Réactions de l'opposition au plan vert des conservateurs:
|
—— |
Jack Layton (Le Soleil,vendredi 27 avril 2007): "Il y a toujours des prédictions de catastrophe, mais la vraie catastrophe qui est devant, c’est la catastrophe environnementale, qui est claire." |
|
—— |
Gilles Duceppe (Presse Canadienne, vendredi 27 avril 2007): "C’est un jour honteux. C’est une gifle infligée à nos partenaires et à toutes les nations du monde qui ont ratifié le Protocole de Kyoto." |
|
—— |
Stéphane Dion (Presse Canadienne, vendredi 27 avril 2007): "Ce que les conservateurs ont annoncé aujourd’hui, ce n’est pas un plan, c’est une arnaque." |
Parfait messieurs, maintenant voyons si vous avez le courage de vos opinions. Si le plan vert de John Baird est mauvais et si l'environnement est une préoccupation importante, alors faites tomber le gouvernement et allez en élection pour parler de Kyoto. On verra bien ce que les gens en pensent.
Mais si vous n'avez pas le courage de faire tomber les conservateurs, vous devriez baisser votre rhétorique d'un cran. Après tout, parler pour ne rien dire c'est une source de CO2.
Les Conservateurs honnêtes ? Ou les lobbys pétroliers derrière le parti ?
Je suis d’accord avec ce billet!
Ce cliché je commence à être légèrement tanné de l’entendre.
Avec une loi qui limite les contributions que les compagnies peuvent faire aux parti politiques fédéraux, désolé mais les lobby pétrolier n’ont pas de pouvoir sur le gouvernement.
Harper n’agit pas pour faire plaisir à des lobbys, mais par conviction personnelle.
Parce que Harper c’est pas un politicien guenille qui gouverne selon les sondages.
C’est beau la naïveté et ton admiration sans borne pour Harper. Comme si la loi sur les contributions des entreprises bloque toute influence des lobbys ou les contributions de d’autres natures. Il y’a plusieurs mécanismes autres que les contributions officielles à un parti. Entre autre: job payante aux enfants et connaissances, job pour le politicien à la fin de sa carrière, compte de banque secret dans les paradis fiscaux, etc.
J’ai travaillé 5 ans au Cirque du Soleil, et le responsable de la cafétéria était l’ancien « Chef » de Mulroney. Dommage que le livre qu’il avait écrit sur ses années au « 24 Sussex Drive » n’a jamais pu être publié (Mulroney a sortie la meute d’avocats contre la petite maison d’édition qui n’avait pas les reins assez solide), ça aurait révélé les multiples façons (autre que les contributions officielles) qui existent pour corrompre un premier ministre.
J’imagine que dans ton monde imaginaire, Georges Bush est aussi un homme de convictions ?
C'est pas de l'admiration, ce sont les faits. Depuis les 10 dernières années on a eux des politiciens qui ont gouverné aux sodnages et par intéret politique. Harper gouverne par conviction, t'as beau pas aimer ces conviction, ça ne cghange rien à l'histoire.
Ce qui est le cas. Harper demain matin interdirait l'exploitation des sable bitumineux, ça ne changerait rien aux finance de son parti.
Désolé de te l'apprendre mais la loi a été changé depuis…
Oui, ça ne fait aucun doute pour moi. Bush est motivé par ses convuctions personelles.
Clint Eastwood, opposé à la guerre en Irak, est celui qui a le mieux su trouver les mots pour définir els politiques de Bush:
« Lorsqu’on a commencé à évoquer la possibilité d’aller là-bas (en Irak), je n’ai pas voulu dire quoi que ce soit qui mette nos soldats en danger (…) mais je n’étais pas pour que l’on y aille », a indiqué la star. « La démocratie n’est pas quelque chose qui s’obtient du jour au lendemain. Je ne pense pas que les Etats-Unis aient obtenu la démocratie du jour au lendemain. C’est quelque chose pour lequel vous devez combattre et auquel vous devez croire », a-t-il ajouté.
Interrogé sur le président George W. Bush, Eastwood a dit « plutôt admirer la ténacité dont il fait preuve ». « Il faut admirer quelqu’un qui tient bon pour défendre ce à quoi il croit, quels que soient les sondages. Beaucoup de présidents ont agi en fonction des sondages (…) cela n’a pas été son cas », a-t-il constaté.
Tu devrais revenir à tes livres définissant ce qu’est une démocratie!
Tu opposera alors la définition que tu as trouvée à celle que tu connais de « Conviction personelle » d’une politicien.
C'est Brian Molroney qui disait que les politiciens qui s'en remettaient aux sondages et au "focus group" pour gouverné n'étaient que de vulgaires suiveux.
Une démocratie ce n'est pas faire les 4 volonté des gens, c'est même le conttraire sur plusieurs aspects. C'est ce que longement expliqué Alexis de Tocqueville.
Il faut souvent suivre ses convictions, mais ne pas oublier ce que sur quoi on a été élu. Car ce sont des représentants du peuple. Hors, le PCC fait un peu des deux: il gouverne selon les sondages et l’opinion publique (environnement) et selon ses propres jugements personnels dans la cas de Harper (nomination des juges de la cours suprême par exemple).
Aucun Canadien n’a voté pour Harper en s’imaginant que c’était un écolo hippie.
La nomitation des juges par Harper n’est en rien différente de celle des autres PM.
C’est juste qu’une certaine gauche-élitistes est pas contente de voir son monopole remis en question dans les cours.
Je parle entre autre de la l’ex juge L’heureux-Dubé, la juge la plus politisé de l’histoire du Canada.
Ok, donc tu trouves correct que dorénavant, la nomination des juges sera faites selon les tendances politiques du parti au pouvoir.
Ça complètement aucun sens. Le PM a plus de pouvoir que le Président Américain.
Coudont, suis tu la politique David? Harper a officiellement annoncé vouloir changer le mode de nomination des juges. L’institutionnaliser de manière à ce que le PM nomme ceux qu’il veut. C’est tout à fait innacceptable.
Ça TOUJOURS été comma ça ! Pourquoi faut s’en scandaliser maintenant !
Surtout que Harper, contrairement aux Libéraux, ne nomme pas des juges en fonction des dons au parti.
Voici ce qu’un type qui suis la politique sait déjà:
!!! 60 % des juges nommés entre 2000 et 2005 avaient des liens avec le Parti libéral !!!
Liberals appointed partisans
National Post
Tory judicial advisory selections follow pattern of previous government
Liberal Members of Parliament have in recent days repeatedly accused the Conservative government of appointing partisans to committees that vet judicial appointments, but a review of those selected by the previous government has found a significant number of them had Liberal ties.
In 2005, the government named at least nine loyalists to the bodies that help choose federal and provincial superior court judges, including a president of the federal Liberal party’s B.C. and Manitoba wings, a contender for the presidency of the Nova Scotia branch, a former Newfoundland Cabinet minister and unsuccessful provincial candidate.
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have come under fire this week from opposition parties and lawyers for stacking retooled versions of the judicial advisory committees with political staffers and former Tory candidates.
Today, Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff will attack the Tory government in Parliament, accusing them of attempting to hijack the courts to enact their law-and-order agenda.
An early draft of the opposition motion states: « That, in the opinion of this house, the government is failing to act in accordance with the democratic and open values expected of its office by imposing a narrow minded, socially conservative ideology as reflected in its approach to the judicial appointment process to dramatically increase the influence of right-wing ideology in the judiciary. »
But given their track record, some say the Liberals are on shaky ground.
« The Liberals could have difficulty getting on their high horse when it comes to partisanship, » said Lorne Sossin, a law professor at the University of Toronto.
But Mr. Ignatieff said yesterday in an interview that his motion is not simply « our patronage versus their patronage.
« It’s a deliberate attempt by the executive branch of our government to stack and create a court system in its image, » he said. « I do not think that the Liberal party has ever gone out and said, ‘Here is our justice philosophy and we’re going to stack the court with people who subscribe to our philosophy.’ »
Legal experts say appointments of people with party ties is a political tradition that does not in itself compromise the way in which judges are selected — as long as it’s not the only criteria.
Roderick Macdonald, a law professor at McGill University in Montreal, said the naming of political allies and friends to boards, commissions and agencies seems an inevitable outcome of democratic politics.
« The fact that someone has previous ties to a political party… should not be a disqualification, » he said. « The real questions are: Are the people who have been selected competent? And will they do the job asked of them with integrity? »
A. Robert Sampson, a prominent lawyer in Sydney, N.S., who once ran for the presidency of the provincial Liberal party, said he’s not naive about how things work in politics. But he believes he was asked to serve two terms on the judicial appointments board for his 25 years of experience practising law.
« For me personally, I would like to think that I’ve got a broad and diverse enough background to have contributed something meaningful, » Mr. Sampson said. « I know this all probably sounds incredibly self-serving, and I’m in a bit of an awkward position but … I don’t think me being a Liberal or someone else being a Tory is the stick by which to judge whether someone is competent or not competent to sit on the committee. »
Peter Bowal, a University of Calgary law professor, said the judicial selection committees, which Mr. Harper has just altered, were set up two decades ago in response to rampant Liberal patronage.
When former prime minister Pierre Trudeau left office, he said there was a « stampede » of party loyalists into plum positions, including the judiciary, that successor John Turner did nothing to stop — giving rise to Brian Mulroney’s ‘You had an option, sir,’ zinger during a televised debate.
« It was exactly the same under them, » Prof. Bowal said. « It’s not more politicized today. »
In 2005, an Ottawa Citizen investigation revealed that more than 60% of 93 lawyers who received federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan since 2000 donated exclusively to the Liberal party in the three to five years before securing their posts.
Marlene Jennings, the Liberal justice critic, said that « hypothetically speaking » even if her party had named political friends to the screening committees, what the Conservatives are doing is worse.
Historically, the committees have been comprised of seven members: a judge, a local member of the Canadian bar association, a nominee from the province and three picks from the federal justice minister. The Conservatives have now added an eighth member: a representative from law enforcement, but stripped the judge of voting power.
