Threats to delay accountability act 'intolerable,' Harper says

Liberal threats to delay passage of the proposed accountability act are "offensive" because the legislation is largely in response to their unethical actions while in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

Speaking in Toronto, Harper said Liberal members of Parliament have been "particularly vicious" in their criticisms of the bill, which the Tories say will make government more transparent.

He said they've been all over the map in their critiques, either complaining the act does too much or doesn't do enough.

Harper also targeted the Liberal-dominated Senate, charging that "unelected political appointees" are considering blocking legislation to make Parliament more accountable.

(And here's the photo that accompanies this article...)


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/21/harper-accountability060421.html

I keep hearing that Harper and the Conservatives have gained in the polls....I find that hard to believe, if people are really paying attention. :puke:

Thanks.

has gained in the polls since the election.

Wot an expert.

He also looks a little like a frilled lizard.

You mean like Michael Fortier, Harper you asswipe?!

in yesterday's debates:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/009_2006-04-25/HAN009-E.htm

<translation>Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me for being flabbergasted. I imagine that many of my Bloc colleagues are as well. I am going to question the member for Mégantic—L'Érable on this point.

It is caused, in part, by the terminology he has chosen. He has obviously used his party’s slogan and said that his government would keep its promises, that it would solve the problem of cynicism and that it would restore trust.

My question is about the transparency and accountability the government talks about. One of the first things the Conservative Prime Minister did was to appoint a minister who had not been elected. That person cannot, therefore, be accountable for his department in this House. This seems to me to be the height of inconsistency.

With respect to the terminology he used, I would very much like the member to explain to me how that is consistent. To the majority of people who heard that decision, this is total inconsistency coming from a government that calls itself transparent and that wants to hold people accountable.

I am the Bloc Québécois critic for public works and government services. I will never see the minister in this House. How can you explain this, from a government that advocates transparency and accountability?

Duh, eh?