Fight the real enemy -

Fight the real enemy


Amid talk yesterday of Rahim Jaffer, Helena Guergis, Devinder Shory, lobbyists, religion, ideology, firearms, abortion policy, poverty, torture, nuclear weapons, the prosecution of Omar Khadr and salmon farming, John Baird astutely identified the foremost issue facing Ottawa as the legal career of Liberal MP Derek Lee. Seems the biography of Mr. Lee posted on a law firm’s website describes him as participating in activities that include “lobbying government.”

After QP, Mr. Lee’s office distributed the following.

“Like several other Parliamentarians, I am a legal counsel to a law firm. I disclosed to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner my relationship with Sun & Partners Barristers & Solicitors and am in full compliance with federal laws. Contrary to accusations made by the members of the Conservative government, I am not a lobbyist, nor have I ever been paid to lobby the federal government. I was unaware of how my role was portrayed on the Sun & Partners website, and am concerned that it is not sufficiently clear in its description of the nature of my work.  As such, I have asked that my profile, including any reference to lobbying, be removed from the Sun & Partners website.  I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.”

That profile does indeed seem to have been removed. Mr. Lee’s office has also sent out a letter sent to the ethics commissioner asking her to investigate whether he has erred in any way.


Fight the real enemy

  1. In Derek Lee we have a striking difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives……..

    Mr. Lee….accused, seeks to correct the problem, owns up to it and immediately asks for someone to investigate him to ensure that that is not the case.

    Conservatives? – deny deny deny until you can do so notlonger THEN try your darnedest to provide the most convoluted way to get to the bottom of things, never give out the whole story…..and try and find someone else to blame…..

    I have always maintained that Canadians are a fair bunch, we are OK with a mistake…….we are NOT ok with lying about it and not taking ownership and apologizing and rectifying it………a distinction that always seems to be lost on the Harper clan.

    • Stan you must be lost. You are on the wrong website. You should be over at the Globe spreading your daily dose of propaganda.

    • Sounds like an apologist for all things Liberal. Let's remember, as if you don't, Jaffer is not an MP. Hasn't been one since 2008. However, don't let the facts get in the way of your usual rant.
      Canadians are a fair bunch and they have clearly shown in leadership poll after leadership poll that they do not like Iffy nor do they trust him and the Liberal party. So keep putting callouses on those narly fingertips trying to preach the Liberal propaganda but it is falling on deaf ears.

      • You're accusing others of spreading propaganda?

        Pot, meet kettle.

        • I only speak the truth. It is the Liberals who are in denial. They cannot get past the reality that Canadians no longer consider them to be a government in waiting. Without any real policy and without trying to obtain government legitimately they throw mud at the wall everyday with the help of their sycophants on these boards hoping beyond hope that Canadians will somehow embrace their feckless leader. It ain't going to happen. Trust me.

          • "I only speak the truth."

            Ohh my someone needs to take a philosophy class…

          • Prove that I lie. I speak what I feel. Some may disagree but that doesn't mean I lie.

            Its only the Libs that believe anybody else's belief system is a lie.

          • "Its only the Libs that believe anybody else's belief system is a lie."

            You are projecting your opinion as a statement of fact, again. It isn't necessary a lie, but it is far from being the truth.

            I don't have to prove you are lying as 1) I never called you a liar, or/and; 2) Your 'truth' is based on personal conjecture.

          • What you feel, as manipulated by Harper.

            Please spare us the BS

          • Your credentials as a "speaker of truth" are being tarnished by your tendency to be somewhat partisan.

          • Seriously, hollinm, while we Liberals are currently in the Official Opposition role, and that comes with it an implied "government in waiting" quality to it, this Liberal at any rate does not consider Liberals to be "the natural governing party". I'm not sure I ever did, other than as the most central party on the political spectrum it had the ability to somewhat satisfy both left and right extremes.

            But either the extremes are getting more extreme, or more likely, people aren't willing to settle for less than exactly what they want. I see this phenomenon in myself all the time (i.e., but I don't want a red pen with a blue stripe, I want a red pen with a black and blue stripe!)

            And to me, that means there is no 'governing party' anymore, natural or otherwise. Which I guess brings me around to the realization that we really do need proportional representation. What do you think?

          • we Liberals are currently in the Official Opposition role, and that comes with it an implied "government in waiting" quality to it

            Hey, anytime you're ready to get on with that "government in waiting" quality…

      • So.. are you not Canadian? Or are you merely an outlier of the "fair bunch"?

        Because when you use epithets like "Iffy", you make it quite clear that you don't actually come to these forums to learn or have your opinions questioned, merely to rant.

        • Oh, that's rich, given the 24/7 Harper-bashing that the Wherryites engage in on here. Why is it that so many of you here literally cannot stand opposition? You resent being challenged. You can say anything you want, but no one is allowed to talk back. Amazing.

          • A challenge is not a red herring, or a straw man, an appeal to the masses, or an ad hominem.

            Present a real challenge, a good argument, and I'll be quite pleased. I've even changed my opinion on a few issues, or at least qualified it when good arguments have been presented.

            Project much?

          • This is typical of you liberals and left-wingers. You can throw any mud you want, but opponents have to abide by some supernatural standards – that you set, of course.

          • Rational debate is a supernatural standard?

          • Ever been on Blogging Tories? You sound like one.

        • Have you read some of the comments on media boards. Names like Conbots are used. I call Iffy Iffy because that's what he is. He can't take a firm position on anything.
          As for ranting. We all do that whether you realize it or not.
          Do you think that we learn anything from these comment boards? I don't think so. Once and awhile there is an intelligent comment but generally its just "my guys are better than your guys" and I acknowledge that I fall into that category many times. However, its only to answer the nonsense that some spew on this board and others.

          • I've read most of the comments. So you ascribe to the notion that "He did it first!" is good enough reasoning for your own actions, even if you acknowledge that what "he" did is wrong?

            I mean, I understand this has been the modus operandi of many a supporter of Harper's govenrment: "The Liberals did it first!" but I'd like to move beyond doing as poorly as the last guy, personally. And that starts with individuals such as you and I showing at least a modicum of respect for the subjects we debate about.

            And yes, we can learn from these comment boards.. if you keep an open mind and realize that not all criticisms of Harper or his party stem from a desire to have somebody else in power. Many, my own especially, stem directly from their own actions.

            However, when I see someone using belittling language like that on the subject of the debate, as in Iffy for Ignatieff, it makes it clear there's no real interest in making anything better.. just making it all shriller.

          • Aw – don't cry

          • "I acknowledge that I fall into that category many times".

            Seriously – You stand by a belief that your actions are justified because of the actions of others?
            I won't lie – I don't find much merit in your comments, because they are mean and narrowly focused.
            Any significant point that you might actually make gets lost in your smear. Yes – there are plenty who do this on the other side – it still does not justify your old testament "eye for an eye" approach to things.

          • Aw – don't cry

    • "Conservatives? – deny deny deny until you can do so notlonger THEN try your darnedest to provide the most convoluted way to get to the bottom of things…"

      You forgot the part when they desperately try to twist the facts to make it look like the liberals have done the same thing.

      For a bunch of people who claim that taking personal responsibility is a value, conservatives sure don't seem to like taking personal responsibility for anything.

      • Twisting the facts Gayle?
        Facts: in 2007 Derek Lee was hired by a law firm,
        that brags , in writting, about having Mr Lee lobby government for their clients.
        How are Cons twisting the black and white words of a prestigeous law firm?

        Fact: Derek Lee is an MP, on full wages and benefits from the Canadian taxpayer, expected to work for his constituents, FULL TIME.

        • sigh…………it never ends with this babe. Really unbelievable.

          I would imagine the ethics commissioner would know a lot more than you do about the matter .

        • I imagine then you will be able to find some evidence of any actual lobbying by Mr. Lee? If you can't, will you retract your libelous statement?

      • But we are the Governing party, nananana and you are one angry woman that makes no sense

  2. I agree with Stan. This provides a good contrast between the way the Liberals and Conservatives operate. The Liberals are for obvious reasons, scandal averse, and seek to quash any rumours of wrongdoing immediately through corrective action.

    The Conservatives, holier than thou, believe that any accusation of wrongdoing is simply a fabrication of the opposition and media– further evidence of a conspiracy by the elite to smear the names of hard working Conservative MPs.

    • What a load of bullshit.

    • You can't possibly be serious, can you? Just because you think you're God doesn't make it so, buddy. lol

    • I'm an atheist so have been making a point not to reply to this poster but had to chuckle at his use of the phrase "holier than thou".

      • W..w..w..wait just a minute. You deny the existence of the commenter to whom you just replied?

        And, now for an admission of a most disturbing feeling. As I was speed-reading down this page of comments, I thought for a moment I saw God saying "I agree with Satan." Try to imagine how that bounces around in the skull of an atheist-leaning agnostic. Whoah — bad trip city, man…

  3. Derek Lee is one of the most respected Parliamentarians of all parties and is well respected by all parties. Stephen Harper has appointed him to chair the first ever parliamentary committee that reviewed appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    He's recognized as a preeminent authority on Parliamentary procedure and national security, under Martin he was the guiding force in developing the legislation to establish the National Security Committee of Parliamentarians, chaired the National Security Subcommittee for many years and initiated the current oversight of the Communications Security Establishment.

    And he's a decent decent man.

    This is just such lowball tactics. No evidence. Just smears in an obvious and brazen attempt to deflect from their own scandals and ineptitude. That is the Conservative way: whenever they are vulnerable on an issue, lash out viciously and personally without any regard for the truth. I am so very very angry and sick of this "government".

    It makes me start to ask if this is this the Conservatives' Joselph Welch moment. I surely surely hope it does.

    • He can be the greatest guy in the world and a qualified parliamentary. The fact is the website of the law firm promoted him as a lobbyist there is no denying it. It is not lowball tactics. How many clients did the law firm get as a result of Lee's profile on their webiste and how did Lee interact with those clients. Inquiring minds want to know.
      You can pass it off as a mistake but it was no mistake. I don't know how long that profile was on the website but are you telling me Lee never looked at it? That's not credible and you know it.
      Double standard. You bet. Jaffer is not an MP. Lee is and why is he working two jobs. Is that permitted? I thought an MP's job was full time. At least we pay them as if its full time work.
      Lash out viciously and personally? Does the name Helena Guergis mean anything to you?

      • Who did he lobby Hollinm?

        Even if you want to invent things about the types of activities he is claimed to be doing, to be required to lobby you actually have to be, well, lobbying and you have to be lobbying someone.

        So who has been lobbied???? The "government" has just accused a upstanding and outstanding Parliamentarian of criminal illegal conduct. Surely they have some example of that conduct if they are going to say so, right? So where is it?

        Funny how they won't repeat the accusations outside of Parliamentary privilege, eh? Or provide any example of what they charge him with, eh?

        • 'Who did he lobby Hollinm?'

          We need a Committee investigation to find out Ted.
          Who did Lee contact in the government.
          What decisions did he sway in committees.
          List of all the 'clients' Lee was PAID to lobby for.

          • Since it was your beloved Conservatives who accused him of being an unregistered lobbyist, perhaps they could complete their thought and inform us themselves, as Harper himself has asked them to do with regard to Jaffer, who it is that Lee had been "lobbying".

    • This is just such lowball tactics. No evidence. Just smears…

      Right. Tell me Ted, how much more evidence than this did the media have before exposing the mess that is Rahim Jaffer? Should they have just taken his denials at face value as well and moved on?

      • You forgot to mention adscam. Otherwise, excellent post.

      • With Jaffer, we have evidence of actual lobbying – multiple contacts with decision makers and cabinet ministers and their offices.

        Plus, we have that after both Jaffer and the government denied there was any conduct.

        If Lee has been illegally lobbying, just who exactly has he been lobbying? Let those government ministers and secretaries come forward and tell us.

        Without a single example of actual lobbying it is entirely and completely vicious lowball tactics and smears in order to try to get themselves out of a jam.

