NDP Ethics in Question

Principles, integrity, accountability -- in politics as in life, they mean doing what is right, not what is expedient. Principles are supposed to remain consistent and not change depending personal or political gain.

How convenient then, that the NDP is calling for the investigation of the Prime Minister for breeching Section 8 of the Code of Ethics, which states:

"When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act
in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the
Member's family, or to improperly further another person's private interests."

People have said that consistency dictates that if you were against floor crossing when Belinda did it, that you should also be against it now that Emerson has done it.

If that's the case, is the reverse not also true?

Go back a year. (If you can't be bothered with the history, skip to the last two paragraphs).

In late March, early April 2005, Gomery was still big and the Conservatives were ahead in the polls. The Liberals feared the Conservatives believed they had a chance to win an election, so they might take this window of opportunity to bring down the government. They decided to yank 'Opposition Days' removing any threat that the opposition could bring any business to the House -- so there couldn't be a non-confidence motion.

The three opposition parties were justifiably outraged that their parliamentary right to Opposition Days had been arbitrarily revoked. Harper, as the leader of the Official Opposition decided to call Martin's bluff. The government wasn't going to allow them to bring business to the House so the Conservatives would now vote against the budget rather than abstaining. Bloc and the NDP were already against the budget, if the Conservatives joined them, this would bring the government down.

The government then refused to bring their own budget for a vote Martin had his caucus filibuster their own budget to prevent it coming to a vote.

Knowing the filibuster couldn't last forever, Martin took to the airwaves and whinged, giving rise to the infamous statements: 'Let Gomery do his work!' and 'Canadians don't want an election!' The media came away parroting those lines. Instead of focussing on the government actions that had thwarted democracy and created the acrimony in the House, the media reported that Harper was 'angry'. A public who hadn't been paying close attention didn't understand why. The media never really answered except to point to the Gomery inquiry, which really wasn't the catalist to these events.

Jack Layton got up that same night and pulled a rabbit out of his hat. He started the ritualistically recited mantra that he was committed to 'making this parliament work' . Martin took the bait and the two of them along with Buzz Hargrove cooked up a deal in a hotel room. The deal would provide vague outlines of where the NDP wanted money directed, but had none of the specifics of a 'real' budget. Layton called for $4.6 billion in new spending after the removal of corporate tax cuts from the original budget. The NDP could lay claim to influence. The Liberals were saved by a hair.
Business received a nudge and wink that their tax cuts would stay, and the socialists convinced their constituency that money would begin to flow immediately. For the price of a lie, the Liberals bought 19 votes.

At the first opportunity (May 10) the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois indicated their lack of confidence in the government by passing a motion in the House, adding an amendment to a bill which called on a parliamentary committee to request the government's resignation. The motion passed, 153-150. Despite the fact that this motion clearly indicated the government did not have the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House, the government ignored the vote declaring that the motion was a procedural one (without benefit of Opposition Days -- no business could be brought forward by the opposition in the usual manner, the government refused to bring the budget to a vote -- so this route was taken as the only route available).

The Conservatives and Bloc pointed out that according to parliamentary conventions, the government is obligated to quickly introduce a formal confidence vote which, if passed, would necessitate the dissolution of Parliament. The government came out the next day with the following statement:

On May 17, voters in British Columbia will be going to the polls in a provincial election. Next Tuesday and Wednesday, I (Paul Martin) will be in Regina to welcome the Queen to Canada. On Thursday, May 19, I will be in Ottawa. And I am proposing that there be, on that day, a vote on the budget bill. This vote will be a matter of confidence. . . By scheduling this vote, I am respecting my obligations to our Parliamentary tradition. I call on Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to respect their obligations – to demonstrate respect for Parliament and for Canadians by ensuring this House is able to function between now and the day of the vote, and by committing to Canadians that they will honour and recognize the outcome of the confidence vote.

Remember -- the government had already LOST a procedural vote 153-150 and refused to recognise it as a confidence vote -- but look at the last sentence of that press release -- it exhorts the opposition to 'honour and recognize the outcome of the confidence vote.' scheduled over a week away. The Liberals used Paul Martin's itinerary and unrelated events in the country, to grant themselves a full week in which to shore up their shaky grasp on power.

May 17 Conservative MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and joined the government. Her 'principled' stand included accepting a plum Cabinet role. Stronach used this opportunity to slag Stephen Harper, saying: "I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is." She suggested she was uncomfortable with the Conservatives 'working with the Bloc' to bring down the government because it threatened national unity. This ignores the fact that without opposition parties co-operating on issues of confidence the government could never be toppled.

Had Stronach made this move over 'principle' it would have been made immediately after a caucus meeting the previous week where the Conservatives unanimously agreed to attempt to bring down the government -- instead, she stood beside her caucus-mates and was one of the 153 who voted against the government. She told no one she was leaving the Conservatives -- not her constituency office, not her staff, not her boyfriend (sound familiar?)

The subsequent remarks of some provincial Conservative MLAs about 'whores' and 'dipsticks' were the major concern of the NDP that week. They were in a tizzy about how 'sexist' those statements are. The media focussed on the broken heart of her ex-boyfriend Peter MacKay. The one week delay in the confidence vote benefitted the governing party (hence the reason behind the unheeded calls for a quick confidence vote) but they weren't the only ones to benefit.

There was no country-wide outrage. There were no protests. With the exception of some angry Conservatives, there was no call for Belinda to resign and stand in a byelection. Stephen Harper never suggested that she should -- and neither did Jack Layton. No one wrote to Bernard Shapiro.

Some would say that because she is a billionairess, principles, not perques, had to have been the motivating factor in Belinda's defection, but there are considerations beyond 'cash', which are more valuable and more coveted by someone of Stronach's wealth. Her role on the opposition benches provided her with no status and no prestige. Besides, doesn't it seem reasonable that all MPs should be held to the same standards regardless of personal fortunes?

Remarkably, the NDP, who would be the benficiary of the so-called 'NDP budget' and have the thrill of holding the balance of power for a few more months, decided neither Stronach's nor the Liberal's actions were unethical -- at least not unethical enough to suggest a byelection or to contact the Ethics Commissioner.

At least Harper has been consistent on his floor-crossing stance.

canadianna

Because we can?

When a crucifix is put in a jar of urine and called art, I am offended. When the Pope was depicted as a Nazi in a cartoon on Rabble, I was offended. When Warren Kinsella (and many others since) mocked evangelical Christians for their faith, I was offended. Media in the Middle East still perpetuate the blood libel, and that offends me.

I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm not an Evangelical Christian, I'm not Jewish -- but I understand the anger and frustration at being ridiculed and having something sacred to me, portrayed with contempt and scorn.

How then, could I not be offended by cartoons that are hurtful and insulting to Muslims?

The violent 'response' to the cartoons in question is unjustifiable. The cartoons aren't the cause of the rioting - -they are simply an excuse to shed blood by people who need very little incitement to become violent.

That said, I agree completely with Peter MacKay's statement condemning the violence, but praising Canadian media for choosing not to print the cartoons.

Freedom of speech and independence of the press are essential in a democratic society. The governments where the cartoons have been printed, are absolutely correct not to apologise on behalf of newspapers over which they have no control -- and the government of Canada is right to praise the media for exercising their right not to print what might offend some Canadians.

There has been no governmental direction of Canadian media - editorial boards have decided independently not to publish the cartoons. The cartoons have been described, and are readily available online for anyone who wants to see what they're all about.

Fellow bloggers have posted or linked to these cartoons to demonstrate their freedom of expression and I respect their right to do so. I think most have posted them out of a sense of principle, and not to insult Muslims who have no part in the rioting and mayhem happening abroad.

Newspapers that don't publish the cartoons are not 'cowards'. They are exercising choice. Freedom of expression also means not being forced to print something you find objectionable. If the government was trying to impose a ban on the printing of the cartoons, then printing them to protest the ban would be laudable. As it stands, doing so in the MSM would simply be gratuitously hurtful to Muslim Canadians.

Canadian Muslims have had a measured, tempered response to cartoons that offend their faith. MacKay is right that this is the brand of Islam that needs to be promoted around the world. Why shouldn't we support that? It's in all of our interest that adherents to Islam overseas emulate their Canadian cousins, isn't it?

My choice not to post the cartoons and not to link to them, doesn't mean I endorse violence. It doesn't imply that I understand or condone the radical response to the cartoons. It doesn't suggest that I'm an apologist for Islam and it doesn't mean I don't believe in free speech.

My religion says I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I resent it when Christianity and Christians are mocked for a laugh, or in the name of art, or in an attempt at satire. I won't deliberately offend Muslims for no other reason than 'because I can.'

canadianna

And this too, shall pass

Tim says that its pragmatism over principle. Valiantmauz says that the will of the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway is being ignored. Funnily enough, I don't entirely disagree. All the justifications and rationalizations don't matter to people who say that what happened just isn't right and nothing is going to change their minds.

Integrity, accountability, hypocrisy, principles, ethics -- all highly charged words in politics and all being used in the wake of the Emerson/Fortier appointments, mostly to condemn the move.

I don't want to be sucked in to that vortex of blind partisanship, nor do I want be aligned with political behaviour that is unethical --- but I find it hard to equate what's happened here with some of the serious ethical lapses of the previous government. I just don't see this as starkly black & white.

Do these appointments display a lack of integrity on the part of Stephen Harper? Harper has said he would do things differently -- read, no more patronage appointments, more transparency, elected people holding the bulk of the power etc. In my opinion, neither of these appointments changes that. He has not reversed his stance on floor crossing or Senate reform and I don't see that this betrays principles the Conservatives espoused during the election.

If one believes that Harper was looking for a way to slip a pal quietly into Senate, or that he believed he could convert the people of Vancouver Kingsway into Conservative supporters by the appointment of Emerson, then perhaps one might conclude Harper lacks integrity, but I don't think the facts don't support that conclusion.

Harper has made a temporary appointment to Senate, which in no way undermines his commitment to an elected Senate. Fortier's promise to resign his Senate seat and run in the next election should silence the idea that Harper is simply attempting to award friends. There are few benefits to the role that Fortier has agreed to play in the Harper government, and plenty of headaches are certain.

Emerson's appointment doesn't benefit the Conservative Party or its fortunes. How could it? Whether Emerson runs in that riding in the next election or not, the seat is unlikely to go Conservative. Appointing him was a risk, but it would seem that Harper truly believed Emerson could fill an important role in this government. Geography was the major factor in this post, not qualifications. If he'd appointed an unqualified Liberal in a constituency that had a higher showing for Conservatives hoping to boost their chances next time, Harper's ethics would be questionable. As it is, this appointment doesn't benefit Harper, except to give a Cabinet voice to Vancouver.

Is the Harper government somehow unaccountable? This is a minority parliament and is therefore more accountable than most. These two appointments will increase the need for a Conservative government to perform well, or else.

Emerson is accountable to his voters, but there is no question that serving your constituents in government is a far easier task than serving in Opposition. Will they care what colour his website is? Some might -- they voted Liberal, they got Tory and many are justifiably angry. Only an election will give them a chance to express that anger, and although they feel entitled to one now, that isn't going to happen.

