A lot of people have been trying to make sense of the bipartisan decision by MPs to block their expenses from becoming public. By my own polling, at least 92% of respondents believe that MP expenses should be made public, but as Paul Szabo says "if they were opened to the auditor general and open to the public, all of a sudden people would jump to conclusions without having all the facts." Which is exactly what happened in the "Guergis Affair", when opposition members began making wild accusations on the floor of Parliament such as the former Minister possibly being a drug dealer. The Liberals jumped to all these ridiculous conclusions before they had all the facts. I suppose then that Liberals need to be protected from themselves.
I seem to recall Mike Ignatieff demanding that the PM release all the Guergis information to the public (before an investigation was complete), and blamed his not doing so for their childish behavior in Question Period. Szabo says that you can't make information on MP legal matters public because people will jump to conclusions before all the facts are known; and yet the Liberals boldly demanded Guergis allegations be made fully public before all the facts were known or could be known. The moral of the story is that Liberals wanted all facts about the junior cabinet Minister made public immediately, but when the shoes are reversed Liberals don't want the allegations made public because people might jump to conclusions. Well done! Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
Typical Lib-ocrite.
ReplyDeleteIceman, I'm certainly no great fan of the LIberals, , but I don't believe it's true that "opposition members began making wild accusations on the floor of Parliament such as the former Minister possibly being a drug dealer."
ReplyDeleteAnd, if I may add a quick opinion: the first MP to stand up and say that that MP expenses should be released will be a hero. I'm waiting.
Brian, yes they did. It was Marlene Jennings in Question Period, where she is also immune from slander charges.
ReplyDeleteA few MP already have agreed an individuals with allowing AG to audit Parliament, Senate etc.
ReplyDeleteGilles hopes it will probably reduce support for the Federal Parliament. (I think he is right btw)
Check out this gem of Christian tolerance from the Liberal Party on May 11, 2010 at the Mississaug Board of Trade.
This recession has turned Stephen Harper into a whole new man—a born-again believer in Liberal economic management.
http://www.liberal.ca/en/michael-ignatieff/speeches/18118_remarks-to-the-mississauga-board-of-trade
If you'd like to look it up on the Hansard, it took place on or around April 15th. I believe it was in the same "question" where Marlene referenced Helena and Rahim to be the new "Bonnie and Clyde" of the Conservative Party. She implied that they were actively participating in "drug trafficking". I can't exactly remember if they were part of the same question, because Marlene went off on these types of rants with relative frequency during the most passionate days of Guergis-gate.
ReplyDeleteI understand your surprise Brian. Sometimes I can't believe the things those pesky Liberals say either!
pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2010/04/parliament-hill-behaving-badly.html
Marlene Jennings also snidely asked whether Rahim's coke was linked to the PM by asking whether that was what the PM meant when he sang "get high with a little help from my friends".
ReplyDeleteThat Marlene Jennings, she is such a wit!
And unlike Gerry Ritz, she was hoping and expecting to be quoted.
Since it was a bipartisan decision can someone explain why the Tories are taking no heat?
ReplyDeleteWill the AG go back to the last audit?
ReplyDeleteI would love to see 13 years of Liberal (mostly majority) rule audited.....!
Heh, maybe Ms Fraser can find some of the missing $40 million!
But why would the Dippers not want to fling open those books? What are they hiding?
Got it. Here's Ms Jennings in the House of Commons on 11 March:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Speaker, the calls for public accountability from the Minister of State for the Status of Women and Rahim Jaffer are growing louder every day. They are being called the Bonnie and Clyde of the Conservative Party. They are young, Conservative and above the law.
Members of the Prime Minister's inner circle, like Kory Teneycke, are saying that the minister owes an explanation and an apology and that Rahim owes the same.
Is what the Prime Minister meant a few months ago when he sang “I get by with a little help from my friends”, I get high with a little help from my friends?"
source: http://openparliament.ca/hansards/2175/142/
Not quite the same as saying the former Minister is possibly a drug dealer, but I see your point. All part of the House of Commons circus, I'm afraid.
Gerry, a valid question. I'm sure some Liberal bloggers will try to spin this against the government, but the Tories haven't been running around the last few months demanding that all military documents be made public. That was the opposition. Thus if they care so much about full disclosure, hiding their own records seems a little bit hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteConfirmed Brian, the drug trafficking accusation was not in the Bonnie and Clyde drop. Thank you for confirming that she has had multiple childish rants.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, the Bonnie and Clyde reference was made when Marlene accused the Prime Minister of doing drugs because a former Minister got a plea deal on possession because the cops denied him access to his attorney. Was Pablo also denied access to his attorney?
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to start a collection of ridiculous Liberal statements, Marlene Jennings in Question Period is a great resource.
If it is bipartisan just proves to me once again Harper and the conmen are liberals in blue. Why I didn't vote last time and will not vote next time.
ReplyDeletePS There are of course other reasons like Harper is a Hypocrite, HRC
A liar
A coward: No protection for Canadian military