The Conservative Culture Of Deceit

[pegger]

Have you seen this yet?

Silence speaks volumes in thwarted quest to audit Parliament's expenses - The Globe and Mail

typical - from both parties.

 

[CDNBear]

Have you seen this yet?

Silence speaks volumes in thwarted quest to audit Parliament's expenses - The Globe and Mail

typical - from both parties.

I'll agree, but I must point out...

Ms. Fraser insists her office is not in the habit of conducting witch hunts. But the expenses of Parliamentarians have never been audited, she said in an interview, and, with a combined budget of $520-million, “there’s a significant amount of the taxpayers’ money” involved.

The Board of Internal Economy manages the expenses of the House of Commons. A similar committee runs the Senate. Both committees meet in secret. The House board is chaired by Speaker Peter Milliken and has representatives from all four parties.

The board is exempt from external audits and Freedom of Information requests. Marcel Proulx, the Liberal MP who serves as spokesman for the board, declined requests for an interview.

Given the oversight board has reps from all four parties, I feel it's safe to say that if someone of another affiliation was being sneaky, it would get out.

Sounds like Fraser is looking to make a little make work project to me.

 

[darkbeaver]

$520 million!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's a crime. We could build maintenance free politicians in a vat for that kind of money

 

[pegger]

I'll agree, but I must point out...

Given the oversight board has reps from all four parties, I feel it's safe to say that if someone of another affiliation was being sneaky, it would get out.

Sounds like Fraser is looking to make a little make work project to me.

I state here - I will vote for the first party (yes, even Harper's Conservatives) that support this initiative by Sheila Fraser. The line "never been audited" is just to .... wrong. (granted, I'm auditor so I don't like thinking that there is something out there that hasn't been audited, but you can't tell me our politicians don't need oversight other than their own consciences)

 

[CDNBear]

I state here - I will vote for the first party (yes, even Harper's Conservatives) that support this initiative by Sheila Fraser. The line "never been audited" is just to .... wrong. (granted, I'm auditor so I don't like thinking that there is something out there that hasn't been audited, but you can't tell me our politicians don't need oversight other than their own consciences)

Again, I agree, but they do already have an oversight committee...

The Board of Internal Economy manages the expenses of the House of Commons. A similar committee runs the Senate. Both committees meet in secret. The House board is chaired by Speaker Peter Milliken and has representatives from all four parties.

From your article.

 

[pegger]

Both committees meet in secret.

Which is why it is not acceptable. An oversight committee made up of politicians, that do not publicly disclose thier findings is not oversight. They answer to "us" not to themselves.

 

[CDNBear]

Which is why it is not acceptable. An oversight committee made up of politicians, that do not publicly disclose thier findings is not oversight. They answer to "us" not to themselves.

Again, I agree. I was just pointing out that the committee is made up of members from all the parties, thus making it a little less likely to be abused.

But, I can fully understand your caution. I agree, trusting a politician to be honest is tantamount to trusting a Bear not to eat your honey, lol.

 

[AnnaG]

Again, I agree. I was just pointing out that the committee is made up of members from all the parties, thus making it a little less likely to be abused.

But, I can fully understand your caution. I agree, trusting a politician to be honest is tantamount to trusting a Bear not to eat your honey, lol.

Don't let SCB catch you. 8O

 

[CDNBear]

Don't let SCB catch you. 8O

That's if I can get her out of the way. She's territorial.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Yup. Those'd be the Gliberals who were trying to feed off Con crumbs.

I tend to be a little kinder to the Liberals, all that excess on their part took place in the context of a very bitter fight for the survival of the nation, the PQs in Quebec were using provincial coffers to fund the separatist cause too.

What are the Conmen in power now fighting for again, all I'm seeing is a big stone wall where our democracy used to be.

 

[El Barto]

I tend to be a little kinder to the Liberals, all that excess on their part took place in the context of a very bitter fight for the survival of the nation, the PQs in Quebec were using provincial coffers to fund the separatist cause too.

What are the Conmen in power now fighting for again, all I'm seeing is a big stone wall where our democracy used to be.

Yeah that's why we are fu c k e n broke :angryfire:

 

[wulfie68]

What are the Conmen in power now fighting for again, all I'm seeing is a big stone wall where our democracy used to be.

The democracy ended long ago, if there ever was one in this country. Our governmental style is more republican than democratic, for all the monarchist trappings it has. We elect a series of dictators, similar to what the Romans used to do, and while we can argue that the election itself is democratic, thats pretty much where it ends: we have little to no recourse until the next election comes. Harper gets a lot of flak for being dictatorial but he's really less so than Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretien; it may well be for no other reason than the minority parliament doesn't allow him to be so, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. Romantacizing the past actions of other politicians doesn't change that truth either.

