Politicians, aint they a hoot.

[Trex]

Justin Trudeau recently announced that he inherited 1.2 million from his father.
He is also on record as charging well in excess of 1 million dollars for his prior speaking engagements.
Federal Legislative attendance records show that Justin has one of the worst attendance records in the House of Commons following his election as an MP.
It is public knowledge that the Ethics Commissioner recommended that Justin immediately stop moonlighting as a highly paid speaker on the rubber chicken circuit following Justin’s announcement that he would be seeking the leadership of the LPC.
Justin has ignored Ethics Commissioner’s advice and continues to rake in cash as a motivational speaker racking up $72,00 in 2012 alone.
Federal MP’s are paid a base salary of $157,000 plus various top ups and tax breaks.

Sitting NDP MP Andrew Cash is one of the strongest political supporters of the taxpayer funded CBC.
He is also paid roughly $40,000 a year by the CBC to provide the intro jingle for The Dragons Den television show which is a CBC production.
That obviously puts Andrew in conflict of interest.
Andrew seems to have responded to that by filing a signed letter stating that he will not sit nor vote on Government Bills that affect the CBC.
However the House record shows that he is indeed voting on House bills that affect both CBC’s funding and future operations.
Andrew has announced to the media that his lawyer informs him that it is legal for him to continue to vote on CBC related bills while being paid by the CBC.
He also says the letter on file that he signed that states that he will not vote on CBC related House bills is “non applicable”.

At least Mulroney waited until after he resigned from politics before he grabbed the brown envelope.

 

[L Gilbert]

Life is as usual in politics. Yep

 

[china]

At least Mulroney waited until after he resigned from politics before he grabbed the brown envelope.

Yea , he was very 'conservative' in his behavior......right?

 

[FiveParadox]

Justin Trudeau recently announced that he inherited 1.2 million from his father.
He is also on record as charging well in excess of 1 million dollars for his prior speaking engagements.
Federal Legislative attendance records show that Justin has one of the worst attendance records in the House of Commons following his election as an MP.

It is public knowledge that the Ethics Commissioner recommended that Justin immediately stop moonlighting as a highly paid speaker on the rubber chicken circuit following Justin’s announcement that he would be seeking the leadership of the LPC.

This is perhaps one of the most spectacular mischaracterisations I have ever read.

In fact, when these concerns were raised by Mr. Dean Del Mastro P.C., M.P. (Peterborough), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the opinion of the commission nowhere near resembles what you have represented, Trex.

The opinion of Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada, was that there was "no information before [her] to suggest that Mr. Trudeau was performing parliamentary duties and functions when he spoke at these events or that he acted in any way to further his private interests as a paid speaker when performing those duties and functions."

Justin has ignored Ethics Commissioner’s advice and continues to rake in cash as a motivational speaker racking up $72,00 in 2012 alone.
Federal MP’s are paid a base salary of $157,000 plus various top ups and tax breaks.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner advised Mr. Del Mastro, when he raised these concerns, that Mr. Trudeau's conduct was in no way inappropriate, and there was no advice for him to discontinue his individual speaking engagements. Ms. Dawson concluded that there was nothing inappropriate about his self-identification as a member of the House of Commons during these speaking events.

Sitting NDP MP Andrew Cash is one of the strongest political supporters of the taxpayer funded CBC.
He is also paid roughly $40,000 a year by the CBC to provide the intro jingle for The Dragons Den television show which is a CBC production.
That obviously puts Andrew in conflict of interest.
Andrew seems to have responded to that by filing a signed letter stating that he will not sit nor vote on Government Bills that affect the CBC.
However the House record shows that he is indeed voting on House bills that affect both CBC’s funding and future operations.
Andrew has announced to the media that his lawyer informs him that it is legal for him to continue to vote on CBC related bills while being paid by the CBC.
He also says the letter on file that he signed that states that he will not vote on CBC related House bills is “non applicable”.

At least Mulroney waited until after he resigned from politics before he grabbed the brown envelope.

There is a major difference between voting on bills that affect the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the context of the budget and supply bills that touch on the CBC, and voting on a bill that relates to the royalties that can be paid to a person for the theme song of a television program on the CBC. The former is not a conflict of interest; the latter most certainly is, and he has not voted in the latter case in a way that would compromise his integrity.