When Stephen Harper won the leadership of the Alliance, Ezra Levant stepped down from his Calgary seat in order that Harper could run, and ultimately have a seat in parliament. That's the way these things generally work -- a bi-election is called because a member of the same party resigns his seat. That can't happen here -- the very reason these appointments were made is that there is not Conservative representation in Vancouver and Montreal -- who exactly would step down to allow a by-election in Montreal? And while it might be noble for Emerson to step down and have a by-election, his almost certain defeat wouldn't benefit anyone.

Accountability is another word people keep using, particularly in reference to Fortier.

In my opinion, Harper doesn't side-step accountability by appointing someone who won't sit in the House. Both men remain accountable, and suggestions otherwise just don't make sense to me.

A Minister's presence in the House of Commons for Question Period is hardly an assurance of accountability. Despite not having been elected, Fortier will no doubt be accountable to the Senate, and to Parliament through his Parliamentary Secretary, to Harper and to the people. Fielding Opposition questions during Question Period is not what makes a Minister accountable -- it's simply a tangible representation of accountability. As long as there is a knowledgeable person to represent the department (James Moore) to take questions, the government will be required to provide answers and therefore be accountable.
In the past, it has never seemed necessary for a Minister to be in the House to answer questions about his portfolio -- often they have been inexplicably absent. Under previous governments, having an able and well-informed proxy was not deemed necessary either. I tend to believe that because of the additional scrutiny this appointment will have created, James Moore will be amply prepared to answer any questions the Opposition would wish to put to the Minister.

Harper's character is not really the issue here. He hasn't done anything 'unethical'. His political judgment is the issue. Some would say he'd have been better to do without Cabinet representation in Vancouver and Montreal than to have given the appearance of being like governments of old. He promised to bring change and on the first day he appears to have repeated the same old patterns as previous Prime Ministers.

I think it's important to remember that neither Harper, nor the men in question, benefit materially from the appointments, nor do they improve in stature or respect within their communities. When people do something unethical or unprincipled in government, there is generally gain involved -- financial or otherwise. I just don't see that here. Neither is there the certainty of a majority government where years go by and these sorts of issues are forgotten.

As a BTW -- A commenter (and also the Letter of the Day in the NP) suggested that these appointments 'prove' Harper's team lacks the experience to run the government.

Does that mean that there was no one qualified to handle Transport in that big, smart Liberal Party so they HAD to have Lapierre? No one worthwhile to manage Health, so they HAD to have Dosanjj? No one quite intelligent enough to handle the Ministry of Complex Files -- so they HAD to have Belinda? If experience was the only factor in determining who would form government and who would be a minister, there would never be any change in government.

I guess I'm really still trying to work all this out. Sigh. Remember the simple times . . . ?

canadianna

Playing the hand that's dealt you

He could have gone another way. He could have assigned the International Trade/Vancouver Olympic portfolio and the Public Works portfolio to other people. He could have spared himself a major headache, but had he done, Harper would have a very different, and more difficult problem.

Right now Harper's problem is simple optics "You criticised Belinda and the Liberals and now you've done it yourself" and "what about 'elected' and 'accountable' -- where's the change and integrity you promised?"

I'm a partisan blogger, but I've said before, the only people I love unconditionally are my kids. The Conservatives have to earn my goodwill, it won't be bestowed without question. There are other conservative minded bloggers supporting Harper despite his having made these questionable appointments -- and who upon reflection -- have decided they support the appointments themselves. With this post, I rank myself among them.

A minority government is tricky. A minority government in which you have no natural ally in parliament is even trickier. A minority government where the three major urban centres have no representatives in the House--almost too much. Harper could maneouver the first two by making compromises and bending a little, but the third -- no representation within three major urban centres -- nothing was going to change that anytime soon. Harper and his advisors have come up with a creative solution. It isn't perfect, but its workable. Both appointments have precedents. Both men have solid credentials.

The Belinda/Emerson comparison doesn't wash. Belinda was recruited/sought inducements at a time when a precarious government hovered on the brink of falling. Her walk across the floor ensured that a festering sore of a government would live on. It was a cynical power grasping move by Martin and the Liberals. Her move changed the course of political history. The irony is that had she not crossed, and had there been an election then, Martin might well have won the majority he coveted. The country was so caught up in the 'let government work' mantra, they might have punished the opposition Conservatives and Bloc for bringing down a parliament that was 'trying'.
Anyway . . .

Emerson's move hasn't happened in the same context. The government will not live or die based on Emerson's decision to join the Conservatives. Anyone making the comparison might consider that Harper had absolutely nothing to gain and a considerable amount to lose by making this move. He risked the wrath of his own caucus, the cynicism of the media and the scepticism of the public in order to have Emerson in Cabinet.

International Trade would have done well with any number of stong Conservative MPs, and the Vancouver Olympics could have been overseen by James Moore or Jay Hill. Harper didn't need Emerson's 'talents' when the Tory bench is already so strong. What Harper needed was an astute and capable person in Vancouver. He didn't have one. That was the hand that was dealt him, so he reached outside his caucus, outside his party -- it was a gutsy move. Vancouver will benefit from Emerson being on the government side of the House -- might sound like spin, but it also happens to be accurate.

Fortier's appointment is more difficult. Harper had five Quebec MPs who weren't chosen for Cabinet but could have overseen Montreal, and Public Works could have gone to the capable Diane Albonzy or any number of others. I suspect that those in Quebec who didn't make Cabinet, were surprised at having been elected at all. It's unlikely that any of these people could have shouldered the responsibility of overseeing the interests of Montreal while learning to be an effective MP. Circumventing the electoral process and appointing Fortier a Senator is a backward way to achieve the desired outcome -- a solid seat in Cabinet for Montreal. It's a backward way -- but given that the front door was closed, it was this way or the door would remain closed.

Accusations that Fortier won't be accountable because he won't take questions in the House are specious. The portfolio will be covered in the House -- perhaps even more diligently because the Minister isn't there. Not only will this Ministry be under scrutiny because of the attention it received from the Auditor General and the Gomery Inquiry -- an absentee minister will only sharpen the focus on Public Works -- could it be that's what Harper both expects and wants?

Reaction to these two appointments has run the gamit. In Toronto editorials chide Harper for the roundabout way he included Vancouver and Montreal in Cabinet, while simultaneously lamenting that no similar move was made to include Toronto. Their thinking seems to be -- it's a bad thing, but it might be better if he'd done the same for us. And they claim Harper has lost credibility?

Harper is very aware of the importance of cities to both the country, and to a hoped-for future majority government. My guess is that he knows that despite having been heavy with Cabinet Ministers under many a Liberal regime, Toronto has been under-served. Having received litte benefit from our Cabinet seats in the past, Torontonians will likely be willing to forgive the lack of seat if we see improved representation. Those who believe that we can't be represented from outside the city need only to look at City Council to remind themselves how we are served from within.

This is one of those 'wait and see' times. To my mind, the Conservatives have managed to justify the unjustifiable. But they won't get my goodwill a second time for this sort of questionable judgement call. They had better find a way to live up to their promises while not having to explain the route they took. The more you have to explain your actions, the more suspicious they become. Straightforward is best -- and that's what I'm looking for from this point on.

A lot of people have the button on their blogs: "I Support the Conservative Party and its Leader Stephen Harper" It isn't just your integrity at stake Mr. Prime Minister, it's ours.

canadianna

Toronto the not-so-good

Greater Toronto Hotel Association President Rod Seiling, and Bruce MacMillan, President and CEO of Tourism Toronto, are lamenting the lack of tourism and suggesting that both the provincial and federal governments should fork over cash to revitalize the tourism industry in the city.

Both men seem to believe that the tourism numbers are low due to lack of marketing, suggesting that Americans still think we're all about moose, Mounties and mountains. This shows an utter lack of critical thinking skills, a myopic perspective of recent events and a sterotypical view of Americans as ignorant. Gee, I wonder why they aren't coming?

In the days of old when Toronto was a tourist destination for Americans, there were three important things that drew them here:

1. Toronto was safe and clean.
2. The Canadian dollar was cheap, so sight-seeing and shopping didn't break the bank.
3. Most importantly -- Canadians were seen as a friendly people, polite to a fault.

Times have changed and so has Toronto.

Toronto is not perceived to be safe anymore, and it definitely is not clean. We might not be unsafe compared to large American centres, but if we're no safer then we've lost our more favourable comparison.

And it isn't just the gun violence. The city is rife with panhandlers and the homeless. My daughters and I went to see Hilary Duff a few weeks back and I was shocked that as we left the ACC and walked through the tunnel linking it to Union Station, there were no less than four scruffy men blocking the crowds and asking for money. Back home in Scarborough there are some stores and malls that you can't exit without being asked for cash.

The garbage situation in Toronto is a joke. Most major western cities have garbage pick up at least twice a week. In Toronto, recycling and trash are picked up alternate weeks, with a limit of six items on trash days. Compostables are picked up weekly. Dumping in ravines and parks is fairly common, at least in part because of the item limit on trash days. The 'green bin' which is to hold all the 'stinky' garbage, can be opened by raccoons, so having putting it out the night before is not a good idea and if you happen to miss getting it out on time, you just have to hold on to it for another whole week.

But worst of all is the blue box. Tins and bottles littering boulevards and curbs are common sights. Strong winds blow them out of the boxes, or if they fall out of the box while being dumped into the truck, they are simly left where they land. Apparently it isn't in a garbage man's job description to pick up recycling that spills from your bin on its way into the garbage truck.

World-class cities don't operate this way. Civic pride is important, not just for citizens, but for workers. Our city council is living in another century when it refuses to even talk about incineration as a viable solution to our garbage problem and a potential solution to our energy needs.

The rise in the Canadian dollar is another factor that must be contributing to lower tourism levels. If we aren't safer, and we aren't cleaner, then why should they come if we aren't cheaper?

And the final reason -- incivility.

Torontonians are nice, but from some very public comments of our mayor, some big-mouthed former MPs and our former Prime Minister, you'd never know that. These people, elected to represent us, have verbally abused the US, either because they are ignorant, or to score political points. Among other things, Mayor Miller continues to publically blame the US for our gun problems. Add to that, the series of undiplomatic sentiments expressed by various members of government , both elected and appointed, since Chretien was in power. Time has not diluted the negative affect of the "Americans, I hate those bastards" statement by Carolyn Parrish, not least because Paul Martin engaged in America-bashing during the election. It wasn't just at the Climate Change conference; his television ads suggested that a US friendly Prime Minister would be greeted with hositlity by Canadians and that some evil American cabal was funding his competitor.

If Toronto needs something to help increase tourism, that something isn't multi-million dollar marketing. This city needs to take a good look at itself and the people it chooses as representatives. If Americans aren't coming here to visit, it's because we aren't giving them any reason. Dressing our city up in a slick advertsing campaign isn't going to solve the problems that make our city inhospitable to tourists from south of the border.

There are American cities with abundant arts & culture, great restaurants, sporting venues, green spaces close by, historic attractions, and amusement parks -- why should they bother spending their money in Toronto? They used to do it because it was safe, clean, cheaper and nice. Now that it isn't any of those things, what exactly are we offering?

Seiling is wrong. He thinks Amercians have an old-fashioned idea of what we are all about and that's keeping them away -- but maybe, that image of moose, Mounties and mountains is what the Americans liked about us. You could count on things to be a certain way in Canada -- clean, safe, nice. We, as Canadians used to feel that way about ourselves, but I think most of us don't anymore. Could it be that Americans have noticed the changes in us too, and they don't like what they see?

canadianna

The media and blogs

Darcy of Dust my Broom points to a column in Winnipeg Free Press which, like so many others before it, dismisses political bloggers (conservative bloggers in particular) as the stereotypical 'guy in his pyjamas, typing away in the basement of his mother's home'.

Earlier this week in the National Post there was a piece about blogging. It suggested, as does the piece in the Free Press, that bloggers over-estimate their sway and are largely irrelevant in Canada. The two pieces begin with the premise that bloggers hope to influence events. I believe their theory is inherently wrong.

Some blogs are very good at disseminating information, breaking stories or pointing out the absurdities of government, others take aim at the news that's already out there and give a perspective typically unavailable in the mainstream media. Some blogs reflect on the current realities of the world, while others are simply a place for their authors to vent.

Most bloggers seem pleased to know their efforts are read, but don't succumb to the illusion that they are changing anyone's opinion. We know we are mostly preaching to the converted and though we enjoy visits from commenters from the other end of the political spectrum, their challenges aren't about to change our minds any more than our posts and comments are going to change theirs.

I think the media has missed the real power of the average political blog.

For me, blogging has been a remarkable discovery of like-minded people in a country that I believed had very few conservative thinkers (especially east of Manitoba or Saskatchewan).

Through blogging, I have 'virtually' met people from all across Canada and parts of the US. We've exchanged ideas, learned about each other and sometimes surprised ourselves at how much we have in common despite diverse backgrounds, geography and life experience. We've discovered how much our neighbours to the south know about us, and care about our politics. We've agreed or disagreed as the issues demanded, and we've shared concerns and frustrations, as we laughed at the lunacy of politics, politicians and pundits.

Far from being irrelevant, blogging has connected people who would likely never have met and allowed us to voice our shared worries, hopes, goals and vision. If nothing else, it has been a uniting tool, helping Canadian conservatives to see that they aren't alone and giving us a place and a public forum at a time when we've felt silenced and marginalised.

Bloggers might not change the world or influence the way the public thinks, but it's been heartening to find that there are other people out there whose view of the world isn't skewed left. When assessing the value of any medium, understanding the intentions of its users should be the first step. Professional journalists who discount the importance of political blogs, have approached this from the wrong angle.

canadianna

Less than I hoped for, better than I thought

By Sunday, I was losing faith. I'm not sure whether the public was affected by the Liberal attack ads, the reports of 'hidden candidates' or the brief suggestion that Stephen Harper had stopped talking to reporters, but it all dampened my spirits.

Last night as I watched the results, I was really disappointed. Then, I heard Stephen Harper speak. That was when I realised how big this win is, not for conservatives, but for Canadians.

Harper's minority government represents hope to many who had begun to despair of our political system. Right or left, conservative or 'progressive,' are not so important as seeing that there is a credible alternative to Liberal hegemony. Despite what Liberals want us to believe, we all know that One Party Rule is never a good thing in a democracy.

Some Liberals equate this experience for them to a 'time-out' or a stint in the 'penalty-box'. This implies that when the Liberals have finished their renewal process, that they will assume their traditional role of 'natural governing party.' I don't see that in the results and I hope it's bravado talking, rather than a true sense of entitlement.

In the months to come I expect that Stephen Harper and his team will prove themselves to be a safe and viable choice for voters, and not simply a temporary surrogate. Depite all the campaign rhetoric, the Conservative policies (despite being different from the Liberal policies) are not radical or right-wing and will be easily supported by many right-leaning Liberals.

All of the parties faced disappointment last night, none of them achieving their ultimate goals. The Conservatives have a fragile minority, rather than the strong one they'd hoped for. The Liberals lost both seats, and popular support. The Bloc failed to meet its target in the popular vote, and elected fewer MPs, and Jack Layton and the NDP, despite a two percent gain in the popular vote and a ten seat increase in the House, no longer hold the balance of power.

The irony of all this is that power still rests with the Liberals. It will be Liberals Stephen Harper will look to for support of his budget and other programmes, and for the most part I think they'll sign on. Financially strapped and without a leader, they'll be in no hurry to bring the government down. Likely, many are still stinging from the very public and vulgar bashing of their values by Paul Martin as he pandered to the 'progressives'. These MPs will be loyal to their party, but they'll want it to have time to be dragged back to the centre from the outter left fringes where Paul Martin left it.

canadianna

Moderates have no place in the new Liberal Party

What moderate thinking person, in their right mind, could vote Liberal?

This final week of the election campaign has done more to damage the Liberals than all of their scandals put together. In his final push to maintain power, Paul Martin has targeted 'progressive' voters and in the end he has destroyed any credibility his party might have had on sensitive social issues. People might have been able to look past the 'corruption of the few' or the ineptitude of many, but they can't ignore the seismic ideological shift to the left.

It remains a mystery why Paul Martin would think 'progressive' voters would vote for a tired and volatile Liberal Party, when they have the alternative of the NDP - a party free from scandal, with a youngish, energetic leader and MPs who seem both committed and bright. And by soliciting votes from the more extreme left, Martin will have alienated those liberals who still consider themselves centrists. If Martin's Liberals feel comfortable embracing the extreme left, then what can be there to hold people with moderate social and fiscal views?

The answer is nothing.

Moderate voters have no longer have a place in the Liberal Party. Their leader has marginalised his own candidates with his vicious and radical rhetoric on social issues and has insulted the voting base by saying that the opinions of these candidates (and by extention, their voters) don't matter and won't be listened to if the Liberals were to remain in power.

