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

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.

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.

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.)

 

 

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 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 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 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.

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 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.

 

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.

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 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 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.