The number of politicians (and staffers) in Canada still thinking that they're playing the same old game, and winning, is striking. This is not strictly a Liberal problem *looks at Edmonton and Toronto.
Canadians need to understand that the world has changed, and the requirements to keep the country (or province) afloat have changed. If we can't adapt to the needs of the present we're going to find the ever-increasing demands of the next few decades will put an end, one way or another, to the whole Canadian project.
Thé casual corruption runs deep in Ottawa. Company I worked for wanted CIDA contracts. Could never win a RFP. So hired an ex-CIDA manager. His friends still there would hand us contracts but we had to open an office in QC and submit from that address or zero chance of winning. I had a contact in NRCAN that I would periodically send unsolicited proposals. 100% of them got funded. Deloitte sits like a spider on top of shared services. Want to win a really big project? Only if Deloitte wills it. When senior civil servants retire their friends give them consulting projects to top up their pensions. No work is done. You do it because others will do it for you. I could go on. The rot is complete and the politicians are a product of it, so how do you expect them to see the negative optics of influence? Its simply biz as usual
The friendship between the LeBlancs and the Irvings is well documented, but more importantly managed with the ethics commissioner. A screen is set up that prevents LeBlanc from participating in any decisions that affect the Irvings. Saying things like “ Is LeBlanc steering contracts to the Irvings? Probably not.” is very close to being defamatory. You are implying that LeBlanc might violating the agreement he entered into with the Ethics commissioner.
Even politicians have true friendships. Politicians are obligated to report these friendships and enter into an arrangement that prevents conflicts of interest. As far as we can tell Dominic LeBlanc has done everything he should be doing when it comes to his friendship with the Irvins. Politicians are not obligated to take a taxi home because Robert Fife might write a shitty article in the Globe and Mail.
Having a finance minister who has to walk out of the Cabinet room when our biggest single defence procurement expense comes up at the Cabinet table is a bad thing, you get that right
Yes, that is literally the consequence of a screen.
Normal politicians have friendships. What matters is that politicians declare these friendships and put the safeguards in place to avoid conflicts of interest. The last thing that we should want is politicians pretending that they have no friendships.
Dominic LeBlanc has done everything right and proper. He acknowledged the friendship and put the screen in place. Once that is done there should be no issue to attend a Christmas party or to stay over for the night.
The whole Fife article is BS and I am disappointed you jumped on it.
EDIT: maybe it is worthwhile to point out that the primary purpose a screen is not to mitigate a conflict of interest, but to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest. Rather than making a case by case decision if there is a potential conflict interest, all doubt and ambiguity is eliminated by removing the person from the decision process.
I am aware of a purpose of an ethics screen, I don’t think the Minister who gave his wife’s cousin a $24M government contract gets the benefit of the doubt
This license (not a contract) was never awarded. Nor was the cousin the owner of the company. Your statement is incorrect.
However, the term “doubt” is exactly what this is about. An ethics screen removes any doubt about the potential conflict of interest. That is the whole point.
The price of going into politics is already high. Do we want to make it even higher by demanding that people end their friendships when they enter politics? This was Bruce Anderson’s comment on Twitter.
Even from the Fife article it is clear that LeBlanc has not done anything wrong by attending a Christmas party and staying over with their friends. Of course Fife writes it in a way that people may conclude there is something untoward. You take it a step further and throw out accusations and suspicions without any basis. It is at the level of “all politicians are crooks, so LeBlanc must be a crook as well”.
I understand you are pissed with LeBlanc. And there is plenty to criticize. Criticize the unhealthy advice to Trudeau to stay on. Criticize the fact that he cannot be an effective finance minister because he has to recuse himself on many files. Hell, criticize the colour of his ties. Whatever. But don’t accuse somebody of unethical behaviour just because you don’t like the person and you think he or she is steering the political party you care about in the wrong direction.
Sorry, but are we pretending there was a time in Canadian politics when the Liberals or the Conservatives were NOT doing the bidding of our corporate elites?
Our country is owned by, what - 20 families, and the Irvings are high on that list.
When has it been otherwise?
LeBlanc and Irvings are doing what such people always do.
Will Poilievre behave differently?
