Appointments: Merit-based or Patronage?

[robert_viera]

Here are some of the latest appointments by our Conservative government:

2009-2036 2009-12-11

HRSD

Employment Insurance Act

Appointment of GILLES DOUCET of Québec, Quebec, to be Chairperson of the Boards of Referees for the Quebec Regional Division, and particularly for the District of Ste-Foy, for a term of three years.

Mr. Doucet is the CEO of the Conservative riding association in the riding of Conservative MP Daniel Petit.

2009-2038 2009-12-11

HRSD

Canada Pension Plan

Appointment of JAYNE MARGARET CLARIDGE of Callander, Ontario, to be a member of the Review Tribunal for the region of North Bay for a term of three years.

F. Brad Claridge is the financial agent for the Conservative riding association in Nipissing-Timiskaming. Brad and Jayne each gave $400 to the riding association in 2007 and Brad gave $250 to the riding association in 2008.

2009-2040 2009-12-11

FIN

Bank of Canada Act

Approval of the re-appointment by the Minister of Finance of DAVID H. LAIDLEY of Westmount, Quebec, as a director of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada to hold office during good behaviour for a term ending February 28, 2013, effective March 1, 2010.

Mr. Laidley gave $1,000 to the CPC in 2008.

2009-2035 2009-12-11

INDUSTRY

Business Development Bank of Canada Act

Approval of the reappointment by the Minister of Industry of JEAN MARTEL of L'Île-Bizard, Quebec, as a director of the Board of Directors of the Business Development Bank of Canada to hold office during pleasure for a term of four years.

Mr. Martel gave $500 to the CPC in 2008.

Someone seems to have dropped the ball on this next one:

2009-2031 2009-12-11

DFAIT

Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act

Re-appointment of CAROL ANNE LEE of Vancouver, British Columbia, as a director of the Board of Directors of the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada to hold office during pleasure for a term of three years.

Ms. Lee apparently gave $1,100 to the LPC in 2009.

The Conservatives say that their appointments are merit-based and not patronage. Do you agree?

Edited December 16, 2009 by robert_viera

[M.Dancer]

The Conservatives say that their appointments are merit-based and not patronage. Do you agree?

People in that snack bracket often give to both, if not all parties. Do you have any info on all their disbursements?

[Hydraboss]

Robert, I see only that you're trying to equate political donations to political appointments.

If I can become "a director of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada" for a donation of a mere $1000, count me in. Does anyone seriously believe that you can buy a position like this for a grand without considering that the guy might actually be qualified for the position?

Bank of Canada

[robert_viera]

People in that snack bracket often give to both, if not all parties. Do you have any info on all their disbursements?

I checked and did find that Mr. Laidley gave $1,100 for Bob Rae's leadership campaign in December 2008. He also gave another $1,000 to the CPC in 2007. I couldn't find any other donations for the rest.

[M.Dancer]

I checked and did find that Mr. Laidley gave $1,100 for Bob Rae's leadership campaign in December 2008. He also gave another $1,000 to the CPC in 2007. I couldn't find any other donations for the rest.

So in other words, this one fellow, his measly 1 grand is a non factor....especially given he gave 10% more to the nest leader of the Liberal Party

[robert_viera]

Robert, I see only that you're trying to equate political donations to political appointments.

If I can become "a director of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada" for a donation of a mere $1000, count me in. Does anyone seriously believe that you can buy a position like this for a grand without considering that the guy might actually be qualified for the position?

Bank of Canada

I didn't say that 'donations = appointments'. Two of the appointees can be associated with the CPC even without the information about the donations. I didn't say these people aren't qualified either, but if you have multiple qualified people and one is connected to the ruling party, who do you think is going to get the appointment?

[robert_viera]

So in other words, this one fellow, his measly 1 grand is a non factor....especially given he gave 10% more to the nest leader of the Liberal Party

No. $1,000 + $1,000 = $2,000. He gave 82% more to the CPC, than to Bob Rae.

Edited December 16, 2009 by robert_viera

[M.Dancer]

No. $1,000 + $1,000 = $2,000. He gave 82% more to the CPC, than to Bob Rae.

No he gave the CPC $1000 in 08 and Rae $1,100 in 08...

[robert_viera]

No he gave the CPC $1000 in 08 and Rae $1,100 in 08...

So the $1,000 he gave the CPC in 07 doesn't count?

