Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will take the member’s comments under advisement and get back to her.

The post Oral Questions – Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We are now debating what is going on in the Prime Minister’s Office. It is in the Conservatives’ interest to say that the Senate is still the problem.

I want to ask my colleague if she agrees with me that questions remain with respect to the possible criminal involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that clarification.

In fact, we are not just facing one problem here; we are facing two.

Basically, some senators made claims for inappropriate expenses, which is one of the issues before us. However, there is another issue that is related but not the same, and that issue is the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office in a Senate reimbursement and expenses scandal.

Therefore, this is not just a debate about senators who made claims for inappropriate expenses. It is also a debate about this Prime Minister’s involvement and his inability to provide transparent and coherent answers to questions about the situation.

The post Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to put this motion in context. This is about behaviour in the Prime Minister’s Office. It is not about the generalized problem of the Senate. I put this for my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary. In today’s Globe and Mail, one of his former colleagues, Inky Mark, describes the Prime Minister’s modus operandi. He said:

[The Prime Minister’s] biggest weakness is that he doesn’t listen to anyone. He thought he knew more than all of us put together. He didn’t trust anyone. He operated through his bullies.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary this. How do we jive the Prime Minister’s reputation for being in total control of all aspects of his operations at all times with what must have only been wilful blindness to what was going on all around him in the cover-up?

Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with the Green Party member, but the Liberal leader supports Keystone when he is in front of oil people, but he does not necessarily support it when he is in B.C. or Ontario.

We have seen this with the Liberals before. We remember the former Liberal leader who supported the auto sector when he was in Oshawa, but when he was in British Columbia, he was not so supportive of the auto sector.

The Liberal leader supports the oil sands, but not taking it out of the ground. Anybody can support it, but if they do not support the pipelines that get it to market, what is the point to that? I am not sure the Liberal leader has figured out that the pipes we are talking about are not the ones used for smoking. They are the ones that actually deliver oil to the market.

With respect to the Prime Minister, he has been very clear. Had he known that this scheme was being hatched, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Nigel Wright has accepted full and sole responsibility.

What we are asking for now is that the senators do the same. They are not, so there is a motion in front of the Senate which would give Canadians the accountability that they cannot extract from a ballot box when it comes to the senators.

We are learning now that the Liberals are going to sit on their hands and abstain from voting. When it comes to accountability, Canadians can always count on the Conservative Party to provide that accountability.

The post Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The problem with most of the questions is that they start a bit later in the scenario than they should.

First up, was Mike Duffy promised a Senate seat if he worked really hard to sabotage the Liberals in the 2008 election?

I had been interviewed by Mike Duffy and known him for years.  I was fond of him.  I never thought he was biased one way or the other – until his coverage of the 2008 campaign.  Some may recall me taking him on in a live interview when his introductory set up for Peter MacKay (interviewed just ahead of me) was so outrageous that I accused him of a lapse in journalistic ethics.  When the interview was over, I remember thinking, “Well, I will never be on Mike Duffy Live ever again.”  And when he was appointed to the Senate right after the election, I knew I was right as the show ceased to exist.  His lapse of ethics was more spectacularly evident in broadcasting out-takes from the Atlantic bureau’s interview with Stéphane Dion.  Opportunities to do “re-asks” are not uncommon and they are never broadcast.  Doing so, when Dion’s team had been told they could ask the questions over again, was outrageous.  It clearly impacted the election results.

The other questions also matter.  Did the Prime Minister promise Duffy he would fix the financial and legal mess created by false claims for a housing allowance?  Why would the Prime Minister do such a thing?  Does Duffy have anything he can hold over the PM, such as proof of the Senate seat for journalistic shilling in an election campaign?  Did the Prime Minister ask his Chief of Staff to write the cheque?  Frankly, I can see no other reason why a smart person like Nigel Wright would do something so obviously wrong, unless he was directed to do so by the Prime Minister.

Normal people are asking questions like “who has $90,000 in their chequing accounts?  Who has $90,000 in their chequing account and they have it to spare in case someone needs it?”

