Michael Ignatieff Shuffles Shadow Cabinet – Scott Brison appointed Financial Critic – Cornwall Ontario – September 8, 2010

Cornwall ON – Liberal MP will be in a familiar position when Parliament returns.    Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has shuffled his shadow cabinet and appointed Mr. Brison as his finance critic.

Mr. Brison served in the role for the Conservatives while they were in opposition before crossing the floor to join the Liberal party in 2003.

He replaces John McCallum who moves to become the Transportation and Infrastructure critic.

LINK

Brison wasted no time in signalling that he means to go for the jugular in an attempt to change that.

“I look forward to the role,” he said Tuesday. “It’s a target-rich environment. This government has been wasteful with the public purse and out of touch with the real needs of Canadians.”

In other moves Ralph Goodale becomes Deputy Leader, Ottawa MP David McGuinty becomes House Leader where he can tangle with long time foe John Baird; Martha Hall Findlay becomes the Trade critic.

It should be an interesting session of Parliament indeed.  What do you think Canada?  You can post your comments below.

Jason Setnyk Cornwall Lighting & Electrical Centre Schnitzels

34 Responses to "Michael Ignatieff Shuffles Shadow Cabinet – Scott Brison appointed Financial Critic – Cornwall Ontario – September 8, 2010"

  1. Mr. Question   September 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM

    Why is Mark Holland not the Liberal Leader?

  2. Cojones Kid   September 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM

    You have to be good to be leader

  3. smee   September 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM

    lemme see, what would all the liberals say if Harper did this….*lol*

  4. Furtz   September 8, 2010 at 4:41 PM

    Smee, if Harper did what?

  5. The Watcher   September 8, 2010 at 7:30 PM

    A brilliant move by Mr. Ignatieff. He’s appointed someone with a good mind and sharp teeth. He’s also put Harper into the position where he’s going to have to resort to personal attacks (remember Stephan Dion – Not a Leader), in order to try to try to discredit him. Now, how’s he going to attack Mr. Brisson without discrediting himself by portraying the basic homophobia and xenophobia of the Reform Party?

    Again, a brilliant move by Mr. Ignatieff.

  6. admin   September 8, 2010 at 7:44 PM

    I’ll give the Liberal party credit for that one too.

  7. smee   September 8, 2010 at 8:49 PM

    Shuffled his cabinet furtz, everytime harper farts people comment

    We will see about this move, all Harper needs do is provide the budget the liberals last presented and then compare it to expenditures.

    Face it, the guy has no commitment to a party. It could all blow up on him as a disgruntled former Conservative

  8. The Watcher   September 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM

    smee says:
    September 8, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    “Shuffled his cabinet furtz, everytime harper farts people comment.”

    No Smee, people don’t comment when Harper farts. He has special pills so they don’t smell.

    “We will see about this move, all Harper needs do is provide the budget the liberals last presented and then compare it to expenditures.”

    You’ll need to explain this point. I’ve read it several times, and even allowing for your unique, non-conformist style and grammar, I’m afraid I really not following.

    “Face it, the guy has no commitment to a party. It could all blow up on him as a disgruntled former Conservative.”

    No, Winston Churchill shifted from Conservative to Liberal to Conservative so often he almost wore a track in the House of Commons carpet. Yet he became on of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century. Maybe Mr. Brisson’s commitment is to Canada, honesty and truth. Hard to believe in a politician, I know, but it does happen occasionally.

    Also, Brison crossed the floor in 2003, leaving the Progressive Conservatives, I believe. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong). Perhaps he sensed that he could no longer serve under Peter McKay. After all, McKay was the one who sold out the PCs to the Reform Party. Seems to me McKay had a lot to gain personally from that move, including a guaranteed cabinet position, with the associated pay increase and pension increase.

  9. Furtz   September 9, 2010 at 6:33 AM

    Poor Smee has been taking a beating here lately. It must be kind of lonely since Tammy’s people have advised her to not post any further comments.

  10. willie191   September 9, 2010 at 7:08 AM

    Text of the agreement signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard forming the basis for Orchard’s final-ballot support for MacKay at the PC Party Leadership Convention, May 31, 2003.

    This agreement was published in the Globe and Mail, June 5, 2003 under the heading “Tory leadership deal. Peter MacKay won David Orchard’s support at the Tory leadership convention based on a deal hastily scrawled on a piece of paper.”