Paul Martin is a politician of exclusion and division. In his lust for power, he has become like a giant sponge, soaking up policies and ideology from the NDP, leaving moderate voters no choice but to abstain, vote Conservative or be left behind.

Happy voting.

canadianna

When a non-issue becomes THE issue

Paul Martin is making hay about Conservative candidates who are being 'hidden' because of their 'extreme right-wing' views on social issues.

These candidates are being hunted by the national media to talk about issues that are not on the table. We've already seen Harper state that his opinion is irrelevant because he has promised not to introduce legislation, and not to support legislation on the issue, and yet he's being damaged by the suggestion that 'if' a private members bill was put forward, and 'if' it came to a vote . . .

Never mind that everyone knows private members bills are incredibly hard to get on the docket. Harper is being smeared because of what he might think. Nothing Harper has said, and nothing he has done, or would do, even suggests he'd change the status quo on abortion, but how well would a local candidate do, trying to field loaded questions from a socially 'progressive' media?
No one in the media is running around asking John McKay et al. how they'd vote on abortion and the stance Martin has taken on this has simply hurt and offended people who are not part of his definition of 'caring,' 'compassionate' Canadians'

Everyone is worried about the Conservative candidates who aren't talking, but here we are, only two days to go in this election campaign, and Paul Martin has yet to reveal which MPs received taxpayer cash diverted from the sponsorship programme to help their 2000 election campaigns. We know these people exist -- but he won't tell us who they are. Why hasn't he given the names so people can ask whose money they're using this time?

Babbling Brooks points to Tiger in Exile who contrasts the positions of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper on issues like abortion and gay marriage. No wonder Harper is frustrated, and Martin is elated. The information here is readily available to anyone who goes to the effort (thanks Ben) of looking -- but instead of doing their research, much of the media coverage just shows Martin and his ranting.

I don't know who Martin thinks his constituency is, but if people want government from the left, the NDP isn't tainted by corruption and desperation. If the Liberals are looking for voters in the centre, Paul Martin's offensive style of campaigning and marginalizing differing opinions, will not endear him to people with moderate views.

Paul Martin is musing about Conservative candidates who aren't talking to reporters. When the votes are counted on Monday night, the Liberals might realise that Paul Martin has made the mistake of talking too much.

canadianna

Expressing my views and advancing my cause

What's going to happen after the election? Are these social conservatives going to stay in hiding ... (or) are they going to come out and start expressing their views, advancing their causes?" Paul Martin, speaking in Atlantic Canada today

I am a 'social conservative' -- not a radical. In fact, my views are moderate. I have no extremist vision and no desire to impose my values on anyone else -- unlike the radical left that Paul Martin has come to extol.

I believe that there should be some regulation on abortion based on the age of the fetus.
I believe that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. I do not believe marriage is a right. I believe civil unions or registered domestic partnerships of some sort would allow the same benefits as marriage, and would respect the dignity of gay people.

How are these positions controversial? They are in line with the mainstream, modern views of countries like Britain, Finland, Switzerland and France. Very few western democracies allow completely unfettered access to abortion and at least 17 modern, civilized, forward-thinking nations recognise civil unions between gay couples, but not gay 'marriage.'

My views on marriage and abortion are not related to my religion. I have no idea about the Anglican church's view on abortion, and on marriage, they are impossibly divided. I believe that most people who are against abortion or against gay marriage concede there must be compromise -- not so on the 'yes' side. The pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage contingent are so rigid in their views one might call them dogmatic, or even fervently religious to the point of intolerance.

When Stephen Harper says the issue of abortion won't be on the table should he become Prime Minister, I believe him. Why? Because this is a toxic issue for Conservatives. Should he want a solid mandate or second term (whatever the case may be) he can't touch the issue. He knows it. Paul Martin knows it. And yet Martin runs around Canada in the name of women everywhere, telling anyone who will listen, that my opinions are so extreme that they are frightening.

Whatever side of 'rights' issues or 'social' issues you come down on, it should be unsettling that the prime minister of our country has such contempt for so many of the citizens he is supposed to represent. A prime minister is supposed to be the Prime Minister of ALL of the people, not just the people who agree with his narrow world view, and fit his exclusive definition of Canadian.

Buzz Hargrove says that Albertans are not quite Canadian -- Paul Martin doesn't distance himself on that comment, and the media is still writing about the abortion non-issue.

Paul Martin keeps stressing there is a 'fundamental difference' between himself and Stephen Harper. Well, in Stephen Harper's Canada, people are entitled to express diverse opinions on matters of conscience and not be subject to ridicule or derision.
In Paul Martin's Canada, when the government wants your opinion, it will tell it to you.

Choose your Canada.

canadianna

Liberal appointments and Stephen Harper

Could it be that when Stephen Harper vowed he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause to 'force' through the traditional definition of marriage is because he knew, that like the attempt to pass an abortion law in the 90s, it would be stalled by the Senate.

Could it be that Stephen Harper mentioned that the senior levels of the civil service are composed of Liberal appointees as one of the 'checks and balances' he referred to was to assure this senior level of bureaucracy that he had no plans to universally and swiftly fire them the way that the Liberals fired Conservative appointees when they swept in to power in 1993.

Could it be that when Stephen Harper suggested that the judiciary was dominated by Liberal appointees, he knew that there was only one vacancy in the nine judge court, and he was assuring both the NDP and the Bloc -- both of which favour an overhaul of the vetting process, that he intends to follow through with the ideas that the three parties put forward (which were rejected by the Liberals) and will not appoint judges based on their political world view but on their interpretation of the law.

No one is saying they want an American-style inquisition type process of determining the credibility of judges, but all three opposition parties agreed on needed changes.