[M.Dancer]

So the $1,000 he gave the CPC in 07 doesn't count?

Nope.

A link would be an asset

[Mr.Canada]

Nope.

A link would be an asset

A response that contains more than an insult would be helpful.

Do you actually have a job or work?

You seem to be posting here all day long...lol.

You must make your wife wear the pants, lol.

[robert_viera]

Nope.

Why not? I would think that the 2007 contribution is more of an indication that a person was connected to a party as it came during a non-election year.

A link would be an asset

Specific contribution information available on Elections Canada's web site can't be linked to directly. You have to go here:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin/welcome.aspx?lang=e

and then fill out the forms to get the information you want. Here is the information:

David H Laidley Conservative Party of Canada / Annual / Dec. 2007 Jan. 19, 2007 Individuals / Part 2a 1,000.00 0.00

David H Laidley Conservative Party of Canada / Annual / Dec. 2008 Feb. 20, 2008 Individuals / Part 2a 1,000.00 0.00

David Laidley Rae, Robert K Dec. 11, 2008 Individuals / Part 2b 1,100.00

Information about riding associations is here:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/reg/association_search.aspx?textonly=false〈=e

Edited December 16, 2009 by robert_viera

[Keepitsimple]

Why not? I would think that the 2007 contribution is more of an indication that a person was connected to a party as it came during a non-election year.

Specific contribution information available on Elections Canada's web site can't be linked to directly. You have to go here:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin/welcome.aspx?lang=e

and then fill out the forms to get the information you want. Here is the information:

David H Laidley Conservative Party of Canada / Annual / Dec. 2007 Jan. 19, 2007 Individuals / Part 2a 1,000.00 0.00

David H Laidley Conservative Party of Canada / Annual / Dec. 2008 Feb. 20, 2008 Individuals / Part 2a 1,000.00 0.00

David Laidley Rae, Robert K Dec. 11, 2008 Individuals / Part 2b 1,100.00

Information about riding associations is here:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/reg/association_search.aspx?textonly=false〈=e

Well then.....you've got a lot more work to do. The natural order of government is to make hundreds of appointments each year. The Conservatives made 410 appointments in 2006 and somewhere close to 1000 in 2007. So let me get this straight - you've found a handful? Quite honestly, you'll find that there are a lot more.....and that's because of the huge number of appointments. I'm not partisan enough to ignore that some favours are being handed out.....loyalty being repaid. I don't have too much of a problem with that as long as the appointees are well qualified. Perhaps the Conservatives are not THAT much better than the Liberals but it was pretty common for the Libs to appoint people with no qualifications at all.....and that was really what got people upset. And if you'll remember, all Parliament had to do was accept Gwyn Morgan as the appointments commissioner - a role he was willing to take on for $1 a year....and we would have had complete transparency in appointing qualified candidates....but as usual, the opposition opposed his appointment as cheap politics and in the process, humiliated Mr. Morgan to the point that why would another candidate want to go through the process?

[August1991]

Here are some of the latest appointments by our Conservative government...

I posted this quote from Hansard elsewhere:

I took the list of judicial appointments made by the federal government since 1995 and combined it with the brilliant Unofficial Canadian Political Contributions Search Tool, and some interesting numbers popped out:

there are 99 unique names on the list of judicial appointments

of those names, 59, or 60%, appear on the Liberal Party donation rolls since 1993 (I eliminated one name that I could not resolve uniquely)

those names are responsible for a total of $109,700.32 in donations, or an average of $1,859.33 each

checking the date of the donation against the date of the corresponding judicial appointment, the total amount of donations subsequent to the judicial appointment totaled $613.09

In other words, fully 99.4% of the donations being made by these people whose names correspond to judicial appointments were made prior to the appointments.

Take for example, Claudette Tessier-Couture. She donated $136.74 in 2000, $1,150.00 in 2001, $1,000.00 in 2002, and $1,000.00 in 2003. She was appointed to the bench by Justice Minister Martin Cauchon in July of 2003. Going forward from 2003, not a dime.

...

What about the other parties?

Bloc Quebecois: $6,103.34

Progressive Conservatives: $2493.40

NDP: $120.oo

...

Total amount of donations to parties not Liberal: $8716.74, or just under 8% of the total donated to the Liberal Party in the same time period.

Link

I realize that the quote concerns judicial appointments but the party contributions are flagrant.