 

[damngrumpy]

So he inherited over a million from his father, and he charged for speaking engagements?
Did i miss something? Is it a crime to do that? Someone who is in another party the NDP
does a voice intro for Dragons Den and he charged them forty thousand dollars. Did he
commit a crime by doing so?
I used to do all kinds of television voice overs and made some good money doing so.
You may not like it and you might think someone has too much but in fact people just
because they have money should not be expected to just do things for nothing because
they have money.
No I am not a fan of Trudeau but this is pretty trivial to say the least.

 

[Sal]

Personally, I don't think 1.2 million is that much in the big scheme of things. Most of the money likely went up his mum's nose.

 

[gerryh]

Personally, I don't think 1.2 million is that much in the big scheme of things. Most of the money likely went up his mum's nose.

So, what are you implying here? That Justin spent most of his inheritance on "blow" for his mother?

 

[Sal]

So, what are you implying here? That Justin spent most of his inheritance on "blow" for his mother?

hell no, she does just fine all by herself. I think the inheritance was low because it was spent in other ways...some of those ways would have been to his ex who is Justin's mum. People make it sound like ew a MILLION... he's young no one could live on that for the rest of their life...he's not a member of the idle rich which is worshiped by the right-winged critics.

He's a kid. We'll see how he shapes up.

 

[Trex]

This is perhaps one of the most spectacular mischaracterisations I have ever read.

In fact, when these concerns were raised by Mr. Dean Del Mastro P.C., M.P. (Peterborough), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the opinion of the commission nowhere near resembles what you have represented, Trex.

The opinion of Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada, was that there was "no information before [her] to suggest that Mr. Trudeau was performing parliamentary duties and functions when he spoke at these events or that he acted in any way to further his private interests as a paid speaker when performing those duties and functions."


The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner advised Mr. Del Mastro, when he raised these concerns, that Mr. Trudeau's conduct was in no way inappropriate, and there was no advice for him to discontinue his individual speaking engagements. Ms. Dawson concluded that there was nothing inappropriate about his self-identification as a member of the House of Commons during these speaking events.


There is a major difference between voting on bills that affect the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the context of the budget and supply bills that touch on the CBC, and voting on a bill that relates to the royalties that can be paid to a person for the theme song of a television program on the CBC. The former is not a conflict of interest; the latter most certainly is, and he has not voted in the latter case in a way that would compromise his integrity.

On your first point Five Paradox you are correct and I was wrong.
I bought the Conservative spin.
The Ethics Commissioner did write off on Justin's motivational speaking seminars while he was a sitting MP.
However Justin himself says he was advised by Ethics that he could be in conflict if he continued to charge for seminars while a Minister or Leader of a Party.
Justin did quit charging for speaking engagements before announcing his run for leadership of the LPC as best as I can see.
The Conservative line was that Justin (and everybody else in Canada) knew he was going to run at an earlier date and continued to bill for speaking engagemnts at that time.
So while I guess you could quibble the morals of Justins billing for his last few engagements technically speaking he stopped billing before running for the Leadership.

On my second point I stand by what I said.
The NDP MP in question has stated that his personal lawyer has advised him that he can now pick and choose what CBC related House BIlls he can attend.
And yet he is on file as saying he will not vote or attend bills relating to CBC issues.
And then he signed and filed a letter stating the same thing.
And now, as you have thoughtfully pointed out, he has weaseled out of his prior ethical committments and both attended and voted on CBC bills.
Pretty obvious ethical conflict.

 

[taxslave]

So he inherited over a million from his father, and he charged for speaking engagements?
Did i miss something? Is it a crime to do that? Someone who is in another party the NDP
does a voice intro for Dragons Den and he charged them forty thousand dollars. Did he
commit a crime by doing so?
I used to do all kinds of television voice overs and made some good money doing so.
You may not like it and you might think someone has too much but in fact people just
because they have money should not be expected to just do things for nothing because
they have money.
No I am not a fan of Trudeau but this is pretty trivial to say the least.

Apparently it is not a crime to charge for speaking while an MP but many of us consider it unethical. I don't see where his personal wealth enters into it except maybe ***** envy for some. But even if legal his speaking engagements should not take away from his duties as an MP. To not be in the house while it is sitting because of a speaking engagement is rather like his father giving the finger to taxpayers.

The thought police have even edited medical terms now.

 

[FiveParadox]

On my second point I stand by what I said.
The NDP MP in question has stated that his personal lawyer has advised him that he can now pick and choose what CBC related House BIlls he can attend.
And yet he is on file as saying he will not vote or attend bills relating to CBC issues.
And then he signed and filed a letter stating the same thing.
And now, as you have thoughtfully pointed out, he has weaseled out of his prior ethical committments and both attended and voted on CBC bills.
Pretty obvious ethical conflict.

