• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
In support of jollyjacktar, in agreement with MCG and somewhat to confirm PPCLI GUY "Nothing to see here.  Move along." (which I disagree with), below is a fair article from CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/morneau-share-sale-opinion-1.4427358

OPINION
There's zero proof of Morneau's nefariousness. If only the minister still had his credibility - Robyn Urback - 1 Dec 17

A Senate page could've wet his or her pants on the floor of the House of Commons Thursday, and no one would have noticed.

Amid the routine feckless shouting and heckling, the Speaker of the House had to remind the prime minister to refrain from calling other members liars, before ejecting Conservative MP Blake Richards, who refused to settle down.

About 24 hours earlier, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer called on Finance Minister Bill Morneau to resign, and 24 hours before that, Morneau threatened to sue members of the Opposition for their not-so-subtle insinuations that he engaged in insider trading with regards to his involvement with Morneau Shepell — the company for which Morneau had previously served as executive chair and from which he did not divest after becoming finance minister, even though everyone thought he did. The Aristocrats!

Tax changes and a price drop

To be clear: there is zero actual evidence that Morneau engaged in insider trading. None.

What the Conservatives have done is latch onto a couple of major unloads of Morneau Shepell shares, which happened days before the Liberal government announced tax changes in 2015, which may or may not have caused Morneau Shepell's price to drop.

To buy the Conservatives' version of events, we'd have to believe that the drop was a consequence of the announcement — for which there is no evidence — and that Morneau had anticipated that result and thus sold off and/or advised his friends and family to dump their shares. For which there is no evidence.

Morneau at centre of fiery debate in Commons
Morneau tries to divest himself of a controversy
The tax changes tabled in the House of Dec. 7, 2015 were hardly a surprise: there was a new 33 per cent income tax rate for high earners and a cut for the middle class. The change, which was slated to take effect the following year, might have compelled some high earners to realize their gains in 2015 to avoid the new bracket, as many financial advisers were advising at the time. Or it might not have. We don't know.

What has the Conservatives squawking to the point of ejection from the House are a couple of conveniently timed sales: someone sold 680,000 company shares on Nov. 30, 2015, a week before the tabled changes. Morneau will not confirm or deny whether that "someone" was him, even though his office told the National Post back in October that the minister sold 680,000 shares after taking office.

A paternal connection

Then on Thursday, Global News reported that Morneau's father sold 100,000 shares on Nov. 23, 2015 and another 100,000 shares on Dec. 1 that year. The implication is that Morneau told his dad of the government's upcoming announcement (which was pretty much written in the Liberals' campaign platform, but never mind), and that his dad sold a bunch of shares in anticipation.

But again, to believe that something nefarious was going on here would be to assume that Morneau knew that his announcement would see that share price drop, and to also accept that the announcement caused the share price to drop, meaning that it wasn't a result of a myriad of other factors. For the record: Morneau denies that he discussed the government's tax changes with his father. This might all look very suspect, but we don't have hard evidence just yet.

All of this said — none of this matters.

Benefit of the doubt went out the window the day Canadians learned that Bill Morneau still owned millions of dollars worth of shares in Canada's largest human resources firm at the time he controlled the government's purse strings.

His subsequent refusal to answer very legitimate questions about why he failed to correct the record on whether had put his shares in a blind trust, and initial dodges regarding whether he recused himself on a bill that could've helped his family firm's bottom line, have only further eroded his credibility.


The Conservatives are making some pretty serious allegations here with very little actual evidence. Fortunately for them, the finance minister isn't in the best of standings. Morneau could venture down a path he's been avoiding for the last several weeks and offer a real, unscripted, thorough explanation. Then again, it might already be too late.
 
There's no proof because there's been no investigation. There's likely enough circumstantial evidence to start that investigation, however. The timing for everything is just to convenient, especially with the non - committal answers and threats of lawsuit.
 
PuckChaser said:
There's no proof because there's been no investigation. There's likely enough circumstantial evidence to start that investigation, however. The timing for everything is just to convenient, especially with the non - committal answers and threats of lawsuit.

Unless the threat of a lawsuit is because if the accusation is untrue, it is slanderous....
 