        • ''If Lee has been illegally lobbying, just who exactly has he been lobbying?''

          Well, that's why we need Mr Lee's moonlightling to go to Committee for investigation.
          Demand all documents pertaining to the work Lee was PAID to do,
          all contracts!

          • The government has accused Lee of lobbying, i.e. he must have been lobbying them.

            So no need to go to committee. The government can just tell us who in their government he was lobbying.

            Unless it is a spurious claim with nothing to back it up. Hmmm.

          • It's funny that wilson does not respond to this.

          • Boy, you're not too bright are you……sigh

  4. Like our mothers used to tell us, if you point the finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you. I suspect that if you turned over more stones in Ottawa, that you would find a vastly increased number of lobbyists that have direct ties to Parliament. At least in this case, Mr. Lee came clean once he was approached in the House, he didn't waste time obfuscating.

    • He actually came clean before.

      He cleared his work with the ethics and lobbying commissioner ahead of time.

      • So why is he on bended knee, sending another letter to the Ethics Commish?
        Why did his other employer sell Lee as a government lobbyist,
        were they just kidding?

        • I would imagine he has done this so the public can get instant clarification on the matter.
          Doing such speaks louder than denials, not that you would be familiar with this type of a response.

  5. I saw reference to this on Macleans blog about two weeks ago. Frankly, I'm surprised the Liberals hadn't done anything about it until yesterday. Also, if Lee is representing a law firm – what does that tell you about their own quality control. Surely, they know these advertised activities are not allowed. Who wrote this bio?

    Incompetence all around. And if he doesn't do these activities – false advertising.

  6. I'm of the opinion that if you discover something fishy about someone, you give them 24 hours to address it and rectify it before you take it public.

    Not as an attempt to give them an opportunity to conceal their wrongdoing, rather, as an appeal to decency.

    • Such a procedure would also prevent the accuser from looking foolish should the allegations be without merit or a simple misunderstanding.

    • Derek Lee had 2 weeks to figure something out.
      Wherry or Ted Betts or any Liberal staffer reading these blogs, KNEW.

      Did the Libs and Lee just keep their fingers crossed that their media would ignore the scandal?

      • Yeesh, and you guys complain when the Liberals try to make mountains out of molehills?

        Come on now, you're taking conjecture and rumor from blogs and calling it evidence. Give your head a shake.

      • "ignore the scandal?"

        What scandal?

  7. So Derek Lee never read his own online bio. He is either not much of an internet guy, or very humble.

    • Or, possibly read it way back and then afterwards stuff was added.

      • Right, because Sun & Partners Barristers & Solicitors just slipped in a little embelishment of Lee's ability to lobby government, without telling him………

        Come on.

        • Bios are usually stock writing and not altered much from one place to another, unless absolutely necessary. It's more likely that nobody thought twice about putting Lee's bio on the site.

          All the more reason to ask Lee about it before trying to make a public spectacle of him.

  8. I just love the way that the CONBOTs flip the real situation.
    Er – it was PM Harper who was judge jury and executioner of Helena Guergis – without apparently any facts to justify that knee jerk reaction. So CONBOTs – when are you going to accuse St. Stephen of being unfair?
    Regarding Mr. Lee – I'd really like to know how long ago those claims were written – and when they were put up on the law firm's website.
    Wouldn't surprise me – knowing how small "c" conservative those firms are – that the text was a cut and paste from paper partnership profiles that came out of the ark. I know – having put together a few web sites in my time – how their content is constructed…and rarely does anyone write something specifically for a web page – it more often than not comes from sources like resumes – in a cut and paste mode – that cover a lifetime career…

  9. Yes, how dare those blasted Conservatives ask that Wherry's favourite party abide by its own bloody standards, and the ones he himself apparently trumps with sometimes hourly updates on these boards. The audacity!

    • So if we turn that around, it means Mr. Lee's response should be "That's private business, not government business" correct?

      I agree that we need everybody to abide by the same standards.. so then.. whose standards should we go by? Those of Harper's party who claim that there is nothing public to see here, or those of Mr. Lee who has immediately and publically sought correction and an opinion on the ethical nature of his actions.

      • You know, this really isn't that hard. The Conservatives have asked that all MP's be included in the accountability measures, yet Iggy's Liberals have resisted. How about that standard? That's what I'm talking about. Or am I still going too fast?

    • …and once accused, Lee asked the ethics commissioner to look into his actions.

      After the Prime Minister called in the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner on that other MP, we were supposed to just wait and see. But because it's not a conservative member, it's different? Because if you want him to step aside while the investigation is ongoing, then there's an MP from Calgary who'd like to talk to you.

  10. It think that Lee is one of the good guys, and an asset to Parliament, but I'm surprised that, in light of the Jaffer affair, every MP from every party has not scrutinized their non-parliamentary activities for this kind of information. I wonder if anyone is going to do a search for outside activities for all MPs.

    • My guess is that there are a few MPs who are shifting uncomfortably in their chairs these days. Probably from all parties. I mean, think about it: you really don't make a ton of money on an MP's salary. So the main personal and career asset that you're building by being an MP is knowledge of how Ottawa works, access, connections, a certain network, etc. etc. There are 308 MPs, and I'm sure that some of them either don't know where the ethical line really is, or have forgotten, or . . . .

      • ……. or don't have smart enough people advising them how to cover their tracks.

        • Yup. That too.

  11. I agreed with one of the Conservative posters last week (John G I think) who took issue with Mr. Lee's JD as it was posted on the lawfirm's website.

    But it is not even close to the same thing as a government MP. It's probably easier for me as a private citizen than for Mr. Lee as an opposition MP to get somethinig out of this government.

    I'm happy to see this issue is being investigated, and I echo the posters who applauded Mr. Lee for his referring of the matter to the ethics comissioner.

    • Then it shouldn't matter much for opposition MPs to be included in accountability measures, since you say that much isn't at stake. But then why are Liberals running away from their own promises to be included within such measures?

      • I agree with you, but as was requsted above, could you please provide a source for this claim. It's a big world out there Dennis, we cannot all be fully informed on every fact.

