Harper Withdraws nominee for Ethics Role

[scribblet]

Hmmm, guess we know where the the opposition stands on ethics now.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper withdrew his nominee to head the new public appointments commission Tuesday after opposition MPs rejected his choice.

The move effectively kills the committee -- a key part of the Tories' accountability package aimed at creating more transparency in federal appointments.

Earlier Tuesday, the House of Commons operations committee voted 6-5 to ask Harper to withdraw his appointment of former energy executive and star recruit Gwyn Morgan.

In a telephone interview with CTV Calgary, the former Calgary oil executive who ran EnCana Corp. dismissed the opposition's rejection of a public appointments commission as nothing but "partisan politics."

"I think Canadians should be disappointed by the way this process has played out," Morgan said.

"All I wanted was to help my country, besides that, there wasn't a lot in it for me."

Morgan would have been paid a salary of $1 per year as head of the commission.

Harper spokeswoman Carolyn Stewart Olsen criticized the opposition for voting down the government's "key efforts to clean up the appointments process."

"It is now clear that we will not be able to make progress on this issue in a minority Parliament.

"The NDP and the Bloc will have to explain why they co-operated with a party that doesn't want to clean up the government appointments process to snub one of Canada's most respected business leaders," she said.

[shoop]

Yup. That's a dumbass move for sure.

While it helps the NDP and the Libs with their base on the left, it hurts withcentrist voters.

Helps the Conservatives with their base and swing-centre voters. Accountability will definitely be an issue in the next election.

I knew we were in for an election sooner rather than later, but with moves like that the opposition just might force Harper's hand for a fall election.

[August1991]

This is how Harper reacted:

Mr. Harper said the Tuesday's vote signals that “we won't be able to clean up the process in this minority Parliament.”

“We'll obviously need a majority government to do that in the future. That's obviously what we'll be taking to the people of Canada at the appropriate time,” he said as he headed into Parliament for question period.

G & M

We might be in for an election sooner than I would have thought. It would be a good issue to run on.

Note too the NDP's reason for not supporting the nomination:

The NDP had brought forward a motion calling former EnCana head Gwyn Morgan an “unsuitable” candidate, citing past comments made about immigration and low-wage earners.

[Argus]

We might be in for an election sooner than I would have thought. It would be a good issue to run on.

Hardly. I have already seen Morgan openly described as a racist in numerous areas. Why? Because he once stated that there were problems of crime and violence with the Jamaican and Vietnamese communities. No one has actually disputed the accuracy of the statement. However, you are not allowed to say anything bad, accurate or not, about any racial or ethnic group in Canada. To do so puts you in exactly the same category as Adolph Hitler or the KKK to these people. And Harper does not need another excuse for the NDP and Liberals to scream about the "racism!" of the Conservative Party.

[Rovik]

Harper, if he was serious about ethics should never have picked this person as the head of the public appoinments commissions. And if he was really serious, he should have picked someone else who would more fit the role instead of coping out and dismissing the committee outright. Makes one wonder if Harper was serious about the commission in the first place, for he must have known the reaction by naming this person as head.

And after I read the NDP's reasons for calling this person unsuitable, I can understand why he wasn't a good choice.

From NDP Site: NDP motion passes: Gwyn Morgan “unsuitable

Some info from above website:

Morgan repeatedly refused to apologize for offensive comments he made about immigrants, low-wage workers and unions in a speech he gave several months ago.

“Mr. Morgan’s comments were deeply offensive, insensitive and out of step with Canadian values,” NDP MP Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park) said. “He had the opportunity to withdraw and apologize for his remarks to demonstrate to us his suitability. He refused; so we acted.”

and

In December of 2005 Morgan addressed the Fraser Institute Forum and made controversial remarks about Asian and Jamaican immigrants to Canada and their supposed propensity for violence.

Mr. Morgan also attacked low wage workers, auto sector unions and the New Democratic Party in the same speech. Nash believes that such a deeply partisan and ideological person should not serve in a position that is meant to stem the tide of partisan patronage appointments.

[margrace]

Sounds to me like typical Harper, if you don't do it my way we won't do it at all. The first post left out the CTV headline, Harper dumps Public Appointment Committee. Which is it your way or the way CTV posted it.

[Argus]

Harper, if he was serious about ethics should never have picked this person as the head of the public appoinments commissions.

You think someone named as the best CEO in Canada is unfit to head a commision? Why? Because he said, as a private citizen, that there are problems of crime with the Jamaican and Vietnamese communities? This is indisputably correct. No one, including the NDP has argued that he was wrong.

Morgan repeatedly refused to apologize for offensive comments he made about immigrants, low-wage workers and unions in a speech he gave several months ago.