If the company was private vice public then it could be consider insider trading, no?
 
Jarnhamar said:
If the company was private vice public then it could be consider insider trading, no?

Lord knows I'm not a lawyer, but I think insider trading suggests a piece of information that no one else knows....vice say, a major platform in a political campaign
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Lord knows I'm not a lawyer, but I think insider trading suggests a piece of information that no one else knows....vice say, a major platform in a political campaign
However the exact timing of an announcement of a specific piece of market - changing platform promise could be. As the Liberals have shown with their own promise tracker, you can't trust anything said in an election period to not end up something "not being pursued".

The platform promise is a red herring, intentions never equal actions.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Lord knows I'm not a lawyer, but I think insider trading suggests a piece of information that no one else knows....vice say, a major platform in a political campaign
They said it would take effect on January 1st and he sold the shares between the announcement and January 1st.

On top of that,  which the shares did tumble that day,  so did the entire market.

On top of that,  the shares surged since the sale.  So... Horrible insider trading,  he would have made more money holding on to them.

Still nice to see the CPC act like dicks though.
 
Altair said:
They said it would take effect on January 1st and he sold the shares between the announcement and January 1st.

On top of that,  which the shares did tumble that day,  so did the entire market.

On top of that,  the shares surged since the sale.  So... Horrible insider trading,  he would have made more money holding on to them.

Wrong. Shares were sold before and after announcement. It also doesn't matter that the whole market went down, that's usually the effect of a major tax increase on the people who hold a lot of market share.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3883889/finance-minister-sold-morneau-shepell-stock/

The second part is a red herring and applies 20/20 hindsight.  No one knew the shares would surge.
 
Altair said:
Still nice to see the CPC act like dicks though.

If you think things would be any different were the shoe on the other foot, you're delusional.
 
Share prices are public information.  If you want, you can look at the share values over the last few months and decide for yourself if anyone was hanging on until the last possible (known) moment in order to take advantage of continuing increases in share price.
 
It's articles like this which has me, on a balance, quite like a lot of Blatchford's stuff:

Christie Blatchford: Tearful Liberal MP should accept James Bezan's fifth apology and move on

James Bezan was entitled to assume that he was dealing with an adult who had a sense of proportion, if not a sense of humour. He was grossly mistaken


Comes a time, as the great Neil Young once sang.

Comes a time to draw the line, to note that not all remarks of a sexual nature are actually sexual in nature, that not all talk that is debatably inappropriate must be censored, that sometimes a bad line is just a bad line and that the #metoo movement does not require every woman to recall and publicize every slight, real or imagined, ever inflicted upon her by every man in the world.

Sherry Romanado is 43 years old, the mother of two grown soldier sons, a Liberal MP from Quebec, parliamentary secretary to the veterans affairs minister, and, according to her bio, a long-time “engaged citizen.”

Chiefly, it appears, what she must have been engaged in all that long while is burying her head up her own bum.

How else is it even possible that seven words uttered in her presence seven months ago have caused her “great stress” and “negatively affected” her work environment and, according to CBC sources, had her weeping last week as she recounted the horror to her Liberal caucus mates?

The horror happened May 2.

Romanado and her Conservative colleague, James Bezan (MP from Manitoba), were both at Ottawa City Hall for an event called Stan and Back, a fundraiser for Canadian veterans and first responders.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was supposed to speak but ducked out amid the then-raging controversy over his amusing claim to have been the architect of Operation Medusa in Kandahar.

The place was probably crawling with MPs and other politicians; the obligation to attend such events, night after dreary night, is reason enough right there to never crave elected office.

Anyway, at some point, Bezan and Romanado posed for a picture with an unidentified third person. As they did so, Bezan said, “This isn’t my idea of a threesome.”

Perhaps Bezan imagined he was with a peer. After all, there was and is no dreaded “power imbalance” between him and Romanado: He’s almost a decade older and has been an MP longer, but she’s a member of the actual government with actual power. If anyone had an edge, it would have been her.

Perhaps Romanado’s face betrayed her sense of outrage, because by the next day, Bezan apparently realized he’d said something inappropriate and tried in vain to apologize. By May 10, Romanado had formally complained to Chief Human Resources Officer Pierre Parent. Bezan immediately offered to enter into mediation, an offer that was also refused.