Mr. Andrew Cash M.P. (Davenport), the Deputy Critic for Heritage, was entirely cleared on this matter. It was concluded that there is no breach of the Code in his dealings with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in terms of its discussions on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which were determined to be "of general application" and "of a broad class." There really is no further issue to be considered here.

A conflict of interest could only occur where the deputy critic voted on matters related—in particular—to the funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a way that would affect his private interests. Since a contract between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the deputy critic has already been signed (in his individual capacity, of course), there can be no conflict of interest unless there were a bill to come forward that proposes to increase the value of his contract.

Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, has concluded that there was no conflict of interest. Her office, in fact, this morning stated that "[while] the Commissioner looks into any matter where a concern is brought to our attention in relation to any obligation under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, she has not launched a preliminary review as she has no reason to believe that the Code has been contravened."

In correspondence to the deputy critic on September 29, 2011, the commissioner also stated:

In this instance, your contract with the CBC is considered a private interest and as a result,Section 13 prohibits you from participating in debate or from voting on matters specifically related to CBC's funding or plans and priorities that may affect your private interest. If the matter in question is of general application or affects CBC as one of a broad class, you would not be prohibited from participation.

It is a non-issue and has been ruled as such by the appropriate authority.

This issue is nothing but a distraction by Her Majesty's Government for Canada to distract from the problems that are rampant in their own house, such as inappropriate electoral conduct, the loss of 583,000 student loan borrowers' personal data, the resignation of ministers due to breaches of parliamentary rules; the expulsion of Government caucus senators; and expense scandals in the Upper House that bring the integrity of the party—and the judgement of the prime minister—into disrepute.

(Source)

 

[Trex]

Mr. Andrew Cash M.P. (Davenport), the Deputy Critic for Heritage, was entirely cleared on this matter. It was concluded that there is no breach of the Code in his dealings with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in terms of its discussions on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which were determined to be "of general application" and "of a broad class." There really is no further issue to be considered here.

A conflict of interest could only occur where the deputy critic voted on matters related—in particular—to the funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a way that would affect his private interests. Since a contract between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the deputy critic has already been signed (in his individual capacity, of course), there can be no conflict of interest unless there were a bill to come forward that proposes to increase the value of his contract.

Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, has concluded that there was no conflict of interest. Her office, in fact, this morning stated that "[while] the Commissioner looks into any matter where a concern is brought to our attention in relation to any obligation under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, she has not launched a preliminary review as she has no reason to believe that the Code has been contravened."

In correspondence to the deputy critic on September 29, 2011, the commissioner also stated:


It is a non-issue and has been ruled as such by the appropriate authority.

This issue is nothing but a distraction by Her Majesty's Government for Canada to distract from the problems that are rampant in their own house, such as inappropriate electoral conduct, the loss of 583,000 student loan borrowers' personal data, the resignation of ministers due to breaches of parliamentary rules; the expulsion of Government caucus senators; and expense scandals in the Upper House that bring the integrity of the party—and the judgement of the prime minister—into disrepute.

(Source)

Then why did he publicly state he would not sit in regards to CBC bills?
Why did he file a signed letter stating he would no sit or vote on bills regarding the CBC?
And last but not least why did he lawyer up?

You and his lawyer are probably both correct in stating that he can legally weasel his way through voting on CBC bills while both being under contract to and being fiscally renumerated by CBC.
This one is pretty bad because it's about personal gain.
I stand by what I said this guy is morally and ethically way out there.
He could have easily just followed through with what he promised and recursed himself.
Maybe he can go hang with Duffy for beers and laughs.

I am not sure but it looks like the release and ruling you are quoting came after I initially made the post.
Relevent for sure but I stand by what I said.

I see you are primarily interested in defending left of center political parties at the expense of HMG.
Me while I tend to support the will of the majority in this sitting of the House I certainly don't shy away from complaining about them at will.
In my view criticizing the Federal Goverment of the day over Senators misbehaviour is a complete red herring.
Senators are appointed by Government but after appointment do not answer to nor are they controllable or recallable by Governement.
And I would agree some of them have exhibited reprehensible behavior.
But to attribute that behavior on any political party past or present is nothing but smoke and mirrors hackery.
Senators must live and die by there own actions.
Its like attributing the shameful downfalls of Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal or Liberal ex-Premier Shawn Graham at Justin Trudeau's doorstep.
That's hackery.