        • So, you're an ignorant person on here? lol

          • Yeesh.

          • Crit, are you truly going to stick by the assertion that none of these leftists know what I'm talking about? Are you truly this foolish? Hey, I've got bridge up in North Bay to sell you, too. Yeesh.

          • OK, so you've posted a link. Now, have the Liberal defenders on here addressed it yet? Maybe I've lost track. I dunno. But, if they were so eager for the info, you'd think they'd be eager to reply once received? Or was it a diversionary tactic all along, just as I suggested?

            As a bit of an aside, C.R., if you were being as truly unbiased and impartial as you claim, you would have acknowledged the facts that I asserted, since everyone knows what they were, posted the link anyhow to indulge people, then ask them to address the substance of my question, which is this: Why have Liberals run away from including themselves in the accountability measures they were yelling and screaming to have Harper abide by, too?

            A lot of hollering and screaming from the Wherryites on these boards. Not a whole lot of practicing what they preach. Not by a longshot, imo.

          • "We have no objection to anything that increases accountability and transparency in the Parliament of Canada. But let's not forget the politics here: They're trying to change the channel because they're in the spotlight and they want to shift the spotlight elsewhere and we won't play that kind of game."
            Gee, I wonder who said that? Oh, was it Ignatieff? Yes, I think it was. Doesn't sound like running away to me. MI doesn't want to sign his name to a motion he hasn't seen drafted yet. How is that running away?

            Separately, a House of Commons committee probing Jaffer's activities is at a standstill, partly because Conservative politicians it wanted to hear as witnesses have, so far, declined to testify.
            Someone want to address this point?

          • He's not supporting the measure! lol.

            What's it with some of you Liberal supporters here? You act like you're in a cult or something. No independent thought allowed?

    • Yep Liberal ethics.they get two of their buddies today to stonewall the procedure to ensure not a single question is asked of him. Why am I not surprised.

  12. Huh? How do you read that? Everyone should be held to the same standard. If a lobbyist visits an MP of any stripe, register and record.

  13. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to someone who was informed, or who was serious about discussing the issue. Next.

    • Throughout history, the onus has been on the guy making the argument to provide the source for the fact. I said this yesterday to a (apparently) more left-leaning poster who claimed the Conservatives had cut funding to planned parenthood. He provided his source and a respectful debate about the validity of the argument ensued.

      Now provide a source or STFU!!!


      • Oh, so you, too, are going to claim to be ignorant on what's happened this week, instead of defending Liberals. Then you have the gall to question Harper's motives and tactics. My God.

        No wonder you love one-sided discussions. You can't handle it when someone happens to disagree with you, or challenge you.

        • Yeah you guys, it's your responsibility to do Dennis_F's research for him.

          Jeez, you must be new here.

          • What research? All you leftists know what I'm talking about. You just refuse to apply the same standards to yourselves as you apply to Harper 24/7.

          • Nope. I applied the same standard yesterday when Harper was being what I suspected was unfarily criticized.

          • Like I said, you're either ignorant or lying. But thanks for proving that Liberals can't be expected to abide by the standards they hold Harper to. It's like I keep saying. 24/7 mud throwing and outrage over not having power. The Wherryites are out in full force! lol

          • Dude. A guy who agreed with you asked you to provide proof. You didn't, he went and found it…and you were wrong. Epic debate failure.

            Is that why you didn't post the link?

          • Dennis_F is a black hole of debate. It's either his job or his hobby.

        • Actually no, I agree with you. But you claim to be a voice of reason in this debate and yet you provide a an unsubstantiated fact. If what you say is true, then I find it very hypocritical of the Liberals. Provide a source — that should've taken you less time than replying to my post.

          • Here you go folks, but remember, it comes from the National Post, the Conbot voice as you all refer to it, so I'm sure it is of no value because the Liberal shill newspapers and this host site are NOT going to report stuff like this of their beloved Liberals!

          • Note how the author of the Post column left out Ignatieff's quote that I cited in the CTV article. The whole back and forth debate between Day and Igantieff was filled with grandstanding.

            The summary of it was that Day wanted the motion to go futher and that Ignatieff was fine with it but didn't want the current issue dodged.

            So the Nat Post did choose to ignore the direct quote where Igantieff said he would likely support the Conservative motion. It does not help the Post's 'conbot' credentials, but it does help explain why several people appear to have misinterpreted the Liberal's position on the matter.

          • You obviously can't read you DOLT!
            From YOUR link:

            "Not a single MP voted against the measure, despite calls by the Tories to go even further and include all MPs and senators, and in particular the leaders of the opposition parties and their staff members."

            "Day would not say exactly what a Tory motion would look like, including whether it would extend reporting requirements to staffers of backbenchers. He would only say the government is keen to move forward with reforms "as soon as is reasonable. We'd like to enter into discussions with the opposition on it."

            Where is it that direct quote that he would support this motion?? He obviously didn't support the call to add it today, but you are sure he will OK it when the fleshed out motion arrives? Are YOU in the Liberal inner circle so you KNOW what he will do?
            Try you revisionism on someone else!

          • When someone presents you with an idea, do you sign your name to it before you see the full details in writing?

            Yeah, I thought not.

          • Note how the author of the Post column left out Ignatieff's quote that I cited in the CTV article. The whole back and forth debate between Day and Igantieff was filled with grandstanding.

            The summary of it was that Day wanted the motion to go futher and that Ignatieff was fine with it but didn't want the current issue dodged.

            So the Nat Post did choose to ignore the direct quote where Igantieff said he would likely support the Conservative motion. It does not help the Post's 'conbot' credentials, but it does help explain why several people appear to have misinterpreted the Liberal's position on the matter.

          • What unsubstantiated fact? Everyone on these boards knows that Stockwell Day suggested that the accountability measures extended to parliamentary secretaries this week also be applied to opposition MP's. And that Iggy started to run away from this measure.

            Now, for you to claim that you did not know this, means that you're either ignorant, or disingenuous? Which is it?

            Or are we going to start asking for sources and links for every single assertion made on here?