IMV, Harper has a long, long way to go before he matches Chretien or Trudeau. With that said, I think that we should reign Harper in. He should do better than Mulroney.

----

On a related point, no one has noted how honest this Harper government has been. For the first time in a long time, so far, we do not have ministers involved in scandals of theft.

I give credit to Harper for this point alone.

[robert_viera]

I posted this quote from Hansard elsewhere:Link

I realize that the quote concerns judicial appointments but the party contributions are flagrant.

IMV, Harper has a long, long way to go before he matches Chretien or Trudeau. With that said, I think that we should reign Harper in. He should do better than Mulroney.

----

On a related point, no one has noted how honest this Harper government has been. For the first time in a long time, so far, we do not have ministers involved in scandals of theft.

I give credit to Harper for this point alone.

You're quote isn't from Hansard. It's from a blog post apparently made in April 2005:

angrygwn.blogspot.com/2005/04/number-crunching-judges.html

I have no doubt that the Liberals made plenty of patronage appointments. The Conservatives are in power now, so I think it's only appropriate that we look at their appointments, particularly considering the promises they made about reforming the appointments process.

As for scandals... I wonder why Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have not sued Tom Zytaruk over the allegations in his biography of Chuck Cadman that Conservatives offered a $1-million life insurance policy to the terminally-ill independent MP in enchange for voting to bring down the Martin government?

Edited December 17, 2009 by robert_viera

[robert_viera]

Well then.....you've got a lot more work to do. The natural order of government is to make hundreds of appointments each year. The Conservatives made 410 appointments in 2006 and somewhere close to 1000 in 2007. So let me get this straight - you've found a handful?

I never said I looked at all the appointments since the Conservatives took office. This handful is just from the latest batch of appointments.

Quite honestly, you'll find that there are a lot more.....and that's because of the huge number of appointments. I'm not partisan enough to ignore that some favours are being handed out.....loyalty being repaid. I don't have too much of a problem with that as long as the appointees are well qualified.

You may not have a problem with it, but the Conservatives certainly seemed to have a problem with it when they were campaigning against it.

Perhaps the Conservatives are not THAT much better than the Liberals but it was pretty common for the Libs to appoint people with no qualifications at all.....and that was really what got people upset.

The Conservatives ran on the promise of doing much better than the Liberals.

And if you'll remember, all Parliament had to do was accept Gwyn Morgan as the appointments commissioner - a role he was willing to take on for $1 a year....and we would have had complete transparency in appointing qualified candidates....but as usual, the opposition opposed his appointment as cheap politics and in the process, humiliated Mr. Morgan to the point that why would another candidate want to go through the process?

I don't understand why accountability depends on this one particular man getting appointment to head the commission. I also don't understand why Mr. Harper is spending $1-million/year on a non-functioning commission.

[August1991]

You're quote isn't from Hansard. It's from a blog post apparently made in April 2005:

angrygwn.blogspot.com/2005/04/number-crunching-judges.html

My cite is from a translated quote in the House of Commons by the MP André Arthur. Like it or him or not, it came from Hansard. Now, the Hansard quote was possibly copied elsewhere. And Robert, the real question is the content of the quote.

[robert_viera]

My cite is from a translated quote in the House of Commons by the MP André Arthur. Like it or him or not, it came from Hansard. Now, the Hansard quote was possibly copied elsewhere. And Robert, the real question is the content of the quote.

If it's from Hansard than you should have no trouble finding it and posting a link to it here.

Edited December 17, 2009 by robert_viera

[columbo]

This is not new. These positions have little in common with merit even if some actually meet the requirements. They are patronage appointments, at the pleasure of the government, in this case, the Conservative govt. Once the Libs re-establish themselves, they will start handing out patronage plums as well.

[August1991]

This is not new. These positions have little in common with merit even if some actually meet the requirements. They are patronage appointments, at the pleasure of the government, in this case, the Conservative govt. Once the Libs re-establish themselves, they will start handing out patronage plums as well.

The Harper Conservative appointments have been far less egregious than the Chretien Liberal appointments. The Martin Liberals were partisan reasonable.

Columbo, there is a degree to partisan extremism. And if you don't notice it, you encourage the Chretien Liberals: "Who cares! Nobody notices! Let's take the money and run!"

That's what happened and that's why the federal Liberal Party has such problem now in Quebec, and Ontario.

[robert_viera]

2009-2059 2009-12-15

CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship Act

Appointment of GEORGE EDWARD KHOURI of Ajax, Ontario, to be a citizenship judge for a term of three years on a part-time basis.