If he does, then that would truly be a revolution!
Somehow, remarkably, we have managed to build a stable middle class and high standard of living.
But we should understand that our govts, and our PMs, operate within limits imposed by our captains of industry.
One could argue that Justin has stood up to elites more so than PMs from the ruling class usually do. Maybe.
How about a PM hockey goalie from Edmonton who grew up middle class. I hope he remembers....
There is no hope for them. The only thing left is to mass migrate to the Greens or form an anti-fascist, populist party with a vision for a future Canada that does not entail cronyism, oligopolies, and plutocrats -both abroad and domestically- pulling the strings and rigging markets. There is a broad, maybe universal understanding, that the game is rigged and only the bureaucratic and managerial class are reaping any benefits.
The Liberals don't want to win on fighting fascism, corporatism, corporate globalization, or economic populist, because they have been tacitly enabling all of these forces for decades. Anti-system forces will win, then rupture Canada, leaving us servile to criminal gangs, like Mob Ford and resource extracting industries, who could care less if we are just a white Nigeria.
When I took Legal Ethics at law school, one of the takeaways is the that trust in the courts requires both the independence of the judges/courts *and* the appearance of independence.
Judges get trained to identify and set aside any prejudices they have, and I truly believe most are capable of doing that. But we still don't allow them to oversee the cases of their friends and relatives! Not because they won't make a fair, and independent decision, but because that appearance taints any outcome it undermines trust in the courts and rule of law. It doesn't matter if the judge made the "right decision"! They shouldn't have made it at all!
I don't understand how this is so hard for Liberals/PMO to understand. If you chum around with billionaire friends, it taints ANY decision or policy relating to said billionaire's interests.
Would you be okay with a judge overseeing their friend or child's trial if a screen said it was okay? The appearance of a conflict isn't eliminated by a some sort of screen or permission.
The number of politicians (and staffers) in Canada still thinking that they're playing the same old game, and winning, is striking. This is not strictly a Liberal problem *looks at Edmonton and Toronto.
Canadians need to understand that the world has changed, and the requirements to keep the country (or province) afloat have changed. If we can't adapt to the needs of the present we're going to find the ever-increasing demands of the next few decades will put an end, one way or another, to the whole Canadian project.
Well, Sir, I again - shockingly for both of us! - agree with you.
Oh, and I suspect that you are numerically challenged and that there are fewer than seven people who want the LPC alive and solvent.
Thé casual corruption runs deep in Ottawa. Company I worked for wanted CIDA contracts. Could never win a RFP. So hired an ex-CIDA manager. His friends still there would hand us contracts but we had to open an office in QC and submit from that address or zero chance of winning. I had a contact in NRCAN that I would periodically send unsolicited proposals. 100% of them got funded. Deloitte sits like a spider on top of shared services. Want to win a really big project? Only if Deloitte wills it. When senior civil servants retire their friends give them consulting projects to top up their pensions. No work is done. You do it because others will do it for you. I could go on. The rot is complete and the politicians are a product of it, so how do you expect them to see the negative optics of influence? Its simply biz as usual
No! This is bullshit.
The friendship between the LeBlancs and the Irvings is well documented, but more importantly managed with the ethics commissioner. A screen is set up that prevents LeBlanc from participating in any decisions that affect the Irvings. Saying things like “ Is LeBlanc steering contracts to the Irvings? Probably not.” is very close to being defamatory. You are implying that LeBlanc might violating the agreement he entered into with the Ethics commissioner.
Even politicians have true friendships. Politicians are obligated to report these friendships and enter into an arrangement that prevents conflicts of interest. As far as we can tell Dominic LeBlanc has done everything he should be doing when it comes to his friendship with the Irvins. Politicians are not obligated to take a taxi home because Robert Fife might write a shitty article in the Globe and Mail.
Having a finance minister who has to walk out of the Cabinet room when our biggest single defence procurement expense comes up at the Cabinet table is a bad thing, you get that right
Yes, that is literally the consequence of a screen.
Normal politicians have friendships. What matters is that politicians declare these friendships and put the safeguards in place to avoid conflicts of interest. The last thing that we should want is politicians pretending that they have no friendships.