This, said Ms. Jennings, has tipped the balance of the committees in favour of federal appointees. Coupled with the fact the bodies will no longer be ranking the pool of candidates to recommend as top contenders, amounts to a « lowering of the bar » for the Conservatives to name their ideological allies judges, she said.
« I have no trouble whatsoever challenging the government because even if I admitted their premise, we still did not have the majority and therefore we were not in a position to push for ‘our’ partisan, political, ideologically bent candidates without the clear support on the part of the four independently appointed members, » she said.
J. Parker MacCarthy, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, said all Commonwealth countries struggle to some degree with concern about patronage infiltrating the bench, but that Canada’s process, however imperfect, has managed to be the envy of the world.
He lamented the fact the latest changes, as well as the political debate surrounding them, could result in the undermining of that golden reputation.
« These committees should not be a forum for bare-knuckled political fighting, » he said. « The process not only has to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair. »
Robert Nicholson, the federal Justice Minister and Attorney- General, is defending Tory choices for the committees — which include one for each province and territory, except Quebec, which has two regional bodies, and Ontario, which has three.
« We make no apologies for including competent and professional individuals on these committees, who do this important work on a voluntary basis, » said Genvieve Breton, a spokesperson for Mr. Nicholson.
« Our government will continue to appoint judges based on merit and legal excellence with input from a broad range of stakeholders. »
Peter Russell, a University of Toronto political scientist who has studied the judiciary, said there is a difference between Mr. Harper’s recent appointments and those of Mr. Mulroney, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin before him.
The difference, he said, is some of the Harper appointees have staked out their ideological ground publicly, said Prof. Russell, giving the example of Rob Martin, a University of Western Ontario law professor who authored The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada has Undermined our Law and our Democracy.
Prof. Sossin said the Conservative government’s picks for the judicial advisory committees can be divided into two categories: those with connections to the party and those who share the Prime Minister’s views.
« The idea of going to partisans is concern A, » Prof. Sossin said. « The idea of going to ideologically motivated individuals, even if they’ve never given to the Tory party, is concern B. And I think those concerns collide. »
But the Conservatives have said it is wrong to assume that anyone tied to the Liberals is simply « partisan » and does not hold an ideological viewpoint.
The Prime Minister has also been unapologetic about his party’s approach to the appointment process.
« We want to make sure we are bringing forward laws to make sure that we crack down on crime, that we make our streets and communities safer, » Mr. Harper said in the House of Commons yesterday. « We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives. »
LIBERAL APPOINTMENTS:
2005 judicial advisory committee members with ties to the Liberals:
BRITISH COLUMBIA
James Hatton prominent Vancouver lawyer; has also sat on the National Research Council of Canada; ran unsuccessfully for the federal Liberals in 1988 and was recently president of the federal Liberal party’s B.C. wing.
SASKATCHEWAN
Anil Pandila prominent lawyer in Prince Albert; chair of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal; sold tickets for a $100-a-plate fundraiser for Paul Martin in 1999.
MANITOBA
Sharon Appleyard president of the Manitoba wing of the federal Liberal party.
QUEBEC
Michel Boulianne prominent Quebec City lawyer; president of the Quebec Liberal Party’s legal committee in the mid- 1990s; was himself considered as a candidate for the bench by the Quebec government.
Simon Potter eminent Montreal attorney; former president of the Canadian Bar Association; former Liberal riding executive in Westmount-Ville Marie.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Karolyn Godfrey campaign co-chair for P.E.I. Liberal leaders Shawn Murphy and Wayne Carew.
NOVA SCOTIA
A. Robert Sampson well known lawyer in Sydney; onetime executive member of the Law Foundation of Nova Scotia; has sat on numerous boards; ran for the presidency of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia; he and his firm have made donations to both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Daurene Lewis principal of the Halifax campuses of the Nova Scotia Community College; first black female mayor in North America; has worked at Mount Saint Vincent University and in the provincial government; inducted into the Order of Canada; ran unsuccessfully for the provincial Liberals in 1988.
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Rex Gibbons geologist by training; member of several boards or directors; former provincial Liberal Cabinet minister for mines and energy.
- – -
2005 judicial advisory committee members who donated to the Liberal Party:
Kathy Grieve $1,000 around 2004 election.
Anil Pandila $500 around 2004 election; a total of $1,250 to different candidates around the 2006 election.
Michel Boulianne $400 around 2004 election.
Fernand Deveau personally donated $452.14 around 2004 election; firm donated $1,000 around 2004 election.
Simon Potter donated $500 around 2004 election.
Alain Laurencelle $500 around the 2004 election; $400 around the 2006 election.
Karolyn Godfrey $500 around the 2004 election.
Roger Yachetti $500 around the 2004 election; $393.76 around the 2006 election.
A. Robert Sampson firm donated a total of $1,200 to different candidates in 2004; personally donated $500 around the time of the 2006 election; firm donated $1,200 to different candidates in 2004.
James Hatton $471 around the 2004 election.
Kathy Le Grow $500 around the 2004 election.