Shady Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Appointing friend to Cabinet - slap in the voter's face Even if they're qualified? Quote
shoop Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 This story is being driven by Liberals/NDP out to attack the CPC regardless of what they do plus CPC supporters who are a little naive in what it really takes to stay in power. The Olympics start tonight. Story to fade quickly... If Fortier performs admirably in controlling "hundreds of billions of our tax dollars" (which we will have to wait and see) is that not better than an elected Minister losing track of a billion (Jane Stewart HRDC) or than a bunch of elected Ministers telling Parliament 2 million for the gun registry and failing to tell the House when the number was actually at 2 billion etc. etc.What is your view of the Prime Minister of Canada being "elected" (read appointed) by a few hundred members of his or her political party when there is a leadership change? (a la Paul Martin if you'll recall). In my view it's no different than what is happening here...temporary appointment, with ratification in front of the people of Canada to come. Also, the fact that "senators don't matter all that much anyway" is exactly one of the reforms Harper hopes to make happen, and as Sage points out, until that reform happens, he has to use the current system. FTA Quote
lost&outofcontrol Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I don't think the CPC is wrong here, this has happened before and will happen again. What bugs me is; wasn't this guy telling us before the election how Harper was evil and ate babies etc..(not that I agree with any of his(Emerson's) crap) The guy could of taken the high road and denounced the advances of the CPC but he acted like a true politicians and sold himself out. Quote
Mimas Posted February 10, 2006 Author Report Posted February 10, 2006 Appointing friend to Cabinet - slap in the voter's face Even if they're qualified? What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet! Quote
geoffrey Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Appointing friend to Cabinet - slap in the voter's face Even if they're qualified? What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet! Not really. Being from Quebec and specifically Montreal is a prerequiste to be qualified for anything in Canada, especially Cabinet. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Mimas Posted February 10, 2006 Author Report Posted February 10, 2006 The thing that gets lost in this debate then is how exactly does Mr. Harper appoint a senator at this very moment? He can't appoint them, because then he's a hypocrite. So then the obvious choice is to have elected senators. Oh yes that's right, there is no legislative framework to do this in. Apparently Mimas your answer to this then is that he must simply not appoint any senators. No, that's not my point. Senators don't matter all that much anyway. My point is that he must NOT appoint cabinet ministers! Senior cabinet ministers are the dozen or so most powerful politicians in the country and they have control of hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Cabinet ministers MUST be elected! There are 100 Conservative ELECTED MPs, he MUST choose from. Why isn't Diane Ablonczy in cabinet for example? She's been on the front benches of the Conservative caucus forever. He threw her in the backbenches to put a friend in cabinet? The optics of this are just terrible! He's enraged voters and his own caucus! This goes against everything he campaigned on. If Fortier performs admirably in controlling "hundreds of billions of our tax dollars" (which we will have to wait and see) is that not better than an elected Minister losing track of a billion (Jane Stewart HRDC) or than a bunch of elected Ministers telling Parliament 2 million for the gun registry and failing to tell the House when the number was actually at 2 billion etc. etc. What is your view of the Prime Minister of Canada being "elected" (read appointed) by a few hundred members of his or her political party when there is a leadership change? (a la Paul Martin if you'll recall). In my view it's no different than what is happening here...temporary appointment, with ratification in front of the people of Canada to come. Also, the fact that "senators don't matter all that much anyway" is exactly one of the reforms Harper hopes to make happen, and as Sage points out, until that reform happens, he has to use the current system. FTA What kind of a silly excuse is this? If Fortier performs admirably...blah, blah. Did Gagliano perform admirably? When did we find out he didn't? TEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT! When are we going to find out if Fortier doesn't perform admirably? He doesn't even have voters to worry about. He is just another arrogant cronie who could not be bothered to run in the election and who can't be bothered to run in a by-election for his seat in cabinet. On top of that Stephen Harper, in appointing Fortier (and Emerson) has substantially gone against four declared party policies. He also broke an explicit promise made, in Quebec, on Radio-Canada (TV). When asked "What if you see no Conservatives elected in Montreal? Will you appoint a Cabinet Minister for the city?" Harper replied, smiling, "No, I've always believed that Cabinet positions should be filled from *elected* members of parliament". Liberal or Tory - Same old story! Quote
Mimas Posted February 10, 2006 Author Report Posted February 10, 2006 I don't think the CPC is wrong here, this has happened before and will happen again. What bugs me is; wasn't this guy telling us before the election how Harper was evil and ate babies etc..(not that I agree with any of his(Emerson's) crap) The guy could of taken the high road and denounced the advances of the CPC but he acted like a true politicians and sold himself out. What happened before doesn't matter. The Conservatives did NOT run on the same old, same old. They ran on CHANGE. If there is any CHANGE in this story is that Fortier does NOT want to run in a by-election for his seat in cabinet and that noone has crossed the floor this early after an election before. Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY Quote
sage Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet! Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Quote
Mimas Posted February 10, 2006 Author Report Posted February 10, 2006 What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet! Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Well, someone suggested earlier that Fortier is qualified for the job. I don't see that he is because being elected is a prerequisite for a cabinet seat. Besides he has no previous experience in running a government department, while many others do. Harper specifically said on TV that if Montreal did not elect a Conservative, he would not appoint anyone to cabinet to represent the city because he "believed that cabinet should be made up of ELECTED representatives". Also, the Conservative party and it's predicesors have long argued that the law on appointing senators did not have to change in order to have elected senators. Have people run for available senate seats and then appoint those who win in the election. Now that they are in government they suddenly completely forgot about that. Finally, as I already mentioned, Harper did not run on having things done as they have been done BEFORE. He ran on CHANGE. Over 50% of those who voted Conservative in the last election voted that way because they wanted CHANGE. Appointing friends and turncoats to cabinet is NOT the kind of CHANGE they voted for! Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY Quote
sage Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 So in a nutshell you're pissed at Harper, and Fortier may very well be qualified for the job. Quote
tml12 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet! Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Well, someone suggested earlier that Fortier is qualified for the job. I don't see that he is because being elected is a prerequisite for a cabinet seat. Besides he has no previous experience in running a government department, while many others do. Harper specifically said on TV that if Montreal did not elect a Conservative, he would not appoint anyone to cabinet to represent the city because he "believed that cabinet should be made up of ELECTED representatives". Also, the Conservative party and it's predicesors have long argued that the law on appointing senators did not have to change in order to have elected senators. Have people run for available senate seats and then appoint those who win in the election. Now that they are in government they suddenly completely forgot about that. Finally, as I already mentioned, Harper did not run on having things done as they have been done BEFORE. He ran on CHANGE. Over 50% of those who voted Conservative in the last election voted that way because they wanted CHANGE. Appointing friends and turncoats to cabinet is NOT the kind of CHANGE they voted for! Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY Can you find a transcript of that Harper quote on TV??? Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Hicksey Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 This move is kind of interesting. I say this because unless the Liberals and NDP plan to block Harper's attempt at making the Senate an elected body, Fortier's appointment should not be an issue because he will have to stand and be judged by Canadians as soon as the legislation passes. Could it be this appoinment kills two birds with one stone? It gets him representation in Montreal and serves as political posturing ahead of the debate on making the Senate an elected body. By blocking the bill to do that, the Liberals and NDP will end up making the Fortier appointment permanent. Posturing? Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Mimas Posted February 10, 2006 Author Report Posted February 10, 2006 So in a nutshell you're pissed at Harper, and Fortier may very well be qualified for the job. No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Quote
Mimas Posted February 10, 2006 Author Report Posted February 10, 2006 This move is kind of interesting. I say this because unless the Liberals and NDP plan to block Harper's attempt at making the Senate an elected body, Fortier's appointment should not be an issue because he will have to stand and be judged by Canadians as soon as the legislation passes. Could it be this appoinment kills two birds with one stone? It gets him representation in Montreal and serves as political posturing ahead of the debate on making the Senate an elected body. By blocking the bill to do that, the Liberals and NDP will end up making the Fortier appointment permanent.Posturing? Geez, you disgust me! Call a spade, a spade. You claim to have principals and screamed at the top of you lungs when the Liberals violated any of them, but now that the Conservatives are doing it, you suddenly have forgotten that you had principals. That's eigher really short memory on your behalf or just hypocrisy! Quote
Hicksey Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 This move is kind of interesting. I say this because unless the Liberals and NDP plan to block Harper's attempt at making the Senate an elected body, Fortier's appointment should not be an issue because he will have to stand and be judged by Canadians as soon as the legislation passes. Could it be this appoinment kills two birds with one stone? It gets him representation in Montreal and serves as political posturing ahead of the debate on making the Senate an elected body. By blocking the bill to do that, the Liberals and NDP will end up making the Fortier appointment permanent. Posturing? Geez, you disgust me! Call a spade, a spade. You claim to have principals and screamed at the top of you lungs when the Liberals violated any of them, but now that the Conservatives are doing it, you suddenly have forgotten that you had principals. That's eigher really short memory on your behalf or just hypocrisy! You read selectively around here, don't you? I am struggling from within to explain such a move and having a discussion on that merit. I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. Why don't you save such rants for times when you know what you are talking about!?! The post where I did this is located here. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
sage Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 So in a nutshell you're pissed at Harper, and Fortier may very well be qualified for the job. No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Before you get pissy with me (though we may have crossed that threshold already) you keep mentioning that in order to be "qualified" for a cabinet position you must be elected. This is despite the fact that our Parliamentary history allows this to occur. This qualification, where exactly does it arise from? I'm not trying to be cute but you continually ignore this question and its important. Before you go stating how this is the way it should be you should be aware of the role Parliamentary Convention plays in our system. Do you know what constitutional document mentions the powers that the Prime Minister of Canada holds? No where. That's right, its merely through convention that the PM holds any power whatsoever. What about cabinet? It doesn't exist in our constitution either. My point is please, oh please, tell me where this "qualification" arises, other then in your mind. I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion on the subject but I doubt you entirely appreciate how our government operates. Quote
sage Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. I thought that was me. Quote
Hicksey Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. I thought that was me. Well, a Liberal that called me on that I called Stronach a whore said I owed people an apology not an hour after it happened and I said Emerson was cut form the same cloth then. Check the link. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
sage Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. I thought that was me. Well, a Liberal that called me on that I called Stronach a whore said I owed people an apology not an hour after it happened and I said Emerson was cut form the same cloth then. Check the link. You're right, I was a few hours later. Quote
Hicksey Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. I thought that was me. Well, a Liberal that called me on that I called Stronach a whore said I owed people an apology not an hour after it happened and I said Emerson was cut form the same cloth then. Check the link. You're right, I was a few hours later. Gee, wonder where mimas went after making that comment? Bet we wont see mimas back for an apology. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Mimas Posted February 11, 2006 Author Report Posted February 11, 2006 What do you mean if they are qualified? Thousands of Canadians are better qualified than Fortier to do the job. Being elected is a prerequisite to be qualified for a seat in Cabinet! Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Well, someone suggested earlier that Fortier is qualified for the job. I don't see that he is because being elected is a prerequisite for a cabinet seat. Besides he has no previous experience in running a government department, while many others do. Harper specifically said on TV that if Montreal did not elect a Conservative, he would not appoint anyone to cabinet to represent the city because he "believed that cabinet should be made up of ELECTED representatives". Also, the Conservative party and it's predicesors have long argued that the law on appointing senators did not have to change in order to have elected senators. Have people run for available senate seats and then appoint those who win in the election. Now that they are in government they suddenly completely forgot about that. Finally, as I already mentioned, Harper did not run on having things done as they have been done BEFORE. He ran on CHANGE. Over 50% of those who voted Conservative in the last election voted that way because they wanted CHANGE. Appointing friends and turncoats to cabinet is NOT the kind of CHANGE they voted for! Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY Can you find a transcript of that Harper quote on TV??? Yes, it's about 28 minutes into Tuesday's broadcast. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/ Quote
