Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford alleged the Conservative Party needed to shore up its ethics as it held its convention last weekend in Quebec City..Peckford tackled a few issues in a succession of posts on his blog. .“I have written the Leader of the Conservative Party asking him to have his party endorse an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act to disallow any MP from serving in the House of Commons if found in violation of the act by the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner,” Peckford wrote on September 8..The former premier said Pierre Poilievre did not respond and the convention revealed why. The very same thing was proposed in Submission 1005 at the recent party convention. .The convention proposed a "’three strikes’ rule…with extremely cost prohibitive fines for first offence, double for a second and disqualifications of the member from all public and lobbying positions for life for a third. Ministers will be subject to increased penalties commensurate with their offence and inherent responsibilities.”.It has not been made public whether the resolution passed or not. As the Montreal Gazette reported, “A party spokesperson indicated the list of defeated resolutions will not be revealed publicly, so journalists will have to go through the process of elimination in relation to the list of resolutions that was submitted at the start of the congress on Thursday.”.The Western Standard did not hear back from the party before publication on whether the resolution passed..Peckford said the party rejected a “step forward” on September 9 when it rejected a resolution to prevent lobbyists from seeking a national council position. .“Swamp wins!” he wrote..“There are at least five lobbyists running for national council. Three come from the same firm,” read the opening sentence of the website nolobbyistsoncouncil.ca while it was still active..The resolution was sponsored by the Electoral District Association (EDA) in Vancouver Centre and co-sponsored by another 14 EDAs, mostly from the West, but was voted down..Peckford thought a proposal to defund the CBC was too “vague and ambiguous” and was only a “belief” that lacked “detail” and “rationale.”.It read, “We believe that the control and operations of the CBC/SRC as an entity should be accomplished through independent, non-governmental funding.”.The resolution was voted down, however. According to the Montreal Gazette, “Poilievre’s entourage also manouvered against the resolution,” because he only wants CBC English defunded..Senator Claude Carignan told the Gazette, “Several members of the caucus clearly expressed their opinion to the delegates that it was a firm commitment on the part of the leader not to touch Radio-Canada and they were recommended to vote against.”.The CPC’s final sin was one of omission, in Peckford’s view: a failure to amend the Emergencies Act so that the government is not put in charge of investigating itself during a public inquiry after the fact..“This is blatant conflict of interest. Government given the power to examine itself,” Peckford wrote..“This silence, this mistake of omission, places this party in the same dishonest and unethical position as the government they accuse of dishonesty and unethical behaviour..And this does not even include the other unconstitutional actions of freezing of citizens’ bank accounts, restricting the right of travel, association, assembly, the lack of accountability of those who imposed and supported lockdowns and mandates.”.The timing was especially bad in Peckford’s eyes. .“Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are before the courts while many in government are free from accountability,” he wrote.
