|
Liberal defects for Cabinet position...and Harper appoints non-MP to Cabinet too (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
Stupid move by Harper, but it doesn't really bother me. It's typical political , criticising every little thing. I'll start to worry if they start stealing our money like the Liberals.
Before I become outraged by the floor-crossing, I want to see what the Conservatives actually DO! It may turn out to be a benefit :P |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
great what else is new .. :mad:
|
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
Okay, now I understand..... an appointed senate is unacceptable unless it favours the conservatives.... then it's alright and should be exploited. Apparently, jumping parties is only a horrible miscarriage of democracy if someone is leaving the Conservatives in favour of the Liberals, otherwise it's just normal parliamentary practice. Right, I get it.... that makes total sense to me.
So much for integrity in parliament. Looks like I was duped. |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ lol
from today's Toronto Star (and this didn't even occur to me until reading it):
| quote: | Harper's Senate move not without precedent
Feb. 7, 2006. 12:14 PM
CURTIS RUSH
STAFF REPORTER
Despite the outcry, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has every right to put an unelected Conservative party member in cabinet by appointing him to the Senate, says University of Toronto political science professor Nelson Wiseman.
The public might not like the appointment of Michael Fortier as Public Works Minister, but this wasn't an unprecedented move, says Wiseman.
John Diefenbaker did the same thing in 1962 when he appointed Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon to the Senate and then made him Minister of Trade and Commerce, even though McCutcheon had not run in an election.
"Nobody was outraged at the time, but that was a long time ago and democracy has evolved and people's expectations have changed," said Wiseman.
Wiseman says, however, that such moves can feed "public cynicism," adding that while Harper didn't have to appoint Fortier to the Senate to make him a cabinet minister, there is an unwritten rule that should have guided Harper on this decision.
"The convention that has evolved, which is an unwritten constitutional rule, that if you do appoint someone to the cabinet who isn't either in the Senate or in the House, they should run in a by-election," Wiseman said.
This is how Pierre Juneau came to resign from the Trudeau government in 1975.
"He resigned after being in the cabinet for just two months after he was defeated in a by-election," Wiseman said.
Harper could have avoided the controversy while being consistent with his principles by calling such a by-election in Quebec right away, Wiseman says.
"Fortier could have run and possibly had an excellent chance to win."
In the mean time, opposition members will not be able to question Fortier directly because he doesn't have a seat in the House of Commons.
Unless a seat opens up in Quebec for Fortier to contest in a by-election, the only direct action the opposition members can take is to bring down the government in April, Wiseman says.
"But nobody wants to go back to the polls now, and this situation doesn't merit it," he said.
And Wiseman adds that while he thinks Harper was taking a risk with the Fortier decision, it will be forgotten by the next election.
"People are letting off a little steam now, but this will calm down." |
so he's not directly accountable to the people, as he is not an elected MP...and he's not even accountable in Parliament as he can't be directly questioned by the opposition.
how is this improving the accountability of the gov't???
brutal! |
|
|
| EvilTree |
^TBH if you observe a questioning period in the parliament, questions directed at a particular MP gets answered by someone else. I've seen rarely Paul martin answer a question unless it suits him.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home
| quote: |
Tory MPs riled by Harper's outsiders
'This is shocking. It's just unbelievable. ... We campaigned against this kind of stuff'
JEFF SALLOT AND BILL CURRY
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Members of the Conservative caucus squirmed in public and seethed in private yesterday, trying to come to grips with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's two controversial cabinet appointments.
"This looks like expediency, even hypocrisy," a veteran Conservative MP from Western Canada said of the appointments of David Emerson, who was elected last month as a Liberal, and Conservative campaign co-chairman Michael Fortier, who didn't run but will get a Senate appointment.
"This is shocking. It's just unbelievable. Who was Stephen talking to? We campaigned against this kind of stuff," the MP said.
A rookie MP said: "I'm not sure how I'm going to explain these appointments to my constituents. It's bewildering."
The MPs did not want to be identified because of caucus secrecy, but wanted it known that other Conservatives also question the political wisdom of the appointments.
The caucus meeting was described as unusually quiet, with Mr. Harper doing most of the talking. "Everybody was in shock," the western MP said.
Mr. Harper reportedly explained at length why Mr. Emerson, a Vancouver MP, and Mr. Fortier, a Montreal lawyer, are needed. The Conservatives failed to win seats in either city on Jan. 23. Mr. Harper made Mr. Emerson Minister of International Trade. Mr. Fortier is Public Works Minister, and will sit in the Senate and run in the next general election, Mr. Harper said.
