The commissioner of the OPP confirmed Friday that his force is looking into the circumstances surrounding the deletion of emails in the premier’s office, concerning the cancellation of two gas plants just before the last provincial election.
The news came as the opposition parties clamoured for accountability over the destruction of the documents.
Former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty should testify under oath before a legislative committee about the destruction of emails by his former chief of staff and other top Liberals, the New Democrats said Friday.
Here is the letter that confirmed that the OPP has referred the PC request for criminal investigation,
Brent Rathgeber has left the Conservative caucus and its a shame that it came to this.
Bill C-461 is its unamended form would have been a much needed piece of legislation that would have provided disclosure of public servant salaries at or above deputy minister 1 (DM1) level ($188,000+).
I spoke on this legislation before committee and I informed them that I was told that the legislation would not pass without amendment, but that amending the legislation would be a scandal for the governing caucus because it speaks to the heart of what it means to be conservative.
The Conservative government was originally elected in 2006 on a promise to bring accountability and transparency to Ottawa. This legislation was pitch perfect for the original Conservative hymn of opening up government for broader public scrutiny.
If the rationale for amending this legislation was to proactively protect from news stories and headlines of the compensation rates of scores of senior staffers, perhaps the government should realize that such government largesse is itself indefensible. In trying to protect themselves from bad headlines, other bad headlines are now being written.
The Conservatives need to get themselves sorted. This is not why they originally came to Ottawa. For Rathgeber, I was pleased to see his work on bill C-461 but was disappointed in his lack of support for bill C-377.
Last night’s gutting of bill C-461 is not why conservatives send Conservative MPs to Ottawa. Bill C-461 sought to bring transparency and accountability to the public service and now this government seems intent on shielding such accountability from the public view.
MONTREAL – The NDP has suspended a member from its shadow cabinet because of his chronic, long-term failure to pay taxes.
Tyrone Benskin has been stripped of his role as official-languages critic until he pays the taxes he owes.
The announcement follows a report that Quebec’s revenue agency has contacted the House of Commons to seize part of his salary because of more than $58,000 he owes the province for unpaid taxes between 2007 and 2011.
Benskin authored a private member’s bill which was put to a vote in 2012. Here is a summary of the bill from Benskin’s website,
The culture industry is one of the biggest sectors of the Canadian economy. But due to their often irregular hours and inconsistent incomes, artists are nearly always disadvantaged both by punitively high taxation during years of high earning and by being ineligible for a number of federal programs such as Employment Insurance (EI), the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and others.
Tyrone Benskin’s Bill C-427 will begin to level the playing field by allowing Canadian artists to average their income over a period, achieving considerable tax savings over two to five years. This would follow the example of Quebec and of a number of foreign countries.
This is a deeply personal project for Mr. Benskin, who has been an artist for over 30 years. C-427 is born of an intimate understanding of the numerous and pressing challenges faced by contemporary Canadian artists.
Is it not a conflict of interest for a Member of Parliament to be legislating on an issue that affects him directly? We’re all taxpayers of course, but doesn’t this legislation affect his particular case directly?
Mr. Benskin lost his shadow cabinet position today in the NDP caucus. Should we have sitting MPs that legislate specifically to their own interest? Should Benskin be facing the Ethics Commissioner instead? This appears to be a grossly unethical conflict of interest.
