Do ethics commissioners have the right and responsibility to police and judge provincial politicians within the house? Better hope not, because that is a bad precedent.
It is unusual to the point of freakiness that an ethics commissioner found existence of a punishable offence at all. They are mostly so tentative and wishy-washy that parents could usefully uphold them as examples of adult weakness when they’re trying to feed their kids broccoli. But for an Ethics Commissioner to police parliamentary speech may be altogether unprecedented in the Commonwealth. It is — or at first glance looks like — a tread upon one of the most sacred taboos in our system of government.
This is another example of creeping totalitarianism and progressive hypocrisy. Charging of conflict of interest for asking a question that could be construed as including a conflict of interest is nuts. Voting for something construed as a conflict of interest is another thing, requiring parliamentary scrutiny, recusal, etc. By the same measure, the NDP is in total conflict of interest on everything related to unions.
“By the same measure, the NDP is in total conflict of interest on everything related to unions”
Bang on, John, and the salient point of this whole sad sideshow. Did the so-called ethics commissioner EVER investigate conflict of interest when former union officials, or MPs of a party that routinely gets huge union donations, vote for huge wage/benefit increases for public unions? Shows how far the democracy has crumbled, and how one-sided these political appointees are. When unelected officials have to power to police what our elected officials can ASK….whew! Mind you, our thought police (via courts and HRC’s) have been in action for decades now, so this is incremental creep, not a new pattern. On a vote, he maybe should abstain. But to suggest that merely asking a question that is on the minds of many voters is unethical? Who is he supposed to represent? The crazy part is not that some social worker MP filed the complaint – that is sad, but to be expected of grievance mongers. But that it would be found to have any validity?
One of the left’s usual tactics…. attack the person, rather than addressing the ideas they bring to the table. And appeal to one of their own to do the judging.
Given that all our politicians currently self-police and kowtow to PC words and thought…. is there anybody in Canada with the stones to defy the chattering classes and entrenched bureaucracies and pledge to Drain the Swamp?
I think that conflict of interest is a matter for voters to judge as everyone is in conflict much of the time. To say that a legislator is in conflict because his wife is in business is fairly lame.
Exactly. The NDP/union marriage is perfect example of conflict of interest. In my opinion it is or should be legislated against.
first timer, “… is there anybody in Canada with the stones to defy the chattering classes and entrenched bureaucracies and pledge to Drain the Swamp?” Most of them are a part of the swamp. They get elected full of vim and vigor and get clued in as to how it works immediately. Their electors are mere cannon fodder to be ignored other than housekeeping concerns.
Donald Trump has said that he can’t be in a conflict of interest. I’m sure he means that his job is defined in the Constitution and Congress is not empowered to redefine it without a Constitutional amendment.
Like Hillary claimed no emails were classified coz she ain’t got none.
The bureaucracy is the true power in Canada, and they truly believe there is -nothing- and -no one- beyond their control.
Opportunities to slap them down don’t come along every day. Good to see the parliamentarian standing up for his historic rights.
I’m troubled by the fact there is a “Climate Change Commissioner”. How did this thing get so f#@!&*^ out of hand?
That is excellent news. How else does the petardier learn, except by being hoist on one? How can one learn anything, if there are no consequences to their own bad decisions?
When one has guaranteed personal armed protection, what consequence is there to disarming everybody else?