jdobbin Posted November 2, 2008 Report Posted November 2, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home OTTAWA — The expanded federal cabinet presented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper could cost taxpayers an additional $3.9-million in salaries alone for the extra ministers and their staff.The total cost of staffing ministerial offices — roughly $24.2-million in salaries — has increased 19 per cent with last week's shuffle, and has jumped 42 per cent since the Tories presented their first cabinet in 2006. Opposition parties have called the addition of six new cabinet spots a strange message for the government to be sending in a time of economic belt-tightening. The Conservatives had 26 ministers in their initial 2006 cabinet, expanded that to 31 ministers over their first term in office, and now have 37 ministers following the latest shuffle. Harper should have dropped Lunn and Ritz. He shouldn't have added ministries for Democratic Reform. What will that minister's job be? To find warm bodies to appoint to the Senate? Quote
Smallc Posted November 2, 2008 Report Posted November 2, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/homeHarper should have dropped Lunn and Ritz. He shouldn't have added ministries for Democratic Reform. What will that minister's job be? To find warm bodies to appoint to the Senate? As Liberals, we are hardly in a position to critique cabinet size. The Minister for Democratic Reform will most likely have to consider where elections will work and where appointments are needed for the senate. How will the elections work? Should different electoral systems be considered for this? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 As Liberals, we are hardly in a position to critique cabinet size. The Minister for Democratic Reform will most likely have to consider where elections will work and where appointments are needed for the senate. How will the elections work? Should different electoral systems be considered for this? Don't worry jdobbin is just fishing for another chance to say that our PM will call an election as soon as he delivers his throne speech... This is jdobbins fantasy... Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
jdobbin Posted November 3, 2008 Author Report Posted November 3, 2008 Don't worry jdobbin is just fishing for another chance to say that our PM will call an election as soon as he delivers his throne speech... This is jdobbins fantasy... The timer is on. Harper's agenda is an election before the leadership campaign is done. Harper will say Parliament is dysfunctional in the next two weeks. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 3, 2008 Author Report Posted November 3, 2008 As Liberals, we are hardly in a position to critique cabinet size. Actually, since I have said many times that the Liberals had too big a cabinet and that I agreed with the Tories that it should be reduced, I feel I can criticize the size of the cabinet now. The Minister for Democratic Reform will most likely have to consider where elections will work and where appointments are needed for the senate. How will the elections work? Should different electoral systems be considered for this? Even Alberta's elected Senator says that elections cannot be forced on Ontario and Quebec. They can't. It is unconstitutionality and Harper knows he has hit a roadblock. You would have to show me what was actually done by the Democratic Reform minister that it actually warranted a separate job from the Government Leader. Quote
Smallc Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 (edited) Actually, since I have said many times that the Liberals had too big a cabinet and that I agreed with the Tories that it should be reduced, I feel I can criticize the size of the cabinet now. I have no problem with a large cabinet. The core ministry is only a small amount larger than that of the UK, and we are a very unique and diverse country. Many believe, and perhaps rightly so, that the diversity should be reflected in the cabinet. Even Alberta's elected Senator says that elections cannot be forced on Ontario and Quebec. They can't. It is unconstitutionality and Harper knows he has hit a roadblock.You would have to show me what was actually done by the Democratic Reform minister that it actually warranted a separate job from the Government Leader. I never said that he would force elections on anyone. He would be tasked with determining where appointments are appropriate and where elections are appropriate based on the wishes of the province. Then there is the decision over how the elections will be carried out, when, and under whose authority when it is found that elections are appropriate. What the position really does though, is make it seem as if they are serious about this whole thing. Edited November 3, 2008 by Smallc Quote
jdobbin Posted November 3, 2008 Author Report Posted November 3, 2008 I have no problem with a large cabinet. The core ministry is only a small amount larger than that of the UK, and we are a very unique and diverse country. Many believe, and perhaps rightly so, that the diversity should be reflected in the cabinet. I see a large cabinet as a recipe for spending too much. I'd rather have strong committees. I never said that he would force elections on anyone. He would be tasked with determining where appointments are appropriate and where elections are appropriate based on the wishes of the province. Then there is the decision over how the elections will be carried out, when, and under whose authority when it is found that elections are appropriate. What the position really does though, is make it seem as if they are serious about this whole thing. They had this position in the last government. It was part of the Government Leader's mandate. Separating it is a make work project and likely going to cost a lot of money. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 (edited) A Minister for Democratic Reform is a great idea in theory. Hopefully, in practice, the office of democratic reform can actually accomplish something. Everyone has been kicking around ideas for a couple decades now--Alberta (or was it Sask, or both?) electing senators hoping to have them appointed, the Conservatives trying to pass an elected Senate bill, a few provinces having votes on electoral reform, etc--but there has been little progress. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to see progress from that department. If it sits there eating up taxpayers dollars and doing nothing towards introducing reform, then it will be a pointless exercise in political self-gratification. Edited November 3, 2008 by cybercoma Quote
madmax Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 I see a large cabinet as a recipe for spending too much. I agree with you. Harper is for Big Government, Big Spending. Hilltimes.... Expanded Cabinet boosts spending and office budgets SUPERSIZE ME http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f.../31/204221.aspx Don Martin: Harper keeps everyone occupied with supersized cabinet Harper shows his weakness...... http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f.../31/204221.aspx He couldn’t fire even the weakest member, so the Prime Minister enlarged his cabinet by ten per cent to find room for newcomers Where did he get his advice? Brian Mulroney??? Jdobbin, you.... Liberal Partisan that you are...... are pitching lobb balls. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 The best appointment is Leona Aglukkaq to Health. Although the Department overall is a waste of money seeing as how Health is a provincial responsibility, it is tasked with First Nations health care. Since that community faces enormous health issues, this is an appropriate posting. I'd rather see her in DIAND though. Quote The government should do something.