    May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard

    1) No merger, joint candidates w[ith] Alliance. Maintain 301.

    2) Review of FTA/NAFTA – blue ribbon commission with D[avid] O[rchard] w[ith] choice of chair w[ith] P[eter] M[acKay’s] agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.

    3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation (timing w[ithin] reasonable period in future, pre-election) and some of DO’s people working at head office.

    4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center incl[uding] sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.

    [Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard]

  11. smee   September 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM

    Churchill in his first attempt at politics denounced the government’s military spending and a proposal to increase tariffs, intended to protect Britain’s economic dominance. His own constituency deselected him He cost them a huge econimic stimulus only to cross the floor later to the liberal party. Then crossed back again cuz they didn’t do things his way either.

    He alone is the reason for Britians huge economic disaster due to the return to the old monetary values with currency balancing on something to do with gold. That led to deflation, unemployment, and a huge miners’ strike in which unions attempted to stop Churchill from decreasing wages and reducing the quality of working conditions.

    yes very stately *l*

    Statesman ooo yea *lol* more like warmonger and manipulativeman

  12. smee   September 9, 2010 at 11:10 AM

    but then again Watcher and Furtz probably missed that program. You should read a little more gents, discovery channel is not always accurate

  13. Grimalot   September 9, 2010 at 11:51 AM

    “It must be kind of lonely since Tammy’s people have advised her to not post any further comments.”

    Hmm, the Conservative way, must fill paperwork to be able to speak, must bring up only their points (since everyone knows if you are in conservative circles you cannot have your own opinion to say) so as to not make them look bad like everyone knows they are… seems like someone else has been gagged if that is the case… Nice pick on political parties Tammy…

  14. Cojones Kid   September 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM

    Maybe she went on vacation…

  15. smee   September 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM

    Rumour and innuendo seems to be the flavour.

    Though I support Harper I am not conservative and I highly doubt anyone would wate their time silencing Tammy in these discussions.

    I mean how credible are they?

  16. Destructo   September 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM

    smee: How credible are who? The Conservatives? Not credible at all. If Tammy truly is connected somehow to the Conservatives I have no doubt they would stop her from posting here…she does not represent herself well at all, and Harper has all his people on a pretty tight leash. That being said, I’m not convinced that Ms. Hart has any connection at all to said party. That would only serve to reduce their credibility further. It must be some sort of hoax. Please tell me it’s a hoax. Please?

  17. marc   September 9, 2010 at 5:42 PM

    That a boy iltierant Oh i mean smee.Yea right credibilaty lol

  18. The Watcher   September 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

    smee says:
    September 9, 2010 at 11:10 am

    but then again Watcher and Furtz probably missed that program. You should read a little more gents, discovery channel is not always accurate

    Question for you Smee: There are no spelling mistakes in this post, although the punctuation leaves something to be desired. Who wrote this post for you?

    As for Discovery Channel, no, it’s probably not always accurate. But it’s a heck of a sight more accurate than Fox, which I’d guess is your favorite channel. Doesn’t that channel feature “Family Guy”?

    smee says:
    September 9, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Rumour and innuendo seems to be the flavour.

    Though I support Harper I am not conservative and I highly doubt anyone would wate (sic) their time silencing Tammy in these discussions.

    I mean how credible are they?

    As for not being conservative, obviously you’re not. PCs, at least until Mulroney and Harris, I’ve always found to be decent, educated people, for the most part. You support Harper; you’re Reform, or perhaps you’re not really aware of the current reality of Canadian politics.

    As for anyone wanting to silence Tammy, I’m certainly not in that party. Let her say all she wants, short of libel, as far as I am concerned. However, if I were Harris/Hudak, I might feel otherwise.

  19. Eric   September 10, 2010 at 6:55 AM

    What a waste of time labeling everyone. I much prefer a discussion on issues.

    I would take Baird over McGuinty, especially if following McCallum, his speaking style just puts me to sleep.

  20. smee   September 10, 2010 at 11:22 AM

    Ah Distructo Thank you for further proving my point on lack of credibility. You have proven a lack of understanding of the English language as well.

