The Federal Accountability Act - A fraud

[Ricki Bobbi]

Are you referring to their attacks on the Liberals as being fair and balanced?

The one you posted? Singular doesn't use the s. So that would be attacks.

I am referring to the fact that dwatch portrays the final accountability act that was passed as being a conscious effort at fraud committed by the conservative govenrment as if they weren't restrained by a minority government and a Liberal senate.

[scribblet]

The first party caught in the fundraising act was the Tories. One of the first people caught was Stephen Harper.

IF that were true, how much of the TAXPAYER money was involved?

Absolutely NONE - in fact, the taxpayer initially was saving money as the CPC did not consider convention fees donations. Apparantly under the new rules, they now are, so, will indeed cost the taxpayer money.

[normanchateau]

Are you referring to their attack on the Liberals as being fair and balanced?

I am referring to the fact that dwatch portrays the final accountability act that was passed as being a conscious effort at fraud committed by the conservative govenrment as if they weren't restrained by a minority government and a Liberal senate.

So which dwatch attack is fair and balanced? The one on the Liberals or the one on the Conservatives?

[Ricki Bobbi]

So which dwatch attack is fair and balanced? The one on the Liberals or the one on the Conservatives?

None of it is balanced. One quote critical of the biggest case of Government corruption in the last 25 years is half-arsed. Not balacned at all. Do you have any quotes where they provided anything but an attack on the Conservatives over the accountability act?

[normanchateau]

So which dwatch attack is fair and balanced? The one on the Liberals or the one on the Conservatives?

None of it is balanced. One quote critical of the biggest case of Government corruption in the last 25 years is half-arsed. Not balacned at all.

How could they have made it full-arsed and "balacned"?

[madmax]

That's the thing. The only people complaining about it would never even consider voting for Harper.

Bingo.

[Saturn]

Let's not get carried off with the impartiality of Democracy Watch. Democracy Watch is a reputable organization has made pointing out and educating the public about undemocratic practices of government its goal. Harper was more than pleased and bragged about their support for his promises on accountability. When he failed to implement most of their promises and they pointed out his lies, he no longer brags about their views.

The point here is that Harper broke his promises on accountability. The FAA implements less than a third of what he promised, yet he claims that it will provide clean government. There is nothing further from the truth. The FAA is weak legislation, which will not make ministers responsible for screwing up, will continue to allow lobbyists to control public policy and will allow the New Conservative Government to hand out contracts and steal from the public, just like the old Liberal government did.

Excuses, like the Liberal senate this and that, don't cut it because Harper removed half of his promises from the Act even before he tabled it. Then he wrestled with the opposition to not add those promises to the Act.

From the Democracy Watch article:

...the Conservatives rejected all attempts by opposition parties to add most of the 22 measures and ethics rules that the Conservatives promised to include in the FAA...

More from Democracy Watch:

Conservatives' Half-Measures Not Enough to Clean Up the Federal Government

The federal Conservatives, in particular Cabinet minister John Baird, have made many false and very exaggerated claims about Bill C-2, the so-called Federal Accountability Act, since introducing it last April.

Last Friday Baird claimed that the bill is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's "Christmas gift" of "clean government" to Canadians, and when Bill C-2 became law this week the PM claimed that "accountability in government" is now the law.

If only these claims were true. In fact, they directly contradict Conservatives' past claims. When introducing the Accountability Act proposal in November 2005, Harper pledged that the Conservatives, if elected, would pass an Act with 52 needed measures as his "specific, detailed and credible plan to clean up government" and said Canadians "deserve nothing less" than "accountable government."

But the Act introduced in April was a lot less than promised, as it contained only 30 of the Conservatives' 52 promised measures, and also weakened key Cabinet ethics rules. Obviously, by the Conservatives' own standards, such an Act could not produce a clean, accountable federal government.

Not surprisingly, when applauding themselves the Prime Minister and Minister Baird have also failed to mention that opposition parties attempted to add some of the Conservatives' 22 promised measures and key ethics rules to Bill C-2, and to close other loopholes in the system, and that the Conservatives rejected all of their proposals.

[normanchateau]

The point here is that Harper broke his promises on accountability.

Harper broke his promises? Shocking!!

Next you'll be claiming that his unelected friend and former campaign manager Michael Fortier, who he appointed both to the Senate and to the Cabinet, won't be running in the next federal by-election in Montreal.

[Saturn]

Harper broke his promises? Shocking!!

Next you'll be claiming that his unelected friend and former campaign manager Michael Fortier, who he appointed both to the Senate and to the Cabinet, won't be running in the next federal by-election in Montreal.

He didn't feel like running in the election, why would he feel like running in a by-election? He is in the Cabinet already, no?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Let's not get carried off with the impartiality of Democracy Watch. Democracy Watch is a reputable organization has made pointing out and educating the public about undemocratic practices of government its goal.

Sure it is.

[normanchateau]

Harper broke his promises? Shocking!!

Next you'll be claiming that his unelected friend and former campaign manager Michael Fortier, who he appointed both to the Senate and to the Cabinet, won't be running in the next federal by-election in Montreal.

He didn't feel like running in the election, why would he feel like running in a by-election? He is in the Cabinet already, no?

You're right. There's nothing to compel him to run in a by-election other than convention. Here's why I thought he might:

Typically, when someone other than an elected MP is appointed to cabinet, an elected member of the same party would step aside and the appointed minister would run for office in a by-election, said Paul Nesbit-Larking, head of political science at the Univertsity of Western Ontario's Huron College.

However, Mr. Nesbitt-Larking said it is “acceptable as well” to make such an appointment by way of the senate, even though such a move is “slightly less conventional.”

He also said it isn't the first time an incoming prime minister has gone outside the ranks of his elected MPs to fill a cabinet post, noting that former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau made a similar appointment in the 1970s.

In 1975, Mr. Trudeau appointed Pierre Juneau as minister of communications, with the expectation he would later win a seat in a by-election. However, Mr. Juneau was defeated in a by-election later that year by the Progressive Conservative candidate and stepped down from the post.

No doubt, Mr. Fortier would suffer a similar fate if he ran in a Montreal by-election.