LPC Proposed Letting AG Disclose Report, CPC Opposed..Why? Hmm
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours, LPC: The motion reads as follows:
Whereas reports of the Auditor General of Canada are of critical importance to our democracy and whereas the Auditor General Act states that—section 5—each additional report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons made under subsection (1) shall be submitted to the House of Commons on the expiration of thirty days after the notice is sent pursuant to subsection (4) or any longer period that is specified in the notice and the Speaker of the House of Commons shall lay each such report before the House of Commons forthwith after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it. And whereas the Speaker of the House of Commons continues to hold office during dissolution of Parliament, that notwithstanding the Act, the committee calls on the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the event of dissolution of Parliament, to post a copy of any report of the Auditor General on the Parliamentary website the same day that he receives it.
From last meeting of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Thursday, March 24, 2011. LPC proposed allowing AG to table report(s) if House dissolved. Bloc supported LPC. CPC Sexton & Kramp VIGOUROUSLY opposed. And NDP Christopherson weirdly supported CPC - trying to triangulate LPC? NDP prefers CPC to LPC? NDP willing to betray progressives because know AG report on G8/G20 will swing Ontario ridings to LPC? Probably just being dumb, I think. But you never know with the Layton NDP. They brought the CPC into power in the first place.
Whereas reports of the Auditor General of Canada are of critical importance to our democracy and whereas the Auditor General Act states that—section 5—each additional report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons made under subsection (1) shall be submitted to the House of Commons on the expiration of thirty days after the notice is sent pursuant to subsection (4) or any longer period that is specified in the notice and the Speaker of the House of Commons shall lay each such report before the House of Commons forthwith after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it. And whereas the Speaker of the House of Commons continues to hold office during dissolution of Parliament, that notwithstanding the Act, the committee calls on the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the event of dissolution of Parliament, to post a copy of any report of the Auditor General on the Parliamentary website the same day that he receives it.
From last meeting of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Thursday, March 24, 2011. LPC proposed allowing AG to table report(s) if House dissolved. Bloc supported LPC. CPC Sexton & Kramp VIGOUROUSLY opposed. And NDP Christopherson weirdly supported CPC - trying to triangulate LPC? NDP prefers CPC to LPC? NDP willing to betray progressives because know AG report on G8/G20 will swing Ontario ridings to LPC? Probably just being dumb, I think. But you never know with the Layton NDP. They brought the CPC into power in the first place.
posted by Eugene Forsey Liberal @ 7:30 PM
7 Comments:
At 11:09 PM,
susansmith said…
They brought the CPC into power in the first place.
Too bad you put that line in because it discredits your spin above. You know as well as anyone that can count, that the combined vote of the Martin Libs & Layton NDP was less than the combined vote of the Harper Cons, Bloc vote, and independent, but it's a myth that libs like to keep close to their hearts!
So what about this liberal tale - same fast and loose with the facts? Just checking!
At 12:58 AM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Aftermath of an 'in and out' scheme
Will the voters care what happened in the 2006 election?
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
Friday, March 4, 2011 – Page A19
jsimpson@globeandmail.com
The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that Elections Canada was right to question the "in and out" election scheme run by the Conservative Party. What was the scheme about? To answer that question, recall the context.
The "scheme" (the court's word) occurred toward the end of the 2006 election campaign that brought Stephen Harper to office. That election, you might remember, was a close-run thing until Christmas.
Paul Martin's Liberals were supposed to cruise to an easy victory after he replaced Jean Chrétien, but his government had not impressed Canadians. More than anything else, the sponsorship "scandal" in Quebec took its toll on the Liberals there and elsewhere. The Conservatives piled on accusations of Liberal cronyism and outright illegality. A Conservative television ad showed a garbage truck, tying that image to the stench of corruption the party insisted pervaded Ottawa.
At the Christmas break, the Conservatives had momentum, but the Liberals remained competitive. At that point, THEN-RCMP COMMISSIONER GIULIANO ZACCARDELLI SENT A LETTER TO AN NDP MP SAYING THE FORCE WAS INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS OF LEAKING BUDGET MATERIAL AGAINST THE LIBERAL FINANCE MINISTER, RALPH GOODALE, WHO WAS THEN CAMPAIGNING FOR RE-ELECTION. THE MP, SNIFFING POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, LEAKED THE LETTER. (MR. GOODALE'S CONDUCT WAS LATER COMPLETELY EXONERATED.)
The damage caused by the sponsorship affair and the RCMP probe, as polling studies later confirmed, crippled the Liberals' re-election chances. The Conservatives couldn't believe their good fortune.
...
The Conservatives say they've now dropped "in and out" financing. Chances are the voters won't care what happened in the 2006 election when, as seems apparent, desperate times drove the Conservatives to desperate measures.
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?current_row=17&tf=tgam/columnists/FullColumn.html&cf=tgam/columnists/FullColumn.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&date=&dateOffset=&hub=jeffreySimpson&title=Jeffrey_Simpson&cache_key=jeffreySimpson&start_row=17&num_rows=1
At 2:00 AM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
PS. Fpr bonus points I challlenge any progressive, esp. any NDP supporter, to remember off the top of their heads, without help, without checking Wikipedia etc., what was the urgent question/issue Layton claimed as his justification to withdraw his support from the Martin government and cause the election, bringing about the election that led to CPC victory, again, as noted above, with vital NDP aid? Quickly now, without checking: what was the issue?
...
No-one ever gets it.
...
clue: provincial jurisdiction...
It would be funny if one wasn`t Canadian, and a progressive.
At 3:59 AM,
Cassandra said…
A fake quote from the AG for a fake lake clambake, LOL!
Speaking of provincial jurisdiction, I hear there's a mini-boom going on out west for traffic cameras and cell tower construction.
Soon you might hear about it here:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2011/04/11/17955316.html
At 4:15 AM,
Anonymous said…
But, the issue right now, is that if the NDP member had, like the Bloc, supported the Liberal motion to release the AG report, Canadians would have that information. We should know how that money was spent, and except for the NDP vote we would know. I would like to think MPs would always side with Canadians on being open and transparent with them. It would be good to hear from the NDP as to why they didn't.
At 8:42 AM,
sharonapple88 said…
Quickly now, without checking: what was the issue?
It was over private health care. The NDP under Layton wanted the Liberals to stop private health care from growing. The Liberals noted that it was a provincial matter.(Googling to check if I were right.... Apparently, I am.)
As for the vote that brought the Liberals under Paul Martin down, some comments here on it.
Oh, and congrats on getting linked by the Globe & Mail.
At 11:07 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
This became a story.
Post a Comment
<< Home