The CHRO launched a review, Bezan co-operated, and as part of his written submission, apologized in writing.

On Aug. 16, the CHRO confirmed in writing his report “did not support a claim of sexual harassment” and recommended no disciplinary action.

Then, with the agreement of the two party whips in question, Bezan apologized in person to Romanado and completed the sensitivity training that’s on offer by the House of Commons.

Later still, after the CHRO report, Bezan agreed to mediation with Romanado and again apologized to her.

Monday, for good measure, Bezan apologized, by my count a fifth time, this time in public on a point of order in the House. He said in part that he had nothing “but the greatest respect for this member…”

Romanado later rose in response on a point of order, saying Bezan had made “inappropriate, humiliating and unwanted comments to me that were sexual in nature. These comments have caused me great stress and have negatively affected my work environment.”

‘This isn’t my idea of a threesome’: Tory MP apologizes for ‘flippant’ comment to Liberal
Now perhaps there is something else going on here that is contributing to Romanado’s outsized reaction.

Since she has refused to comment further — except to tell a reporter later Monday, her eyes brimming according to a Globe and Mail report, that “it’s been an incredibly difficult seven months” — how is anyone to know?

But nothing Bezan said warranted either his serial apologies or Romanado’s reporting of him or her carrying on as though he had groped or flashed her.

Here, I must stop to point out that the CBC online story about it began as follows: “A Liberal MP has called out a Conservative MP for making ‘humiliating and unwanted’ sexual remarks she says caused her great stress in the workplace.”

‘Calling out’, of course, is the modern phrase for publicly pointing out ostensibly bad behaviour that is otherwise not punishable or discipline-worthy. Its entire purpose is to shame and dirty the name of the alleged offender.

The story got big play in two of the country’s biggest newspapers, front page of the Toronto Star and Page 5 of the Globe.

James Bezan was entitled to assume that he was dealing with an adult who had a sense of proportion, if not a sense of humour.

He was grossly mistaken.

Comes a time to ‘call out’ those who reflexively describe ordinary human behaviour (which is to say, imperfect behaviour) as abusive and those who reflexively report it as gospel.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-tearful-liberal-mp-should-accept-james-bezans-fifth-apology-and-move-on

:cheers:
 
That article had to be written by a woman, a man doing so would be attacked. Christe has already been condemned by the SJW's as "Un-right thinker" and therefore she has little to lose by pointing out the sequence of events and put it into context.
 
FJAG said:
It's articles like this which has me, on a balance, quite like a lot of Blatchford's stuff:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-tearful-liberal-mp-should-accept-james-bezans-fifth-apology-and-move-on

:cheers:


This is just (attempted) channel changing ~ after the Bungle in Beijing and, now, Minister Kent Hehr's comments the PMO must be desperate to talk about something, almost anything else ... in light of the ongoing crusade against almost anything even remotely sexual it might be a good political tactic, but i suspect it will not work.
 
Given the Libs seem to copy what the Democrats do in the United States, this could be an opening shot to try to smear, discredit and otherwise defang the Conservative party MP's and the Party brand as a whole using the "sexual harassment" card. Considering how wildly this has backfired on the Dems and Democrat party supporters in the United States, they might want to reconsider if this is the road they want to go down.
 
The greatest potential tragedy will be when someone has a legitimate grievance and are ignored simply because thinking people will have become immured to the constant complaints. 
 
E.R. Campbell said:
This is just (attempted) channel changing ~ after the Bungle in Beijing and, now, Minister Kent Hehr's comments the PMO must be desperate to talk about something, almost anything else ... in light of the ongoing crusade against almost anything even remotely sexual it might be a good political tactic, but i suspect it will not work.
wasn't it bezan who brought this up in the first place?
 
Altair said:
wasn't it bezan who brought this up in the first place?

So he did the wrong thing, and then the right thing (five times), but somehow he's still wrong?
 
ModlrMike said:
So he did the wrong thing, and then the right thing (five times), but somehow he's still wrong?
not my point.

My point is that its hardly a liberal attempt at channel changing when it was the conservative member who brought it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top