Scott Brison Highlights Why Ethics Are Needed In Ottawa.

[Just Doug1]

OTTAWA -- Conservative Leader Stephen Harper released a broad range of proposals yesterday for improving government ethics, attempting to further capitalize on public disgust with Liberal corruption detailed in the Gomery report. The Liberals quickly countered that Mr. Harper must answer for his own ethical problems, detailing a series of alleged transgressions by the Conservative Leader, including a failure to disclose his campaign expenses.

But the allegations were later proved to be untrue, or at least a stretch of the facts -- something the Conservatives said confirms that the government is lacking in, well, ethics....


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20051105.HARPER05/TPStory/TPNational/

[Tim]

I'm wondering when, if at all, we will hear anything else beyond ethics. Something the Conservatives have shown not to have either. :)

Is there anything Harper has to offer beyond ethics? Or is that all he is going to run on...

[Just Doug1]

I'm wondering when, if at all, we will hear anything else beyond ethics. Something the Conservatives have shown not to have either. :)

Is there anything Harper has to offer beyond ethics? Or is that all he is going to run on...

I don't think this next campaign will be based on much other than ethics and accountability.

IMO, It's the root of many problems in Ottawa and reforms promised by previous "contenders to the throne" have seldom either materialized or worked.

I'm going to be asking my local candidates for more info on what they stand for, with an eye on those commited to deal with health and social issues encountered by First Nations people.

One of the pledges Preston Manning wanted was an overhaul of whatever-the-hell they call Indian Affairs now. I think it's time to support someone commited to that.

I'm also interested in responses to the current free trade arrangement and to Mr. Martins comments that "freer and fairer trade can help more impoverished people in the Americas than all the social programs in the world combined".

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051104/chavez_freetrade_051104/20051104?hub=CTVNewsAt11

[jovin]

Any government that needs an "Ethics Commissioner" to decide whether politicans are doing right or wrong is morally bankrupt by definition. The current federal commissioner is a joke and the whole office itself is a sham established for optics only for the general public, for essentially protecting the guilty. The day that a political party in Canada stands up and declares that the office of the Ethics Commissioner will be abolished and that all politicians of the ruling party will be personally responsible for all their actions and that anybody caught of any wrongdoing will be immediately fired by the Prime Minister, is the day they get my vote. Guess I'll be waiting a while.

In fact I think any politician of the ruling party should have to pass an ethics test before he/she can take office and sign a binding declaration listing a number of rules to which they will abide, like telling the truth at all times, to the effect that should they screw-up they will not only be dismissed immediately, but will lose their pensions and will be subject to imprisonment without right of appeal. (Nice to dream, eh?)

[Just Doug1]

Until that time when we can trust politicians, an Ethics Commissioner is a must and I agree with you that an Ethis Commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister is a joke.

Many of the proposals that the Conservatives are pledging in their Accountability Paper would be solid first steps towards achieving the goal you seek.

Any comments about the remarks Scott Brison made?

[Walter]

I think this whole fetish of accussing politicians of not having ethics is a gross generalization. There has to be politicians that are no more dishonest than you and I and they serve their constituents well. I would tend to zero in on those "individuals" who have proven themselves to be dishonest and without morality. Is a politicians like Jack Layton, who doesn't seem to have many skeletons in his closet, any worse than let's say Chrieten by offering to support a immoral government if they buy him off.

[Tim]

no you don't. All of your posts clearly show a right over left bias and don't make us laugh with your 'oh I'm serious now' crap. :)

[Tim]

I don't think this next campaign will be based on much other than ethics and accountability.

IMO, It's the root of many problems in Ottawa and reforms promised by previous "contenders to the throne" have seldom either materialized or worked.

I'm going to be asking my local candidates for more info on what they stand for, with an eye on those commited to deal with health and social issues encountered by First Nations people.

One of the pledges Preston Manning wanted was an overhaul of whatever-the-hell they call Indian Affairs now. I think it's time to support someone commited to that.

I'm also interested in responses to the current free trade arrangement and to Mr. Martins comments that "freer and fairer trade can help more impoverished people in the Americas than all the social programs in the world combined".

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051104/chavez_freetrade_051104/20051104?hub=CTVNewsAt11

If that's true, then it is a very sad, sad time for Canadians. I want to know what that extremist hothead Harper is going to do with the things that REALLY matter to me, things like health care, the economy, y'know, important stuff.

Because I sure as hell ain't gonna mark any X for a 'western power' yahoo party who doesn't seem to be saying very much of how they are going to govern, and *that* makes me nervous. A party whose history that has been embroiled in big corruption, scandal, and all they can say is 'trust us'.

bull.

I think some people are just a little too trusting and may be in for a rude awakening.

[jovin]

I think this whole fetish of accussing politicians of not having ethics is a gross generalization. There has to be politicians that are no more dishonest than you and I and they serve their constituents well. I would tend to zero in on those "individuals" who have proven themselves to be dishonest and without morality. Is a politicians like Jack Layton, who doesn't seem to have many skeletons in his closet, any worse than let's say Chrieten by offering to support a immoral government if they buy him off.

You're pretty funny sometimes Walter, no actually most of the time. Here I'm trying to say that most politicians are dishonest regardless of political stripe and you zero in on Layton because he supports the Liberals. It must be pretty nice to be on the "right" all the time and see the world through Conservative can-do no-wrong blue coloured glasses. (I can hardly wait to see what you're going to say by the way when Harper finally gets his minority government and will need to beg Layton to keep him in power.)