Mr Khouri was the unsuccessful Conservative candidate in the riding of Pickering-Scarborough East in the last federal election.

Remuneration

JUDGE

Fixed by GiC: Position;

per diem ($435 - $515)

Source: http://www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=CZNC&type-typ=3〈=eng

[William Ashley]

Merit judged by one person can be viewed as patronage of another. The clincher is what are merits - eg. are donations to the party seen as favourable and wise actions? I'm sure if positions like that were being bought, it'd cost more than $500. Heck I have somemoney maybe I can aim to buy the GG position. Any bids yet?

Of course any government appointments are partisan. This because government in Canada traditionally has been partisan NOT non partisan. b

Edited December 23, 2009 by William Ashley

[robert_viera]

I overlooked some party connections in the last batch of appointments:

2009-2058 2009-12-11

TC

Canada Marine Act

Appointment of MARTIAL BOUCHARD of Chicoutimi, Quebec, to be a director of the Saguenay Port Authority, to hold office for a term of three years.

Martial Bouchard donated $826 to the Conservative riding association in Jonquière--Alma (represented by Jean-Pierre Blackburn) in 2008.

2009-2052 2009-12-11

IA&ND

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

Reappointment of ADITYA JHA of Mississauga, Ontario, as a director of the board of directors of the First Nations Financial Management Board, to hold office during good behaviour for a term of three years.

Aditya Jha donated $1,100 to the Conservative riding association in Parry Sound--Muskoka (represented by Tony Clement) in 2008. Note: Name is misspelled 'Jhe' in the riding association return.

2009-2044 2009-12-11

CITIZENSHIP

Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act

Reappointment of LYN Q. CHOW of Calgary, Alberta, as a director of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation to hold office during pleasure for a term of three years, effective January 25, 2010.

Lyn Chow donated $360 to the Conservative riding association in Calgary Centre-North (represented by Jim Prentice) in 2007.

[Bugs]

Well, Robert, you're certainly persistent.

You may not quite realize the role that patronage has played in our politics ... since day one.

It's a part of democratic politics, and always has been. Admittedly, it isn't one of the features they brag about when they're telling the school kids the official lies, but a little empirical study will show you. You can trace the growth of the Democratic Party in the US from big urban machines, at the start of the 19th century. From the start, they were using their electoral muscle to get their hands on patronage. Tammany Hall -- New York's machine, and the trail-blazer -- often played a very helpful role in integrating new immigrants into the economy, and used their ability to affect nominations to garner the patronage plums they needed. Just so you know, the central figures in Tammany Hall were Irish at the time.

When Baldwin and LaFontaine made their deal (and became the first Reform Party), one of the big elements of the deal was who got the patronage.

Canada has always had 'brokered' politics. It's a political scientists term. Basically, it means that deals are cut pragmatically, and patronage is used to sweeten the pot, and make the deals work. Many of the issues that grabbed the country were taken into the back rooms of the Liberals Party, and some set of compromises were made, with 'sweeteners' for the side that needs benefits. Patronage has always played a central part in the governance of Canada.

There are whole sets of appointments that are nothing else but patronage. Why do you think so many Liberal politicians wives are 'Citizenship Judges'?

But think on this -- the reason the Conservative Party consistently raises multiples of the contributions that other parties raises is that it has so many members, and the average donation to the Conservative Party is around $200+ -- they have more small donors than the NDP, which may surprise people, but it's true. There is no way that these donations were the decisive factor in these appointments.

[DrGreenthumb]

You're quote isn't from Hansard. It's from a blog post apparently made in April 2005:

angrygwn.blogspot.com/2005/04/number-crunching-judges.html

I have no doubt that the Liberals made plenty of patronage appointments. The Conservatives are in power now, so I think it's only appropriate that we look at their appointments, particularly considering the promises they made about reforming the appointments process.

As for scandals... I wonder why Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have not sued Tom Zytaruk over the allegations in his biography of Chuck Cadman that Conservatives offered a $1-million life insurance policy to the terminally-ill independent MP in enchange for voting to bring down the Martin government?

because they did in fact bribe the dying man, and harper was caught on tape admitting at the very least that he was aware of the plan.

If you want to talk about party hacks and appointments look at all the Harper senate appointments. Mike Freakin Duffy???? An illiterate hocky coach??