            It's amazing how the same people who love throwing darts at Harper engage in all these disingenuous stalling measures the second they're asked to apply the same standards to themselves. Amazing!

          • Just quit bellyaching and post a link, Dennis. It should be easy enough to find one. YYZ's request for a source is reasonable.

          • It might be helpful to explain how to add a link into a comment. Perhaps that is the problem.

          • Ah, that's fairly easy. If a registered user types in a complete web address (with the http on it and all) the Intense Debate will automatically convert it to a link.

            As such:

            You can also use standard html anchor tags.. < a href=" > stuff here < / a > without the spaces and it'll work like HTML.

          • Thanks for that. I hope sea_n_mountains will put it to good use in the future.

          • My apologies sea_n_mountains. I, of course, meant that Dennis should learn how to use links.

  14. The State of Debate

    Snipe, snipe, bicker, and bite.
    This looks like a lap dog partisan fight.
    The weapons: ad hominem, straw men and mud
    smothered with herring the colour of blood.

    Somewhere the Truth is out flailing around
    beaten and smothered on slippery ground.
    You're not going to see any of it today.
    Cognitive Dissonance gets in the way.

    • You mean one which you're contributing too just as equally, right? But I guess it's always easy to point the finger at others. It's what liberals and leftists appear to do best. Why let your actions speak for themselves when accusatory words feel so much better, right?

    • NIcely done, Doug!

      Way to take up the reins of JM.

      • Alas, I am no Jack, and that such a bit of doggerel could rise to sit in that saddle says much about the level of discourse here.

        • And yet, we need to encourage fledgling talent where it lies. Eventually, inspiration will strike me and I'll adapt another Shakespeare prologue…

          • You risk being condemned as an intellectual. Be careful.

      • No kidding!
        It is a great piece and would make a marvelous ditty
        Well done indeed!

  15. No, it's a stalling tactic. We all know what I'm talking about. You can't be this foolish and ignorant, too?

    • How many pots of coffee did you drink this morning?

      • Thanks for trying. ;-)

    • Hey Dennis, since you won't do your homework, I will. In this link you will find that the Conservatives agreed to a motion to tighten lobbying rules but wanted it to go further and include all MPs.

      You'll also find the Liberal leader agreeing with this.

      "Ignatieff said he doesn't have any objections to the Tory motion, but would like to see the full details first"

      Your argument was wrong. At best it was a major twist on the Liberal's position. Ignorance, is apparently, a two-way street.

    • a stalling technique???? it would have taken thirty seconds to post a link and the stalling would have to come to the end….. what the hell are you talking about?

  16. I've had one cup, but thanks for YOUR bellyaching, and yielding. lol.

    btw, do you often let these leftists fool you like this?

    "Hey, let's take Dennis for a spin and demand he source all his assertions so we don't have to answer his tough question! And we've got Crit going, too! Shhh!"

    • "do you often let these leftists fool you like this?"

      Don't you dare even flinch when drinking the kool-aid. This is a sign of weakness.

      Is this a bad time to ask you to tell us how you really feel about abortion, and those who defend it? Perhaps you are busy guarding the underside of some bridge?

      Just so we are clear – I REALLY have no interest in hearing about your views on abortion, in case you missed my broken record sarcasm.

    • "do you often let these leftists fool you like this?"

      Don't you dare even flinch when drinking the kool-aid. This is a sign of weakness.

      Is this a bad time to ask you to tell us how you really feel about abortion, and those who defend it? Perhaps you are busy guarding the underside of some bridge?

      Just so we are clear – I REALLY have no interest in hearing about your views on abortion, in case you missed my broken record sarcasm.

  17. What in there suggests that passage is directed only at Conservatives? I read it and think it's a fair commentary on politicians of all stripes. And on us commenters.

    • Methinks Dennis_F doth protest too much! When the shoe fits he wears it.

      • I'm pretty sure Dennis is a far-leftist posing as an arrogant rightwing jerk in order to make the right look bad…

        • This would at least make sense. I find it hard to believe that such density exists on its own.

        • This would at least make sense. I find it hard to believe that such density exists on its own.

  18. "Mr. Lee's valuable contributions to our clients include acting for foreign and offshore organizations in obtaining operating licenses, securing regulatory and governmental approvals for mergers and acquisitions … advising government bodies on international issues regarding cross-border tax collection, anti-dumping issues, and lobbying government on policy issues as well as facilitating inter-governmental relationships."

    This wasn't just a single reference…everything in that profile relates to lobbying in one way or another. This was exposed over 2 weeks ago. So Canadian media, why the free ride for Mr. Lee? No investigations into which bureaucrats from which departments Mr. Lee has spoken to during his tenure at this law firm? You know, the way you did for a certain other individual accused of illegal lobbying?

    If not, why the hell not???

    • Actually it was exposed to Mr. Lee yesterday… which he took immediate action. Now I am not denying that you may have heard rumour about this in Conservative blogs or such…..I never seen anything but perhaps there was…..

      but we all heard Baird in QP yesterday……and the shock seemed quite genuine on Mr. Lee's part.

      • Indeed – how could Mr. Lee have known how his firm described his work? And he's shown strong ethics and accountability by denying the charge and blaming someone else for the error.

        • …except you forgot to mention the other stuff he did, like where he , in writing, invites the Ethics Commissioner to investigate him. Clearly the actions of a guilty man.

          Dance, partisan puppets, dance!

          • You mean the letter where he, in writing, says he never did nothin'? And asks the Ethics Commissioner to let him know if that's alright? The letter Aaron linked to?

    • None of it relates to lobbying.

      There is no lobbying involved in helping someone complete application forms or tell them what operating licenses or to help them get government approvals.

      – Getting government approvals for mergers and acquisitions means completing notices and forms and has zero requirement for registration

      – advising government bodies on international issues means he's been hired by those government bodies

      – lobbying on policy is different than lobbying for a contract or funding and does not require registration. It is advocacy and something we all do whenever we try to get the government to adopt a policy.

      This is a shameful lie by the government. A desperation move.

      They point to a website that describes – poorly – fully legal activities that do not require registration.