None of these questions matter as much as why is it that no reporter has been able to get a response from anyone in Harper’s administration about the chemistry of the atmosphere now being dangerously altered.  The news that we have hit 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere makes Mike Duffy’s expense account scandal look like the petty criminality it likely is.  And, of course, there are approximately 1% as many words in our press about the 400 ppm news as there is about the Mike Duffy scandal.

The big crime continues to hide in plain sight while Stephen Harper continues his looting of our children’s future.

UPDATE: Just received news that Nigel Wright has fallen on his sword for the PM and become the literal fall guy. All questions still stand.

The post Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright and Stephen Harper appeared first on Elizabeth May.

During Monday’s meeting, members heard testimony from two witnesses, Adam Dodek, law professor at the University of Ottawa, who was followed by Mary Dawson, current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Mr. Dodek’s testimony focused on incorporating certain key aspects of the Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State into the Conflict of Interest Act. He also recommended that the Commissioner’s powers of condemnation be expanded to allow her to make public breaches of the Act, including those under its reporting provisions. Ms. Dawson spoke to the Committee for the second time in recent weeks and was able to clarify several points of confusion, including issues surrounding fundraising, gift giving and post-employment obligations. Both witnesses spoke to the importance of creating an ‘ethical infrastructure’ through education and outreach.

The meeting on March 20^th was held in camera. According to the minutes, the committee resumed its study of privacy and social media. Among other things, it was agreed that the committee adopt a draft report to be entitled, “Privacy and Social Media in the Age of Big Data” and that the committee undertake a study in relation the Information Commissioner of Canada’s 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 Annual Reports. The committee also agreed to invite the Office of the Information Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying to appear before the Committee, no later than May 31, 2013, to discuss the Main Estimates 2013-14.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May is reviving an old conflict-of-interest complaint against former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, calling for an investigation into whether business meetings he arranged with several Conservative government representatives – as with Industry Minister Christian Paradis – violated the ethics code.

May submitted a detailed and direct letter to Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson on Monday, naming MPs and staffers David Pierce, Doug Maley, Brian Jean, Sébastian Togneri and Helena Guergis as people who provided special treatment to Jaffer because of his former MP status. In it, she reminds Dawson that this issue was brought to her attention by Democracy Watch in May 2010, but was not ruled on.

Unlike Democracy Watch, May is owed a written response because she is a Member of Parliament. The Green Party leader asked for a prompt response this time around because what Democracy Watch found raises “serious questions.”

View the full original article >>

The post Rahim Jaffer meetings targeted in Green Party’s ethics complaint appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Motion: That the report of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the former Member for Simcoe—Grey, presented by the Speaker on Monday, September 19, 2011, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the Committee study the report with a view to further investigate the Commissioner’s findings in order to resolve outstanding questions; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than six months after the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am persuaded by the argument of the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay that these issues are not moot.

The former member for Simcoe—Grey was not re-elected. I think Helena Guergis’ name was shabbily treated by people in her party in the way in which she was vilified and basically thrown to the RCMP for criminality when those charges were clearly false.

The reality is the conflict of interest and the use of the role of lobbyist by a former MP. There is a tremendous amount here that could use clarification for future guidance to clean up our roles and ensure the ethical behaviour of members of Parliament and former members of Parliament who continue to use the offices of their friends to advance business interests. The hon. member is quite right.

I ask for his view as to whether this issue could go forward even if the previous members are no longer in the House.

Mr. Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we should have stated clearly at the beginning that everyone knows Ms. Guergis was made to be a political scapegoat for this party. The Ethics Commissioner pointed that out in the opening statement of her document where she talked about the Prime Minister contacting her about his allegations to the RCMP. We never even heard what those allegations were. There is an obvious sense that she was thrown under the bus.

However, out of this study there are clear questions about whether people are able to fly under the radar of the Lobbying Act and open doors for their friends. There is certainly a sense in Ottawa right now that the Conservatives are open for business with their buddies and that is done in the backrooms.

This report came out. We were dealing with this issue just before the last election, but these issues have not been solved. We need to take this to committee. We need to look at the role of the Lobbying Act. We need to look at whether the Ethics Commissioner has the ability to ensure that the light is shone in the dark recesses of that Conservative gang over there.

The post Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Report appeared first on Elizabeth May.