Harper named 49 'future' patronage appointments -- will Trudeau exercise his option to say 'no'?

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Harper named 49 'future' patronage appointments -- will Trudeau exercise his option to say 'no'?

*

Issues Pages: 
Unionist

Mr. Trudeau: You have an option, Sir!

[url=http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made-49-future-p... Harper government made 49 “future” patronage appointments[/url]

Quote:

Former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet quietly stacked government agencies and Crown corporations with dozens of “future appointments,” and early appointment renewals in the dying days of its regime, many of which were only scheduled to go into effect long after the Conservatives were defeated, iPolitics has learned.

While some had been due to come up for renewal in November and December, others were renewed up to a year in advance of when they had been scheduled to expire and made effective the date the appointees’ current term was due to end.

Get rid of them first, ask questions later. It's the Canadian way.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Trudeau: You have an option, Sir!

[url=http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/23/doomed-harper-government-made-49-future-p... Harper government made 49 “future” patronage appointments[/url]

Quote:

Former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet quietly stacked government agencies and Crown corporations with dozens of “future appointments,” and early appointment renewals in the dying days of its regime, many of which were only scheduled to go into effect long after the Conservatives were defeated, iPolitics has learned.

While some had been due to come up for renewal in November and December, others were renewed up to a year in advance of when they had been scheduled to expire and made effective the date the appointees’ current term was due to end.

Get rid of them first, ask questions later. It's the Canadian way.

 

I guess his option was to face the music himself rather than resign early.

And that music was not crappy beatles covers or Nickleback after all.

quizzical

the NEB appointments are and issue for me. and Trudeau had better be cancelling those appointments or he'll really prove he's a lying liar and jut the same as Harper.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Trudeau had better be cancelling those appointments or he'll really prove he's a lying liar

If he promised that he would and then doesn't then he's definitely a liar.

Was this one of his promises?

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Trudeau had better be cancelling those appointments or he'll really prove he's a lying liar

If he promised that he would and then doesn't then he's definitely a liar.

Was this one of his promises?

Oh stop it, will you?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So... not one of his promises then?

quizzical

his promise was to have changes at NEB and with environmental review happening. no changes to NEB and what it oversees and he's broken his promise.

bekayne
Northern PoV

quizzical wrote:

his promise was to have changes at NEB and with environmental review happening. no changes to NEB and what it oversees and he's broken his promise.

You know you often come across as thick as a brick?  Perhaps read a bit and think first before blabbing?

Removing these folks requires both the Senate & HoC to vote in favour.  That's a lot of political capital to waste on this CON surprize package with a potential Senate/CON block along the way.

The CONs have broken all precedent with these appointments.  (re timing & longevity & potential effect). I'd say an immediate, urgent Supreme Court ref. to have these appointments declared unconstitutional would solve both the immediate dilemma and set a really good precedent for the future.  Given the  S. Courts' record on CON initiatives, they'd likely be successful.  (And prevent $hitloads of lawsuits.)

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Maybe we should wait a little on this. I suspect the Liebrals are seeking legal advice on this. It is unprecedented to have such appointments filled beyond the mandate of a government. The Liberals would be wrong not to get thorough legal advice on this before acting and I suspect that is what they are doing. It is too early to call this a broken promise. This is a curveball from Harper and he is the only one who should be blamed for now. Wait a few weeks and then judge the Liberals on this based on their considered actions.

quizzical

from bekayne's link

Quote:
Trudeau’s office was caught by surprise Monday when iPolitics published a story noting the Conservatives made 49 appointments and reappointments last spring that would come into effect only after the federal election had passed, apparently an attempt by the Conservatives to bind the hands of a new government.

wtf were they doing while in opposition in Ottawa? the Liberals should've been all over this the minute they got  elected or they're playing the duck and pretending they didn't know.

and i can't believe the privy council did not tell them about how you can't remove NEB members once appointed.

 

Northern PoV

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Maybe we should wait a little on this. I suspect the Liebrals are seeking legal advice on this. It is unprecedented to have such appointments filled beyond the mandate of a government. The Liberals would be wrong not to get thorough legal advice on this before acting and I suspect that is what they are doing. It is too early to call this a broken promise. This is a curveball from Harper and he is the only one who should be blamed for now. Wait a few weeks and then judge the Liberals on this based on their considered actions.

Thank you Sean.  

As  suggested above, take it directly to the Supreme Court.  

