News   Apr 23, 2024
Madison Resubmits Midtown Proposals with Viñoly-Designed Towers
 1.6K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 538     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 1.3K     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Excellent piece by Michael Den Tandt in the Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...xit-and-global-uncertainty&pubdate=2017-01-18

AoD
Click to expand...
Whether or not he is guilty of anything and, even if he is, there actually is no real punishment for being guilty of something like this....what the debate over this potential conflict of interest has shown me is that we have a glaring hole in our rules around lobbyists/gifts/etc.

As Den Tandt points out in the article above:

The PM will likely, before long, express remorse for not having been more careful about filling out the requisite paperwork before accepting his old friend’s offer of a vacation (though the Conflict of Interest Act does provide some leeway for MPs to accept gifts from friends.)
Click to expand...

This sort of exceptions seems to fly right in the face of what we as regular folk want conflict of interest rules to do. It encourages lobbyists to get close, real close, to people who are, or may become, in powerful positions. I can just picture the first page of the new manual "How to do business as a lobbyist in Canada"...Step 1...become friends with your target...then they can accept any gift you give them.

What I want is a rule that forces any newly elected parliamentarian (of any party) to look through the list of lobbyists and see if any of them are friends. Then sign a pre-written form letter to each of them that says something like "we are friends, and I truly value your friendship but I am duty bound to tell you that from the point of my election until 'X' years after I leave office I am not allowed to accept gifts in any form from you. I am sure you understand, as I do, that my new role is one of trust and we cannot allow even the perception of improper activity that may arise out of the conflict between our relationship as friends and your position as a registered lobbyist. We can, and will, remain friends and you can, and I suspect will, remain a lobbyist but from this point forward I cannot accept any gifts, no matter how trivial or innocently intended they may be, from you."

JT is not, I am sure, the first elected member of parliament to suffer from such a conflict raised by his personal relationship(s)....and, in all likelihood, he would not place (or care) about the monetary value of free helicopter trips and free accommodation on a private island.....but the reality is, his relationship with the Aga Khan led to him accepting a valuable gift from a registered lobbyist....no matter how honourable or innocent JT's intentions/thoughts were here, we cannot allow such a glaring "loophole" to exist in conflict of interest rules.
 
TOareaFan said:
Whether or not he is guilty of anything and, even if he is, there actually is no real punishment for being guilty of something like this....what the debate over this potential conflict of interest has shown me is that we have a glaring hole in our rules around lobbyists/gifts/etc.

As Den Tandt points out in the article above:

This sort of exceptions seems to fly right in the face of what we as regular folk want conflict of interest rules to do. It encourages lobbyists to get close, real close, to people who are, or may become, in powerful positions. I can just picture the first page of the new manual "How to do business as a lobbyist in Canada"...Step 1...become friends with your target...then they can accept any gift you give them.

What I want is a rule that forces any newly elected parliamentarian (of any party) to look through the list of lobbyists and see if any of them are friends. Then sign a pre-written form letter to each of them that says something like "we are friends, and I truly value your friendship but I am duty bound to tell you that from the point of my election until 'X' years after I leave office I am not allowed to accept gifts in any form from you. I am sure you understand, as I do, that my new role is one of trust and we cannot allow even the perception of improper activity that may arise out of the conflict between our relationship as friends and your position as a registered lobbyist. We can, and will, remain friends and you can, and I suspect will, remain a lobbyist but from this point forward I cannot accept any gifts, no matter how trivial or innocently intended they may be, from you."

JT is not, I am sure, the first elected member of parliament to suffer from such a conflict raised by his personal relationship(s)....and, in all likelihood, he would not place (or care) about the monetary value of free helicopter trips and free accommodation on a private island.....but the reality is, his relationship with the Aga Khan led to him accepting a valuable gift from a registered lobbyist....no matter how honourable or innocent JT's intentions/thoughts were here, we cannot allow such a glaring "loophole" to exist in conflict of interest rules.
Click to expand...

Not to say CoI rules aren't important - because they are - but I think you missed the point of the article - which is to look past this whole issue (as redolent of privilege as it is, the claim of family friendship is undeniable, and is it any worse than SH granting Aga Khan an honourary citizenship on behalf of the country?) and spell out what JT has to focus on - the rocky road ahead.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Not to say CoI rules aren't important - because they are - but I think you missed the point of the article - which is to look past this whole issue (as redolent of privilege as it is, the claim of family friendship is undeniable, and is it any worse than SH granting Aga Khan an honourary citizenship on behalf of the country?) and focus on what really mattered - the rocky road ahead.

