Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nothing like installing corruption for after you get your butt kicked out for corruption.


Tim


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/23/liberals-tory-appoin...

Liberals 'Assessing' Whether They Can Remove Tory Appointments


Posted: 11/23/2015 8:05 pm EST Updated: 11/23/2015 8:59 pm EST

OTTAWA — The Liberal government is looking into whether it can rescind dozens of appointments that were quietly made last June in the dying days of the Conservative government, The Huffington Post Canada has learned.

The Prime Minister’s Office is “assessing the situation” and trying to determine if it can get out of several Conservative decisions, such as stacking the National Energy Board with Tories whose appointments kicked in only after the federal election.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tim,

Accusations of corruption are unhelpful hyperbole. I would encourage you to peruse the list of appointments and examine the dates when the appointments take effect. My quick reading was that about half take effect before or during November 2015, which means the previous government effectively faced the choice of leaving those jobs vacant until a new Cabinet could get around to dealing with appointments or to announce appointments prior to the election. Assuming that those jobs are actually somewhat important, the better option might have been to fill them.

The other half is less clear whether there was an operational reason for having taken the decision early.

Again, I would encourage you to peruse the list and arrive at your own opinion.


SJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Again, I would encourage you to peruse the list and arrive at your own opinion.


SJ


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/harpers-cont...


The former PM granted 49 contract extensions, an iPolitics review found — some of them long before they were due to expire, some of them at government agencies and Crown corporations that were mired in controversy during his tenure.

So explain the ones that weren't due and try to avoid the paternalistic tone while doing so?

Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So explain the ones that weren't due and try to avoid the paternalistic tone while doing so?


I will cease the paternalistic tone when you cease your use of name-calling and negative hyperbole as your principal interaction in these threads. We've already had this discussion in the past. Address the issues using your own analysis and evaluate them based on their merits.

So, the article that you've linked to makes reference to 49 appointments that were made during what was probably one of the final Cabinet meetings prior to calling the election. Any government that is intending to call an election does so under the understanding that their ministers will be on the campaign trail and that cabinet business will necessarily decline to the bare minimum required to keep the country/province operational during the election period. They also go into an election with the (naive?) optimism that they will win and with the expectation that they will aggressively pursue their platform for the first 100 days following their victory. There is no newly elected or re-elected government that has much time to devote to anything other than the key promises they made during the campaign. Minor issues like appointments fall off the table for quite some time. With that context in mind, you pretty much need to take care of any appointment that needs to be made from just before the election date until about three months after. And in fact, most of the 49 appointments would fall into that period (examine the actual list at http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made... ). It is entirely possible that some of those positions are not mission-critical and could have waited until 2016 to be filled by a new government, but likely most of them are somewhat important roles and should not be left vacant for an extended period.

When you peruse the list of the 49 appointments, it is true that you will see two of the appointments that do not take effect until June 2016 and one in April 2016. These two appointment are curious, and one might question whether these decisions could have been deferred into early 2016 once a new government was firmly established. Interestingly, the appointments which take effect next June are directors of two federal museums, so I would hope that the people appointed to these positions are selected more for expertise than for political connections. The appointment that takes effect in April 2016 is for the National Farm Products Council and that appointment was actually made in November 2014 (talk about some lead-time!)! The whopper is that there is one appointment that is not effective until January 2019 for the Transportation Appeal Tribunal (now there's a sexy job, and they sure are planning ahead!).

A more balanced headline would have been, "Harper government made 6 appointments which took effect before a new Cabinet could possibly be formed, 15 appointments that take/took effect during November slightly after a new cabinet could be sworn in, 15 appointments which take effect in December while a new cabinet is just getting its feet wet and 13 appointments later." But for a muck-raking journalist, that's not a particularly sexy headline. The whole thing deflates when you distil it down to a few bizarre appointments that will take effect in late 2016 plus the one in 2019. And, who knows? There might actually be a valid reason for the lead-time in those few circumstances.

Or else we can just read the headline from the muck-raking journalist, cast it through our partisan lens and make shrill declarations about corruption.

So Tim, you should most certainly have a view on how the government is managed, but analyse each issue with some degree of objectivity before calling into question the integrity of a government. Irrespective of which party is in power, in Canada we mostly get good government, and true examples of corruption are thankfully an unusual occurrence. We might frequently disagree with a public policy initiative (and each initiative should be evaluated on its individual merits) but reserve the accusations of dishonesty and corruption for situations that actually merit that sort of language.


SJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
and true examples of corruption are thankfully an unusual occurrence.

Mulroney and the envelop full of cash, Duffy (which was far more egregious than most realize as he got his appointment for using his press job to sabotage Dion), a host of Senators (Including one I know, I went to his daughter's wedding, he decided to retire when the Senate scandal blew up) Brazeau, muzzled scientists, Keystone "No Brainer", something foreign leaders never tell the US president, civil servants used for campaign work, .... I don't have times to list them all.

Losing sucks and emptying the coffers with tax cuts to ensure your successor can't do anything is apparently a time honoured tradition for the Cons. Years of political attack ads and taxpayer funded "we done good" ads before there was an election backfired but they will probably do it again next time we let them out of the woods.


