So far, coverage of Peter MacKay's three-and-a-half-year long conflict of interest and ethics violation has at best hinted at what looks to me to be a significant part of the story.
MacKay's excuse for failing to disclose his involvement in his father's businesses is that he had flat-out forgotten that he was involved with them. But doesn't that mean he's admitting that he's been utterly negligent as a vice-president and director who would have owed the businesses a duty to look out for their interests? And is that really the profile of somebody who deserves to hold responsibility for a cabinet portfolio?
No comments:
Post a Comment