Saturday, November 14, 2009

Con MPs Dykstra and Raitt to go in front of Ethics Commissioner

Just in case some of you think that this Veteran offender Rick Dykstra is a gift to mankind, have a little gander at this release by Democracy Watch. As for Raitt? We already knew her moral compass disappeared the day she was elected.

Some of the highlights:

Democracy Watch also confirmed with the same staffperson that the rental cost for a Luxury Suite, which holds 20 people, is minimum $3,500, and for a Double Box (which holds 40 people) is minimum $4,500, and for the Executive Lounge (which holds 80 people) is minimum $6,500. Therefore, given that Rick Dykstra invited 60 people to his fundraising event in the Owner's Box, by its own rental rates (which clearly establish the market value of renting boxes at the Rogers Centre), Rogers should have charged Mr. Dykstra minimum $5,500 to rent the Owner's Box.

In addition, neither Rogers nor Mr. Dykstra have provided information concerning the cost, and amount paid (if any), for the other perk offered to attendees of the event, namely attending batting practice before the baseball game between the Blue Jays and the New York Yankees (who are now leading in the Major League Baseball World Championship Series) that was held the day of the event, and meeting members of the Blue Jays team.

As for Raitt?

The new information concerning the fundraising event for Minister Raitt is that she recused herself on October 9, 2009 under the Conflict of Interest Act from dealing with any matters concerning the Cement Association of Canada or its registered lobbyist Michael McSweeney (who played a significant role in the holding of the fundraising event for Minister Raitt).

By recusing herself, Minister Raitt has essentially admitted that the services provided to her by Mr. McSweeney are a prohibited “gift” under the Conflict of Interest Act (and, it is Democracy Watch’s opinion, also under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (MPs Code)) because the services could “reasonably could be seen to influence” Minister Raitt’s decisions and create a private interest that puts her in a conflict of interest.


No comments: