The new 4th Environment Minister is....

[Topaz]

Peter Kent. Harper is going after the Toronto votes and he also puts Fantino in as minister of state for seniors. Diane Ablonczy, will go from minister of state for seniors to Foreign Affairs taking over Kents old job. Ted Menzies goes from Parl.Sec. to the Finace minsiter to state of finance. and isn't that a down grade? I wonder what all those backbenchers who were skip over by Harper and gave Fantino a ministers job are thinking? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/peter-kent-named-environment-minister-in-tory-cabinet-shuffle/article1857228/

[Argus]

Peter Kent. Harper is going after the Toronto votes and he also puts Fantino in as minister of state for seniors. Diane Ablonczy, will go from minister of state for seniors to Foreign Affairs taking over Kents old job. Ted Menzies goes from Parl.Sec. to the Finace minsiter to state of finance. and isn't that a down grade? I wonder what all those backbenchers who were skip over by Harper and gave Fantino a ministers job are thinking? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/peter-kent-named-environment-minister-in-tory-cabinet-shuffle/article1857228/

Minister of state for seniors? LOL! Great job for Fantino! And they were talking about him being in charge of Public Safety. Instead he gets to deal with the angry granny letters.

Kent will do all right in environment since the job is basically public relations. Ablonczy will do well in Foreign Affairs

[William Ashley]

Is this minister of state stuff just a play on words...

as they arn't the actual ministers, they are "assistants" using the word deputy minister might be putting them at an inferior basis to the person who actually manages the profolio.

LIke Lawrence Canon on foreign affairs for example. is this really a wooing it seems more like a slap in the face saying that they arn't good enough to lead a cabinet position.

A Minister of State is a junior cabinet minister in the Canadian Cabinet, usually given specific responsibilities to assist a senior cabinet minister

Why put a cop in charge of seniors -- is this a good sign.

None the less is Kent suitable for the Environment profolio- it has been a dart board in the past. Not a good post but a fall guy posting.

Also he appears to have been born in 1943... that makes him 67.. ?? If anything this may just be a means to smooth out the bad press on media perhaps would the media attack their own. Not sure if they had any of the muslim vote before but profiling Kent likely plays down their "muslim support"

supporting publication of the controversial Muhammed cartoons

His paper routes are represented in his practice of Ten Percenters

Kent continued the practice of out-of-riding mailouts known as Ten Percenters, despite the House of Common's vote to ban their use.

Is cutting down trees to spam mailboxes a good practice?

Subscribing for a mailout is one thing but mailing out to people who arn't even in your riding is a little bit abusive especially if it is a banned practice. Spam is illegal. I think there should be a mechanism, but doing it with tax payers dollars is wrong. I think this type of behaviour should be kept to solely emergency measures situations- where a national emergency or local emergency is declared by parliament or under the emergencies act.

He appears to be a puppetman

In an interview with journalist Steve Paikin on December 9, 2009, the former news anchor acknowledged that as Minister, he is instructed to only use language vetted by the PMO, on occasion lifting Stephen Harper's statements from newspaper reports: "So when we’re asked about the Israeli position on settlements, we never criticize Israel publicly. We say those settlements are 'unhelpful' in finding a comprehensive peace settlement. We’ve put on the record our position on nuclear power and India. We say 'it’s no longer the 1970’s, it’s now 2009.' I saw the prime minister’s quote in the newspapers to that effect yesterday, and so I used it today."[7]Kent's comment that his government does not criticize Israel publicly was contradicted several months later by his senior minister, Lawrence Cannon, who went on record in the House of Commons "condemning" Israel's expansion of illegal settlements.

Edited January 4, 2011 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

as they arn't the actual ministers, they are "assistants" using the word deputy minister might be putting them at an inferior basis to the person who actually manages the profolio.

They are actual ministers, but just lower level ministers. They get paid slightly less, and they have slightly smaller portfolios.

[Moonlight Graham]

Peter Kent, lol.

Man, i prefer in other political systems where the cabinet doesn't have to come from a small group of partisan MP's who usually know poop-all about their ministries. oh well.

[Smallc]

Peter Kent, lol.

Man, i prefer in other political systems where the cabinet doesn't have to come from a small group of partisan MP's who usually know poop-all about their ministries. oh well.

You prefer when the minister isn't accountable to parliament? I certainly wouldn't.

[William Ashley]

Peter Kent, lol.

Man, i prefer in other political systems where the cabinet doesn't have to come from a small group of partisan MP's who usually know poop-all about their ministries. oh well.

They don't they are just suppose to be privy - it comes from a convention of executive council, not parliamentary commitee. At one point executives had to resign their posting (and legally are still suppose to, but this is ingored due to more recent laws fudging this)

The commons overtook the role from the lords at the turn of the last century.

Edited January 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

You prefer when the minister isn't accountable to parliament? I certainly wouldn't.

The government is always accountable to parliament- there is something called the parliamentary bar if you don't know parliamentary procedure, anyone can be called to witness before parliament. Once upon a time ministers were called to witness... and be held accountable --- there was a development however that prevented the monarch from entering the house (due to attempting to enforce the law within the house) The laws that were made designating paid executives to sit in the commons was a breach of law due to letters patents and constitutional documents having a higher precedence in Canada than parliamentary law.

It has just been perverted over the last 100 years due to partisan politics and ingorance of the law.

Censure, Reprimand and the Summoning of Individuals to the Bar of the House

On a number of occasions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, individuals were summoned to appear before the Bar of the House. The Bar is a brass rod extending across the floor of the Chamber inside its south entrance beyond which strangers are not allowed. Individuals who are in contempt of the House — that is, are guilty of an offence against the dignity or authority of Parliament — may be formally summoned by the House to appear before it, if the House adopts a motion to that effect. When summoned, the individual stands at the Bar. The House has ordered Members to attend in their places in the House and has summoned others to the Bar of the House, to answer questions or to receive censures, admonitions or reprimands. Although, at first view, this may not appear to be a punishment, the summoning of a Member to attend in his or her place or of an individual to the Bar is an extraordinary event which places the Member or individual under the authority of the House vested with its full disciplinary powers.

In 1873, James Bell, a Returning Officer, was summoned to appear before the Bar to answer for his actions in a contested election. He appeared, asked and received permission to have counsel, and answered questions. The House adopted a resolution criticizing Mr. Bell’s actions. He was recalled to the Bar, the resolution was read out to him and he was discharged. [201]

Again in 1873, the editor of the Courrier d’Outaouais newspaper, Elie Tassé, who was also a sessional employee of the House of Commons, was ordered to appear before the Bar of the House to answer questions about an article reflecting on two Members of the House. Mr. Tassé appeared, answered questions and was then allowed to withdraw. [202]

In November 1873, the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to take Ottawa Alderman John Heney into custody and bring him to the Bar of the House for attempting to bribe a Member. Mr. Heney was held in custody from November 4 to 7, 1873, but never appeared at the Bar as Parliament was prorogued on November 7. [203]

On March 31 and April 1, 1874, Louis Riel (Provencher) was ordered to attend in his place in the House for having fled from justice in the matter of the murder of Thomas Scott. He failed to attend and was later expelled from the House. Three witnesses were summoned to appear at the Bar (the Attorney-General of Manitoba and two police officers of Ottawa) in relation to the Riel matter. All three appeared and were questioned. [204]

In 1879, a visitor in the gallery, John Macdonnell, directed offensive remarks to a Member and, having been removed from the gallery, repeated the remarks in a note delivered to the Member at his place in the House. As a result, he was summoned to appear at the Bar, whereupon he apologized. He was asked to withdraw and the House then adopted a motion stating that Mr. Macdonnell had breached the privileges of the House, but that no further action was necessary in light of the apology. Mr. Macdonnell was recalled and the resolution read to him before he was discharged. [205]

In May 1887, John Dunn, a Returning Officer, was asked to appear before the Bar to answer for his conduct during an election. Mr. Dunn received the permission of the House to have counsel and answered many questions. He was discharged and no further action was taken. [206]

In 1891, Michael Connolly, a witness before the Privileges and Elections Committee, attended as requested with certain documents which he refused to put into the hands of the Committee. The Committee reported this to the House and requested “the action of the House”. A motion was then moved and adopted for Mr. Connolly to appear before the Bar. He appeared, was questioned, granted counsel, and ordered to produce the books of account requested by the Committee. [207]

Again in 1891, the Public Accounts Committee reported that André Senécal, an employee of the Government Printing Bureau, had failed to appear when called as a witness. The House adopted a motion summoning him to appear at the Bar. When he failed to do so, the House ordered that he be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who could not locate him. No further action was taken. [208]

In 1894, two witnesses (Messrs. Provost and Larose) failed to appear when summoned as witnesses before the Privileges and Elections Committee. The Committee reported this and asked for “the action of the House”. A motion was adopted summoning the two witnesses to appear before the Bar. They failed to comply and the House ordered them to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to be brought to the Bar of the House. They later appeared, answered questions and were discharged. [209]

In 1906, William T. Preston, Inspector of Canadian Immigration in Europe, was a witness before the Agriculture and Colonization Committee as well as the Public Accounts Committee and refused to answer certain questions. Both committees reported this to the House. A motion was moved, based on the report of the Agriculture Committee, that he should be summoned to appear before the Bar of the House. However, the motion was amended to the effect that Preston was not required to appear, and the motion was adopted as amended. [210]

Also in 1906, a Member complained about a newspaper article; it was read and a motion was adopted summoning its author, E.E. Cinq-Mars, to appear before the Bar of the House. Mr. Cinq-Mars appeared and answered questions during that sitting of the House and at another sitting. The House then adopted a motion of censure against him, which was read to him before he was discharged. [211]

In 1913, R.C. Miller, a witness before the Public Accounts Committee, refused to answer questions. This was reported to the House, whereupon it adopted a motion summoning Mr. Miller to appear before the Bar and answer questions. Mr. Miller made two appearances before the Bar and on both occasions was permitted to have counsel. He was directed to withdraw after he refused to give the information requested by the Committee. The House then adopted a motion stating that Mr. Miller was in contempt of the House and that he should be imprisoned. Mr. Miller was again brought before the Bar and the resolution was read to him. [212]

In 1991, a Member rose on a question of privilege to allege that a contempt of the House had occurred at the adjournment of the previous sitting, when a Member, Ian Waddell (Port Moody–Coquitlam), had attempted to take hold of the Mace as it was carried out of the Chamber. The Speaker found a prima facie case of contempt, and the House adopted an order finding Mr. Waddell guilty of contempt and calling him to the Bar of the House to receive a reprimand from the Chair. Accordingly, the Member appeared at the Bar, was admonished by the Chair and declared guilty of a breach of privilege and a gross contempt of the House. [213]

Interesting read

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch03&Seq=7&Lang=E

Edited January 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[Topaz]

Peter Kent may in a bind. The CBC showed him as a journalist back in 1985 talking about the environment and how things needed to be done. I don't think if he's an environmentist Harper is going to let him hurt the oil and gas industry and industry itself. I think he's the mouth, that going to spin what the Tories will do, only they won't do any thing, they will stay the course , as they say.