tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post471536856911754011..comments2023-11-02T08:19:49.006-07:00Comments on CAW Workers Voice Of Reason: Should We Start Calling This FifeGate? Possible Smoking Gun...paulsstuffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-15768394234526694232009-06-04T09:20:48.557-07:002009-06-04T09:20:48.557-07:00I think there is a lot more interaction between th...I think there is a lot more interaction between the members of the different parties than most realize. Many of the people you see yelling at each other during question period are at the local bar hours later having dinner and drinks to gether.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-18695666887494481972009-06-04T09:10:37.586-07:002009-06-04T09:10:37.586-07:00Does anyone find it more than a bit strange that t...Does anyone find it more than a bit strange that this 26 year old staffer's father is a high level fundraiser in Nova Scotia for Liberal Michael Ignatieff?<br /><br />Things that make you go hmmmmmm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-11100228018038503882009-06-04T08:56:47.847-07:002009-06-04T08:56:47.847-07:00Ted said: "When he was PM, we did not have an...Ted said: "When he was PM, we did not have any of the facts that merit any action."<br /><br />That is priceless Ted. It was a Liberal program and Liberals were siphoning off money for the Liberal party but no Liberals knew what was going on.Ardvarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08500944437649023719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-42301660173191703132009-06-04T08:38:53.146-07:002009-06-04T08:38:53.146-07:00My point on that history and constitutional conven...My point on that history and constitutional convention is that:<br /><br />- where there has been a "gaffe" if you will, then no one resigns despite calls for it for a few days by opposition parties and the press.<br /><br />- where there has been a "serious breach" of rules or protocol, then the minister should take responsibility, offer resignation and it ought to be accepted by the PM.<br /><br />What we have here is the odd situation where Harper and Raitt concede that it was a "serious breach" and not just a "gaffe", but pass the buck to the staffer instead of taking ministerial responsibility. <br /><br />That's the odd thing to me. How can you it is a serious breach but then say the minister should not take responsibility? Seems incredibly inconsistent, especially with what Harper was saying a year ago.<br /><br />My Chretien example was given merely to highlight what it seems his approach was. If the facts are clear and <b>he</b> thought it was just a gaffe, then he stood by his minister. If the facts are clear and <b>he</b> thought it was a serious breach, he made sure they took responsibility and out of there. Obviously this relies on the Prime Minister's judgement of what is a gaffe and what is a serious breach and what facts are clear, but at least it seems to me that his approach was consistent and stayed true to our constitution.<br /><br />Harper is trying to have his cake and eat it too on this. Yes, there was a serious breach, but no, the minister doesn't have to take responsibility.<br /><br />Anyway, as I keep saying, I would not put this even on the same page of importance (shall we cheekily say in the same binder of importance?) as the many other issues that are arising with the Chalk River fiasco. For that, see <a href="http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2009/06/04/9670591-sun.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a>: were they lying last year about Chalk River or are they lying now? Why were they hiding vital information from the budget and the public? These are the real competency and accountability questions, not the fact that the Conservatives have once again passed the buck of responsibility to an underling (<a href="http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2009/06/blame-vs-responsibility.html?showComment=1244124677267#c6439973726983666960" rel="nofollow">which seems to be quite very much Harper's habit</a>; seems he has an infallibility complex).<br /><br />I'll let you respond to this comment if you want, but I think we've exhausted the issue and I'm going to move on.Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-77698401935333063872009-06-04T07:58:02.925-07:002009-06-04T07:58:02.925-07:00Ted, the problem is you quote tradition and preced...Ted, the problem is you quote tradition and precedent as proving she should resign<br /><br /> There are many examples of minister's resigning, and just as many of minister's ataying in their post.<br /><br /> If Ignatieff does form government next election and one of his minister's becomes involved in a gaffe by an aide, I highly doubt Iggy will demand their resignation.<br /><br /> And those comments about blaming a 26 year old are as odd today as they were yesterday.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-80422430897297170822009-06-04T07:52:04.618-07:002009-06-04T07:52:04.618-07:00Good for him, Paul. But ministerial responsibility...Good for him, Paul. But ministerial responsibility does not apply only to the minister's own actions. That is in fact the point of it.Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-11804647983649166502009-06-04T07:48:58.248-07:002009-06-04T07:48:58.248-07:00I repeat Ted:
In Bernier's resignation letter...I repeat Ted:<br /><br />In Bernier's resignation letter to the prime minister, he wrote that "the security breach that occurred was my fault and my fault alone and I take full responsibility for my actions."paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-36937198302436203972009-06-04T07:40:40.327-07:002009-06-04T07:40:40.327-07:00"It's 10 years after the fact Ted, and ne...<i>"It's 10 years after the fact Ted, and neither Chretien nor any other Liberal is willing to accept.0000001% blame in Adscam ( other than Martin, who said he takes blame, but don't blame him)"</i><br /><br />If you want to change the subject and have a discussion about Adscam, fine. We're going to have little to disagree with over culpability over that, except on the fringe issues (like who knew how much and when).<br /><br />But the kind of accountability called for in the sponsorship scandal is different than what is clearly called for here.<br /><br />Constitutional convention demands that a minister take responsibility for his or her ministry. In my mind, the Tories conceded on this issue when they accepted Jasmine's resignation. If the screw-up was big enough to require the termination of a staffer, than it is big enough for the Minister to take full and proper responsibility.<br /><br />I know how Chretien would have handled this: he would have said no resignation was necessary because this was not a big deal. He would have been beaten up by the opposition and the press for a few days and then they would have moved on. When it was a big deal though, at least in his mind, he made sure the minister resigned, like with Jane Stewart or Judy Sgro. Interestingly, in both those cases, subsequent events showed that they did nothing wrong, but they <b>nevertheless did the proper thing and resigned</b>.<br /><br />What we have here is a bizarre situation: Harper and Raitt both admit this is a serious breach of the rules, so big that they fire a staffer, but somehow not big enough for the Minister herself to take responsibility.Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-79677815005859844272009-06-04T06:56:21.096-07:002009-06-04T06:56:21.096-07:00As someone who lives close to the Pickering Nuke p...As someone who lives close to the Pickering Nuke plant my whole life (which might explain the hair loss), it's amazed me over the years the literally hundreds of billions of dollars that go into these facilities.<br /><br />They never run at full capacity, something's always breaking, always cost over-runs, never have repairs done on time.<br /><br /> It's time for some government to have the cajones to take a hit in the budget and spend on a new state of the art facility.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-51415600367055286582009-06-04T06:49:46.085-07:002009-06-04T06:49:46.085-07:00The bigger picture is in the documents. The fact t...The bigger picture is in the documents. The fact that a minister requires an aide to carry sensitive material reflects the fat & ignorance of our government. With AECL up for sale, our tax dollar still paying for cost overruns & the lobbying to win Ontario's nuke sweepstakes - what's the big deal ? Nothing will change and we'll keep paying for their ignorance.Ralphhttp://pickcandu.yoozur.com/track/clickthru/textnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-59048417738508901602009-06-04T06:47:14.696-07:002009-06-04T06:47:14.696-07:00It's 10 years after the fact Ted, and neither ...It's 10 years after the fact Ted, and neither Chretien nor any other Liberal is willing to accept.0000001% blame in Adscam ( other than Martin, who said he takes blame, but don't blame him)<br /><br /> Let's face it. The party had to be aware of it. MP's had to be aware of it, particularly those where adscam funds were used. Did they think the tooth fairy paid those campaign costs.<br /><br /> As I stated previously, there was no way the PM could not have accepted Bernier's resignation.<br /><br /> Bernier admitted it was him, and only him that was to blame for the documents. In Raitt's case, an aide made the gaff.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-77199363054395550352009-06-04T06:35:10.401-07:002009-06-04T06:35:10.401-07:00"he should be held to some account."