The appointments set off a flash fire of criticism on radio talk shows and conservative-oriented Internet blogs, with many people noting that Mr. Harper had promised Senate elections. Dozens of Conservative MPs in the last House supported a NDP bill that would have required defectors to seek a new mandate in a by-election.
The Liberal riding association in Mr. Emerson's Vancouver Kingsway constituency asked him yesterday to return nearly $100,000 he received to fight the recent election.
"You would not have received those funds . . . if you ran as a Conservative," association president Ivan Curman said in a letter to Mr. Emerson first obtained yesterday by CTV News.
"Countless people donated money to support the election of a Liberal candidate in our riding. Some gave what little amounts they could afford to support the election of a Liberal MP," Mr. Curman said.
The local riding association transferred $96,755 to Mr. Emerson's campaign, he said.
"That money was spent to elect you as a Liberal, not as a Conservative," he reminded Mr. Emerson.
He said that Mr. Emerson can put the ideals of honour and integrity in politics -- that he spoke of often in the campaign -- into action by returning the money, resigning and running in a by-election.
"Let the voters have the opportunity to choose a Liberal to represent them as they did only two short weeks ago."
He said that Mr. Emerson benefited from countless hours spent on his campaign by 300 volunteers.
"Your actions have made their gifts of time meaningless."
One radio talk-show caller said he was almost speechless at what he called a "brazen display of anti-democratic behaviour.
"I mean, I've still got newspapers in my recycling box that have David Emerson slamming the Conservatives," he told CKNW host Bill Good.
Most Conservatives were furious last year when Belinda Stronach moved to the Liberals and took a cabinet job.
Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, who said Ms. Stronach was prostituting herself, described Mr. Emerson carefully yesterday.
"I understand the pragmatism of it," Mr. Vellacott said. "But to be honest, I feel a bit uneasy about it."
Alberta MP Myron Thompson also said Mr. Emerson's appointment caught him by surprise. "When I get back home, I'll probably get an earful."
Mr. Thompson said he still believes MPs who cross the floor should face their voters, but this is between Mr. Emerson and his constituents.
As to Mr. Fortier's appointment to the Senate, Mr. Thompson said, "The Prime Minister we have right now, I trust him so much, whatever he decides, I support him 100 per cent."
Several of the 39 Tories who supported the anti-switching bill, including Lynne Yelich, Ken Epp, Pierre Poilievre and Brian Jean, made it clear they did not want to discuss Mr. Emerson's move yesterday.
"You're not going to pin me down on that," Mr. Epp said.
Mr. Jean gave the comment that most of his colleagues were making.
"I think David's going to be a great addition to our team and we need somebody to represent Vancouver," he said.
Ontario Tory MP Helena Guergis was set to issue a press release yesterday morning reaffirming her support for the anti-crossing legislation.
However, Mr. Harper made her parliamentary secretary to Mr. Emerson yesterday afternoon, and the press release was not issued.
Journalists were allowed to cover Mr. Harper's opening remarks to the caucus meeting. He joked about the "power of appointment" and went on to welcome Mr. Emerson and Mr. Fortier to the caucus. "Their presence here is the sign of my determination to make sure we have the strongest national government possible."
Earlier, Mr. Fortier said he would not seek a seat in the House before the next general election even if there is a Montreal vacancy. "My job is to focus on Public Works."
Mr. Fortier also said it never occurred to him to run in the last election. "I didn't run in the election because I didn't want to run in the election. I had a great career, five young kids, and so it wasn't the right situation for me to run when the election came around. That's just the simple truth."
In the end, he said, he decided to take a cabinet post "because the Prime Minister phoned me and there was this gaping hole in the Montreal area."
The fact that the minister of Public Works is not a member of Parliament is not a perfect situation, Mr. Fortier said.
With reports from Rod Mickleburgh, Gloria Galloway, Campbell Clark and Canadian Press
|
More I think of it, Harper's excuse that he wanted a cabinet with diverse regional representation is a cop out. |
|
|
| Wurm |
What did I say about the merry-go-round turning, but the routine staying the same?
Note that Jim Flaherty is Finance (?) Minister: the same guy who wanted to make homelessness illegal.
Because if you make being homeless illegal, there won't be any more homeless people. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
^TBH if you observe a questioning period in the parliament, questions directed at a particular MP gets answered by someone else. I've seen rarely Paul martin answer a question unless it suits him.
...
More I think of it, Harper's excuse that he wanted a cabinet with diverse regional representation is a cop out. |
it may be a noble intention...it may be a cop out to appease the greatest number of people.
the ends do not justify the means. The Liberals were knocked for undemocratically pushing through gay marriage...not because the end result was "bad", but because of the means with which they reached that end.
