Friday, April 23, 2010

Ethics Commissioner: No Witchunt For You! (NDP LIB MP's Cry Foul!)

"I haven’t got the reasonable grounds," she said. "I don’t think my office is responsible to do witch hunts. No. We don’t have information."

I am curious why the headline states MPs bash conflict commissioner over Guergis affair?

After reading the article the MP's are members of only two political parties. The NDP & Liberals. I could not find any Bloc or CPC MP attacking the ethics commissioner. Maybe I should reexamine the article again. Wish me luck.

Accuracy or ommission media bias.

"I was dumbfounded by the answer," Foote said. "Nobody’s suggesting you go on a witch hunt. These are the facts. This is what we know. The fact that the prime minister fired a cabinet minister, and kicked her out of caucus even, certainly that must warrant an investigation."
Liberal Judy Foote says either there are serious allegations, in which case Dawson should investigate, or Harper fired Guergis without sufficient cause.

This Liberal MP from NFLD joined others who broke ranks against the Liberal leader on the budget. Foote said the correspondence she has received shows "there is no question the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want their representatives to vote against the budget even if that means sitting as Independents."

NDP Pat Martin "It’s worrisome that the ethics commissioner can’t see fit to engage in what seems to be such an ethically obvious breach of codes and conducts and standards," he said Thursday.
"What’s the use of having an ethics commissioner or conflict of interest guidelines if they seem to be voluntary compliance and very little enforcement?"

“I have no objection to faith-based organizations providing services. Sally Ann (the Salvation Army) and others have been doing a great job for years. But these people are evangelical fundamentalists,” Martin said. “Offering much-needed sports opportunities is just their way of luring in young prospects.”

Martin said he personally opposes federal funding for the project and hopes the Conservative government does as well. “Would the federal government be so willing to give them $3 million if they were called Youth for Allah?”

Accuracy and fair criticism of Civil Servants.
It is interesting when some characterization of Colvins 2nd hand testimony was refuted by some MP's, the Military, Senior Civil Servants the media felt it was important to frame it differently.

Maybe it is just me, does it seem fair?


Bec said...

The slimy OPPS can't fathom the reality that they indeed are travelling the road of a 'Witch Hunt'. The optics are intolerable and the irony as your examples clearly demonstrate are that these pyre builders are as, if not more, intolerant in their specific ideology because they simply won't address their hypocrisy.

However they clearly only have openness and tolerance for their ilk of which their latest duo of conservative victims, don't fit.
So as usual, if someone dares disagree with their request for a continued demonization, that individual must be be unable to navigate accurately through their idea of FACTS.
So typical of these parliamentary witch hunters.

CanadianSense said...

My concerns was due process, rule of law and hiding behind parliamentary privilege in making allegations.

It does not seem fair or balanced.

The comments against Mary Dawson seem very criticial of her office and her job.

How does this measure up with the media depiction of Colvins' criticism?

hunter said...

Parliamentary privilege to say anything they want in front of the cameras, so that the media can use those quotes in a story. This has to stop. No more parliamentary privilege, voters don't have it, why should MP's be able to say anything they want to without fear of a lawsuit?

CanadianSense said...

Hunter in committee, in QP it can be used to ask questions or make statements for strategic purposes. (I don't have a problem with Parliamentary Privilege)

My concern is the abuse of the privilege regarding the national airing of the personal failures (poor judgement) by ex CPC MP.

Revisiting Mulroney witchunt 20 years later was for the cameras and not for getting the truth.

The questions, statements on his DUI, plea bargain should NOT have parliamentary privilege and each MP should repeat those statements without libel defamation protection.

The influence peddling questions, I have NO problem with tough questions and protection of privilege. (That is the issue to investigate).

The silly stuff of use of gov't property is another minor distraction. (How many spouses have were dropped off, checked an email, attended a function chatted up gov't official at a social function) -that NET is too vague.