This is a very fascist attitude. You said something which was offensive, even though I wasn't there to hear it, and even though it's true. I demand you apologise for saying it. Recant or else!

“Mr. Morgan’s comments were deeply offensive, insensitive and out of step with Canadian values,” NDP MP Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park) said. “He had the opportunity to withdraw and apologize for his remarks to demonstrate to us his suitability. He refused; so we acted.”

I'd be willing to bet that Morgan's statements are more in tune with Canadian values than anything peggy Nash would ever call her own.

But never mind, even though he's an unquestionably honest, intelligent, capable and even brilliant Canadian willing to work for nothing, he's a pariah to them, unworthy of any public position, an unspeakable non-person because he dared to say things which violate the dainty politically correct fascist mindset of liberals. It's a wonder they don't demand he be arrested while they're at it, these shrill -little- people.

[August1991]

Hardly. I have already seen Morgan openly described as a racist in numerous areas.

I had never heard of this guy until a couple of days ago. I'd like to see the so-called offensive quotes (and nor reports of the quotes).

But I agree with you Argus. While I doubt that a potential Tory voter will be deterred by the remarks of some nominee to some commission, I also doubt that Harper wants to take on the Political Correct Thought Police right now. (OTOH, it may well prove to be a winning strategy. I suspect a majority of Canadians are now tired of the politically correct hypocrisy and nonsense.)

[scribblet]

Sounds to me like typical Harper, if you don't do it my way we won't do it at all. The first post left out the CTV headline, Harper dumps Public Appointment Committee. Which is it your way or the way CTV posted it.

The headline in the article says: Harper scraps committee idea after setback

Updated Tue. May. 16 2006 7:32 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The first sentence says "Prime Minister Stephen Harper withdrew his nominee to head the new public " there is no mention of the word 'dumps' , so which is it your words or the actual article.

[August1991]

Here's a link to the text of Morgan's speech before the Empire Club in Toronto.

But we need to be careful that "multiculturalism" doesn't, in fact, become a value that divides, rather than a value that unites. This is a flashpoint topic in many western countries.

Recent riots in France and Australia are timely and troubling examples. It seems as if "multiculturalism" in these countries has created "sub cultures" bearing little relation to the mainstream culture and values of the country.

This is controversial?

He gave a speech in December 2006 (during the federal election) to the Fraser Institute. I have been unable to find a text of the speech but here is a quote:

In speaking about immigration, Morgan also targeted the issue of crime -- a key platform of the Conservatives in the runup to the Jan. 23 election -- saying "immigration has a social side as well as an economic one. The social side is all too evident with the runaway violence, driven mainly by Jamaican immigrants in Toronto, or the all too frequent violence between Asian and other ethnic gangs right here in Calgary."

He said he is in favor of a strong immigration program, adding that color, race and religion should continue to be "irrelevant" in selecting which immigrants are allowed to enter Canada.

Reuters

This is controversial?

I'll note too the following:

Morgan is well-regarded in Corporate Canada as an astute businessman. For 2005, he was named the most respected chief executive among his peers, according to a survey by polling firm Ipsos Reid.

Frankly, if the NDP want to pick a fight over this guy, then maybe Harper should accept the challenge.

[BubberMiley]

I wonder why, if he considers colour and race "irrelevant," why he brought up the issue with the Jamaican and Asian immigrants. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to target specific races when discussing crime, but it is certainly racist. Some people take exception to such generalized discussions and they have every right to. Calling them fascist for doing so is bordering on Godwin's Law.

[FTA Lawyer]

I'm sorry, it is not racist to highlight the truth that Jamaican immigrants in Toronto and Asian gangs in Calgary are problems which may very well be unintended results of our muticulturalism policies.

Racist would be to say something like "Asians are drug-dealing scum" when clearly not all Asians fit that description.

Why is it that by and large Canadians demand their politicians be buffoons, people who couldn't be successful in their own life, people without ethics, and when anyone comes along who might not fit the mould we attack them until they quit out of disgust or the media convinces the public that the person is sheer evil?

Again, our country is being choked from reaching its potential due to pathetic partisan rhetoric.

God forbid we have a successful and highly respected businessman who calls things as he sees them, even if his view is unpopular, heading a committee to ensure that government appointments are based on merit and not patronism...how could we ever live with such tyrrany?!

Damn, there I've done it again, I made a reference to God...there goes any hope I might have had for a career in politics.

And I can throw the criticism around evenly...why pray tell is it a huge black mark that Mr. Ignatieff is a Harvard professor?! There may be reasoned arguments for or against him as a viable Liberal leader, but being a Harvard professor is impressive and ought to give him a huge leg up in the minds of Canadians who are looking for good leadership in government.

Damn, I said "pray"...I guess I'll never learn...