 

[FiveParadox]

We are a representative democracy.

We elected members of the House of Commons to represent us, wulfie68; we elected these representatives with the trust to make decisions on our behalf in the best interest of Canada. The decision-making of our elected representatives is complemented by the depth of experience and expertise in the Honourable the Senate of Canada, which adds tremendous value to the legislative process but nonetheless tends to bow to the democratic weight of the Commons when a disagreement occurs.

And I would argue that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, is indeed one of our most dictatorial heads of Government in recent memory. This is due to a muzzle-like communications style as enforced by the Prime Minister’s Office, and micro-management by the Office of The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada under the leadership of the prime minister. Ministers are essentially talking heads, with no independence or decision-making power whatsoever (we may as well do away with the cabinet entirely). I will repeat, this could be corrected by simply changing the rules for party leadership; the party should be led by the person with the support of the national caucus, and not of the national party membership.

 

[CDNBear]

We are a representative democracy.

We elected members of the House of Commons to represent us, wulfie68; we elected these representatives with the trust to make decisions on our behalf in the best interest of Canada. The decision-making of our elected representatives is complemented by the depth of experience and expertise in the Honourable the Senate of Canada, which adds tremendous value to the legislative process but nonetheless tends to bow to the democratic weight of the Commons when a disagreement occurs.

And I would argue that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, is indeed one of our most dictatorial heads of Government in recent memory. This is due to a muzzle-like communications style as enforced by the Prime Minister’s Office, and micro-management by the Office of The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada under the leadership of the prime minister. Ministers are essentially talking heads, with no independence or decision-making power whatsoever (we may as well do away with the cabinet entirely). I will repeat, this could be corrected by simply changing the rules for party leadership; the party should be led by the person with the support of the national caucus, and not of the national party membership.

I have one word for you...Cretien.

 

[wulfie68]

We are a representative democracy.

We can call ourselves whatever we choose; we may even believe it but that still doesn't necessarily make it so.

We elected members of the House of Commons to represent us, wulfie68; we elected these representatives with the trust to make decisions on our behalf in the best interest of Canada.

Yes. We can attempt to elect our individual representatives but if our representatives don't knuckle under to the power structures of the major parties, whether we and/or our representatives agree with their agendas, we may as well send an empty chair. And before you point to someone like Chuck Cadman as an example of what an independent MP can accomplish, please make sure to include actual accomplishments reflected in his riding, not just the fact that on one occasion he held the balance of power on a vote, so all the parties kissed his arse for a change...

The decision-making of our elected representatives is complemented by the depth of experience and expertise in the Honourable the Senate of Canada, which adds tremendous value to the legislative process but nonetheless tends to bow to the democratic weight of the Commons when a disagreement occurs.

A body composed almost entirely of patronage appointments with no limit on their tenure... that sounds democratic to me...

And I would argue that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, is indeed one of our most dictatorial heads of Government in recent memory. This is due to a muzzle-like communications style as enforced by the Prime Minister’s Office, and micro-management by the Office of The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada under the leadership of the prime minister. Ministers are essentially talking heads, with no independence or decision-making power whatsoever (we may as well do away with the cabinet entirely).

Because we know previous PMs have never done anything remotely like this or ignored public demands for inquiries into matters they felt that would be embarrassing and that they didn't have to acknowledge... And we also are aware of Harper's meddling into the various cabinet offices because of how tightly he controls all information coming out of the cabinet...

I will repeat, this could be corrected by simply changing the rules for party leadership; the party should be led by the person with the support of the national caucus, and not of the national party membership.

How does changing the choice of leadership from a broader base to a far more restrictive one make things more democratic? At least now, a person can buy a party membership for $5 or $10 and have some kind of say on their candidates and we can pass a final judgement on the leaders in the polling booth. Its a poor form of democracy, if thats what we are truly after, but its more democratic than deferring one more choice to a "ruling elite".

 

[FiveParadox]

The reason it would be a better idea to move the leadership election to the national caucus of a party is so that the party leader must keep the confidence of his or her ministers and caucus. If a caucus can oust its party leader for poor performance or for disrespecting its members, then the party leader has no choice but to collaborate with the caucus and therefore reach decisions in keeping with the voices of more of our individual elected representatives. This is how it used to be, and prime ministers could be forced out of office by a caucus revolt.

 

[Liberalman]

I have one word for you...Cretien.

And the Liberals got a majority two more times because Cretien's stlye was more relaxed than the Harper government

 

[CDNBear]

And the Liberals got a majority two more times because Cretien's stlye was more relaxed than the Harper government

 

[lone wolf]

And the Liberals got a majority two more times because Cretien's stlye was more relaxed than the Harper government

Are you reading your history book backwards?

 

[Liberalman]