Read on Twitter
The death of accountability and Bill 202 - a (not so short) thread.
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
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
The UCP refused to even hear from stake holders (despite their justification being they don’t understand the Bill).
Like all NDP Bills so far they killed it outright.
If they did nothing wrong, why are they scared of stronger accountability?
2/ #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
One low-light @michaelaglasgo saying if we expanded conflict of interest to include furthering the interest of relatives besides kids and spouses “women would be scared to go into politics.”
As a woman in politics, I am not the least bit afraid of accountability. 3/
#ableg
As a woman in politics, I am not the least bit afraid of accountability. 3/
#ableg
There was a lot of name calling by the UCP, more than usual. And an inexplicable rant by Schow (to “explain” this) about how if someone wants a friend they should “get a gold fish”?!?
Seems he is still mad I called him on “simmer down kitty cat”
4/ #ableg
Seems he is still mad I called him on “simmer down kitty cat”
4/ #ableg
UCP arguments:
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) 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
Counters:
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
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
2) expanding conflict of interests to relatives and other associates (not just kids and partners) creates a witch hunt - absurd
People have different family/close associate structures. Including all these people makes the act stronger.
7/ #ableg
People have different family/close associate structures. Including all these people makes the act stronger.
7/ #ableg
They tried to claim that if we used “relative” as a conflict they would have to worry about impacts on a 5th cousin they never met.
The federal act and many other acts use the word relative. Somehow this problem has never come up.
8/ #ableg
The federal act and many other acts use the word relative. Somehow this problem has never come up.
8/ #ableg
3) the ethics commissioner could not possibly understand/adjudicate legal privilege.
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
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
Side note - I would pay money to see Schow and the other angry UCP men (not lawyers) deliver those rants about how legal privilege is too complex for the (former judge) ethics commissioner to her face one day.
10/ #ableg
10/ #ableg
Finally, 4) reasonableness tests are confusing.
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
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 reason I think including someone a “reasonable person” would believe to be associated is okay anyway:
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
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
Also, with power comes responsibility. If you are in a position to write laws (all MLAs are), you can be expected to reflect on whether you are unreasonably furthering a close associates’ private interest with your actions, without a list.
/13 #ableg
/13 #ableg
They also objected to the Bill (repeatedly) on the grounds that it - and my lawyer skills more generally - is a “train wreck.”
No really logical objection, but I am happy to have history judge whether they, or I, was better at legislation or policy.
14/ #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
Overall, I am disappointed but not surprised to see something I put so much time and energy into, that so many smart amazing lawyers helped with, dismissed with name calling and no attempt to understand the moral point.
Accountability is not the UCP’s thing.
15/ #ableg
Accountability is not the UCP’s thing.
15/ #ableg