      But I ask: if he has been lobbying as the Conservatives claim, surely they can tell us who he has been lobbying, right? They are the government supposedly.

      • – lobbying on policy is different than lobbying for a contract or funding and does not require registration.

        Would you care to find a reference for that in the lobbying Act? Because I think you're making that up in a rather desperate attempt to serve your political masters.

        Here is the government website describing the lobbyist registration rules. Pay special attention to the following:

        Registration is required with respect to the following matters:

        * The making, developing or amending of legislative proposals, bills or resolutions, regulations, policies, programs; or
        * The awarding of grants, contributions or other financial benefits.

        Care to retract?

        • I can only hope that he was lobbying a whole bunch of Conservative parliamentary secretaries. In which case, the lobby rules don't apply.

          …uncomfortable silence follows…

        • So you have evidence he was paid for this? That he actually did this?

          • Did this evidence exist for Jaffer before the sh!tstorm was launched? No it didn't. All there was was a bio on a website, which was enough for media to rightfully start asking questions that exposed the festering mess we see today.

            I just want to know why the media aren't asking those same questions about Derek Lee. The answers may very well turn out to be different. But that doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked. And right now they are not.

          • Ah yes. The good ol' standby: blame the media. All the Conservatives problems are the media's fault.

            If you want to invent facts, perhaps.

            How conveniently you leave out inconvenient facts. Like a former star Tory MP getting a slap on the wrist for serious crimes. Like an investigation into his other nefarious business practices which revealed that he was using government offices to conduct his business. This whole thing started, not when they discovered Jaffer holding himself out as a lobbyists on his own personal website, but when we learned he was using a cabinet minister's office and phone. It got more interesting when we found out he was holding himself out as a lobbyist without a registration.

            And it got legs when the next obvious questions were being rejected by the government, only to have them reverse themselves and admit he had been lobbying them.

          • Is the same guy who just said that you don't have to register to lobby for policy changes accusing me of inventing facts?

            OK…just checking.

          • Again, and don't run away from the question this time, do you have evidence of (a) actual lobbying and (b) compensation paid for that lobbying?

            If you advocate for a policy change and you aren't paid, it isn't lobbying. Period.

            To say otherwise is ridiculous and would make pretty much every MP an illegal lobbyist, not to mentino special interest groups like the gun advocates and the evangelical/socon advocates.

            Nice bait and switch though.

            So I'll ask again, and don't run and hide from this question either: if the government has any evidence to support its spurious claims, why haven't they presented it? They are the ones they claim are being lobbied by Lee, so why haven't they told us what lobbying?

          • It has the word of the legal firm who advertised this guys services as a lobbyist on their website. Were they supposed to just ignore that Ted?

          • Your avoidance of simple questions again and again is noted and very telling.

            I expect that, when the Government of Canada through one of its major cabinet ministers, accuses a respected Member of Parliament of illegal activity, they do so with some grounds, to actually do some teeny tiny bit of research. They have shown quite the ability to do rapid broad and deep research into the activities of their opponents, pull quotations from decades ago, pull donations amounts, fundraising tactics, but they can't or chose not to look for some lobbying activity before accusing an MP of illegal activity?

            It was and is within their power to find out, to at least try, and not rely on a vague website reference of activities.

            It is disgraceful conduct of a government.

            Have they no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have they left no sense of decency?

          • I expect that, when the Government of Canada through one of its major cabinet ministers, accuses a respected Member of Parliament of illegal activity, they do so with some grounds, to actually do some teeny tiny bit of research.

            They did. They had the guy's employer saying he was a lobbyist on their behalf. There was nothing "vague" about it. HIS OWN EMPLOYERS WEBSITE SAID HE LOBBIES THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT.

            But if that's your standard Ted…what do you have to say about Marlene Jennings calling in the ethics commissioner on Guergis to investigate how she obtained her mortgage? What evidence did Marlene Jennings have to go on that witch hunt and to smear whatever was left of Guergis' reputation? I'm sure you must find that equally appalling.

          • i know i am not Ted, but I ask why Guergis didn't call in the commiosioner herself, as Lee did.

            In any event, the fact you are avoiding the question posed by Ted speaks volumes. I suggest you give up while you are only a little bit behind.

          • The more I hear of Ms. Jennings in the news, and the more I hear her quoted, the more the word "appalling" seems to fit very nicely.

            And that 's no small feat, what with Denis Coderre still around exhaling carbon.

          • Just to hazard a guess, but perhaps it's because Derek Lee wasn't arrested and initially charged with cocaine posession and drunk driving on the night he hung out with busty hookers and proclaimed his access to the highest echelons of government.

      • I wonder who's next in Harper's attempt to destroy – Jack Harris? He also aided in getting the parliamentary privilege issue straigthened out and we all know Harper does't like facing truths.

      • Gee Ted, why didn't you tell Iffy and Lee that the company that employed Lee is bragging about Lee having influence with the government.
        You knew and did nothing!

      • You really don't expect the Con workers here to understand this do you? They believe big mouth Baird – now that's a scary thing.

    • Don't you know Lee is a Liberal and the media must protect Mr. Lee from the Conservative hoardes. Watching the limited coverage it was all about minimizing the importance of what was said on the website of the law firm. It said what it said and they were promoting their guy as a lobbyist.
      How many clients did that firm get as a result of Lee's profile on their website. Since when are MPs allowed to hold more than one job? Is being an MP not a full time occupation? This is open to conflict of interest all over the place.
      You can bet if it was a Conservative it would be splashed from one end of the country to the other and a parliamentary committee would be called to rake the Conservative member over the coals.
      Are you telling me that Lee never, ever reviewed his profile on the law firm website? It's not credible.

      • Except he vetted all of that beforehand with the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner.

        If there was lobbying, then why isn't the government telling us who he was lobbying?

        …uncomfortable silence follows…

        • Then why , Ted, is Lee sending a letter to the Ethics Commish if he has already been given the ok to moonlight as a consultant as an unregistered lobbyist?

          • Obviously since it was raised by a cabinet minister, he wants to be sure he's continuing to act ethically and legally. What a jerk, huh!?

