Loan from unions ok for NDP’s Pat Martin – crime for Mike Duffy

pat martin

I would honestly like someone to explain to me the difference between what Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright did compared to NDP MP Pat Martin getting the green light from the Ethics Commission to have Canada’s unions pay-off his slander lawsuit:

New Democrat MP Pat Martin accepted a personal loan from the NDP and numerous donations from labour unions to help pay down debt incurred in a defamation lawsuit over the robocalls case.

Documents filed with the federal ethics commissioner by the Manitoba MP earlier this month show he accepted contributions to a legal defence fund from the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and 14 other unions or locals.

The donations are being used the repay a loan Martin received from the New Democratic Party of Canada to settle the legal case. (see here)

So either the ethic laws governing MPs are a joke or Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is incompetent.

Update: The amounts that the NDP and unions gave Martin is a secret

The federal ethics commissioner has posted a list of 24 donors who made gifts of more than $500 to Martin’s legal defence fund — almost exclusively unions, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the United Steelworkers.

None of those unions answered QMI Agency’s questions about how much they gave Martin or why they decided to kick in possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of dues extracted from workers.

Martin’s filings with the ethics commissioner don’t include a value for the gifts either, and a spokeswoman for Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson says that’s just the way it is.

“There is no obligation to include the amount given,” said Jocelyn Brisebois (see here)

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Loan from unions ok for NDP’s Pat Martin – crime for Mike Duffy”

  1. Guffman Says:

    What kind of country are we living in?? One law for conservatives and another entirely for any other political party?
    Mary Dawson is proving herself to be corrupt in applying these two completely different ethical standards and rulings.
    So much for an “Ethics Commissioner”… disgraceful!!!

  2. Krysta Meekins (@WhseGrl) Says:

    Wow, just wow. To me, there is a huge difference – Nigel Wright freely gave his own personal money to help a friend. No harm, as I can see it.

    The Unions, however, took money forcibly from their members, many of whom do not vote NDP, in the form of dues right off their paycheques to pay for a partisan Politician’s offence.

    I can’t see how this was allowed. But frankly, I can’t even see how forced membership in unions is allowed either..

    • BC Blue Says:

      Martin’s defence is that he’s so deep in the back pocket of the unions already, he couldn’t be bribed any further

    • Alain Says:

      You are spot on in that there is a big difference, and the difference is as you state. I would also add that unions buying politicians, Dewar in this case, smacks of base corruption; again very different than a friend lending another friend money. What stinks to high heaven, worse than rotten fish, is EC.

  3. beachdude Says:

    Classic NDP, scream about others then quiet about their own actions. I can see Mr. Martin in the witness protection program today with regards of interview requests

  4. ianinamman Says:

    Dawson is incompetent or a closet lefty.

  5. Liz J Says:

    I think PM Harper is batting zero with his appointments from the Senate on through. That aside, I can’t understand why Pat Martin hasn’t been asked to resign, he’s just not a nice person to called an “honourable ” member of Parliament. If he were Conservative there would be constant demands he resign.

  6. Michael Harkov Says:

    LOL At least this is a loan for Martin, bad as it is. The unions GAVE Trudeau money. For speaking.

  7. Stan Says:

    So can I buy myself a politician if I just call the payoff a gift?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: