Trudeau Government accused of Ethics breach?

[Derek 2.0]

Well that didn't take long:

Canada's opposition made political hay on Tuesday over letters sent from Justin Trudeau's government to a host of sitting judges, asking that they step down.

Those letters may break federal ethics guidelines, and a possible violation of those rules has led to the opposition Conservative Party calling for minister's head.

The controversy amounts to the first ethics scandal of Trudeau's nascent government, which campaigned heavily on accountability and transparency..............

Furthermore, the cause:

Before calling an election last August, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed 49 Canadians to various tribunals, boards, and federal jobs, in a move that was decried as old-school patronage. In most cases, however, Harper merely extended or renewed their existing appointment.

Nevertheless, the incoming Liberal government blasted the appointments, which were only discovered after the election. Dominic LeBlanc, who holds the title of Government House Leader and is generally responsible for the Parliamentary functions of the government, issued letters to some of those who received appointments from the previous administration.

and this boils down to:

The letter asks the appointees to contact Mathieu Bouchard, a senior advisor inside the Prime Minister's Office.

So Trudeau's PMO is attempting to muscle out Harper's patronage appointments, so they can make their own patronage appointments.....none the less, the Liberal House leader (and Trudeau's PMO) are using a bully pulpit to interfere with lawfully appointed judges........

And as noted, from the Supreme Court of Canada:

"Governments appoint and pay judges, but once appointed, judges are shielded from bureaucratic control," reads a statement posted on the website of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. "Judges must be able to make courageous, even unpopular decisions knowing that no one — a chief justice, another judge, a government official or even the most powerful politician — can fire them or cut their salaries as retaliation."

So should LeBlanc, and Trudeau's PMO, be able to apply pressure on judges to resign (so they can put their own judges in), or is this the first (apparent) ethics breach by the Trudeau Government?

Edited February 3, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[The_Squid]

Ethics Commissioner has already said that there was no ethics breach. Lame partisan silliness.

CPC couldn't even be bothered to bring the issue to the Commissioner.... non-issue except to partisan hacks.

[ReeferMadness]

Well that didn't take long:

So Trudeau's PMO is attempting to muscle out Harper's patronage appointments, so they can make their own patronage appointments.....none the less, the Liberal House leader (and Trudeau's PMO) are using a bully pulpit to interfere with lawfully appointed judges........

And as noted, from the Supreme Court of Canada:

So should LeBlanc, and Trudeau's PMO, be able to apply pressure on judges to resign (so they can put their own judges in), or is this the first (apparent) ethics breach by the Trudeau Government?

Derek, this article you've cited is so dishonest, it's hard to believe the author was dumb enough to believe it. In other words, it's reasonable to suspect that the author was intending to deliberately deceive the readers. Here is a list of the appointees who received the letters. You'll note that none of them are described as "judges" because the "lawfully appointed judges" are in fact citizenship judges. Citizenship judges are not members of the judiciary and as such your reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is grossly misleading and irrelevant.

Let's all give MLW member Derek the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply failed to check the accuracy of his post. He can demonstrate that by amending his post and noting his mistake.

Furthermore, the Conservatives are being unbelievably hypocritical in this instance. There were 49 political patronage appointments that were scheduled to take place after Harper left office, in some cases, years after. This is clearly an attempt by an unethical Conservative government to influence government well past its mandate.

Edited February 3, 2016 by ReeferMadness

[On Guard for Thee]

Mary Dawson concluded nothing here but smoke and mirrors. It's quite brazen the CPC would try to attack the LPC with the history they have of patronage appointments.

Edited February 3, 2016 by On Guard for Thee

[Derek 2.0]

Derek, this article you've cited is so dishonest, it's hard to believe the author was dumb enough to believe it. In other words, it's reasonable to believe that the author was intending to deliberately deceive the readers. Here is a list of the appointees who received the letters. You'll note that none of them are described as "judges" because the "lawfully appointed judges" are in fact citizenship judges. Citizenship judges are not members of the judiciary and as such your reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is grossly misleading and irrelevant.

How is the article dishonest? Are not the Liberals attempting to replace Harper's appointments with their own? Likewise, has the Supreme Court ruled that rules and protocol associated with judiciary judges don't apply to citizenship judges?

Let's all give MLW member Derek the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply failed to check the accuracy of his post. He can demonstrate that by amending his post and noting his mistake.

You can give all the benefits you like, but doesn't change the fact that the Liberals simply want to put in place their own patronage appointments and are bullying these current officials from within the PMO.

Furthermore, the Conservatives are being unbelievably hypocritical in this instance. There were 49 political patronage appointments that were scheduled to take place after Harper left office, in some cases, years after. This is clearly an attempt by an unethical Conservative government to influence government well past its mandate.

The Liberals are the ones governing.......what is hypocritical is the Liberals exerting political pressure and control from within the PMO......the very same thing they accused the Harper PMO of doing.......that is hypocritical.

[ReeferMadness]

How is the article dishonest? Are not the Liberals attempting to replace Harper's appointments with their own? Likewise, has the Supreme Court ruled that rules and protocol associated with judiciary judges don't apply to citizenship judges?

In fairness, I gave you a chance to salvage your credibility. Ah, well.

[Derek 2.0]

In fairness, I gave you a chance to salvage your credibility. Ah, well.

