This week UCP MLAs voted to kill a Bill that would prevent them from firing another legislative officer in the midst of investigating them, like they did with the Elections Commissioner. 1/
#ableg
Like all NDP Bills so far they killed it outright.
If they did nothing wrong, why are they scared of stronger accountability?
2/ #ableg
As a woman in politics, I am not the least bit afraid of accountability. 3/
#ableg
Seems he is still mad I called him on “simmer down kitty cat”
4/ #ableg
1) it removed the exclusion for trivial interest (not true),
2) expanding conflict to include a sibling or parent creates a “witch hunt”
3) ethics commissioner (former judge) cannot understand/adjudicate privilege
4) “reasonableness” test is confusing 5/
#ableg
1) removed expection for trivial interest - false.
It doesn’t. When I put in a list of included things, the list of excluded things moved a little.
It was in black and white, I explained, the department expert explained. The UCP (shock) did not care.
6/ #ableg
People have different family/close associate structures. Including all these people makes the act stronger.
7/ #ableg
The federal act and many other acts use the word relative. Somehow this problem has never come up. 🙄
8/ #ableg
Also, we lawyers should be ashamed of ourselves for suggesting she could.
She was a lawyer, then a judge. I think she can manage.
9/ #ableg
10/ #ableg
This comes the closest to having merit. The “reasonable” bar has the benefit of being flexible (catching sketchy excluding what isn’t), but it does require some thought.
It also underpins the entire civil law system.
11/ #ableg
The law uses this all the time to create flexibility. You cannot describe every sketchy thing someone can do, you need some flexibility.
/12 #ableg
/13 #ableg
No really logical objection, but I am happy to have history judge whether they, or I, was better at legislation or policy.
14/ #ableg
Accountability is not the UCP’s thing.
15/ #ableg