I'll give Harper the benefit of the doubt...maybe he sees Fortier as the best person for the job...maybe he truly wants to unite Canadians by having nation-wide representation in his cabinet.
but the ends do not justify the means...particulary when this type of move appears to fly in the face of your very campaign of accountability. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the ends do not justify the means. The Liberals were knocked for undemocratically pushing through gay marriage...not because the end result was "bad", but because of the means with which they reached that end. |
I have to argue with you one this point.
a) the evaluation of whether or not ends justifies means is subjective and must be made on an individual basis. Essentially, each person must decide this as peoples understanding of what is and is not just differs wildly as do peoples tolerances of what actions are and are not acceptable in order to attain a given outcome. Personally I tend to believe the ends do justify the means in most situations.
b) there was nothing undemocratic about the entire gay marriage question. We have a constitution that was writen by elected officials representing all the provinces and the federal government which was ratified by the people of Canada. That constitution enshrines certain rights and freedoms that apply to all Canadians. Forbiding homosexuals to marry stood in opposition to those democratically ratified and codeified rights and freedoms. Now the government could either move to uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter or seek a constitutional ammendment denying certain rights to homosexuals. Anything short of that would be less democratic then the process under which those rights were derived to begin with. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
it may be a noble intention...it may be a cop out to appease the greatest number of people. |
Personally I don't think it really matters whether Vancouver or Montreal has a representative in the Cabinet. I do not believe the Conservatives won a seat there. So why should they feel that they deserve a representative? (And BC and Quebec has enough representation on the cabinet anyways)
| quote: |
but the ends do not justify the means... |
The end does justify the means, but only sometimes.
As cruel and cynical this may sound, failing to take 'necessary' 'bad' actions in order to prevent a greater evil (or to promote greater good) itself is evil when all other actions fails (or likely seem to fail).
In practice it always do not work out that greatever evil is prevented, but to stare at a greater evil and let it come is even more horrible.
It's like me being forced to kill someone in order to prevent that someone from killing people. |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ That utilitarian approach appears good on the surface, and I often find myself subscribing to that philosophy, but it can have dangerous connotations...i.e. what checks are in place to determine when the "greater good" (the end) ought to outweigh individual rights or a particular rule/procedure (the means).
I'd hesitate to say that I "usually" support that...in fact, I think it should be the exception, rather than the rule. That individual rights come before the greater good MUST be the norm...with valid exceptions being judged on the merits of the case at hand.
I'm neither saying that the ends never justify the means nor meaning to compare the two issues...just intending to point out the depths to which Haper's appointment files in the face of his campaign platform of accountability, "democracy" (the CPC use of the term), etc.
I *personally* don't have a problem with either the gay marriage process or his cabinet appointment. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id...067d507&k=39208
| quote: |
Early controversy hasn't hurt Tory support, poll suggests
The Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, February 16, 2006
Article tools
OTTAWA -- The Conservatives would win another minority and the NDP would gain at the expense of the Liberals if Canadians had a chance to redo the Jan. 23 election, a new poll suggests.
The Decima Research survey of 1,010 adult Canadians, conducted between Feb. 9 and 13, suggests there has been no significant change in national support for the Tories.
Thirty-five per cent of respondents said they would vote Conservative, compared with 36 per cent who cast ballots on election day.
The poll put support for the Liberals at 25 per cent, down five percentage points from Jan. 23.
Twenty-four per cent of respondents backed the NDP, up from 17.5 per cent election day.
The Tories won 124 seats in the federal election, and gained another when Liberal David Emerson crossed the floor to join Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet. That left the Liberals with 102 seats.
In Ontario, the poll suggests the three main parties would be in a virtual dead heat, with 31 per cent supporting the NDP, 30 per cent backing the Liberals, and 29 picking the Conservatives.
The survey suggests Bloc Quebecois support has declined since the vote, with 35 per cent of Quebec respondents supporting the separatist party compared to 42 per cent who voted BQ last month.
In Quebec, the Conservatives had 28 per cent support, the Liberals 18, and the NDP 14.
Decima's Bruce Anderson said the numbers signal a number of things, notably that the controversy surrounding Emerson's switch and the appointment of unelected Michael Fortier to cabinet have not affected Conservative support.
"It's not unusual to see the Liberal party number go down in this fashion, as they are, for all intents and purposes, between leaders," said Anderson.
"Finally, the NDP number confirms yet again that the NDP enjoys a bigger opportunity than they have in the past, because of effective leadership communications and a fiscal situation that makes more NDP policy ideas seem affordable."
The Decima survey is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.1 points, 19 times in 20.
© The Canadian Press
|
I guess a lot of Canadians don't care much about political integrity |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| True, after all they did put up with liberals for 12 years. |
|
|
|
|
