Conservatives continue to cut ACOA while keeping political appointee on salary
I asked the following
question today (Oct. 17th, 2012) in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker,
The
Conservatives continue to cut ACOA while keeping a political appointee on
salary. The Public Service Commission ruled against Kevin MacAdam's
appointment, the appointment of the Minister of National Defence's buddy. Now
the Conservatives' only defence is to quote from court documents filed by Mr.
MacAdam himself.
If the Conservatives are so confident that the Public Service Commission report backs up their claims, why do they not release the report in full?
Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
If the Conservatives are so confident that the Public Service Commission report backs up their claims, why do they not release the report in full?
Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker,
The answer
is pretty simple. This is not a political issue. The public court records—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order,
please.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade has the floor.
Keddy: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade has the floor.
Mr. Speaker,
I am always surprised that they do not want to hear the answer because the answer
is the same every time.
The public court records state that the commissioner found problems with the way the public service ran its hiring process. However, they did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff. The matter is now before the courts. Why is that not good enough for the hon. member?
The public court records state that the commissioner found problems with the way the public service ran its hiring process. However, they did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff. The matter is now before the courts. Why is that not good enough for the hon. member?
Comments