Dominic LeBlanc has done everything right and proper. He acknowledged the friendship and put the screen in place. Once that is done there should be no issue to attend a Christmas party or to stay over for the night.
The whole Fife article is BS and I am disappointed you jumped on it.
EDIT: maybe it is worthwhile to point out that the primary purpose a screen is not to mitigate a conflict of interest, but to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest. Rather than making a case by case decision if there is a potential conflict interest, all doubt and ambiguity is eliminated by removing the person from the decision process.
I am aware of a purpose of an ethics screen, I don’t think the Minister who gave his wife’s cousin a $24M government contract gets the benefit of the doubt
This license (not a contract) was never awarded. Nor was the cousin the owner of the company. Your statement is incorrect.
However, the term “doubt” is exactly what this is about. An ethics screen removes any doubt about the potential conflict of interest. That is the whole point.
It absolutely does not
The price of going into politics is already high. Do we want to make it even higher by demanding that people end their friendships when they enter politics? This was Bruce Anderson’s comment on Twitter.
Even from the Fife article it is clear that LeBlanc has not done anything wrong by attending a Christmas party and staying over with their friends. Of course Fife writes it in a way that people may conclude there is something untoward. You take it a step further and throw out accusations and suspicions without any basis. It is at the level of “all politicians are crooks, so LeBlanc must be a crook as well”.
I understand you are pissed with LeBlanc. And there is plenty to criticize. Criticize the unhealthy advice to Trudeau to stay on. Criticize the fact that he cannot be an effective finance minister because he has to recuse himself on many files. Hell, criticize the colour of his ties. Whatever. But don’t accuse somebody of unethical behaviour just because you don’t like the person and you think he or she is steering the political party you care about in the wrong direction.
Dan ... the peasants simply don't believe you anymore.
Facts and accuracy matter. Or at least I like to think so.
Sorry, but are we pretending there was a time in Canadian politics when the Liberals or the Conservatives were NOT doing the bidding of our corporate elites?
Our country is owned by, what - 20 families, and the Irvings are high on that list.
When has it been otherwise?
LeBlanc and Irvings are doing what such people always do.
Will Poilievre behave differently?
If he does, then that would truly be a revolution!
Somehow, remarkably, we have managed to build a stable middle class and high standard of living.
But we should understand that our govts, and our PMs, operate within limits imposed by our captains of industry.
One could argue that Justin has stood up to elites more so than PMs from the ruling class usually do. Maybe.
How about a PM hockey goalie from Edmonton who grew up middle class. I hope he remembers....
There is no hope for them. The only thing left is to mass migrate to the Greens or form an anti-fascist, populist party with a vision for a future Canada that does not entail cronyism, oligopolies, and plutocrats -both abroad and domestically- pulling the strings and rigging markets. There is a broad, maybe universal understanding, that the game is rigged and only the bureaucratic and managerial class are reaping any benefits.
The Liberals don't want to win on fighting fascism, corporatism, corporate globalization, or economic populist, because they have been tacitly enabling all of these forces for decades. Anti-system forces will win, then rupture Canada, leaving us servile to criminal gangs, like Mob Ford and resource extracting industries, who could care less if we are just a white Nigeria.
When I took Legal Ethics at law school, one of the takeaways is the that trust in the courts requires both the independence of the judges/courts *and* the appearance of independence.
Judges get trained to identify and set aside any prejudices they have, and I truly believe most are capable of doing that. But we still don't allow them to oversee the cases of their friends and relatives! Not because they won't make a fair, and independent decision, but because that appearance taints any outcome it undermines trust in the courts and rule of law. It doesn't matter if the judge made the "right decision"! They shouldn't have made it at all!
I don't understand how this is so hard for Liberals/PMO to understand. If you chum around with billionaire friends, it taints ANY decision or policy relating to said billionaire's interests.
Do you understand how a screen works?
Would you be okay with a judge overseeing their friend or child's trial if a screen said it was okay? The appearance of a conflict isn't eliminated by a some sort of screen or permission.
So, clearly you do not understand what an ethics screen is.
Make that 8 people. And we’re gonna be lonely wandering the wilderness for the next four or five years.
I thought he was married to an Irving. Or was that a McCain?