April 12, 2007

Half of Quebec Unqualified to Work for Federal Government?

Separatists

With Calculators

And Pencils

In our government…

We did not make this up

Choose your Canada

Ok so we all know almost half the province voted YES in 1995.

We also know that people who voted yes in 1980 went on to become unity minister and do one heck of a job…

We made a guy who said “I am only a federalist if Paul Martin is Prime Minister” in 2004 the minister of Transport…he meant Liberal…still just as bad…

Last time I checked, we are to judge this man by the report he produces, and not by his referendum vote 12 years ago.

While I still think Sheila Fraser should be the one looking into this, I am not terribly surprised…the vehement defense and smearing of Paille before he even reports a word shows how some people are antsy for this investigation to take place. (I think Jean Lafleur has a place to rent in Belize)

This appointment is no more nefarious than appointing the best friend and principal secretary to Brian Mulroney to be principal counsel in an inquiry aimed at the throat of Jean Chretien.

My nonna always taught me that you reap what you sow…

13 Commentaires:

Blogger Cerberus a dit...

From Paul Wells, his separatism is not the only reason that he is appalling choice to oversee proper public relations practices:

When investigating allegations of shady dealings, it is always best to hire an expert.

Liz Thompson over at The Gazette did better than dozens of staffers at the Liberal Research Bureau, none of whom managed to dig up this fact about Daniel Paillé, the Tories' new pay-for-play separatist Earnscliffe-slayer, which several reporters discovered yesterday after 3 minutes on the Google machine:

"However, Paillé's time in the National Assembly was not without controversy. Before the 1994 election, at Parizeau's request, Paille warned Wood Gundy that it and other companies could be excluded from lucrative Quebec government business if they continued to say that the election of a PQ government could trigger a negative reaction in financial markets."

Then there is this interesting exchange from the House of Commons in 1997, which I am able to report because these remarks took place in that privileged setting.

From Hansard , Oct 9, 1997:

"Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, to me a gift or a loan is the same thing and they know it.

"We should not forget that the Quebec electoral legislation does not prevent financing activities where some people often pay in excess of a $1,000 to sit close to a minister or an MNA they wish to talk to. This is how Daniel Paillé, a former PQ minister, became rich. That way of doing things was also used in $2,000-a-plate dinners attended by the likes of Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry, Jean Campeau. These are back-door contributions, through attendance at fundraising dinners. The Bloc may very well idolize the Quebec legislation, it remains that it does not prevent minor and serious violations, like the ones committed by Marie Malavoy, a former PQ MNA who contributed to party coffers although she was prohibited from doing so by the legislation because she had not yet become a Canadian citizen.

"If the Bloc wants to imply that business contributions could have an illegal impact on the allocation of government contracts, we could remind them that the Quebec legislation does not prevent the PQ from rewarding generously those who contribute to the party or serve its cause, and we could give several examples."

--------

In short, this is the worst example of vetting in Canadian politics since somebody hired Jean-Daniel Lafond's wife. This guy Michael Fortier's turning out to be a real 40-watter, ain't he?

4/12/2007 11:56 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

haha im already ahead of you ted...

4/12/2007 11:58 a.m.  
Blogger Cerberus a dit...

Which isn't to imply that but for his own ethical breaches, Paille would be ok.

The difference between hiring a the best friend and principal secretary to Brian Mulroney who would prefer to see Chretien's reputation muddied and hiring a separatist who would prefer the breakup of the country is that one looks like a partisan witch hunt designed to destroy an individual but might have the side effect of destroying a political party and the other looks like a partisan witch hunt designed to destroy a political party but might have the side effect of harming the nation.

4/12/2007 12:01 p.m.  
Blogger Cerberus a dit...

Which is not to say that separtists like Lapierre or Duceppe who take oaths of loyalty to the government and the Queen can't take on significant roles in our government. But they aren't independently and without oversight investigating and reporting on the government, are they?

4/12/2007 12:03 p.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

Actually, both CTV and CBC have said that Sheila examined the polling contracts and passed on them.

It was Sheila's report on the advertising contracts that formed the basis for the Gomery Inquiry.

For this reason, Fortier and harper has to explain carefully what value a private consultant would add. Did Sheila refuse to do a second audit?

Bear in mind that much/most advertising and polling contracts (harper’s government included) are non-competitive. It makes no sense to hire a private consultant for this kind of investigation without a bidding process. That’s why there is a non-partisan auditor-general.

It's bound to stir controversy, and partisan observers will say that the liberals are trying to hide something.

