Harper's Appointment Rejected

[FiveParadox]

Today, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Government Operations and Estimates, the committee charged with reviewing certain appointments made by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, outright rejected the appointment of Mr. Gwyn Morgan, made some weeks ago, to the Public Appointments Commission.

A motion to reject the appointment due to some "disturbing" statements, moved by Peggy Nash, M.P., the Member for Parkdale—High Park and the Public Works and Government Services Critic and Infrastructure and Communities Deputy Critic for Toronto for the New Democratic Party of Canada, was passed in the committee — another example of the opposition parties forcing the hand of the Government of Canada. The motion is non-binding and, therefore, the Prime Minister can choose to ignore the rejection and appoint Mr. Morgan nonetheless.

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Harper's Appointment

any vetting system that requires a majority government to work provides nothing but a facade.

heh

Harper whines so bad. the hell did he expect?

 

[LittleRunningGag]

If he truely wants to stay true to his word on having a more open and accountable government, he will. This is the way it should be in our Parliament, and it is part of the reason why the Conservatives got into power in the first place.

*waits for the obligitory "No, 'cause all 'lefties' are corrupt," remarks from the 'righties'*

 

[Grit86]

*Sigh*

It's a shame the opposition went so over-the-top with the "disturbing" comment. Personally, I don't think it's fair for someone's name to be slandered publicly for something like that. If that's the only reason why he didn't get the job, I would be annoyed as well.

As for Harper, I guess I respect his decision to listen to the committee, but why be so petulant about it? You don't have to scrap the entire plan, just try and get someone else!!

 

[Colpy]

Gwyn Morgan was approve reproach.

He was willing to come out of a very comfortable retirement, and bring a number of people with him from different political affiliations, to be of service to his country.

And he was going to do this for $1 per year.

But the idiots of the NDP, backed by the crooks of the Liberals (really think THEY want the appointments process fixed....HA!), and followed by the BQ, the opposition dumped this good man, insulting him in the process, by taking out of context TRUTHS (deny it, go ahead) he spoke about ethnicity and gang violence in our cities.

What that has to do with cleaning up the appointments process, I don't know.

What this proves is the NDP are too stupidly politically correct, and the Liberals too bloody corrupt to see any improvement done, so the Conservatives will have to work without them.......simple as that.

 

[Em]

Grit86, I agree that it's a shame that it went so over-the-top. I assume personally that Harper chose to appoint Morgan for a good reason. So far, most of his appointments seem to make sense - the people he chose often suit the position quite well. As a consequence I assume he had similar such reasons for appointing Morgan.

Now, if *I* had a fantastic employee who did his job but ran his mouth off once in awhile, would I fire him on his first or second offense? Not bloody likely, though it depends somewhat on the severity. Now, if it is a repeated offense, something that was potentially damaging to the job he/she is doing, well then I would definitely have to consider it.

Now, the committee voted to reject, and possibly for good reason too. Is there more to this story? Or is it motivated purely by partisan politics? Do his comments make him unsuitable for the job? I haven't researched this enough to be able to answer, but I generally don't move toward rash decisions such as rejection of an appointment.

Now, I am glad, however, that our opposition has the wherewithall to stand up and be clear, to keep our new government in check. While I am definitely a Conservative supporter, I appreciate the challenge.

 

[Jersay]

I support the dumping of this man. I am glad that this conservative, partisan, anti-multi culturalist who did not say in one speech or two but in many just recently about Quebec, about French People and about other minorities.

I am rather concerned for the majority then for some rich oil tycoon.

Good for the NDP- Liberals and BQ.

 

[Naci_Sey]

RE: Harper's Appointment

I didn't answer the poll, because it needs another option: Harper should offer an alternative candidate.

To me, the blowup is a result of a typical Harper tantrum. His first choice for the commission didn't pass the committee, so instead of offering an alternative, he dumps the commission entirely. He's thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Harper's first choice wasn't a good one. Criticism of the selection came immediately, even before Morgan sat before the committee. A former CEO of a major corporation, who has regularly and sizeably contributed to the Conservatives, who has deep links with corporate Canada - how is this a good candidate for the PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS Commission, one that should be guided by ETHICS?

There were sure to have been many people far more suitable. Alas, they weren't buddies of Harper.

 

[Colpy]

"Why do we expect different behaviour in Toronto, Ontario, than in Kingston, Jamaica,"

That is the quote, along with a couple of others about Asian gangs in Calgary, that got Mr. Morgan in trouble.

He was speaking, of course, about Jamaican gangs shooting each other in Toronto.
In Jamaica, guns are banned, possession of a bullet only gets you life in prison, and the murder rate from mostly gang violence is 32 per 100,000. That is over 15 times the Canadian rate, and 5 times that of the "gun-happy" Americans.

Jamaicans come to Canada, we encourage them to nurture the culture of the old country, and then "Why do we expect different behaviour in Toronto, Ontario, than in Kingston, Jamaica?,"

A valid question, unless you are brain-dead.

 

[Hank C]

Why cant we ask questions when a certain group of people allowed into the country are committing a higher percentage of crimes?
Correct me if I am wrong but we dont isolate immigration to simply blacks and Asias, we also welcome Europeans and other white immigrants. Well if theres a certain group of immigrants committing these crimes compared to others, we would be fools not to point it out and question the problem.

Of course the politically correct "liberal" thing to do would be to take it out on white rural and suburban Canadians by pointing the finger at them as it is considered socially acceptable, while pointing the finger at the real problem is unacceptable???

 

[gc]

RE: Harper's Appointment

I agree with Naci Sey, I mean just because the opposition rejected a conservative fundraiser for the position, harper decides to give up on his accountability plan and then blame it on the opposition? Why not listen to the concerns of the opposition and then nominate a more suitable person for the position? Why does it have to be all about political games? I guess it shows how committed harper is to accountability if he can't even put forth another candidate, but instead say that he needs a majority to get things done.

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all I am suspicious of anyone who will do a job for one dollar a year. This guy was a right wing hack that was prepared to do Harpers dirty work.
These days I do not support anything Harper wants to do, and I am suspicious of anything the left wants done as well.
Speaking about the NDP hanging out with the crooks as someone put it, what about Harper. He's hanging out with one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world, the Unites States Government, and the Bush crowd that runs it.
The Liberals are not even in the same league with the Republican monsters that have caused so much trouble around the world.