FTA

[Nocrap]

The opposition parties were right in not accepting Gwyn Morgan's appointment to any ethics' role, and not because he was outed as a racist, but because he has been a longtime fundraiser for both the Reform Party and later the CPC. He held a fundraiser for Stephen Harper in this last campaign; and himself has donated thousands including $5,100 on May 26, 2005 (see Elections Canada website.). In addition, Encana CEO Michael Chernoff and his wife Dorrine each contributed $ 5,100 on May 20, 2005.

You can't have an ethics' watchdog, who is supposed to be non-Partisan and watch all politicians, also act as a cash cow for just one party.

His links to the oil companies and the Fraser Institute; or what I like to call the backup singers for CPC policy; again make him unsuitable to answer to the Canadian public. Harper, the Reform Party and now the CPC have too long had their hands in the pockets of Morgan and his buddies and I believe that Harper may now realize that the Morgan nomination was far too transparent and would eventually take another bite out of the PM's behind.

Big Oil Buddies

[scribblet]

Here's a link to the text of Morgan's speech before the Empire Club in Toronto.

But we need to be careful that "multiculturalism" doesn't, in fact, become a value that divides, rather than a value that unites. This is a flashpoint topic in many western countries.

Recent riots in France and Australia are timely and troubling examples. It seems as if "multiculturalism" in these countries has created "sub cultures" bearing little relation to the mainstream culture and values of the country.

This is controversial?

Frankly, if the NDP want to pick a fight over this guy, then maybe Harper should accept the challenge.

I agree, maybe he should. What he said is the truth, but PC doesn't allow that, or any discussion of those problems. He would have been a valuable assett, and he was going to do it out of a sense of duty to his country - he wasn't being paid for it.

[BubberMiley]

I'm sorry, it is not racist to highlight the truth that Jamaican immigrants in Toronto and Asian gangs in Calgary are problems which may very well be unintended results of our muticulturalism policies.

Racist would be to say something like "Asians are drug-dealing scum" when clearly not all Asians fit that description.

It might be semantics and the degree of negativity you consider necessary for an overgeneralized negative comment on race to be considered "racist." Again, I think pretty much everyone is racist to some degree or other so it's not that big a deal that he made those comments, but they are what they are.

[August1991]

The opposition parties were right in not accepting Gwyn Morgan's appointment to any ethics' role, and not because he was outed as a racist, but because he has been a longtime fundraiser for both the Reform Party and later the CPC. He held a fundraiser for Stephen Harper in this last campaign; and himself has donated thousands including $5,100 on May 26, 2005 (see Elections Canada website.)

Outed as a racist?

In what shape or form do Morgan's comments constitute racism? He questioned the validity of "multiculturalism" and he noted troubling issues about gun crime in Toronto and Calgary. He made no bland generalizations. If we cannot discuss this openly, we will get nowhere in dealing with it. I think a majority of Canadians understand that.

As to the campaign contributions, they were perfectly legal at the time they were made. Are you going to exclude everyone who ever contributed to a political campaign from being named to a government commission? Ed Broadbent, I believe, contributed to the NDP and (heavens!) sat on several government commissions, including one about accountability. In the case of Morgan, we are talking about one commissioner on on commission.

In the case of the Liberals, over 60% of Quebec and Ontario federal judges made contributions to the Liberal Party prior to being named to the bench. Now, you tell me, what is more serious?

[Temagami Scourge]

Morgan said this at the Fraser Insitute dinner:

"Jamaica has one of the world's highest crime rates driven mainly by the violence between gangs competing for dominance in the Caribbean drug trade. Why do we expect different behaviour in Toronto, Ontario, than in Kingston, Jamaica?"

He went on to state the same about Vietnamese immigrants and their predisposition to violent crime as well. Yes, he has also been a vocal critic of all things Liberal, but regardless of his success at EnCana, anyone in their right mind knows you don't make racists comments and expect everyone to ignore it. It didn't help an idiot like ahenakew, regardless of how many medals he won for being an utstanding Canadian, and Harper should have known better that to try to put morgan in the Commisioners chair in the first place.

Now he is whinning like a spoiled brat, and its an embarrassment to Canada. The first political rebuff he suffers and he gives up and says "I need a majority". To me, a true leader should be able to work through a minority by engaging the opposition, not just using them as a punching bag whenever things don't go his way.

Harper is more of the problem than Morgan. At least Morgan is an outstanding businessman and an honest social idiot.

[August1991]

Mr. Morgan explained that the words were taken out of context and, in hindsight, he would rewrite those statements if he could. But he refused to apologize, saying he was anything but racist.

He and his wife "basically love the Caribbean. We attend their churches. In fact, in January we were at an all-black church," he told the committee.

G & M

This guy is going down because he is not politically correct. He has broken all the PC rules. The NDP has become the new Moral Majority.