          • He waited until the issue was brought up in QP before he acted ethically,
            it was all over the blogs, even Ted Betts knew and was attacking the messenger 2 weeks ago.
            Yah, he is a jerk. A terrific Parliamentarian, but definitely a jerk.

          • Heaven forbid an MP spends more time reviewing policy than reviewing the blogosphere.

            Within 24 hours, Lee responded by owning the issue and asking the Ethics Commissioner to investigate. That's more than Conservative MPs have done with relation to Guergis/Jaffer.

          • sigh…………

          • Because he has been slandered for political reasons and that is what you do when you want an independent clarification.

            Interesting how the government has produced no evidence of any actual lobbying though, eh.

            They accuse Lee of lobbying them and yet can't find any evidence of it. Hmmmm.

    • Good question. Ask the Conservatives. Surely they must know.

      • That sounds like an excellent place for someone to start. Someone whose job is to find out about things when possible evidence of wrongdoing surfaces and report to the public about it and get to the bottom of it to either confirm or refute it. I forget what those people are are called, but maybe one will emerge from their silence and get on that.

        • Actually, I was suggesting that *you* ask the conservatives. If you want answers to these questions, perhaps you should put them forward to the people responsible, and not to a random forum site on the internet. You may get a better response that way..

          ..but I wouldn't hold my breath.

          • But I have no contacts with the Conservative party to make such a request.

            I thought there used to be a whole profession that was supposed to be devoted to this sort of thing. I heard they even got passes that allowed them access to the politicians they were supposed to be reporting about.

          • Here:

            You can send your comments by e-mail to or write or fax the Prime Minister's office at:

            Office of the Prime Minister
            80 Wellington Street
            K1A 0A2

            Fax: 613-941-6900

          • C'mon John. You know as well as anyone else that the Conservatives would be stampeding over each other to get the microphones if the had an example of Mr. Lee engaged in lobbying of any Minister, Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, Backbencher or Page. I'd presume the delay between Stephen Taylor's "big scoop" and Baird's subsequent braaaaoooodcast of same is the result of a frantic (but ultimately fruitless) search to find an example.

            Politicians after a talking point are like pigs after a truffle. If any were found, we'd all be alerted by the loud squealing.

          • LoL….. Well said!

          • They are sadly missed.

  19. This slimy reaction from the Conservatives really does say more about them and how vulnerable they know they are on the Jaffer corruption scandal and the Shory corruption scandal.

    Classic DefendConservative (DefCon) modus operendi, with a vicious personal attack thrown in with a lie.

    DefCon1 – it's a non story
    DefCon2 – blame or attack the media for the story
    DefCon3 – blame or attack the Liberals for the story
    DefCon4 – blame or attack or fire a bureaucrat or provincial premier
    DefCon5 – blame, attack or fire a staffer*
    DefCon6 – start talking about Adscam, coalitions, broken GST promises and the NEP

    * Also acceptable to fire and call in the cops on your own if it is a female MP who you find embarrassing and difficult.

    • Classic tedbetts…make this same post over and over again whenever any Liberal is under fire for anything.

      Let me guess…you are one of the people here who accuse the Conservatives of posting operatives in the comments section.

    • So if the Conservatives deny wrongdoing and circle the wagons, they're wrong.

      And if the Conservatives offer up the alleged wrongdoer to the authorities to investigate, they're wrong.

      Man, nothing these guys could do would make Aaron and the Libs here happy.

      • Is this DefCon7, or a combo of the previously mentioned ones?

  20. "Fight the real enemy"? Refreshing to see Mr. Wherry validate a central CPC theme, the media does have a double standard and does view the present government as "the enemy". Not that it isn't obvious to fair minded observers most days, just rarely is it this blatant.

    • "Fight the real enemy? Refreshing to see Mr. Wherry validate a central CPC theme, "

      The CPC stole their central theme from Sinéad O'Connor?

      I look forward to the ritualistic ripping of photos of Derek Lee at the next QP. Perhaps Mr. baird will be adopting a new hairstyle, as well?

      • I enjoy watching the excuse making and obfuscation coming from the guys in glass houses throwing stones at the governent for the same "sins" they are guilty of. The selective morality, selective outrage and selective coverage, excuses for Liberals on one hand, the end of democracy on the other, just demonstrates the obvious. btw, just read in the G&M that Iggy gets sworn into the PC today, following up an offer before the "December crisis". In spite of the protestations of a "senior Liberal" that it has "nothing" to do with the detainee issue, I kinda doubt it…anyone going to cover this story? I'm sure it's just more evil schemeing…right? Could the main political story of the last four plus months be fiction? Stay tuned deep thinkers. This should be funny moving forward. Will there be any apologies?

    • Good grief, another crybaby playing the victim card – show a little pride there peter.

  21. Let me get this straight: MPs are allowed to hold side jobs?

    How common is that?

    • John Baird operates a vegan poutine truck outside my office.

      • Do the MP's that own farms still run their farms?

        • Yep, most do. Most of the lawyers do a little work here and there to keep up their professional qualifications. The independent business guys tend to just hire someone to mind the store.

          • I wonder why some forms of business/investments need to be set up as blind trusts, then, while certain lines of work are fair game?

          • Probably the paul martin effect. When your business stands to gain or lose big-time based on legislative decisions, simply declaring a conflict-of-interest and not voting might not work.

            If you're a farmer, or a lawyer, every tax increase/decrease will affect you, but not likely more than the average lawyer or farmer, so it's a wash. As well, "running" a farm or a business is reduced to weekends and holidays for most of these guys. and gals.

    • Good question.
      Maybe one of our crack investigative reporters can make us a list.

      Who knew that we taxpayers foolishly thought our MPs worked FULL TIME for us,
      and we are wrong…..

      • I'm actually more surprised that you foolishly thought that MP's did not have these types of connections. It's been like this from the onset, and was one actually why people were drawn into politics to begin with. When it comes to matters that affect whatever they are involved in, they need to declare their "arms length" status. MP's who own businesses will have someone else run the show, but who is kidding who – they stay involved and informed with what is going on.

