I nearly laughed out loud (or LOL'd if you prefer) when, while reading a story from the Ottawa Citizen this morning about the location of the RCMP's new HQ, I came across this line written by reporter Kathryn May:
The Harper government, which won the last election on its promises of accountability, is hypersensitive to any suggestions of cronyism and conflict of interest.
They are? Really? I mean, come on. Let's be serious here for a little bit.
If that is the case, apparently health minister Tony Clement didn't get the memo. When it came out that the health minister owned stock in a pharmaceutical company and had no intention of selling it, or putting it in a blind trust, that raised, you know, suggestions of a possible conflict of interest. How did our hypersensitive minister respond to reporter's questions on the topic? "It's none of your business," said Clement.
Then there's the former conservative staffers becoming lobbyists. Or former senior Conservative MP and 2005/6 campaign co-chair John Reynolds becoming a non-law practicing, non-lobbying advisor to companies that want to lobby the government. But he doesn't lobby himself. If he's hypersensitive to anything, it's criticism.
And then there's my favourite example, good ol' Gordon O'Connor. Harper wasn't too hypersensitive to appoint a former lobbyist for the defence industry as his defence minister. Passing out many billions of spending amongst his former clients and their competitors? No potential conflict to be hypersensitive about there, no sir.
And I could go on. But seriously Katherine, before writing something like that check to see if it passes the laugh test. Thanks for the funny though.
Friday, June 16, 2006
A Friday funny
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"And I could go on."
Oh please, allow me..
Michael Fortier, former Harper campaign co-chair, unelected cabinet minister and Senate appointee.
Do you think that it's a conflict of interest to pass out government contracts to ones former "clients and their competitors"? Are there other options? Should O'Connor search for hitherto unknown, start-up military firms? Perhaps a Mom and Pop joint?
Do you think that it's a conflict of interest to pass out government contracts to ones former "clients and their competitors"?
Yes, that was kind of the point I was making. I do.
Should O'Connor search for hitherto unknown, start-up military firms? Perhaps a Mom and Pop joint?
While I have been working in a design for a flying car that guns could probably be attached to, there is another way.
Are there other options?
Here's one. Don't but a former defence lobbyist in charge of defence! It may not occur to you at first, but when you think about it, it kind of makes sense.
Give the guy another job, just not defence.
Post a Comment