Tory donors top list of patronage appointments, Liberals say - Macleans.ca
 

Tory donors top list of patronage appointments, Liberals say

Analysis claims Harper government favoured political supporters for positions


 

An analysis of Elections Canada records by the Liberals claims at least 20 patronage appointments handed out by the Harper government this month went to political supporters who had given money to the Conservative party or its candidates. Some jobs are honorary titles that pay small per diems, while others are full-time positions with salaries. Twenty of the appointees named this month gave a total of more than $25,000 to the Conservative party or its candidates, the Liberal analysis of Elections Canada records shows, but it’s unlikely jobs are handed out in return for small campaign contributions, as political donations are capped at $1,100 annually, under election finance changes ushered in by the Tories. PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall said the Liberals know well of hypocrisy and patronage, having appointed Liberal MPs to several patronage positions.

Ottawa Citizen


 
Filed under:

Tory donors top list of patronage appointments, Liberals say

  1. Sounds like MacDougall is admitting to hypocrisy and patronage.

  2. An analysis of Elections Canada records by the Liberals claims at least 20 patronage appointments handed out by the Harper government this month went to political supporters who had given money to the Conservative party or its candidates

    The first thought that came to mind: Thank you, Captain Obvious.

    And furthermore: the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense stopped working for me at age 11. How on earth does it still work for the Conservatives?

  3. "When I become prime minister I will undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government. That is my commitment to you."
    "We must clean up corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to flourish, and replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability."

    Stephen Harper November 2005

    • I'm not sure what the problem is. He is accountable for entitlements to the faithful.

    • "We must clean up corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to flourish, and replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability."

      They haven't gotten there yet. They're too busy being entitled to their entitlements.

  4. as the kitchen sink, bathroom sink and all the plumbing have been thrown at the Tories and they still lead in the polls, it's time to just start flinging whatever else is lying around now, and pray.

    Liberals aghast at patronage? hilarious. next they'll be upset the Tories ran a deficit after calling for massive spending. oh, wait….

    they really are a sad group.

    • Still, it's kinda sad that when accused of the very things you swore to run out of town, your comeback is essentially:

      you did it too
      ——————————————————
      "We're not running a deficit. We have planned a realistic scenario. We've got conservative budget estimates. We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room that we have and we have plenty of flexibility in how we phase it. So that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."

      Stephen Harper October 2008

    • so then what you and yours really wanted when you decried Lib patronage and bagmen wasn't to clean up problems as per circa 2005 Harper campaigning (and cited above by Danby), it was you wanted your own patronage and bagmen????

  5. For all the time they are in office, only 20? Why so small?

    • 20 this past month.

      • Twenty this past month and twenty "named" this past month are somehow playing with words. Twenty appointees for so many departments and for many years – is quite a slacker. Well, they should have appointed Liberals, NDP, and Bloc supporters… God Gracious, why didn't they?

        • 20 out of how many? Without the context, and without knowing how many other appointees had ties to other parties, or none at all, the fact some were Conservatives seems pretty mundane. Some appointments, such as those to the Senate, or to the PMO, are necessarily partisan – or, at least, have been that way for a long time. Others, such as judicial appointments, board members of regulatory agencies, etc, are generally not. But are the Liberals alleging that any of these appointees were unqualified? Or just that having supported the Conservatives would make them so?

  6. Hello Pot- meet kettle.The liberals hate being in opposition, they are and wi-ll be for some time to come-irrelevant!

    • So, are we to interpret what you say as that patronage is a problem when the Liberals do it, but irrelevant when they call out the Conservatives for doing the same thing?

      That's hypocrisy.

  7. The most impressive part of the whole presentation was actually seeing MP Wayne Easter doing something. It's hard to get used to seeing him in action after so many years of hibernation. He must be fearing for his political future now that the Harper government has him in their sights over his voting record both for and against the gun registry (pardon the rather sad pun).

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

  8. Juts like the judge issue in Quebec this is a complete non-issue.
    Favouritism is part of life and blaming the CPC for doing it while it's well known the LPC did it too (and I think it's fine as long as it doesn't get ridiculous) doesn't add anything in any form.
    Just a waste of time and space. Doesn't do much to raise the opinion of politicians in the public's eye either. In fact I 'd say it's a step backwards.

    • I do not think anyone is complaining about the patronage. I think they are pointing out the difference between what Harper said about patronage, and what Harper does about patronage.

      • He said no unqualified people would be appointed simply because of their political loyalties – such as, say Alfonso Gagliano. He also said that there would be openess so such appointments could be scrutinized. The opposition put a kibosh on the inital suggestion there be an impartial panel to supervise such appointments, and the government could, it is true, have followed through on the notion – but since all these appointments are public, and no one has suggested there are unqualified people being appointed, it seems the government has lived up to most of its promises.
        The challenge is that our government is structured so that hundreds of jobs are filled by ministerial appointment. So long as that is the structure, some of those people will have had an association with the party in power that is appointing them. That creates the appearance of patronage, even where none exists. The alternatives would appear to be to disqualify anyone who has donated to, run for, or openly supported a political party – which would be an odd indictment of our democratic institutions – or to give up all rights of appointment by ministers and hand the process entirely to the civil service.

  9. I would say that the time to move to reform these appointments is now, while the Liberals are on the case…

    …but sadly, no. Not only would the Liberals not back it, but the Conservatives won't even propose it.

    Realpolitik sucks.

  10. PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall said the Liberals know well of hypocrisy and patronage, having appointed Liberal MPs to several patronage positions.

    So… The Conservatives are hypocrites who practice corruption? Wait, what? Were these comments authorized by the PMO?

  11. If there is really patronage without proper qualifications, then go ahead, investigate them. I hope this is not another smear campaign by desperate rivals. If you could not appoint anyone, no matter their qualifications, due to their political leanings, then none will be qualified to take office at all. We might as well hire foreigners as private contractors to run our government (outsourcing – free trade anyone?), to ensure impartiality.