Canadians would do well to remember that even with a majority government, there will be constraints on Conservatives. There is no such mechanism in place to keep Liberals in check should weak-kneed people decide to maintain the status quo.

canadianna

Activist judges -- never!

Centrist
n. One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
adj. Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view.

For the longest time I've believed that activist types have been yanking the political spectrum to the extreme left, and re-labelling it 'the centre'.

Paul Martin and the Liberal Party are the self-proclaimed centrist force in Canada. They say they embody Canadian values and represent the opinions of the average Canadian.

Paul Martin makes a point of saying that Stephen Harper once said 'you won't recognise Canada when I get through with it.' He castigates Harper for pointing out that the judiciary and the Supreme Court are stacked with Liberal appointees, and yet the social fabric of Canada has changed over the past 20 years -- based entirely on decisions of a Liberal heavy judiciary and the Liberal laden Senate.

In twenty years with a majority Liberal appointed judiciary, Canada has gone from a country that had a law regulating abortion, needed no law respecting the traditional definition of marriage because for centuries it was simply understood, upheld the standards of public decency, and held possession of child pornography to be illegal.

No more.

Liberals have set the agenda and changed Canada over the past twenty years - not through elected members of Parliament, but in the two unelected, unaccountable branches of government which are dominated by Liberal appointees. Are they impartial? Maybe they are, but the fact remains that the lack of abortion law, and the laws regarding child pornography, same-sex marriage and community standards all reflect an extreme liberal, rather than centrist view of social issues. They have sought not to balance justice but to force it. By reading rights into the Charter, they have indeed been 'activist', and gone beyond interpreting law and are now making it.

The radical social agenda has always belonged to the Liberal Party and they have managed to implement it -- particularly over the past twelve years. Not because they believed it was right, but because it was a way to differentiate themselves from the 'Christian right' they pretend lurks in the shadows of the Conservative Party.

Should the Conservatives win a majority, there is nothing Stephen Harper or the Conservatives would be able to do to transform Canada into the theocracy Paul Martin is prophesying, but Martin's current denunciations of Harper and all things conservative will likely have influence, at least here in Toronto.

Come on, Tuesday.

canadianna

Questionnaire for Liberals

Q. Why do you call your child care transfer payment to the provinces a 'Universal Child Care Plan' when it isn't universal and parents will still pay market value for daycare just like they do now?

Q. If the Liberals and NDP are both against privately delivered health services, why don't they object to publically funded, privately delivered abortions?

Q. If Buzz Hargrove was speaking out of turn when he said that Stephen Harper is a separatist, why did Paul Martin approve the ad that says:

Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper worked together to bring down the government.

Lots of late night secret meetings.

Apparently, they're quite a team.

Which is great.

Because if Harper wins this election?

He'll need to work very, very closely with Gilles Duceppe.

Unfortunately, their unity won't do much for Canadian unity.

Apparently Buzz was just parroting the Liberal Party line, so why is Paul Martin lying to Canadians when he says that what Buzz said, isn't what he meant?

Q. Why do the Liberals think it's a bad thing to want to have a positive working relationship with our closest and largest trading partner, the US, but it's good to encourage trade with Communist China despite human rights abuses and the potential flood of our market with cheap goods (cars, etc.) at prices we can't compete with?

Q. Why do the Liberals think that Stephen Harper will defer our sovereignty and independence to the whims of George Bush -- is it because the Liberals know that they have never been able to say 'no' to their friends?

Q. Why is Paul Martin all in a tizzy because Stephen Harper mentioned that the Senate, Judiciary and Senior levels of the Public Service are Liberal appointees -- Does Paul Martin forget Art Eggleton, Glen Murray, David Dingwall, and Rosalie Abella and is he pretending that they are not all Liberal appointees, and liberal thinkers?

Q. Does Dalton 'health premium' McGuinty really think his opinion matters to Ontarians or that we believe a word he says? Is he saying he won't try to work with Mr. Harper if the Conservatives are elected?

Q. Why are the Blogging Tories being referred to Elections Canada for violation of the 3rd Party advertising law -- but not the Toronto Star?

You don't really have to answer.

canadianna

Glass-house nation building

At the request of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Paul Martin has pledged to create the Canada Centre for Peace and Democracy -- its purpose is:

. . . to serve as a concrete symbol of Canada's dedication to supporting Palestinians in their nation building (. . .) Canada has already allocated over $36 million this fiscal year, as part of its enhanced program of assistance for the Palestinians, to supplement the growth in volume of our assistance and to supplement our diplomatic presence with a broad-based facility that can support our activities in Gaza, the West Bank and throughout the Middle East. (PDF file from liberal.ca)

Martin's announcement comes as Ariel Sharon remains gravely ill and the uncertainty and tension of the political situation in Israel is palpable. Aside from the bad timing, Martin's plan is as presumptuous as it is arrogant.

Canadians strive for 'peace, order and good government', but our current ruling party hardly embodies these noble goals -- yet it feels competent to pass along its vision of democracy to a fledgling Palestine.

Liberals would say the goal is to establish democratic principles and infrastructure prior to the formal creation of a Palestinian state. They would tell us that if Canada can work with Palestinians to create the foundations and the institutions -- democracy will follow.

Canada, under the Liberal Party, is a country divided. We are 'a nation of minorities', we are fractured regions competing for papa's money and attention; we are independentt nations wanting to secede and disrespected citizens angry and sometimes bitter that although our votes don't count, our taxes sure do.

The Liberal Party's handling of Quebec and Alberta over 30 odd years are enough to show that they have no place in nation building. Add to that the stench of corruption and incompetence still clinging to this stale government -- and Canadian should know that this initiative is not the right thing -- not now -- not under this flaccid and tainted administration.