noahbody Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 I see a large cabinet as a recipe for spending too much. I'd rather have strong committees. Committees are the recipe for accomplishing little or nothing. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 3, 2008 Author Report Posted November 3, 2008 Committees are the recipe for accomplishing little or nothing. And yet Harper said they were important when he was out of office as a measure of oversight on government operations and spending. Quote
Smallc Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 Although the Department overall is a waste of money seeing as how Health is a provincial responsibility, National Health regulation though, is a Federal responsibility. Quote
madmax Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 Harper should have dropped Lunn and Ritz. These two under performers belong on the backbenches chicken-nodding for their supper. Ritz is so popular in his own riding, their is no reason to inflict him upon the rest of Canada. His seat is safe and he isn't a shining bright light. Why keep an incompetent around? Does Harper like embarrassment? Lunn... well who knows, there must be something in the water in BC. BC is scandal ridden and it appears that the Police aren't too into Political Scandals. Just another day in Politics to them. Investigage if Lunn was involved in the telemarketing scam and that should be it....... Harper likes big government and is comfortable with his poor quality choices. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 National Health regulation though, is a Federal responsibility. You think that is worth $3 billion + per year? Federal involvement is limited to enforcement of the Canada Health Act, " the Canada Health Act provides national guidelines for healthcare, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health under the constitution" $3 billion + per annum......... Quote The government should do something.
Smallc Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 You think that is worth $3 billion + per year?Federal involvement is limited to enforcement of the Canada Health Act, " the Canada Health Act provides national guidelines for healthcare, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health under the constitution" $3 billion + per annum......... There has to be a reason for it. I don't know all the details, so I'm not about to question the expenditures. Quote
noahbody Posted November 3, 2008 Report Posted November 3, 2008 (edited) And yet Harper said they were important when he was out of office as a measure of oversight on government operations and spending. Oversight maybe. But I'm sure Harper would agree that committee is where good policy goes to die. Edited November 3, 2008 by noahbody Quote
jdobbin Posted November 4, 2008 Author Report Posted November 4, 2008 Oversight maybe. But I'm sure Harper would agree that committee is where good policy goes to die. Hardly the attitude to take for someone who has created a Democratic Reform ministry. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 4, 2008 Author Report Posted November 4, 2008 Federal involvement is limited to enforcement of the Canada Health Act, "$3 billion + per annum......... That enforcement involves removing that funding support in there are violation of the Act. Quote
William Ashley Posted November 4, 2008 Report Posted November 4, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/homeHarper should have dropped Lunn and Ritz. He shouldn't have added ministries for Democratic Reform. What will that minister's job be? To find warm bodies to appoint to the Senate? If they are doing less work why don't they get paid less? Quote I was here.
jdobbin Posted November 4, 2008 Author Report Posted November 4, 2008 If they are doing less work why don't they get paid less? Do you mean ministers? They all get the same pay. Quote
Smallc Posted November 4, 2008 Report Posted November 4, 2008 Do you mean ministers? They all get the same pay. Do Ministers of State get the same pay as full Ministers? Quote
jdobbin Posted November 4, 2008 Author Report Posted November 4, 2008 Do Ministers of State get the same pay as full Ministers? They all get the same pay. No difference. Quote
madmax Posted November 4, 2008 Report Posted November 4, 2008 They all get the same pay. No difference. MY BIG FAT BLOATED CPC CABINET Quote
fellowtraveller Posted November 4, 2008 Report Posted November 4, 2008 There has to be a reason for it. I don't know all the details, so I'm not about to question the expenditures. So you don't know anything about what they do, but it must be good..... Do you happen to own a Montreal ad agency by any chance? Quote The government should do something.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.