And yet, you can't answer several simple questions?

[On Guard for Thee]

How is the article dishonest? Are not the Liberals attempting to replace Harper's appointments with their own? Likewise, has the Supreme Court ruled that rules and protocol associated with judiciary judges don't apply to citizenship judges?

Citizenship judges are not judicial officers. That's why they are called judge, and not your honor.

[waldo]

So Trudeau's PMO is attempting to muscle out Harper's patronage appointments, so they can make their own patronage appointments.....

asking the Harper appointees (that only came to light after the election) to voluntarily forego their appointments and reapply through the, as described, "new, more open selection process"... does that fit with your "bullying, muscle out, make their own patronage" rhetoric?

.

[waldo]

So should LeBlanc, and Trudeau's PMO, be able to apply pressure on judges to resign (so they can put their own judges in), or is this the first (apparent) ethics breach by the Trudeau Government?

where's the pressure in asking for a voluntary resignation? Why didn't RonaConservatives take this before the Ethics Commissioner... you know, the arbiter of government ethics?

As it turns out, no Conservative MP has yet bothered to bring this concern to the ethics commissioner. And the office of the commissioner has since told CBC News that the commissioner "is of the view that the letters did not seek to influence a quasi-judicial decision."

.

[Topaz]

I watched QP and this is just about trying to find something on the Liberals. LeBlanc explained several times, but the Tories kept asking the same question over and over again. I think what's bothering the Tories is, when asking the liberals a question in QP, the Liberals actually give an answer, which stops then dead in their tracks, were with the Tories, they never answered the question, just personal attacks on the person who ask it.

[cybercoma]

How is the article dishonest? Are not the Liberals attempting to replace Harper's appointments with their own?

This is sad even for you. Had a Liberal government made patronage appointments years into the future after losing an election, you would be singing a completely different tune. Those Harper appointments are indefensible. He did not have the mandate to influence government actions and policies years past his final term.

[Derek 2.0]

asking the Harper appointees (that only came to light after the election) to voluntarily forego their appointments and reapply through the, as described, "new, more open selection process"... does that fit with your "bullying, muscle out, make their own patronage" rhetoric?

.

Yes, because its clearly a case of the Liberals just wanting to appoint their own patronage appointments.

[Derek 2.0]

where's the pressure in asking for a voluntary resignation? Why didn't RonaConservatives take this before the Ethics Commissioner... you know, the arbiter of government ethics?

.

Where is the need to fill already staffed positions. As to the Tories going to the Ethics Commissioner, I have no idea.......perhaps they haven't complied all the relevant material/evidence to make a worthwhile case?

[Derek 2.0]

This is sad even for you. Had a Liberal government made patronage appointments years into the future after losing an election, you would be singing a completely different tune. Those Harper appointments are indefensible. He did not have the mandate to influence government actions and policies years past his final term.

When the Harper Tories first came to power, did they attempt a blood letting of already filled positions.......or did they just wait for natural attrition to make their own appointments?

[On Guard for Thee]

When the Harper Tories first came to power, did they attempt a blood letting of already filled positions.......or did they just wait for natural attrition to make their own appointments?

You have that choice when you are starting a new mandate, not when you've just lost it.

[Smallc]

Where is the need to fill already staffed positions.

Where was the need to extend their contracts within someone else's mandate?

[Derek 2.0]

Where was the need to extend their contracts within someone else's mandate?

Continuance of Government........if Harper had of been out to sandbag the new Trudeau Government in his remaining days, he would have filled the Senate as a parting gift......which would have far more effect on a Trudeau Government then a handful of patronage posts, that they want to now fill with their own.

[Smallc]

Continuance of Government.

More than a few months in the future, it was not his decision to make, let alone 4 years in the future. We were going to have a government, and we do.

[Derek 2.0]

More than a few months in the future, it was not his decision to make, let alone 4 years in the future. We were going to have a government, and we do.

Did the Harper Tories attempt to muscle out Liberal appointments in 2006?

[Smallc]

Did the Harper Tories attempt to muscle out Liberal appointments in 2006?

Did they make appointments taking effect far into the Conservatives term?

[Derek 2.0]

Did they make appointments taking effect far into the Conservatives term?

Sure, they stuffed the Senate months before the release of the Gomery report and the ensuing vote of no confidence.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure, they stuffed the Senate months before the release of the Gomery report and the ensuing vote of no confidence.

What does appointing senators have to do with a non confidence vote?

[Smallc]

Sure, they stuffed the Senate months before the release of the Gomery report and the ensuing vote of no confidence.

What are you talking about? Paul Martin was in power in 2006 (and lost it) after the release. He was the only PM to ever appoint people from another party to the Senate.

Besides that, you're again moving the goal post. Senators are not the appointments in question.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

What are you talking about? Paul Martin was in power in 2006 (and lost it) after the release. He was the only PM to ever appoint people from another party to the Senate.

The Gomery report was released in 2005, weeks later followed by the vote of no confidence.......the stacking of Senators was done months prior.....in addition, in early 2005 when it looked as if the Martin Government was about to fall due to testimony from the Gomery commission, PM PM made hundreds of appointments.......and the Tories didn't call for a blood letting of the public service after they became Government.

Besides that, you're again moving the goal post. Senators are not the appointments in question.

How is talking about patronage appointments, including Senators, "moving the goal posts"?