So...<i>"he should be held to some account."</i><br /><br />Sorry, Paul, still not clear on what you are trying to compare here.<br /><br />Do you want Chretien to step down as Prime Minister again? He's gone. There is no more ministerial accountability action to take because he is no longer a minister.<br /><br />When he was PM, we did not have any of the facts that merit any action. In fact, he stepped down when he did to avoid being the PM when the facts came out.<br /><br />Raitt on the other hand is the Minister now and just got the seal of approval from the Prime Minister.<br /><br />And that is in no way to compare even in the remotest way the anti-democratic corruption of the sponsorship scandal. Just to point out that not all government screw-ups have the same remedy. <br /><br />Protocol and constitutional convention are clear in Raitt's case but Harper and the media are letting her off the hook.<br /><br />As I keep saying, fine because this was not a huge example of the government's incompetence. They are getting away with it again, fine, we're used to that. So let's move on to more important stuff.Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-38839451934054536182009-06-04T05:42:04.501-07:002009-06-04T05:42:04.501-07:00Nice spelling Paul. Going to Timmies now.
Ahh, sw...Nice spelling Paul. Going to Timmies now.<br /><br />Ahh, sweet caffeine.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-7113289850419689222009-06-04T05:41:01.291-07:002009-06-04T05:41:01.291-07:00Ted, Gomery never at any time Chretien knew of the...Ted, Gomery never at any time Chretien knew of the kickbacks, only that as PM, and the fact the program was being run out of his office,he should be held to some account. <br /><br />Which is the exact thing the Liberal's are doing. Trying to hold Raitt resposible for an aides mistake.<br /><br /> Does that mean Raitt should file a motion in court to avoid culpability?paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-40976127182706718772009-06-04T03:16:37.741-07:002009-06-04T03:16:37.741-07:00According to the Star, the aide comes from a very ...According to the Star, the aide comes from a very Liberal family. It could be just me but the optics make my antennae go up on full alert. Why would she have been carrying the material to the studio, anyway?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-85577131835799852282009-06-03T21:15:35.863-07:002009-06-03T21:15:35.863-07:00If the secrecy of it was such a big deal, why didn...If the secrecy of it was such a big deal, why didn't CTV return it immediately?<br />If it wasn't such a big deal, why are they making such a big deal of it?<br /><br /><br />StanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-88913535822269696042009-06-03T21:12:51.155-07:002009-06-03T21:12:51.155-07:00Today has been a fun day around the blogs. It has ...Today has been a fun day around the blogs. It has been interesting to read the lefties try to twist what people write. Funny, they see no problem when they make all kinds of excuses for lib screw ups, from adscam to dingwall and his gum. They bring up stuff 20 years ago to change the channel. But listen to them cry if we try to follow their pattern. They have taught us well. Someone out there will remember every waste of taxpayers money the libs did. They are all upset because the figures re AECL are not out there, but they ignore the fact that the librals spent (wasted) millions on the same project, knowing the reactor had a flaw in it. Just another screwup of the libs that iggy wants PMSH to fix, just like EI. <br />I find it weird that we have no right to know the names of young killers, or where dangerous men/women are to be let loose in our country, but the media has no qualms about publishing secret documents.maryThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10099534478709227356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-77768626339277758242009-06-03T20:28:38.927-07:002009-06-03T20:28:38.927-07:00As for your examples, since it seems insisting tha...As for your examples, since it seems insisting that the bar should not be raised higher than you think the Liberals set it at, they are not the best examples of Liberal hypocrisy (there are good ones, just not these ones).<br /><br />Sgro was proven not to have done anything wrong herself despite the lies and political smears... <b>but she resigned nevertheless</b>. (She is brought up as an example of the personal attacks that proved wrong; she happens to be a great example of ministerial responsibility since she did resign). So you had your accountability over that: she resigned.<br /><br /><i>Adscam? Rogue bureacrats.</i><br /><br />I may be mistaken, but other than pointing the finger at Guite, I think the Liberals always said it was a few rogue party organizers. I am pretty sure that, other than Guite, they did not accuse bureaucrats of the problem. <br /><br />Again, you have a great difference between Conservatives and Liberals here. The Liberals launched an RCMP investigation and then the Gomery inquiry into themselves. They took accountability measures. The Conservatives blame their staffers instead of taking responsibility and being accountable (think Raitt, Stockwell with the flow of the Niagara River, think Ryan Sparrow, think the animation of a bird sh***ing on Dion, think Harper's plagiarism (twice), and so on).