  22. I'm all about openness and transparency, and therefore admit, I get 5 cents a post from the Piraten Party. Arrrr.

    • 5 cents a post!!!
      Arrrrr they hiring?

      • It's haaarrd to tell. New parrrties don't have a ton of money.

        • It's a poor pirate who lacks buried treasure, arr.

  23. I think Derek Lee is one of the good guys; a no-nonsense, intelligent and decent MP who does meaningful things with the powers he's got.
    He makes a striking contrast to John Baird and the braying jackasses who surround him.

    Having said that, Lee needs to answer for the way his services have been advertised and the media should be asking the proper questions about his role with the law firm.

    I doubt very much that Mr. Lee would hesitate to answer those questions fully.

    • Isn't there a larger issue at play here, and one that those blasted Conservatives have been targeting for a few days, and with apparent justification? Specifically, why have the Liberals backed off of including themselves within the measures of the Accountability Act?

      We know that Mr. Wherry won't be asking such questions any time soon, but how about fair-minded people? Like yourself?

      • In a minority parliament, where the opposition can gang up and pass motions or vote up/down a bill, it makes perfect sense to me that ALL MPs should be held to the same standard. Just because you're not the minister handing out the cheques doesn't mean you don't exert influence.

        Now, it makes me wonder, however, about those Mitchel photographed shmoozefests. I wonder if every time you grab a beer or indulge in your seventh sandwich, you might have to sign a sheet.

        • So, in that one post of yours, you, too, are backing off having LIberal MPs being held to their own standards. Now accountability is a hassle, is it? Unbelievable.

  24. You really can't see the difference, can you?

    • Lee's probably behaved himself better than Jaffer did – but Lee is currently in Parliament and Jaffer isn't, And asking the Ethics commissioner to investigate you is one way to avoid answering the questions yourself. Does her mandate cover the Lobbying Act?

  25. Oh right. lol. I use the term "My God" on occasion, too. I guess that means I'm calling for the character who actually calls himself "God" on here, too! lol

  26. You just made fun of accountability measures, genius, by suggesting that sheets had to be signed for sandwiches. Yes, it's all such a burden when Liberals have to do it, isn't it. The horror.

    • It was a joke, Jethro.

  27. Actually, I just don't know what you're talking about. If you could provide some links, that'd be great. What are these accountability measures, and where do you see the Liberals resisting?

  28. Yes, accountability measures are joke to you when Liberals are required to abide by them. Thanks!

    • Nuts.

      • Dennis partisan goggles prevent him from comprehending that you were somewhat agreeing with him. This goes against his programming – ie. everyone here is a leftist, and therefore, the enemy. Instead of thinking or discussing, he insults, and uses the catch phrase "Next" (under some misguided belief that he has actually made a significant rebuttal). Sometimes it is both sad and amusing, when you consider the irony.

    • Dennis, look up.

      That was Dot's point flying above your head.

      I do love it though when commenter one writes "I think X", and then commenter two writes "How DARE you, you should think X", followed immediately by commenter one writing "Huh? Didn't I JUST SAY X!?!?!". That meme never gets old.

      • Please explain to me how that applies to the current exchange. That is, of course, if you're not joking either. lol.

        What is it with people on here who are incapable of addressing the points raised? Man.

        • You called?

  29. So.. when you actually meet someone who wants to get informed, you say, "Oh.. no.. you actually want facts.. I don't want to talk with someone like that.."

    Fair enough. Now I know how to proceed with you.

  30. No, requiring that only opponents do so is. Next.

    • Pot Kettle Black.

  31. Name one example of where I have set a higher standard for others. I thought you leftist types were proud of being educated and analytical. Well, show it sometime! Live up to your own words every once in a while, for crying out loud.

    • You set the low standards for us all.

  32. Why would a company hire a sitting MP?
    What possible benefit could a person with a full time job, be to the hiring company?

    Why would a sitting MP, with a full time well paid job, with exceptional benefits and pension, look for outside work after being elected?

    • Yeah I don't see anything really wrong with it. Christine Eliott (Mr. Flaherty's wife) is an MPP and still a member of her and her husband's law firm.
      Its pretty standard.

      Now Senators still being allowed to be members of corporate boards, that's more than a little bit sketchy.

      • Sir John A never gave up his practice either.

    • It's a prestige thing for the Law firm and a convenience for the MP to maintain his professional credentials. I have no data in front of me but I think it happens quite a lot. I believe that many MPs maintain a professional designation while serving as elected officials. Doctors, Lawyers and other professionals are fairly common in politics.

      Elected politicians don't have long-term job security. They need to think about their futures too.

      • Your pretty much on the ball with this. What is more shocking is that so many people seemed to be oblivious to this up until now.

  33. "Culture of Deceit" TM LPC 1993-2010. I'm just guessing but i don't think was the kind of "branding" the OLO braintrust had in mind :).

  34. That's a good little boy. Do you shine shoes, too?

    • Only on Tuesdays.

  35. [cont]
    With Lee by contrast, every step of the way he has told the Ethics and Lobby commissioners what he was doing. Here we have the government trying to claim that Lee was lobbying them. Either he was and the government, being the ones to raise the charges, should tell us who or he wasn't and they've disgracefully slandered a decent respectable MP.

    In both cases, the Conservatives have the information to clarify whether there was lobbying.

  36. "Are you telling me that Lee never, ever reviewed his profile on the law firm website? "

    No, they're telling us we are the most gullible of gullibles.

  37. Can not see how Lee on committee for regulations is not an obvious conflict.
    The Opps have a majority on everything,
    and definitely can vote down or influence .

    “Why would the Liberal leader put a man who advertised himself as a paid lobbyist, who could have regulations changed for foreign interests … on the standing committee for the scrutiny of regulations?”
    “Is that not putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?”

    • Hi wilson.

      Still waiting for some proof he ever actually lobbied anyone in the government. SInce you are so close to them, maybe you could ask them to produce said proof?

      Or was your point to simply muddy the water with scurilous, unproven, unprovable allegations…

  38. this was for Gail

    • Then I suggest you learn how to spell.