    I think my sentence “I highly doubt anyone would waste their time silencing Tammy in these discussions.” speaks for itself and does not in any way implement the credibility of the conservative government. It does point to the local discssions

    You also discredit and contradict yourself. In one instance accusing the government of silencing Tammy, then claim “That being said, I’m not convinced that Ms. Hart has any connection at all to said party. That would only serve to reduce their credibility further”

    So what are you really saying? Also with comments of that nature, do you think it would really rattle any cages?

  21. Furtz   September 10, 2010 at 3:25 PM

    Hilarious , Smee. If you are going to repeatedly trash people for their lack of English skills, you should maybe brush up on your own. You write “does not in any way implement the credibility of the conservative government.”. Should that not be implicate rather than implement?

    im·ple·ment/ˈimpləmənt/
    Noun: A tool, utensil, or other piece of equipment, esp. as used for a particular purpose.
    Verb: Put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect: “implement the treaty”.

  22. smee   September 10, 2010 at 4:04 PM

    Actually Furzt, it depends on how it was used in the sentence. Both are correct. Just like your post states implement as a verb.

  23. Furtz   September 10, 2010 at 4:17 PM

    OK Smee. Let’s rewrite that sentence.
    I think my sentence “I highly doubt anyone would waste their time silencing Tammy in these discussions.” speaks for itself and does not in any way put into effect the credibility of the conservative government.
    Makes sense now?

  24. Destructo   September 10, 2010 at 5:58 PM

    Go easy Furtz…you’re arguing linguistics with someone who doesn’t think you can row a boat….

  25. Furtz   September 10, 2010 at 6:16 PM

    Actually Destructo, that’s the only thing that Smee has ever taught me. There’s no such thing as rowing a boat. One can only paddle a boat, even if it’s a rowboat. I’ll be forever grateful that Smee set me straight on that.

  26. PJR   September 10, 2010 at 8:06 PM

    smee and Furtz, do you mean “impugn the credibility”?

  27. smee   September 10, 2010 at 9:07 PM

    PJR
    It has nothing to do with attacking or challenging the conservatives.

    Furtz, is it really that important? And what does it have to do with Brison?

    Your inability to get past the small stuff also shows the ignorance. You focus not on the topic but in people say. All the while claiming grammar is not important which ads to being a hypocrite

  28. Furtz   September 10, 2010 at 9:20 PM

    PJR, you are absolutely correct. Impugn would make a lot more sense than either implement or implicate. Please feel free to correct my English or offer suggestions anytime you want. I mean that sincerely, and I thank you.
    Unlike Smee, my facility with the English language is not perfect.

  29. Furtz   September 10, 2010 at 9:40 PM

    Smee, I hate to say it again, but it’s time to put that bottle away.

  30. destructo   September 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM

    Sorry to steal this one from you Furtzy, but you can definately row a boat, using an implement referred to as an oar.
    oar (ôr)noun
    1.a long pole with a broad blade at one end, held in place by an oarlock and used in pairs to row a boat: a single oar is sometimes used in steering a boat
    2.a person who uses an oar; rower

  31. Furtz   September 11, 2010 at 8:23 AM

    Destructo, if Smee says you can’t row a boat, then you can’t row a boat. When will people finally realize that Smee knows everything, and is NEVER wrong?

  32. smee   September 14, 2010 at 11:20 AM

    A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS.

    Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man.

    “Hi there little girl, I’m Mr. Ignatieff. What do you have in the basket?” he asked.

    “Kittens,” little Suzy said.

    “How old are they?” asked Ignatieff
    Suzy replied, “They’re so young, their eyes aren’t even open yet.”

    “And what kind of kittens are they?”

    “Liberals,” answered Suzy with a smile.

    Ignatieff was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens.

    Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that Mr Ignatieff should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.

    So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of “FREE KITTENS,” when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from CBC, CTV, and CNN.

    Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Ignatieff got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.

    “Hello, again,” he said, “I’d love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you’re giving away.”

    “Yes sir,” Suzy said. “They’re CONSERVATIVES.”

    Taken by surprise, Mr. Ignatieff stammered, “But… but… yesterday, you told me they were LIBERALS.”

    Little Suzy smiled and said, “I know. But today, they have their eyes open”

  33. Stan   September 14, 2010 at 11:31 AM

    Good one smee

  34. willie191   September 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM

    lol smee, thanks for the chuckle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.