There is only one CON toady on that body.  An obscure Alberta blogger named Russell Brown who the CONs torqued into a lower court position to make him TECHNICALLY eligible for that exalted post. They learned from the Nadon disaster. - Too bad we can't yank Russell at the same time.

 

quizzical

Northern PoV wrote:
quizzical wrote:
his promise was to have changes at NEB and with environmental review happening. no changes to NEB and what it oversees and he's broken his promise.

You know you often come across as thick as a brick?  Perhaps read a bit and think first before blabbing?

settle down and stop the personal okay?!

and i agree with you re the SSC making a decision on this who knows how long the Cons and the Liberals have been doing this only on a smaller scale. 

 

Sean:

i think they knew. i don't believe the Privy Council withheld info from them. i'm sure if they did there would be legal ramifications.

the article said Paul Martin did the same thing on his outgoing though they didn't go so far into the future. the Cons learned from the masters is all i see and i don't believe they didn't know. they just wanted people not to be watching and reporting and now are playing the surprised and agrieved.

don't get me wrong i think it's bs Harper did this and i'm not surprised.

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

from bekayne's link

Quote:
Trudeau’s office was caught by surprise Monday when iPolitics published a story noting the Conservatives made 49 appointments and reappointments last spring that would come into effect only after the federal election had passed, apparently an attempt by the Conservatives to bind the hands of a new government.

wtf were they doing while in opposition in Ottawa? the Liberals should've been all over this the minute they got  elected or they're playing the duck and pretending they didn't know.

and i can't believe the privy council did not tell them about how you can't remove NEB members once appointed.

The NDP was the official opposition not the Liberals. I imagine the privy council has a great deal to update the new government on and that it will take time for the transition to be complete.

I agree with the suggestion that they should refer the question to the Supreme Court.

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

from bekayne's link

Quote:
Trudeau’s office was caught by surprise Monday when iPolitics published a story noting the Conservatives made 49 appointments and reappointments last spring that would come into effect only after the federal election had passed, apparently an attempt by the Conservatives to bind the hands of a new government.

wtf were they doing while in opposition in Ottawa? the Liberals should've been all over this the minute they got  elected or they're playing the duck and pretending they didn't know.

and i can't believe the privy council did not tell them about how you can't remove NEB members once appointed.

The NDP was the official opposition not the Liberals. I imagine the privy council has a great deal to update the new government on and that it will take time for the transition to be complete.

I agree with the suggestion that they should refer the question to the Supreme Court.


You would never know it given the fawning of teh CBC for Heir Trudeau. I don't think it needs teh SCC, for one it would take too long to study. I would say
"Sorry but the previous government had no mandate to place friends into government positions just to sabatoge change after the fact, I will place my own cronies into those positions and all will be right."

Unionist

thorin_bane wrote:
I would say
"Sorry but the previous government had no mandate to place friends into government positions just to sabatoge change after the fact, I will place my own cronies into those positions and all will be right."

Perfect!

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

thorin_bane wrote:
I would say
"Sorry but the previous government had no mandate to place friends into government positions just to sabatoge change after the fact, I will place my own cronies into those positions and all will be right."

Perfect!

I think the question is "does the government have a contractual obligation?"

Trudeau is avoiding patronage appointments for the senate so I doubt he wants to make patronage appointments for any positions.

This will be an interesting file to follow to see what if anything he does about this situation.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
thorin_bane wrote:
I would say
"Sorry but the previous government had no mandate to place friends into government positions just to sabatoge change after the fact, I will place my own cronies into those positions and all will be right."

Perfect!

really?

i got called being thick for giving such a narrow view....

the Liberals can say  it all they want doesn't change the reality it''ll not be easy to retract Harper's appointments and could cost Candians hundreds of millions if they try unless it goes to the SCC.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Northern PoV wrote:

You know you often come across as thick as a brick?

I wouldn't normally post a personal criticism, but since you seem to think it's a good idea... I think you often come across as an obnoxious asshole.

pookie

FWIW I don't really see how this could be found unconstitutional.  So I don't think it would be worth the SCC's time.  The court would be unlikely to interfere with the Executive to that extent anway.

Appts at pleasure can be rescinded.  For the rest, the govt will have to weigh the pros and cons.  They don't need to do anything right away, since many of the renewals aren't coming up for a while.  

And I for sure think this was a screw up by the PCO.  And no, there are no legal implications to PCO fucking up.  Other than I am sure Libs will be looking do some housecleaning.

 

quizzical

pookie wrote:
FWIW I don't really see how this could be found unconstitutional.  So I don't think it would be worth the SCC's time.  The court would be unlikely to interfere with the Executive to that extent anway.

Appts at pleasure can be rescinded.  For the rest, the govt will have to weigh the pros and cons.  They don't need to do anything right away, since many of the renewals aren't coming up for a while.  

And I for sure think this was a screw up by the PCO.  And no, there are no legal implications to PCO fucking up.  Other than I am sure Libs will be looking do some housecleaning.

there's 5 appts at pleasure only....means 44 are firm and need HoC bill and Senate approval of it to remove them.

and yes the renewals are coming up this month and next, then early in the New Year. talking points really pookie?

i call interference in democracy unconstitutional as it's what Harper did.

 

pookie

quizzical wrote:

pookie wrote:
FWIW I don't really see how this could be found unconstitutional.  So I don't think it would be worth the SCC's time.  The court would be unlikely to interfere with the Executive to that extent anway.

Appts at pleasure can be rescinded.  For the rest, the govt will have to weigh the pros and cons.  They don't need to do anything right away, since many of the renewals aren't coming up for a while.  

And I for sure think this was a screw up by the PCO.  And no, there are no legal implications to PCO fucking up.  Other than I am sure Libs will be looking do some housecleaning.

there's 5 appts at pleasure only....means 44 are firm and need HoC bill and Senate approval of it to remove them.

and yes the renewals are coming up this month and next, then early in the New Year. talking points really pookie?

i call interference in democracy unconstitutional as it's what Harper did.

A number of the renewals don't take effect for months and years.  One is scheduled for Jan 2019. Read the details.

But, yeah.  I'm the one spewing talking pts.

 

quizzical

fk i know one doesn't take effect until after the next election date in 2019 should  the Liberals keep fixed election dates. i've asked you before to stop talking down to me. you only do imv to try and get your talking points across.

the article quite clearly stated a good many are occuring within the next few months.  don't try and spin it they've a long time to make changes.

imv all you're doing is saying they've no intention on making Harper's appointments go away.

thorin_bane

Edit to not add more to the derailing

Unionist

Anyway, it's clear to me that these Conservative bootlickers can be fired with no consequences whatsoever - no lawsuits, no severance... In fact, even though they might be selfish assholes, they are too greedy to waste their own money hiring lawyers in a lost cause.

Therefore, Trudeau should just kick their sorry asses out, now. If he doesn't, he is complicit with Harper's corruption. And signaling that he will soon be exhibiting the same brazen corruption himself.

The only way to defeat Harperism is to extinguish every trace of the sickness that he implanted within the past 10 years. It's unfortunate there's no simple way to erase the judges and senators and other shits that he named. But the ones that can be erased now - Trudeau must do it.

You can no doubt feel my scepticism that this will happen.

 

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

pookie wrote:
FWIW I don't really see how this could be found unconstitutional.  So I don't think it would be worth the SCC's time.  The court would be unlikely to interfere with the Executive to that extent anway.

Appts at pleasure can be rescinded.  For the rest, the govt will have to weigh the pros and cons.  They don't need to do anything right away, since many of the renewals aren't coming up for a while.  

And I for sure think this was a screw up by the PCO.  And no, there are no legal implications to PCO fucking up.  Other than I am sure Libs will be looking do some housecleaning.

there's 5 appts at pleasure only....means 44 are firm and need HoC bill and Senate approval of it to remove them.

and yes the renewals are coming up this month and next, then early in the New Year. talking points really pookie?

i call interference in democracy unconstitutional as it's what Harper did.

 

Actually, 21 appointments can be clearly cancelled, and only 24 are firm, with 4 unclear. If you're going to spew talking points, at least keep to factual talking points.

Quote:

Many of the future appointments could be hard to undo without risking litigation. Of the 49 early renewals and future appointments, 24 are conditional on “good behaviour,” meaning appointees can only be stripped of their positions for bad conduct.

Another 20 appointments, however, were made “during pleasure” meaning the government can terminate the appointment for little or no reason.

One reappointment, of honourary consul Ricardo Guimaraes, which takes effect in December, can be cancelled by either side on 60 days notice. Four appointments do not spell out the terms of the appointment.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I think the Liberals will be right to consider the political implications of this.

Certainly the appearance of a partisan house-cleaning would be a problem. I suspect this is also why there is a delay. I don't think the Liberals are happy with or want these people in these positions so the considerations would be legal, financial (settlements), and political.

The Liberal party's interest is getting rid of these people if they can -- I don't see why we cannot assume they will do their best to do so.

I do understand why politically it may not be easy as we know what the right wing will say about it. I suspect that this will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis with a few considerations in addition to the above:

1) can an argument be made successfuly that any specific appointment will disrupt the new mandate agenda -- due to perceived bias or direction of the appointee?

2) can an argument be made successfuly that the person is not qualified or not qualified for the new mandate?

3) can an argument be made successfuly that the effective date of the appointment is well into the mandate (not just slightly past the election)?

4) can an argument be made successfuly that the term of the appointment is far to long to allow the appointment past the mandate?

A review of the appointments one by one would be necessary to respond properly. There is little benefit for the government to include any marginal examples in the terminations. Obviously, the government will be under pressure to respond quickly as any delay would be seen as prejudicial and unjust. Perhaps a notice to the appoitees that the government intends to review their appointment and they should be prepared would be enough to buy some time to do it properly.

This review would likely have to include meeting with the individuals to see how they are disposed. Some of them, in spite of their personal political leanings might be good candidates with a willingness to work with the new government.

My guess is an appropriate review of these appointments will find some that ought to be reversed and others where it is not worth it. A fair process would provide a greater impression of a new way of doing business than a reversal of the lot.

Unionist

This is not complicated. These are "future" appointments by a government no longer having power.

The Liberal government should cancel the appointments en masse, proclaiming as a principle that future appointments made on purely partisan secret considerations are unacceptable.

THEN, it should immediately examine all the appointments one by one, and determine which ones it approves. And preferably, use a non-partisan transparent process.

What exactly is wrong with that?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

This is not complicated. These are "future" appointments by a government no longer having power.

The Liberal government should cancel the appointments en masse, proclaiming as a principle that future appointments made on purely partisan secret considerations are unacceptable.

THEN, it should immediately examine all the appointments one by one, and determine which ones it approves. And preferably, use a non-partisan transparent process.

What exactly is wrong with that?

 

I very much agree with this comment.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Unionist wrote:

This is not complicated. These are "future" appointments by a government no longer having power.

The Liberal government should cancel the appointments en masse, proclaiming as a principle that future appointments made on purely partisan secret considerations are unacceptable.

THEN, it should immediately examine all the appointments one by one, and determine which ones it approves. And preferably, use a non-partisan transparent process.

What exactly is wrong with that?

 

I very much agree with this comment.

Me three.

quizzical

Michael Moriarity wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
Unionist wrote:
This is not complicated. These are "future" appointments by a government no longer having power.

The Liberal government should cancel the appointments en masse, proclaiming as a principle that future appointments made on purely partisan secret considerations are unacceptable.

THEN, it should immediately examine all the appointments one by one, and determine which ones it approves. And preferably, use a non-partisan transparent process.

What exactly is wrong with that?

I very much agree with this comment.

Me three.

yup a me too here

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
Unionist wrote:
This is not complicated. These are "future" appointments by a government no longer having power.

The Liberal government should cancel the appointments en masse, proclaiming as a principle that future appointments made on purely partisan secret considerations are unacceptable.

THEN, it should immediately examine all the appointments one by one, and determine which ones it approves. And preferably, use a non-partisan transparent process.

What exactly is wrong with that?

I very much agree with this comment.

Me three.

yup a me too here

Essentially as I understand it this would be a review of all appointments that would, in a fair process, consider and accept those that were reasonable and reject all others while putting out the presumption that they are revoked until they pass a reasonable non-partisan process.

I can certainly endorse that.

I think such a process is the necessary response rather than just a replacement of blue hacks with red hacks.

Unionist

Almost 5,000 signatures on this petition:

[url=http://you.leadnow.ca/petitions/cancel-harper-s-future-patronage-appoint... Harper's 'Future' Patronage Appointments[/url]

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Signed.

Unionist

[url=http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/26/news/harpers-poisoned-gift-pu...'s poisoned gift puts Trudeau government in a bind[/url]

Quote:

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald’s Paul McLeod reported that [Charlie] Angus was angry over several recent appointees, including Angela Weisenberger and John Weisenberger, respectively made director of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and director of the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

It transpired that Harper had been master of ceremonies at their wedding.

And more interesting comment on all the big oil NEB appointments and what the Trudeau government can do about them (if it cares).

 

quizzical

i don't think Trudeau or the Liberal care.

they made the statement a couple of weeks back they were letting things go ahead which were already with the NEB before they got to modernizing it. imv they are or were going to try and pretend they didn't know or couldn't do a thing, until all this broke.

i don't believe for a moment the privy council didn't tell them. it's not like the privy council can come out and say "hey they're lying liars"

imv they were giving a clear signal to Kinder Morgan it's a go for Transmountain.

and they've NOT taken the control of the Fraser and North Thompson water sheds away from the NEB.

i mean wtf is the NEB doing controlling any bodies of water and their water sheds? and with Haper appointing a Kinder Morgan employee to the NEB it's even worse. everyone down stream of the headwaters should be pissed and fighting. they're not. it tells me it's going to be a go no matter what.

and if not for the water treaty over the Columbia and it's water shed they'd have control of it too as they're going under a river emptying into the Columbia Basin.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i don't think Trudeau or the Liberal care.

they made the statement a couple of weeks back they were letting things go ahead which were already with the NEB before they got to modernizing it. imv they are or were going to try and pretend they didn't know or couldn't do a thing, until all this broke.

i don't believe for a moment the privy council didn't tell them. it's not like the privy council can come out and say "hey they're lying liars"

imv they were giving a clear signal to Kinder Morgan it's a go for Transmountain.

and they've NOT taken the control of the Fraser and North Thompson water sheds away from the NEB.

i mean wtf is the NEB doing controlling any bodies of water and their water sheds? and with Haper appointing a Kinder Morgan employee to the NEB it's even worse. everyone down stream of the headwaters should be pissed and fighting. they're not. it tells me it's going to be a go no matter what.

and if not for the water treaty over the Columbia and it's water shed they'd have control of it too as they're going under a river emptying into the Columbia Basin.

 

Important to put this in the context where the Liberals are not supporting a binding legal treaty at Paris.

Northern PoV

Michael Moriarity wrote:

<SNIP>

I wouldn't normally post a personal criticism, but since you seem to think it's a good idea... I think you often come across as an obnoxious asshole.

I apologize for singling out a single commenter when the subsequent comments show that so many here deserve the same mild admonishment for posting nonsense.

As to your rude choice of moniker, I guess it hurts to have an empirical contrarian pushing back.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Imagine a hockey game where the referees are only on the ice for the first two minutes of the first period.

Unionist

Harpers' appointees. That's the topic. Do we agree they should be cancelled, immediately, then re-examined one by one by a non-partisan commission using transparent criteria? Or are we easily distracted?

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i don't think Trudeau or the Liberal care.

they made the statement a couple of weeks back they were letting things go ahead which were already with the NEB before they got to modernizing it. imv they are or were going to try and pretend they didn't know or couldn't do a thing, until all this broke.

i don't believe for a moment the privy council didn't tell them. it's not like the privy council can come out and say "hey they're lying liars"

imv they were giving a clear signal to Kinder Morgan it's a go for Transmountain.

and they've NOT taken the control of the Fraser and North Thompson water sheds away from the NEB.

i mean wtf is the NEB doing controlling any bodies of water and their water sheds? and with Haper appointing a Kinder Morgan employee to the NEB it's even worse. everyone down stream of the headwaters should be pissed and fighting. they're not. it tells me it's going to be a go no matter what.

and if not for the water treaty over the Columbia and it's water shed they'd have control of it too as they're going under a river emptying into the Columbia Basin.

Important to put this in the context where the Liberals are not supporting a binding legal treaty at Paris.

i'm sorry Sean i don't know what the treaty is you're speaking of.

i agree with uionist the only way through this bs of Harper's is to get a non-partisan commission to make the appointments and i would say dissolve the NEB and make a whole new energy commission.

if they don't they knew everything all the way along.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i'm sorry Sean i don't know what the treaty is you're speaking of.

i agree with uionist the only way through this bs of Harper's is to get a non-partisan commission to make the appointments and i would say dissolve the NEB and make a whole new energy commission.

if they don't they knew everything all the way along.

The Climate Change Treaty. France and Turkey and I imagine some others want the targets set by each country to be legally binding. In practice I think that would mean fines of some sort. The US is against and and now Canada has backed them up and is also opposed to binding targets. Non-binding targets are aspirational and call into question the determination to meet them.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i don't think Trudeau or the Liberal care.

they made the statement a couple of weeks back they were letting things go ahead which were already with the NEB before they got to modernizing it. imv they are or were going to try and pretend they didn't know or couldn't do a thing, until all this broke.

i don't believe for a moment the privy council didn't tell them. it's not like the privy council can come out and say "hey they're lying liars"

imv they were giving a clear signal to Kinder Morgan it's a go for Transmountain.

and they've NOT taken the control of the Fraser and North Thompson water sheds away from the NEB.

i mean wtf is the NEB doing controlling any bodies of water and their water sheds? and with Haper appointing a Kinder Morgan employee to the NEB it's even worse. everyone down stream of the headwaters should be pissed and fighting. they're not. it tells me it's going to be a go no matter what.

and if not for the water treaty over the Columbia and it's water shed they'd have control of it too as they're going under a river emptying into the Columbia Basin.

Important to put this in the context where the Liberals are not supporting a binding legal treaty at Paris.

i'm sorry Sean i don't know what the treaty is you're speaking of.

i agree with uionist the only way through this bs of Harper's is to get a non-partisan commission to make the appointments and i would say dissolve the NEB and make a whole new energy commission.

if they don't they knew everything all the way along.

I am speaking of the potential for a binding treaty on climate change. Trudeau is siding with the US on having targets not legally binding.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i'm sorry Sean i don't know what the treaty is you're speaking of.

i agree with uionist the only way through this bs of Harper's is to get a non-partisan commission to make the appointments and i would say dissolve the NEB and make a whole new energy commission.

if they don't they knew everything all the way along.

The Climate Change Treaty. France and Turkey and I imagine some others want the targets set by each country to be legally binding. In practice I think that would mean fines of some sort. The US is against and and now Canada has backed them up and is also opposed to binding targets. Non-binding targets are aspirational and call into question the determination to meet them.

Yes, this.

The argument they have made is better to have a deal with the US (that means nothing) than a deal without the US that means something.

I disagree with the argument and the situation the planet is in is now an emergency. They US and Canada are rogue states when it comes to climate change and this much has not changed.

Debater

Liberals plan to ask Harper's patronage appointments to step aside: source

Sunday, December 6, 2015

CTV News has learned that the new Liberal government plans to ask dozens of people recently appointed to government agencies and crown corporations by the previous Conservative government to step aside.

A senior government source says that the prime minister's office plans to send out letters Monday morning asking the appointees to "voluntarily choose not to serve."

The previous government under former prime minister Stephen Harper made the last-minute patronage appointments in the run-up to October’s federal election, which saw the Tories defeated by the Liberals.

On Monday, the Liberal government plans to send out letters to dozens of appointees who were assigned the posts or had prior contracts renewed in the twilight of Harper's government.

----

Full article:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-plan-to-ask-harper-s-patronage-a...

Unionist

Heard that on the news today, Debater. I must admit that sounds like a smart approach.

Debater

Time will tell.

Conservatives are already complaining and saying this shows Trudeau isn't interested in working with Conservative appointees and that he is not displaying an openness to working with others.

So it depends on how the narrative goes -- the Harper Cons are trying to deflect attention away from the sneaky way in which Harper made these appointments so that he could extend his influence beyond the Election even though he knew he might not get another mandate from Canadians.

pookie

Debater wrote:

Time will tell.

Conservatives are already complaining and saying this shows Trudeau isn't interested in working with Conservative appointees and that he is not displaying an openness to working with others.

So it depends on how the narrative goes -- the Harper Cons are trying to deflect attention away from the sneaky way in which Harper made these appointments so that he could extend his influence beyond the Election even though he knew he might not get another mandate from Canadians.

I highly doubt the Cons will be able to grab the high road on this one.

Debater

Hopefully not, but the CPC still has a big spin machine, so we shouldn't underestimate their ability to try.

Plus there is the money involved in having to pay millions to 'buy out' these appointments if they refuse to step down voluntarily.

The CTV article details the amount above.

But perhaps Harper's negative ratings right now will make him come across worst in this.

quizzical

Debater wrote:
Time will tell.

Conservatives are already complaining and saying this shows Trudeau isn't interested in working with Conservative appointees and that he is not displaying an openness to working with others.

So it depends on how the narrative goes -- the Harper Cons are trying to deflect attention away from the sneaky way in which Harper made these appointments so that he could extend his influence beyond the Election even though he knew he might not get another mandate from Canadians.

the only 'narrative' to use is to say back to them "Canadians weren't interested in having the Conservatives represent them and  to not take these wrong appointments away goes against the mandate for change Canadians gave them"

Pages