Mimas Posted February 11, 2006 Author Report Posted February 11, 2006 So in a nutshell you're pissed at Harper, and Fortier may very well be qualified for the job. No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Before you get pissy with me (though we may have crossed that threshold already) you keep mentioning that in order to be "qualified" for a cabinet position you must be elected. This is despite the fact that our Parliamentary history allows this to occur. This qualification, where exactly does it arise from? I'm not trying to be cute but you continually ignore this question and its important. Before you go stating how this is the way it should be you should be aware of the role Parliamentary Convention plays in our system. Do you know what constitutional document mentions the powers that the Prime Minister of Canada holds? No where. That's right, its merely through convention that the PM holds any power whatsoever. What about cabinet? It doesn't exist in our constitution either. My point is please, oh please, tell me where this "qualification" arises, other then in your mind. I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion on the subject but I doubt you entirely appreciate how our government operates. Where this qualification arises is in common law. In it, when a written or oral contract is broken, the guilty party must compensate the other party for its losses arising from the braking of the contract. A party platform is a contract signed by a political party when it's published and by the voter, who signs it by voting for that party. When its violated, the voter should be compensated, i.e. the least that can be done is to have Fortier run in a by-election. Finally, Fortier did not sign the contract by not running behind it, and the voter didn't sign it either, because no voter voted for him. Now is that a satisfactory explanation? Obviously the commonly accepted principle that one must keep his word doesn't mean anything to you. I guess that's a conservative trait too. Quote
Mimas Posted February 11, 2006 Author Report Posted February 11, 2006 So in a nutshell you're pissed at Harper, and Fortier may very well be qualified for the job. No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Before you get pissy with me (though we may have crossed that threshold already) you keep mentioning that in order to be "qualified" for a cabinet position you must be elected. This is despite the fact that our Parliamentary history allows this to occur. This qualification, where exactly does it arise from? I'm not trying to be cute but you continually ignore this question and its important. Before you go stating how this is the way it should be you should be aware of the role Parliamentary Convention plays in our system. Do you know what constitutional document mentions the powers that the Prime Minister of Canada holds? No where. That's right, its merely through convention that the PM holds any power whatsoever. What about cabinet? It doesn't exist in our constitution either. My point is please, oh please, tell me where this "qualification" arises, other then in your mind. I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion on the subject but I doubt you entirely appreciate how our government operates. Where this qualification arises is in common law. In it, when a written or oral contract is broken, the guilty party must compensate the other party for its losses arising from the braking of the contract. A party platform is a contract signed by a political party when it's published and by the voter, who signs it by voting for that party. When its violated, the voter should be compensated, i.e. the least that can be done is to have Fortier run in a by-election. Finally, Fortier did not sign the contract by not running behind it, and the voter didn't sign it either, because no voter voted for him. Now is that a satisfactory explanation? Obviously the commonly accepted principle that one must keep his word doesn't mean anything to you. I guess that's a conservative trait too. Also you can check Fortier's interview on Monday's broadcast www.cbc.ca/politics , where Fortier says that he doesn't know much about Public Works. Quote
Hicksey Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. I thought that was me. Well, a Liberal that called me on that I called Stronach a whore said I owed people an apology not an hour after it happened and I said Emerson was cut form the same cloth then. Check the link. You're right, I was a few hours later. Gee, wonder where mimas went after making that comment? Bet we wont see mimas back for an apology. Didn't think so. With knee-jerk reflexes like that I'll bet you've ended up with your foot in your mouth a few times now. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Spike22 Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 Not only is this a slap in the face but a kiss on the ass. Why do people find this so unbelieveable? Wake up folks they are politicians!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote
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.