<br /><br /><i>Art Eggleton contract to girlfriend? Named a senator.</i> Named a senator for years of service to the country, but resigned his cabinet position as a result of taking responsability for his actions.<br /><br />Look, I'm not saying Raitt should be banished to the ends of the earth or even quit as an MP. But protocol and the constitution are pretty clear on this and so was Harper when it didn't involve someone he liked. Harper a year ago even said it didn't matter if it was the minister or someone beneath the minister. But that was then. Sir Flipalot stikes again.<br /><br /><i>Chretien named in Gomery inquiry? Nope.</i><br /><br />Sorry, I don't even understand this comment. Chretien took Gomery to court to try to get the report expunged because of the damning report it gave on him.<br /><br /><i>Goodale? Brison leak? Aide rsponsible.</i><br /><br />When the facts finally came out on any of this, the Liberals had been voted out of power. How much more accountable can you be?<br /><br /><i>Move along, nothing to see here.</i><br /><br />Ah, finally, you got one right. ;-)Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-61391989096770087952009-06-03T20:27:33.873-07:002009-06-03T20:27:33.873-07:00paulsstuff, did you delete the 26 year old stuff (...paulsstuff, did you delete the 26 year old stuff (as in AGE) that the leader of the opposition SPEWED AND SPEWED AND SPEWED, today. Or was that on a previous post?<br /><br />Well Mr Iggy-Stupider-than-a-DOORknob, you have just decimated 33% of your voting population. Your STUDENTS A$$hole!<br />Actually, finally my girls heard something you said, LIVE and ARE DISGUSTED! Finally, I say 26 is the new 12 according to the LIEberals!<br /><br />ps even the PM was pretty cool at 26.... Born in 1959,he became chief aide to Progressive Conservative MP Jim Hawkes in 1985.<br /><br />Chuckle chuckle!Bechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16197428781361903395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-5764215844413812892009-06-03T20:27:24.025-07:002009-06-03T20:27:24.025-07:00Bedtime guys, moderation on.
Have a good night ...Bedtime guys, moderation on. <br /><br /> Have a good night everyone. That means you too Ted:0)paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-58080156482092773992009-06-03T20:24:19.777-07:002009-06-03T20:24:19.777-07:00In the case of a minister directly committing an e...In the case of a minister directly committing an error, then their resignation is called for, which was why the PM accepted Bernier's resignation.<br /><br /> When an aide or someone in the ministers office commits an error, the minister follows the doctrine I listed. It was honorable for Raitt to offer her resignation, but according to the doctrine the PM was not bound to accept it.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-6095970029379629722009-06-03T20:20:18.855-07:002009-06-03T20:20:18.855-07:00Ted, I posted this at Joanne's and here but Il...Ted, I posted this at Joanne's and here but Ill post it one more time. If you saw Raitt in question period she did exactly what is laid out here:<br /><br />""The answerability component of the doctrine requires that each minister answer to Parliament, in the form of explanation or defence, for all the actions of his or her department. Thus, when public servants make an error, the minister is expected to explain to Parliament what went wrong; to promise that the error will be remedied and that measures will be taken to prevent its repetition; and to impose appropriate sanctions within the department on the public servant(s) who committed the error. In practice, this answerability component is generally respected, even though ministers often do not provide answers that are complete and unambiguous."paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-5425541479837679812009-06-03T20:18:30.804-07:002009-06-03T20:18:30.804-07:00Bec, you don't know squat. The law in the Cf i...Bec, you don't know squat. The law in the Cf is that an inquiry SHALL be held. You can try to avoid the truth but you can't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-71128605505262972512009-06-03T20:17:25.976-07:002009-06-03T20:17:25.976-07:00Ted, you are way off on the Chalk River thing. It ...Ted, you are way off on the Chalk River thing. It was a big deal last year because a few days of scheduled maintenance was about to turn into months of downtime because they wanted to install earthquake monitors. At the time the government had no warning of an extended delay, so they were unable to have other countries step up production fast enough.<br /><br /> They learned their lesson from that, and have set up a plan that should the Chalk River facility be shut down, other countries could fill the void quickly. That is what is happening now. Raitt testified at committee that indeed other countries have steped up production to avert a global shortage.paulsstuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01813949388254801232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761498836067676504.post-70950881717907113742009-06-03T20:17:00.861-07:002009-06-03T20:17:00.861-07:00Ya, it's never good for the unknown crewman!Ya, it's never good for the unknown crewman!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com