Saturday, January 20, 2007

Apples And Oranges

Maclean's has an story which tries to equate two Martin "special advisors" with Khan's role. Titled, "Liberals throw stones in Khan affair while living in glass house", the gist of the argument:
Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day's work after being appointed a special adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin.

At the same time, Martin named MP Sophia Leung as a special adviser on international trade and emerging markets.

Leung said she was never paid either but did provide verbal advice on "a free, informal basis." She accompanied Martin on a trade mission to China but paid her own travel and other expenses.

"Mine was sort of an honourary appointment. It was not a paid job," she said in an interview.

Liberals counter that Assadourian and Leung were never sent on taxpayer-funded fact-finding tours and neither ever promised to produce a public report.

I could care less who Paul Martin named as "advisors", what matters is the public trust. It would appear that Leung paid her own way on government business and Assadourian received nothing for his services. Canadian taxpayers have no interest in these people, because they are irrelevant. Okay, these people did nothing, but were paid accordingly; I'm fine with that outcome.

To try and compare those Martin appointments with Khan is intellectually dishonest. Khan has spent public money, the Prime Minister has stated a report was filed. This reality begs certain questions, based on legitimate concerns about accountability. Khan is "working" for the government, and as such his dealings are subject to public scrutiny. There is no "glass house", as the article suggests, because frankly the discussions aren't even in the same neighborhood.


Anonymous said...

"It would appear that Leung paid her own way on government business"

Why would she pay her own way? It sounds weird to me, unless she has some business interests of her own going on in private life. Does anyone know? So, in what capacity, then, was she making this trip with the government?

As for Khan, I don't know what information he might be able to provide, but he is an MP, and he wasn't paid in those kind of terms, but had his expenses covered...triffling difference, perhaps..but just saying...

wilson said...

Martin offered advisory positions to the 2 MPs so as to parachute in Ruby & Emerson (from the article)
''Asked if he regrets accepting Martin's job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: "I regret knowing him as a person."

What ever it takes Liberals to win, lie to your own ethnic MPs, lie to Canadians about advisories.
Public trust.
I, Jane Public, trust that Liberals will say anything to win. (and then do nothing afterwards)

Anonymous said...

The Assadourian case seems to be mildly intriguing -- an unfulfilled promise that was replaced with a judge-ship.
But Steve is correct, neither of these were paid to do a job or finish a report, mind you the short-term lifespan of the Martin government may have played a role, too.
But its amazing how a little screaming by the Cons can draw a crowd. Khan's report was suppose to be on behalf of the House of Commons, to be shared with all members. While its been reported that he attended meetings and talked with various officials, we have no idea whether these were major meetings or quick handshake opportunities that Harpor wishes now he had assigned his personal photographer to. That Harpor is refusing to share the report from his used car salesman is the main pickle, I think.
But WilsonL7 should keep mentioning the Dalla and Emersin comparison -- it only allows us to bring up the Riddell-Cutler comparison. It just brings to the surface another example of the slippery slime of a PM you've put your godly trust in. Don't forget to show up in court, you lying sacks of ...!