AoD
Click to expand...
I didn't miss the point of the article....but I picked out a clause that points out my concern about our current conflict of interest rules as they stand. We will look past this (very quickly I assume) but we can do that and still learn lessons from it and fix problems. Yes the road ahead has more perils than this vacation but I would like to think that we as country are able to do more than one thing at a time...yes, walk and chew gum!

Is it different than SH granting honourary citizenship?...yes it is, there is (as far as I know) no indication that SH received a gift from the Aga Khan with clear monetary value. It is not the act of visiting a friend that contravenes the rules here it is the act of receiving a gift (one that has a pretty significant value.....private travel and all inclusive accommodation for 5 people on a private island is, I would imagine, at least a 5 figure value...no?). I get that the life that JT has lead has probably blessed him with a lot of very interesting friends, I am not questioning his friendship, or intentions or those of the Aga Khan.....but those very same rules as written would, I think, be getting a lot of different reaction if a Prime Minister (any PM) who happened to have an old school chum that was the head of an oil company accepting a similar gift of travel and accommodation while that oil company was lobbying the government.

All I am saying is that we need to look at those rules and wonder if, over all potential circumstances/conflicts, we need to look at them and say "is that the best we can do".....and we can do that in a non-partisan way without trying to hang JT with some false "crime".....he made a mistake, likely, unintentional and, likely, in the long term meaningless but we can take that mistake, look at the rules that govern that kind of activity and say "in other circumstances that may not be what we want....so lets fix it in advance".
 
TOareaFan said:
I didn't miss the point of the article....but I picked out a clause that points out my concern about our current conflict of interest rules as they stand. We will look past this (very quickly I assume) but we can do that and still learn lessons from it and fix problems. Yes the road ahead has more perils than this vacation but I would like to think that we as country are able to do more than one thing at a time...yes, walk and chew gum!

Is it different than SH granting honourary citizenship?...yes it is, there is (as far as I know) no indication that SH received a gift from the Aga Khan with clear monetary value. It is not the act of visiting a friend that contravenes the rules here it is the act of receiving a gift (one that has a pretty significant value.....private travel and all inclusive accommodation for 5 people on a private island is, I would imagine, at least a 5 figure value...no?). I get that the life that JT has lead has probably blessed him with a lot of very interesting friends, I am not questioning his friendship, or intentions or those of the Aga Khan.....but those very same rules as written would, I think, be getting a lot of different reaction if a Prime Minister (any PM) who happened to have an old school chum that was the head of an oil company accepting a similar gift of travel and accommodation while that oil company was lobbying the government.

All I am saying is that we need to look at those rules and wonder if, over all potential circumstances/conflicts, we need to look at them and say "is that the best we can do".....and we can do that in a non-partisan way without trying to hang JT with some false "crime".....he made a mistake, likely, unintentional and, likely, in the long term meaningless but we can take that mistake, look at the rules that govern that kind of activity and say "in other circumstances that may not be what we want....so lets fix it in advance".
Click to expand...

The problem with your solution is that it is at once too much (going through a list of lobbyist, good luck with that) and not enough (plenty can be done and yet totally invisible - you'd almost wish they take the gift and report it because it is transparent). Your example of the old school chum as oil exec is excellent - because taking the trip itself is probably less salient than what's being discussed and offered - they could have gone to a cottage (or golf, whatever) and it wouldn't be flagged under CoI because of the value of the trip - and yet have no bearing on the actual substance of it. This definitely isn't something easy to get right.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The problem with your solution is that it is at once too much (going through a list of lobbyist, good luck with that) and not enough (plenty can be done and yet totally invisible - you'd almost wish they take the gift and report it because it is transparent). Your example of the old school chum as oil exec is excellent - because taking the trip itself is probably less salient than what's being discussed and offered - they could have gone to a cottage (or golf, whatever) and it wouldn't be flagged under CoI because of the value of the trip - and yet have no bearing on the actual substance of it. This definitely isn't something easy to get right.

AoD
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right....it isn't easy. But degree of difficulty should not deter us from trying (IMO).
 
One thing train wreck Rob did was clearly demonstrate to the people is that there is zero accountability and recourse when your a top politician all the way down to the level of Government that's closest to the citizens.

Where is that Toronto lawyer who went after Robby over a conflict of interest in City Hall over a few business cards from his label company? Trudeaus conflict is in another stratosphere. Im sure well here from him again. Right?
 
Last edited:
Corruption in politics is so common and never resolved for a simple reason: partisan politics. When Conservatives are corrupt, their supporters will defend them and say "but what about this unrelated corrupt Liberal". And vice versa for when Liberals are corrupt. All of the options are corrupt so how do we hold any of them accountable?

The police and justice system are also complicit. There is one set of rules for average folks and one for the elites. The OPP investigating their own bosses (Ontario Liberals) is a joke. At least bring in the RCMP to avoid that obvious conflict of interest.
 
Migos said:
Corruption in politics is so common and never resolved for a simple reason: partisan politics. When Conservatives are corrupt, their supporters will defend them and say "but what about this unrelated corrupt Liberal". And vice versa for when Liberals are corrupt. All of the options are corrupt so how do we hold any of them accountable?

The police and justice system are also complicit. There is one set of rules for average folks and one for the elites. The OPP investigating their own bosses (Ontario Liberals) is a joke. At least bring in the RCMP to avoid that obvious conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

This is why both Republican and Democrats were mad at Trumps campaign tactics. As it was shedding an embarrassing light on the game they play on both sides. At this time I don't think Trump even really cares about his base and was just gaining votes for the Republicans by tapping into such a large apathetic base. Its almost as if Politics now will just use this known corruption as a tool to gain votes but not actually take significant measures for accountability. Eventually this will create greater voter apathy and frustration down the line. We are seeing this type of "anti Elite" politics throughout the world at all levels mostly being used as a tactic be the opposition "Elite" party.

Don't get me wrong our democratic system is truly great, but its being abused excessively by corporate interests and the citizens who actually are able and meant to run the system are not educated enough from a young age to know their powers to prevent this behaviour before it gets to a breaking point.
 
Last edited:
Migos said:
Corruption in politics is so common and never resolved for a simple reason: partisan politics. When Conservatives are corrupt, their supporters will defend them and say "but what about this unrelated corrupt Liberal". And vice versa for when Liberals are corrupt. All of the options are corrupt so how do we hold any of them accountable?

The police and justice system are also complicit. There is one set of rules for average folks and one for the elites. The OPP investigating their own bosses (Ontario Liberals) is a joke. At least bring in the RCMP to avoid that obvious conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Let's not blame the politicians too much - they are a reflection and extension of the electorate. Just how many times have we heard about hirings based on "connections" and not merit? Under the table jobs to avoid taxes? A wide variety of small violations of the law just because they are "small" (just look at speeding tickets!)? If we as a people (the average folks) don't hold ourselves accountable, how can we expect to hold those who represents us to be? Corruption is common not solely because it is partisan - but that the our processes almost perversely encourages it from a practice that is far more universal (though at a much smaller scale) than we'd like to admit to.

As to the RCMP, you must have forgotten the investigations over Adscam and how the latter lopped a bomb into Paul Martin's campaign:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...vestigators-dropped-a-mid-election-bombshell/
Or how they refused to charge Nigel Wright over Duffygate? And when the organization itself is of question (there is a rather long list of scandals involving RCMP which is fairly easy to dig up) , where should the trust be placed? The fact is the system is aligned towards whoever holds money and power - the options to balance that is unpopular even to the public - it is invariably intrusive and redistributive.

The other thing is - is politics more corrupt than it was before? By all accounts the gap between the rich and poor has narrowed significantly at a generational scale, the influence of the elites lessened, and government is more transparent than the overt patronage politics of ages past. It is also important to note that it is the voters - and no small part of them average joes - that explicitly rejected the welfare state - which for good or ill helped to moderate the gap between the average and the elite.

OneCity said:
This is why both Republican and Democrats were mad at Trumps campaign tactics. As it was shedding an embarrassing light on the game they play on both sides. At this time I don't think Trump even really cares about his base and was just gaining votes for the Republicans by tapping into such a large apathetic base. Its almost as if Politics now will just use this known corruption as a tool to gain votes but not actually take significant measures for accountability. Eventually this will create greater voter apathy and frustration down the line. We are seeing this type of "anti Elite" politics throughout the world at all levels mostly being used as a tactic be the opposition "Elite" party.
Click to expand...

And yet, where is the discussion of Trump and his owncorruption? I mean, just how many times have this guy declared bankruptcy and why is he refusing to release his income tax to this date? Just look at his history - what did he ever do for the little guy (other than saying what they wanted to hear?)

There is a certain irony of the average folk relying on anything but the average folk who had a history of taking advantage of the average folk to air their greviences. It does not end well.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top