|
the CPC makes me laugh...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
two more interesting stories...a rough start is an understatement:
1. Harper has hired a former Deputy Industry Minsiter and DEPUTY FINANCE MINISTER UNDER PAUL MARTIN, when Martin was finance minister, to the position of clerk to the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet...a rather senior position.
Funny...I thought the whole Liberal party was corrupt...but he's hired someone who would likely have known even more than Martin on the day-to-day issues in the finance department, lol.
This begs the question...if the Liberals were so bad...so bad that people were calling for the party to be gutted, why is Harper picking through the ranks of the Liberals to fill his offices???
2. Harper also fired his communications chief after only TWO WEEKS on the job...as if the CPC's bad press in the first week were his fault. I guess he didn't spin the CPC ups to Harper's satisfaction, eh? lame.
| quote: | Ex-Martin aide named Privy Council clerk
Feb. 21, 2006. 03:56 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has named Kevin Lynch, a career civil servant who was once deputy minister to Paul Martin at Finance, as the new clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet.
Lynch, 55, currently serving as an executive director of the International Monetary Fund, is to take over the job of the country's top bureaucrat on March 6.
"Mr. Lynch is known as a highly focused professional who will certainly bring a wealth of experience to the top public service job in Canada," Harper said today.
"He understands our five-priority agenda and will greatly contribute to moving it forward."
The clerk acts as the main conduit between the prime minister and the public service, ensuring that the government's wishes are carried out.
Lynch began his career as an economist at the Bank of Canada in 1976. He has held a number of senior positions including deputy minister of industry and was deputy at Finance between 2000 and 2004.
He replaces Alex Himelfarb who became clerk in 2002. Himelfarb's next job is to be announced soon.
"I am pleased that Mr. Himelfarb will continue to serve the public interest," Harper said.
"We thank him for his wise guidance and assistance through this transition period. During his tenure, he has provided guidance for two transitions and advice to three prime ministers. Mr. Himelfarb has served his country well during a period of considerable uncertainty."
Flynn, who is married with two children, was born in Cape Breton.
He earned his BA in Economics at Mount Allison University, his MA at the University of Manchester, and his PhD at McMaster University. |
| quote: | Harper fires aide after PR stumbles
William Stairs held post just 2 weeks
PM dogged by bad press, tense relations
Feb. 21, 2006. 09:18 AM
SUSAN DELACOURT AND SEAN GORDON
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper has replaced his communications chief just two weeks after taking office, in what will be seen as a blunt acknowledgement of the bad public-relations tone set by his first days in power.
The Prime Minister's Office issued a terse statement late last night, announcing that the new communications director was Sandra Buckler, who was the lead person in the Conservatives' "war room" during the election campaign.
Buckler abruptly displaces William Stairs, who had been confirmed in the communications post less than two weeks ago.
The PMO statement praised Buckler, 40, as a communications expert.
"Sandra brings a wealth of communications experience to her new post," chief of staff Ian Brodie is quoted as saying in the release. "She has advised national and international companies and agencies on communications matters for several years. Before that, she worked as a communications advisor to several cabinet ministers."
Stairs, meanwhile, is discussed in the past tense in the release, which says only that he is moving on to "new opportunities." In political-workplace lexicon, this phrase is a polite way of saying that Stairs' departure was not voluntary.
The 49-year-old Nova Scotian was formerly director of communications for Peter MacKay when the latter was leader of the now-defunct Progressive Conservatives.
Around Ottawa last night, there was shock and surprise that Harper had tried to dispatch his communications problems so bloodlessly and quickly. It is almost unheard-of for a Prime Minister to send a top official packing so soon into a new regime.
Sources said Stairs was called into Brodie's office yesterday afternoon where he was summarily dismissed, a move that clearly caught many staffers — including Stairs — by surprise.
Harper's first days in office have been characterized by an unusual degree of bad press and hostile relations between reporters and the PMO. His controversial decisions to put Liberal defector David Emerson into the cabinet and the unelected, backroom Tory Michael Fortier into the Senate and as Public Works Minister have generated public anger that doesn't seem to be dissipating.
Harper was said to have been dissatisfied with the way his team handled the first week of the new Tory cabinet and the attendant controversies with Emerson and Fortier.
Stairs, however, was not blamed — at least externally — for the communications problems. He was seen more as the messenger of dubious news and the man who had to manage an almost-impossible relationship between the press and a Prime Minister who has made it clear he resents media criticism.
The communications problems have been demonstrated by Harper's press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, who has gone to unusual lengths of holding down reporters' hands when they've tried to ask questions or shouting at journalists who don't abide by her rules for press dealings. The fact that Harper chose to keep Stewart-Olsen and eject Stairs was seen last night as largely a cosmetic answer to the deeper issue of his public-relations problems and Harper's distrust of anything related to the media.
A long time Tory activist, Buckler worked as a consultant for Bombardier and moved to Ottawa in 2004 to work as a lobbyist in Ottawa.
She has close ties to the Ontario Progressive Conservative party and was a staffer at Queen's Park during premier Mike Harris's era. |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
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. |
|
|
| daves |
| not surprising at all. |
|
|
| MarkT |
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 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! |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| mercure |
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