Tim

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-says-he-left-de...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One more if interested that ended the love affair, it just took 9 years for others to catch on.


http://www.caiti.info/lies.php

Lie. Conceal. Fabricate.
Stephen Harper's $35 Billion Income Trust Scandal
Stephen Harper made a solemn election pledge to never tax Income Trusts. He lied, and in the process destroyed $35 billion in Canadians' and foreign investors' hard-earned savings. Harper's excuse was that income trusts cause tax leakage. His Finance Minister refuses to release proof of tax leakage because there is no proof. What is Harper's real hidden agenda and who is it that actually benefits? Answer: corporate Canada, Life Insurance companies, foreign private equity, big pension plans and US oil.


I recall very well that when Goodall suggested the possibility the screaming from the Cons on this and Canada Gen but when the Harper government lied then went ahead with it ... that was ok and had to be done, no bias there was there?

This is a political board, if you want to start an issues board go ahead, it will probably be deader than this one.

Tim <has a very long memory>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Mulroney and the envelop full of cash, Duffy (which was far more egregious than most realize as he got his appointment for using his press job to sabotage Dion), a host of Senators (Including one I know, I went to his daughter's wedding, he decided to retire when the Senate scandal blew up) Brazeau, muzzled scientists, Keystone "No Brainer", something foreign leaders never tell the US president, civil servants used for campaign work, .... I don't have times to list them all.

Losing sucks and emptying the coffers with tax cuts to ensure your successor can't do anything is apparently a time honoured tradition for the Cons. Years of political attack ads and taxpayer funded "we done good" ads before there was an election backfired but they will probably do it again next time we let them out of the woods.



Tim,

Now you are mixing together a few examples of corruption with a few examples where you disagree (perhaps rightly) with decisions or behaviours. So:

Corruption:

1) Mulroney and the manilla envelopes: he wasn't convicted, but it certainly smells bad
2) The senators Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau and Harb: smells pretty bad


Things that are not corruption, but that you disagree with:

1) Ineffective bilateral engagement with the US at the head of government level (ie, it's a no-brainer)
2) Selective designation of official spokespersons for the government (ie, muzzling of scientists)
3) Government advertising of the economic action plan
4) Attack ads funded by political parties


There's a pretty significant difference between the first category where it is possible that some people may have been lining their pockets and the second category where nobody is lining their pockets, but not everyone would agree with the decisions that were made or actions that were taken.

But, it is noteworthy that the first example of corruption that you proposed dates from the early 1990s and the second dates from more than 20 years later. As I suggested up-thread, we are fortunate to generally get good government in Canada and these types events are unusual. Many countries would be happy to have a national government where there's only a significant event of corruption every 10 years (I say every 10 years because in between Mulroney and the senators was the Gomery thing....).

My observation is that most of the corruption that I've seen tends to occur at the municipal level of government where politicians sometimes get in bed with real estate developers. Thankfully, the worst examples of this seem to be in Quebec (ie, the Charbonneau Commission). There probably is a fair bit of this in the other provinces too. In comparison to the municipalities, the provincial and federal governments are squeaky clean.



SJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Lie. Conceal. Fabricate.
Stephen Harper's $35 Billion Income Trust Scandal
Stephen Harper made a solemn election pledge to never tax Income Trusts. He lied, and in the process destroyed $35 billion in Canadians' and foreign investors' hard-earned savings. Harper's excuse was that income trusts cause tax leakage. His Finance Minister refuses to release proof of tax leakage because there is no proof. What is Harper's real hidden agenda and who is it that actually benefits? Answer: corporate Canada, Life Insurance companies, foreign private equity, big pension plans and US oil.



Okay Tim, so now you have identified a broken election promise. Just call a spade a spade.

Politicians make all sorts of promises during election campaigns, some of them wise and some unwise. Some realistic and some unrealistic. That's the nature of the beast.

What is troublesome for opposition parties in particular is that they often end up making promises which are based on incomplete information because they do not have the same access to briefings from the army of public servants that make provincial and federal governments function. Once elected, a new cabinet finally has access to reams of analysis and advice from the public service and the feasibility (and desirability) of their election promises becomes more apparent.

When an unwise election promise is made and subsequent briefings result in the conclusion that the proposal/promise would be bad for the province/Canada, what should a premier/PM do? Should he just soldier onward and pursue a program which is bad for citizens? Or should he reflect a little bit and change course?

In 1993, Chretien promised to scrap the GST and renegotiate NAFTA. Happily, when he was finally won the election he dropped those promises. I hope that he dropped those proposals as a result of briefings from the Finance Department and from External Affairs respectively. I'm pretty sure that officials from those branches would advise against that course of action and outline the adverse consequence that would ensue if the government actually implemented that plan.

Similarly, the current PM seems to be re-thinking the timing of his commitment to bring in Syrian refugees. If he has adjusted his thinking based on advice from External Affairs, then we should be happy that he has the courage to deviate from his promise.


This is a political board, if you want to start an issues board go ahead, it will probably be deader than this one.


It *is* a political board. But that doesn't mean that the discourse shouldn't be elevated above the lowest common denominator of name-calling and rabid partisanship. Interestingly enough, rabid partisanship and blind character assassination is exactly the type of behaviour that is often attributed to the previous government (perhaps correctly) and which you have professed to dislike.


SJ
Print the post Back To Top