of expertise but that does have the ring of truth