And this:

After Mr. Morgan's ill-fated turn before the committee, former Liberal cabinet minister Roy MacLaren, who was one of the other three people nominated to sit on the commission, withdrew his name from contention, sources told The Globe and Mail. The other two nominees are Hassan Khosrowshahi, chairman of Inwest Group of Companies, and Jacqueline L. Boutet, a Quebec businesswoman and Order of Canada recipient.

And this:

Thomas d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said the decision was both sad and deplorable.

"In the committee hearing this morning, I had the misfortune to witness a highly partisan exercise aimed at discrediting a decent and generous citizen who offered to give his best to the country," Mr. d'Aquino said. "This decision is certain to have a chilling effect on other exceptional individuals who would be more than pleased to volunteer their services for Canada."

[Temagami Scourge]

In a telephone interview with CTV Calgary, the former Calgary oil executive who ran EnCana Corp. dismissed the opposition's rejection of a public appointments commission as nothing but "partisan politics."

"I think Canadians should be disappointed by the way this process has played out," Morgan said.

"All I wanted was to help my country, besides that, there wasn't a lot in it for me."

Morgan would have been paid a salary of $1 per year as head of the commission.

Oh boohoo...someone...where is my violin!

Ya gotta love guys like Morgan...blame everyone but ME.......... Cripes, I lived at Jane and Finch for years, and i'll bet that -unlike Morgan- I've actually met Jamican-Canadians...even knew their names. Heck, I've had fights with Jamaican-canadians, parties with them, played sports with them, learned what a bommel-clatt, rastaclatt AND a bloodclatt is, and I can safely say that there are some badass mofos, but there are people like that in any community.

Or put it in these words, what if Michaelle John spoke about the problems in canada's white community that give birth to serial killers and mass murderers? Whites would be livid (even though all our serial killers and mass murdereres are Caucasian...women included). Well, Ms. Jean couldn't get away with it, then why is it cool for Morgan to talk about "all" Jamaicans being gun-murdering types when clearly it is a small minority that happens to get a lot of press?

Nah, we don't need fools like Morgan. he should stick to business, where he thrives, but leave government out of the equation where we know that his personal angst will play a roll in his decision-making process.

[Temagami Scourge]

"He and his wife "basically love the Caribbean. We attend their churches. In fact, in January we were at an all-black church," he told the committee."

Sweet Jesus...this is priceless! "We attend their churches" ....my, how white of the man! "(we)....basically love the Caribbean"

Media question: then surely you know, Mr. Morgan, that the Caribbean is made up of a number of distinct nationalities. Are you certain that it was a Jamaican church you attended? Maybe is was a Barbadan church, or a Trinidadian church?

mr. M: Uh, Uh, Uh...

Media: Mr. Morgan...you've been to an all-black Church, would any of your friends be black?

Mr. M: Why yes, Conrad Black.

[southerncomfort]

Yup, but its typical liberal strategy to demonize your opponent and call them racist, it wins points with more than a few voters.

[Naci Sey]

To me this is a typical Harper tantrum. His first choice for the commission didn't pass the committee, so instead of offering an alternative, he dumps the commission entirely. He's thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Harper's first choice wasn't a good one. Criticism of the selection came immediately, even before Morgan sat before the committee. A former CEO of a major corporation, who has regularly and sizeably contributed to the Conservatives, who has deep links with corporate Canada - how is this a good candidate for the ETHICS Commission? There were sure to have been many people far more suitable. Alas, they weren't buddies of Harper.

[Temagami Scourge]

Comfort:

...and it's a typical racist strategy to blurt out that some of their best friends are non-white, like Morgan does IN PRINT, of all places.

Liberal, conservative or Zorastrian, any idiot that goes on about attending black churches to cover his ass is a fool. Morgan shouldn't have said stupid crap like he did in the first place. As I said, I've known many Jamaican-Canadians from living in T.O., and a statement like he made implicating that every manjack of 'em is a potential gun user is pure, unadulterated, ethnocentric bulls**t.

He can complain about criminals to his heart's content, but criminals are bad people, not just bad Black people or bad Vietnamese people.

[Temagami Scourge]

Naci:

you hit the nail on the head with your last post.

however, I'm sure some of the partisan whiners here will cry foul to high heaven for having one of their own besmerched on a public forum.

[Rovik]

I believe that the most important thing is not the fact that the individual was rejected by the oppostion but by the fact that Harper, instead of picking someone else, decided to shut down the whole commission. It's almost like a child in a playground. The child wants to play with just one toy but is told that the toy is inappropriate, but instead of playing with another toy, the child doesn't want to play anymore and wants to go home.

His heavy-handed approach of cutting the commission, because he didn't get the guy he wanted, will not help his image with those who would consider voting Conservative in a future election.