Apparently, the budget and ‘family values’ haven’t been enough for harper. Bill C-30 is next on the agenda and harper’s boys are running scared.

It’s rather sad. Harper should be campaigning on the basis of his policies. But, his policies are in tatters. Instead, he’s spending so much time on negative and wasteful politics. This is the measure of the man.

4/12/2007 12:04 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

ted,

we have to stop discrediting people because they once voted yes,

because that once included several people who are key federalists today, including Stephane Dion.

The guy is unqualified because he is known to be a dishonest politician.

If the guy were to be biased, everybody and their dog would see right through it, and stephen harper would have wasted taxpayers money for nothing.

Let's go after him for what he does wrong...

4/12/2007 12:07 p.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

Antonio said

"because that once included several people who are key federalists today, including Stephane Dion."

Dion may have been interested in separatism at one point. But, he spoke up during the referendum for federalism.

Dion was the author of the Clarity Act. There is no doubt of where he stands.

On the other hand, Paille was specifically asked about his current political association. He refused to answer.

This is unacceptable. You cannot appoint an inquisitor who hates the subject of the inquiry.

4/12/2007 12:19 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

he refused to answer because of what happens to former separatists when they say they dont believe in the cause anymore.

After seeing what has happened to the other converts as of late, I kinda dont blame him...

the word vendu comes to mind...

Dion took a lot of flack too.

but you have to understand if we wrote off Dion in 1995 because he voted yes in 1980, we would have made a terrible mistake.

These people are Canadian too. If the report turned out to be biased, Harper would be wasting taxpayers money...

4/12/2007 12:28 p.m.  
Blogger KC a dit...

Antonio you are smearing Dion for views he held before you and I were even born? Give me a break.

Its not that being a separatist (and a separatist in recent memory at that) disqualifies you from working in government. But it definitely calls into question your impartiality to investigate Liberals. Hell Fortier should have just conducted the investigation himself. It would be just as credible.

As for hiring Bernard Roy as counsel for the Gomery Commission... didnt your mother ever tell you that two wrongs dont make a right?

Come on man. I know you have an independant streak but you're looking for any excuse you can to bash Liberals.

4/12/2007 12:32 p.m.  
Blogger KC a dit...

Maybe some day a Mario Dumont led government will ask Bernard Landry to investigate mythical "irregularities" in Jean Charest's government. I shudder to think of your pretzeled form after you twist and contort to criticize that.

4/12/2007 12:35 p.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

Antonio said

“This appointment is no more nefarious than appointing the best friend and principal secretary to Brian Mulroney to be principal counsel in an inquiry aimed at the throat of Jean Chretien.”

Actually, there is a world of difference. Gomery (non-partisan) was acting as the judge in that open inquiry. The Chief Counsel (a conservative) acted as the prosecutor. Lawyers for the witnesses had their say in defense of their clients.

We have confidence because this was not a rigged hearing. Participants did their best.

In this case, we have no confidence in the Fortier/Paille duo because we have no oversight in the terms of reference. The investigation will not be transparent as the Gomery Inquiry. We do not know what measures will be taken to ensure that potential defendants have fair input.

I think that Antonio’s brain is overheating. Perhaps, he needs a rest.

4/12/2007 12:43 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

How am I bashing Dion?

I think staying up for four overtimes may not have been too good for you Kyle.

Like I wrote this morning whe JUSTIFIED reasoning against Paille was found, being a separatist or former separatist does prevent anybody from fulfilling the requirements of an investigation.

In Laval, you have a former separatist premier investigating Liberals...

People need to take a step back and remember that if this federalist/separatist thing is ever going to end, we have to start thinking of the other side as human beings.

4/12/2007 12:43 p.m.  
Blogger Cerberus a dit...

"he refused to answer because of what happens to former separatists when they say they dont believe in the cause anymore.

After seeing what has happened to the other converts as of late, I kinda dont blame him...

the word vendu comes to mind...

Dion took a lot of flack too."


I was going to write that it is not objectionable to have once been a separatist (i.e. voted "yes") and take on this role, it is objectionable to continue to be a separatist and take on this role, and Paille has not denounced separatism. But you have a very very strong argument there.

But others are making the same point I am: his separatist leanings does underscore the obvious witch hunt this inquiry is intended to be.

And no, I don't think you were bashing Dion. Just the opposite.

(But if he had refused to pledge his loyalty to the Crown in 1995 he should not be entitled to be part of government.)

4/12/2007 12:58 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home