Under the Liberal governments of Pierre Trudeau (1980) and Jean Chretien (1995) we had referendums on Quebec sovereignty. The second mightn't have been necessary, but for the fact that in 1982, Trudeau patriated our new constitution -- without Quebec's ratification. What other democratic nation would be so intent on having a new constitution that it would consider going forward without full participation from its provinces? If it took twenty years to negotiate a resolution satisfactory to all parties, it would have been better than the limbo the framers have left for Quebeckers and for the rest of Canadians who look on helplessly. All because another Liberal Prime Minister wanted a legacy. Brilliant.

Western alienation isn't taken as seriously by the Liberals because despite rapidly growing populations, the provinces in the west still don't have enough seats to hold political sway. Albertans in particular seem to feel isolated and the only appeasement the Liberals offer is in the person of Anne McLellan. Even a Liberal strategist was said to have told a reporter "Alberta can blow me." Alberta's alienation is hardly an effective and positive representation of democracy.

If the Liberal government can't lead by example -- which obviously it can't -- it also loses credibility because of its failure to support Israel at the UN. If Canada is going to take a hand in promoting democracy in a new state of Palestine, certainly goodwill toward its neighbour is important, but the trust of Israelis is paramount -- Canada can't offer a positive role model on this front either.

"We will continue to press for the kinds of [UN] reforms that will eliminate the politicization of the United Nations and its agencies and in particular, the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions." - Prime Minister Paul Martin, November 13, 2005

Despite that assertion, Canada's voting record has not improved, and the attitudes about sensitive issues like Jerusalem remain rigid and one-sided:

• Canada holds that any actions taken by Israel to enforce its laws, or assert jurisdiction over the Holy City are illegal saying Israel has no jurisdiction over any part of Jerusalem. In 2005, Canada withdrew all passports that had "Jerusalem, Israel" as a place of birth.
  
• In April 2002 Canada accepted the "Jenin massacre" hoax as fact, and has not apologized.
  
• Canada has called upon Israel "to cease obstructing the movement of the staff, vehicles and supplies of [UNRWA]." Canada supports this "free movement" even after wire service videos show UNRWA ambulances being used to transport terrorists, and an admission by UNRWA's secretary-general that some of their paid employees might be Hamas members. Canada has never called for UNRWA to end its involvement in terror.
  
• Canada says Israel has obligations to Palestinian Arab refugees, with no obligations to displaced Palestinian Jews for the same period.
  
• Canada has re-stated calls for the prevention of all acts of violence by Israeli settlers, with no call for an end to offensive Palestinian violence against innocent civilians.
  
• Canada accepts the idea of a Palestinian state without insisting the PA end terror.

Israel is a fragile nation in the midst of great hostility. Its government is in a state of suspended animation with Ariel Sharon's condition uncertain, and his successor unclear. Iran's enmity and capabilities are both heating up, and Paul Martin wants to inject himself into this volatile mix.

How can the Liberal Party of Canada be a credible nation-builder or peace broker with their credentials? To be an example to developing nations, Canada must be free of scandal and able to demonstrate that its own electorate is up to the task of holding government to account. The only way to do that, is to extract the Liberals from their grasp on power, and start rebuilding our own battered democracy. That can't happen with Paul Martin as Prime Minister.

canadianna

Whose promises do you make and keep?

Is a treaty or a promise made by a government, binding on successive governments?

Apparently, the Liberals don't think so -- Paul Martin's Liberals, who ran on a promise to scrap NAFTA, are now worried about Stephen Harper's commitment to scrap Kyoto -- because he's concerned about Canada's world image. The fact that Martin and the Liberals reneged on this election promise is irrelevant. He believed that deals signed under a previous government were open to renegotiation or reversal -- decisions made by governments are not written in stone.

Paul Martin was also part of the team that promised to scrap a the previous government's helicopter deal -- the cancellation penalty of $500,000,000 was taken from the military budget -- not general revenue. Taxpayers will have to pay the increased cost for replacement helicopters, which still haven't been delivered despite the Sea Kings being 13 years older and more decrepit than they were back then. Martin felt no obligation to honour an existing contract then -- even when it was financially imprudent to cancel.

The same Party that tore up the agreement for an essential tool for our military is bleating that the Conservatives will scrap a daycare scheme which will cost billions of dollars and benefit less than 20% of children.

The interesting thing about the Liberal plan is that it is modelled on the Quebec $7/day daycare plan(which costs considerably more than $7/day to run) -- but while the Liberals have said they will create more spaces, I haven't heard anything about it being more affordable (like the Quebec $7/day plan) Could it be that they didn't negotiate this part of the plan with the provinces -- so they have no idea how much parents will be charged?

The big red book of doom says that the essential principles of their daycare scheme are QUAD principles 'Quality, Universally inclusive, Accessible and Developmental'. So the 'A' doesn't stand for affordable. Some plan. They're transferringg money to the provinces and calling it a child care plan. At least with the Conservative policy, Quebeckers will only have to fork over $10 a week for their full-time childcare arrangements instead of $35, because they'll get the other $25 directly from Ottawa under Harper. With Martin's plan, who exactly is better off except maybe bureaucrats and daycare workers who will now be under the government employee umbrella?

Martin scarcely keeps his own promises, and even those he has kept are not kept in a timely fashion. Yet, he blusters about Stephen Harper's plans and pretends that Harper's decision to follow the Conservative's platform, rather than maintaining the status quo and enacting all of Martin's plans, is shocking.

Paul Martin is so arrogant as to think a Liberal signature renders something holy and untouchable.
His habit of keeping most of the wrong promises and breaking most of the right ones makes his indignant act even more comical.

However this week turns out, I can't wait until it's over.

canadianna