As far as the deputy finance minister. I cant answer that one. Perhaps he really is the right guy for the job?

As far as the communications director goes. Many times in the private sector a person is let go after a few weeks because for whatever reason it just doesnt work out. Why should we expect any different now?

The fact that Harper is reaching across party lines to help him govern is a GOOD thing. He has a few liberals. He also invited the bloc and NDP to sit in on supreme court hearings. Id say this kind of non partisian thinking is just what this country needs.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

not surprising at all.

I think YOU should be his communications guy, because that's some great spin

it "didn't work out" because Harper hypocritically had another party's MP cross the floor and appointed a non-elected person to both the senate and to cabinet, despite a platform that promoted increased public accountability and Senate reform.

But sure, fire the communications guy because your hypocrisy got you clobbered in the press...

perhaps Martin's old deputy is indeed the right guy for the job...I just find it amusing that the one-time #2 guy in an apparently corrupt and/or incompetent Liberal finance department is back in office...for the CPC.

btw, the Supreme Court hearings are for show...sure, it's great there's some public disclosure, but so what? I really don't give a shit what a judge's personal beliefs and principles might be...I care that they set those aside during the course of their duties and are qualified to do their job...and they wouldn't even be nominated as a candidate if that were not the case, no? This is a far cry (thankfully) from the circus act they have going in the U.S. for nominations, but it's still just politicizing the nomination process and I don't think it's productive. There should be checks on the court from within the judical sphere, not from public and gov't scrutiny.

Our laws already provides that only the PM can appoint a Supreme Court justice and their is no veto power (or any power) given to those holding the hearings in the first place.

this is Harper's increased transparency? 1. The courts are NOT the gov't. It's not his business to make the courts more transparent. 2. If he wants increased transparency, try not appointing a non-elected person to a cabinet position...a person who therefore cannot even be questioned in Parliament!

The deputy minister roles are basically the highest position in the civil service within a particular ministry and are not really considered to be political appointments.

It is highly unusual to actually fire a deputy minister following a change of government, or to place a political appointee into such a role. Generally they come from moving up the ranks within the civil service and once they hit the deputy level, they just cycle from ministry to ministry.

Changes can be made due to personality differences between the deputy and his / her minister, but again, these are non-political roles, and the individuals who fill them are expected not to have any particular party allegiance, but rather, provide the best possibile advice to their ministers from the point of view of the civil service.

quote:

btw, the Supreme Court hearings are for show...sure, it's great there's some public disclosure, but so what? I really don't give a shit what a judge's personal beliefs and principles might be...I care that they set those aside during the course of their duties and are qualified to do their job...and they wouldn't even be nominated as a candidate if that were not the case, no? This is a far cry (thankfully) from the circus act they have going in the U.S. for nominations, but it's still just politicizing the nomination process and I don't think it's productive.

this coming from a guy who will hold harper's personal views to the fire when it comes to gay marriage among other things even though nothing will come of it politically.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi The deputy minister roles are basically the highest position in the civil service within a particular ministry and are not really considered to be political appointments.

Not entirely true. Yes, DMs are civil servants not political staff, but they are often chosen by their Ministers, and it's not uncommon for new governments to ask for the resignations of DMs they see as having been too close to the previous Ministers. This happened with a number of senior civil servants after the Ontario Cons were elected in 95.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 this coming from a guy who will hold harper's personal views to the fire when it comes to gay marriage among other things even though nothing will come of it politically.

I fail to see the inconsistency...

a judge applies the law...if their personal beliefs contravene the existing law, they can't really do too much, can they?

a politician can govern according to their personal beliefs (I'm not saying Harper does, but he could)...this is perfectly legal and expected. If gay marriage, or any other issue, is on a PM's or party's agenda, they can make it a priority. If something is not, they can bury it.

a judge has to hear whatever is put in front of them...and has to rule according to the law...and extend/apply the law where required.

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi The deputy minister roles are basically the highest position in the civil service within a particular ministry and are not really considered to be political appointments. It is highly unusual to actually fire a deputy minister following a change of government, or to place a political appointee into such a role. Generally they come from moving up the ranks within the civil service and once they hit the deputy level, they just cycle from ministry to ministry. Changes can be made due to personality differences between the deputy and his / her minister, but again, these are non-political roles, and the individuals who fill them are expected not to have any particular party allegiance, but rather, provide the best possibile advice to their ministers from the point of view of the civil service.

I care less that he was a deputy in the Liberal gov't...if he's non-partisan and the "right guy for the job", great.

but if Martin was expected to have intimate knowledge of, and be responsible for, the corruption, scandal, etc. in the finance department...wouldn't the deputy have at least as much, if not more, knowledge/participation in the day-to-day affairs of the department?

i.e. if the finance dept. was corrupt...why appoint someone who was a key player in that dept. if you're trying to restore confidence in the gov't by wiping out the previous administration?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I fail to see the inconsistency... a judge applies the law...if their personal beliefs contravene the existing law, they can't really do too much, can they? a politician can govern according to their personal beliefs (I'm not saying Harper does, but he could)...this is perfectly legal and expected. If gay marriage, or any other issue, is on a PM's or party's agenda, they can make it a priority. If something is not, they can bury it. a judge has to hear whatever is put in front of them...and has to rule according to the law...and extend/apply the law where required.

a judge's interpretation of the law can definately rest upon his personal beliefs. Whether he chooses to let that interfere with his decsion or not rests with him.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by mercure Not entirely true. Yes, DMs are civil servants not political staff, but they are often chosen by their Ministers, and it's not uncommon for new governments to ask for the resignations of DMs they see as having been too close to the previous Ministers. This happened with a number of senior civil servants after the Ontario Cons were elected in 95.

Ask for a resignation from the existing ministry, sure, but almost always, they just end up being shuffled to another senior civil service position, not terminated outright.

Having been taught by about a dozen or so current and former DMs/ADMs at both the provincial and federal levels, it's apparent that the structure is very much a meritocracy and it is extremely difficult and unsavvy to terminate a DM unless there is evidence of gross incompetence.

As for the choice of DMs, it more often tends to be the Clerk of the Privy Council that actually makes the selections, with input from the relevant Ministers... then formally appointed by the PM / Premier.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 a judge's interpretation of the law can definately rest upon his personal beliefs. Whether he chooses to let that interfere with his decsion or not rests with him.

in practice, sure...there is room for interpretation.

a politician can't be removed from office for allowing their personal philosophies/opinions guide their decisions...establishing bias in a judge's decision could result in their removal.

a judge also has to provide substantial legal, written and publicly available reasoning behind their decision. A politician faces no such accountability.