It seems to me that the Fed Cons are actually sailing fairly smoothly these days from an ethical perspective.
And the opposition parties seem to be not much more nor much less human than HMG.
I would suggest on a comparative basis MP Lizzy May can hold her head fairly high.
And I would also suggest when you hold PM Harper up against ex PM Chretien,that Chretiens fails fairly badly from an ethical perspective.
To each his own but Andrew Cash smells a little off on this one

 

[FiveParadox]

Then why did he publicly state he would not sit in regards to CBC bills?
Why did he file a signed letter stating he would no sit or vote on bills regarding the CBC?
And last but not least why did he lawyer up?

You and his lawyer are probably both correct in stating that he can legally weasel his way through voting on CBC bills while both being under cantract to and being fiscally renumerated by CBC.
This one is pretty bad because it's about personal gain.
I stand by what I said this guy is morally and ethically way out there.
He could have easily just followed through with what he promised and recursed himself.
Maybe he can go hang with Duffy for beers and laughs.

Actually, it's not about personal gain.

The contract has already been executed and is being performed. A bill before the House of Commons that seeks even to increase general funding to the CBC does not affect Mr. Cash's private interests. A bill before the House that would decrease general funding to the CBC also does not affect Mr. Cash's private interests. The contract has already been executed, it is a done deal, and very few bills considered by the Parliament of Canada could even purport to touch on that type of private interest.

By your logic, every member of Parliament should abstain from every motion, because they are all Canadians, and every motion relates to Canadians and their interests, and therefore every motion would be a conflict of interest. The definition of a conflict of interest or ethical dilemma is not even in the same neighbourhood as what you're espousing here.

Also, your assertion about Mr. Cash's apparent recusal is simply incorrect.

On September 26, 2011, Mr. Cash submitted a letter declaring his personal interest to both Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and deposited the same with the Clerk of the House, stating that he would not participate in debate or vote "on matters to do with the CBC in which [he has] a private interest" (emphasis mine; source). There have been no motions that have come forward that have related to the CBC in a way which affects his private interest.

He never made a covenant or promise not to vote on anything related to the state broadcaster, but only on those issues in which he shares a private interest. Since there have been no such motions or bills debated by the House of Commons, there has been no occasion to necessitate an abstention.

The Conservative Party of Canada has latched onto this non-issue in order to distract Canadians from the fantastic impropriety and dischord within their own ranks—and this includes the resignation of The Honourable John Duncan P.C., M.P. (Vancouver Island North), who used to be the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, for a real breach of the ethics rules. The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development had attempted to interfere with the Tax Court of Canada.

This is not to mention warnings and orders from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to The Honourable Jim Flaherty P.C., M.P. (Whitby—Oshawa), the Minister of Finance; Ms. Eve Adams M.P. (Mississauga—Brampton South), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veteran Affairs; and Mr. Colin Carrie M.P. (Oshawa), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for inappropriate interference in the work of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission to come to independent and non-partisan broadcast decisions.

It seems to me that we need to take any ethical criticism from Her Majesty's Government for Canada with a grain of salt. If the Government took real conflicts of interest as seriously as it took made-up ones (such as that of Mr. Cash), then the prime minister would insist on the replacement of his finance minister and both of these parliamentary secretaries.

Sources

• NDP draws fire over CBC conflict of interest (source).
• Aboriginal affairs minister John Duncan resigns from cabinet (source)
• PMO defends two Tory MPs rebuked by ethics watchdog (source)
• Jim Flaherty tried to influence decision on radio license (source)

Its like attributing the shameful downfalls of Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal or Liberal ex-Premier Shawn Graham at Justin Trudeau's doorstep.

This is a bit of an aside, but I wanted to comment anyway.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal used to be the House of Commons member for my riding.

He came to speak at my university when our student association hosted an all-candidates debate. In response to a question about his absolutely dismal attendance in the House, he responded that his attendance at cultural events, dinners, and weddings—in lieu of House attendance—was a valid and acceptable parliamentary function. And with that, despite my continued support of the Liberal Party of Canada, he lost my vote when it came to the 2011 general election.

I think it's critical that Canadians vote based on the merits of individual candidates, although I acknowledge that party status is also a consideration (I am certainly no exception to this). On the balance of all of these things considered, I ended up voting for Ms. Jinny Sims M.P. (Newton—North Delta), the Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. Notwithstanding some of her party's faults, I have been impressed with her performance in the House.

Apologies for the tangent.