Trudeau Government accused of Ethics breach?

On Guard for Thee · February 4, 2016

Harper's appointments in this case left no time for said appointments to be scrutinized by parliament. The scandal therefore falls back on him.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

Martin didn't really have any other kinds of months.

Who cares.....he made hundreds of appointments when he thought he would be getting the boot.

He couldn't break yet another promise on the Senate and maintain any credibility on the matter.

Again, who cares...the fact is he didn't do it.

It's clearly about Harper making unprecedented future appointments. They're arguably not legitimate, and begin well into Trudeau's mandate. No one is asking anything of the appointees that actually started their jobs while Harper was still the Prime Minister.

What "future appointments"? And how are they not legitimate? Is it because Trudeau didn't get to put his own guys in place?

Why would the Prime Minister, in 2015, almost certain to lose his job, extend the appointment of someone from 2019 - 2020? I can think of only one reason - to deny his replacement the opportunity. Hence, futurestacking.

Sure, the very same reason Martin did it....but Harper didn't attempt to shame them into resigning.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

How many like, starting years in the future appointments, did Martin make?

I have no idea, he appointed hundreds that served through Harper's mandate......that Harper didn't muscle out.

Smallc · February 4, 2016

Who cares.....he made hundreds of appointments when he thought he would be getting the boot.

I don't have a problem with making appointments.

Again, who cares...the fact is he didn't do it.

He promised not to. I would assume he planned to keep that promise when he made it.

What "future appointments"? And how are they not legitimate? Is it because Trudeau didn't get to put his own guys in place?

They aren't legitimate (the 49 we're speaking about) because they fall well within the mandate of another government. We're not talking six months, we're talking a year or more into someone else's term. Trudeau, thus, should be able to make appointments for at least the next 30 years. You seem to be fine with the idea, after all.

Smallc · February 4, 2016

I have no idea, he appointed hundreds that served through Harper's mandate

How many of them had contracts that started well into Harper's mandate? This is, apparently, a first; especially in such large numbers.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

How many of them had contracts that started well into Harper's mandate? This is, apparently, a first; especially in such large numbers.

Source?

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

He promised not to. I would assume he planned to keep that promise when he made it.

And he did.

They aren't legitimate (the 49 we're speaking about) because they fall well within the mandate of another government. We're not talking six months, we're talking a year or more into someone else's term. Trudeau, thus, should be able to make appointments for at least the next 30 years. You seem to be fine with the idea, after all.

They aren't legitimate? So why doesn't Trudeau just replace them instead of bullying them into resigning....if they aren't legitimate he should have zero legal barriers to remove them.

Smallc · February 4, 2016

And he did.

So why are you bringing it up?

They aren't legitimate? So why doesn't Trudeau just replace them instead of bullying them into resigning....if they aren't legitimate he should have zero legal barriers to remove them.

They are technically legitimate. It's questionable whether they're democratically legitimate.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

So why are you bringing it up?

A contrast between renewing contracts versus stacking the Senate, a move that could have sandbagged the entire Trudeau Government........

They are technically legitimate. It's questionable whether they're democratically legitimate.

When did we start voting on patronage appointments?

Smallc · February 4, 2016

A contrast between renewing contracts versus stacking the Senate, a move that could have sandbagged the entire Trudeau Government........

It's unlikely that the Senate would stand in the way of much, even if it were stacked. They'd lose what little legitimacy they have.

When did we start voting on patronage appointments?

We vote for the governments that make them. Any appointment made more than ~1 year out from the dropping of the writ (and some of these 49 were within that time, and I accept those as a necessity) should have been left to the new government, whomever that may have been.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

It's unlikely that the Senate would stand in the way of much, even if it were stacked. They'd lose what little legitimacy they have.

Why is it unlikely.....you don't think a unfriendly Senate would hinder's some of Trudeau's proposed legislation?

We vote for the governments that make them. Any appointment made more than ~1 year out from the dropping of the writ (and some of these 49 were within that time, and I accept those as a necessity) should have been left to the new government, whomever that may have been.

Why?

Smallc · February 4, 2016

Why is it unlikely.....you don't think a unfriendly Senate would hinder's some of Trudeau's proposed legislation?

I think it's unlikely that they'd survive such hinderance in the medium term. It's pure wishful thinking on your part.

Why?

It's a reasonable amount of time, in side of which quality replacements are very difficult to find. Outside of that time frame, appointments should be left in the hand of the government sitting at the time.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

I think it's unlikely that they'd survive such hinderance in the medium term. It's pure wishful thinking on your part.

Survive? Are you suggesting Trudeau would fire them? Put them in jail?

It's a reasonable amount of time, in side of which quality replacements are very difficult to find. Outside of that time frame, appointments should be left in the hand of the government sitting at the time.

So Paul Martin's appointments were illegitimate, and Harper would have been right to remove them? Why would any skilled person desire to take such an appointment if they are going to lose their job with a change of Government...........

Further to that, who makes appointments if under a PR system we end up with continual minority governments with short lifespans? Would a Government with only a term of 18 months be able make appointments with longer tenures?

Smallc · February 4, 2016

Survive? Are you suggesting Trudeau would fire them? Put them in jail?

I'm suggesting that public appetite for opening the Constitution might suddenly change, depending on the level of interference we're talking about - the Senate can only delay a Constitutional change, after all.

So Paul Martin's appointments were illegitimate, and Harper would have been right to remove them?

You show me a PMPM appointment that started a year after the writ dropped in 2005, and I'll agree with you. It's about when appointments start, not when they end.

waldo · February 4, 2016

What "blew up"? Your ability to justify the Liberals wanting their own patronage appointments?

it is wholly your contention that the described 'new open process to appoint' will result in patronage appointments. As stated, those improper 11th hour Harper appointees (that no one found out about until after the recent election), have been encouraged to reapply for their positions through that new process. Your contention may be confirmed once the details of that process and it's resulting outcomes is realized... until then, as I said, your OP, 'blew up good, blew up reeeall good"!

.

cybercoma · February 4, 2016

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?

Gee, Derek, I dunno. Did Paul Martin, on his way out, make patronage appointments 4 years into the future? Stop being so damned disingenuous. It's a bad look.

cybercoma · February 4, 2016

The Senate is completely irrelevant neither Harper nor Martin—who's mandate was a decade ago—made Senate appointments for future retirements. The point is the patronage appointments made well beyond Harper's mandate. That's why the Tories aren't stupid enough to bring this to the ethics commissioner. That's why Derek wants to constantly interject red herrings about Prime Ministers from a decade ago and utterly irrelevant Senate appointments that didn't happen.

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

it is wholly your contention that the described 'new open process to appoint' will result in patronage appointments.

.

And what process is that? A committee selected by the Liberals, selecting from a shortlist penned by Liberals perhaps?

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

Gee, Derek, I dunno. Did Paul Martin, on his way out, make patronage appointments 4 years into the future? Stop being so damned disingenuous. It's a bad look.

I have no idea, I would assume some of the hundreds of appointments PM PM made had a tenure of 4+ years.

Smallc · February 4, 2016

I have no idea, I would assume some of the hundreds of appointments PM PM made had a tenure of 4+ years.

That's a nice trick you're trying to play. How many of them started 3 years into Harper's mandate?

Derek 2.0 · February 4, 2016

That's a nice trick you're trying to play. How many of them started 3 years into Harper's mandate?

I don't know, you tell me......how many are starting 3 years into Trudeau's mandate, versus continuing on with their current positions?

Smallc · February 4, 2016

I don't know, you tell me......how many are starting 3 years into Trudeau's mandate, versus continuing on with their current positions?

On a new contract? How about that number?

ReeferMadness · February 4, 2016

No one would care all that much, were it not for the future stacking. It's not about the appointments Harper made during his mandate. It's about the appointments that are set to be that haven't even happened yet.

It is about the future appointments. And let's not forget - Harper did this in secret. This came as an unpleasant surprise to the new government.

Only dedicated Conservative partisans could defend a government that rode into power on promises of "transparency and accountability", stacking future appointments on the way out without telling anyone. It stinks and it's indefensible.

cybercoma · February 5, 2016

I have no idea, I would assume some of the hundreds of appointments PM PM made had a tenure of 4+ years.

owho's talking about length of tenure? Try to keep up, will ya?

Derek 2.0 · February 5, 2016

owho's talking about length of tenure? Try to keep up, will ya?

You did.......if an appointment spans an entire four year mandate of a Government, who cares? As I asked, of Harper's last appointments, how many will run through the entire Trudeau mandate? Is the concern Trudeau won't have a go at patronage?

The point, all previous Governments had to live through the previous Government's appointments........and to the best of my knowledge, no previous Government has made a similar effort as the Trudeau Government to get them to resign so they can put their own guys in place........

So why is this Trudeau Government in such a rush to stack the deck with their own appointments, so much so the PMO is bullying said appointments into resigning?