GT: Federal Election

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The Chretien response was to thss:

If that's not what you are talking about, I invite you to scroll up a bit and re-read my post.

The only thing about the relating the two scandals is that they are scandals.

You know this of course, but anything to attempt to minimize the current issues in favour of talking about unrelated previous issues.

The sponshorship scandal was a transfer of public funds to private companies. This current appointment scandal directly impacts the Liberal Party's ability to govern.

They aren't the same, and you know that, but here we are talking about the sponshorship scandal. You've muddied the waters, congratulations on your victory.

[Jacks]

I get where you guys are coming from but let break things down a bit. Forget that the author of the article seems a bit biased. Forget also that she chooses to quote a Liberal senator for reaction, the guy who was Chretien's chief of staff no less.

First off, the government makes appointments all the time. I don't particularly like the appointment process but there are lots of them every year, I don't have exact numbers but it's probably well into the thousands so 49 appointments is kind of a drop in the bucket and pretty much business as usual. Many appointments are renewed early, same as any job contracts get extended.

How many of the 49 appointments were made in the run up to the election?

With what's left, how many of those aren't instantly replaceable by the new government?

Of what's left how many of those even need to be replaced and aren't doing a good job?

I'm guessing what is left over is a handful of people and they can still be replaced just the government may have to pay them some severance.

I'd prefer the appointment process was done differently but I have no idea how it could be done better. Even if you take the power away from the government someone would still be picking these people.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The sponshorship scandal was a transfer of public funds to private companies. This current appointment scandal directly impacts the Liberal Party's ability to govern.

They aren't the same, and you know that, but here we are talking about the sponshorship scandal. You've muddied the waters, congratulations on your victory.

The sponsorship scandal was a transfer of public funds to big party donors that made it's way directly to the party in the form of fat envelopes of cash (millions). But of course no Liberal was guilty wink wink nudge nudge.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The only thing about the relating the two scandals is that they are scandals.

You know this of course, but anything to attempt to minimize the current issues in favour of talking about unrelated previous issues.

The sponshorship scandal was a transfer of public funds to private companies. This current appointment scandal directly impacts the Liberal Party's ability to govern.

They aren't the same, and you know that, but here we are talking about the sponshorship scandal. You've muddied the waters, congratulations on your victory.

Fattening up at the partisan trough is as distasteful as our politics gets, regardless of how it is happening, and by whom. But I'm not even sure this is that. Harper didn't think for a minute (until the last week or two anyway) that he wasn't forming the next government. Doesn't mean they weren't partisan, but it certainly wasn't by design to thwart a Liberal government.

Impairs their ability to govern? Please...
Mark O’Neill’s term as director of the Canadian Museum of History is a devastating blow to the LPC? John Badowski’s appointment as chairman of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal?
One can blow it entirely out of proportion, like this article does. Or take a reasonable, practical approach:

Cory Hann, spokesman for interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose, said it will be up to the Liberal government to decide what to do.
“It will be up to the current government to determine if it wishes to overturn any appointments or re-appointments made by the previous government.”

Scandalous indeed.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm curious about the Turner and Chretien appointments.

Did they appoint people to positions in the distant future, or were they openings that needed to be appointed?

Also Turner's appointments, I feel like they were put in place by Trudeau and Turner's hand was forced (but it was before my time so I could be wrong, and it doesn't excuse anything either way).

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Jacks

How many of the 49 appointments were made in the run up to the election?

All of the 49 were made on June 18th and 19th, 2015 plus an additional 49 appointments, for a total of 98.

With what's left, how many of those aren't instantly replaceable by the new government?

Af the 49 'future' appointments (those slated to take effect after Election Day) 19 are "During Pleasure" which means they can be relatively easily replaced, 20, however may end up in litigation if the Liberals attempted to remove them.

I can't find any information on the other 49 appointments.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by driveway

All of the 49 were made on June 18th and 19th, 2015 plus an additional 49 appointments, for a total of 98.



Af the 49 'future' appointments (those slated to take effect after Election Day) 19 are "During Pleasure" which means they can be relatively easily replaced, 20, however may end up in litigation if the Liberals attempted to remove them.

I can't find any information on the other 49 appointments.

I have no idea if that is true but that is not what the article says. The article actually lists the 49 appointments/renewals, some of them were made up to 8 months before the election. I have no idea where you are seeing an additional 49 appointments/renewals.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I have no idea if that is true but that is not what the article says. The article actually lists the 49 appointments/renewals, some of them were made up to 8 months before the election. I have no idea where you are seeing an additional 49 appointments/renewals.

The 98 appointments was a different article:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...e-appointments

The Conservative government made 98 patronage appointments over two days last month, filling up federal boards, tribunals and panels in advance of the October election.

On June 18 and 19, cabinet approved the long list of appointees to bodies such as the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Capital Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

You're right, some of the 49 'future' appointments were made prior to June 18-19, actually increasing the total number of patronage appointments made by the Harper Government in the weeks leading up to the election.

[Looch City]

Let the debates begin.

Government announces $2.65B to help developing countries fight climate change

Canada today promised $2.65 billion over the next five years to help developing countries fight climate change.

The funding was announced on Friday in Malta, where Commonwealth leaders are meeting.

"I'm here today not just to say Canada's back, but to show it," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the leaders before making the announcement.

Under the previous climate deal signed in 2009 in Copenhagen, nations had agreed to commit $100 billion annually in fast-track financing by 2020.

The former Conservative government gave $1.2 billion to the fund.

The Liberals have now doubled that amount for the next five years:

$300 million in 2016-17.
$400 million in 2017-18.
$500 million in 2018-19.
$650 million in 2019-20.
$800 million in 2020-21.

The funding will go toward reducing emissions by financing clean power generation, for example.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fund...hogm-1.3339907

[Fuzz]

goddamit. You know who else is on the list to receive some of that $100 billion? Saudi Arabia, with their $700 billion dollars in cash on hand. But ya, maybe we should ensure they are "made whole" for climate change.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

goddamit. You know who else is on the list to receive some of that $100 billion? Saudi Arabia, with their $700 billion dollars in cash on hand. But ya, maybe we should ensure they are "made whole" for climate change.

Is this true? Because that's brutal if so.

[peter12]

This is just wealth redistribution. Not totally sure how this will help us fight climate change.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is just wealth redistribution. Not totally sure how this will help us fight climate change.

You're not going to be able to fight climate change without some sort of wealth redistribution, unfortunately. The thing that annoys me about this is it's likely going to be "aid" in the form of European and North American corporations being given subsidies to go into poorer countries and produce green technologies, with very little of benefit to the poorer countries economically.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is this true? Because that's brutal if so.

I know I read it elsewhere earlier, but can't find the article, so this one will have to do...not sure about the source, but the text is similar to what I had read.

Paris has two primary goals:

1. Fashion INDCs into national commitments for reducing global emissions;
2. Establish a $100 billion/year Green Climate Fund.

The second item is tied to the first. The developed nations are obligated to contribute $100 billion/year into a fund to pay for the climate damages they caused. The INDCs of poorer, emerging nations include estimates of what they need to mitigate climate change damages caused by the developed nations’ emissions.
For example, UN-defined developed nations Greece and Liechtenstein are obligated to contribute to the $100 billion/year fund. UN-defined emerging nations China and Saudi Arabia can draw from that fund to pay for climate change damages.
Yes — Greece, an economic basket case, may have to pay money to China, the world’s 2nd largest economy and biggest greenhouse gas offender, to help China clean up its act.
In its INDC, China insists that the Green Climate Fund be made legally binding in the Paris agreement.

http://www.commdiginews.com/health-s...issions-45053/
And if China insists something related to climate should be legally binding...I'm going to suspect they are saying that for reasons not related to saving the climate.

Anyway, sorry for the poor source, I know I have read it somewhere else more reputable earlier.

[Weitz]

That is hilarious. What a joke.

[Fuzz]

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't my money.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't my money.

Sounds like we were likely committed to giving money regardless of who was PM, but doubling it seems pretty crappy on the surface. I'd like to see a breakdown of what entitles a country to draw from the fund, how much they can draw, etc., etc.

[Fuzz]

Ya, I was trying to find that info, it doesn't seam to be easily available. Good ol' transparency.

[GGG]

China is actually reasonable as the fastest way to develop China would be to fire up coal plants. So if your actually serious about developing the world while not destroying it India, China and Africa need cheap alternatives to coal.

Saudi Arabia however is ridiculous because they have benefited from oil for their existence. They are one of the profitiers of the current co2 emmission levels

[Fuzz]

China has enough money and a big enough economy, they can take care of themselves. They just need to decide to.