Ezra Levant and the editorial staff of the Western Standard made the decision to run the infamous Danish cartoons. The magazine is an independent enterprise, answerable to its subscribers. If subscribers have a problem with Ezra’s decision, they can cancel their subscriptions, or protest by way of letters. Occasional readers have been warned of the magazine’s intentions and can choose to pick one up at the newsstand, or not.
Last week, I said that printing the cartoons in Canada was not a free speech issue, because no one had attempted to prohibit their publishing here. An innocuous statement by the Foreign Affairs Minister praising Canadian media for not printing them, was not an order to refrain. Government had not directed media, it was simply commenting on the situation as it stood. So, in my opinion, there was no compelling reason for the media to offend a segment of our population in the name of informing the public, particularly when the cartoons are widely available to anyone who wants to see them.
Then Ezra Levant announced his intention to print the cartoons. Before the magazine had even hit the newsstands or mailboxes, The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada responded by lodging a criminal complaint. One would presume this was done in hopes of stopping the magazines from reaching customers. That action by this group -- and the simple fact that they felt free to try to take away the right of the Western Standard to exercise editorial judgement over the content of their magazine – prior to publication no less -- has changed this from an issue of ‘choosing not to offend’ to a free speech issue.
Today we read in the NP that new Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor has said that the publication of these cartoons ‘puts our troops at risk’. Three weeks ago, no Canadian media outlet had printed the cartoons and yet a Canadian diplomat was killed and Canadian soldiers criticly wounded by a murder-by-suicide bomber in Afghanistan. Terrorists decided to kill and maim, without cartoons as an 'impetus', and yet Minister O’Connor wants us to conclude that if in future, Canadian troops meet with violence, in a war zone, where radical Muslims despise and murder Westerners in the name of their god, that Ezra Levant is somehow culpable.
It all comes down to personal responsibility. If we accept that each of us is responsible for our own actions, then we have to conclude that if a maniacal psychopath murders people, he will do so regardless of what Ezra Levant prints in his magazine. Extremists can say it was the cartoons, American foreign policy, the greed and decadence of Western civilization – they can use any excuse they want, but nothing ‘causes’ someone to commit murder except the utter lack of respect for human life.
Minister O’Connor has given Islamic extremists an out. He has told them that if they commit atrocities against our citizens or against our soldiers, that instead of placing blame where it belongs – with them – Canada will look to Ezra Levant and say ‘see what you made them do.’
The ‘causes’ of murder-by-suicide bombings are a sense of entitlement, a lack of self-control and the realisation that the Western victim societies will look inward, and blame themselves, rather than force extremists to accept responsibility for their own barbarity. When radical Muslims decide to blow up people to 'make a point', they have exited the realm of civilized discourse and their sensibilities are not worthy of respecting.
And now, the European Union is going along with the insane anti-blasphemy idea put forward by the United Nations. Cultural and religious sensitivity is something that should be encouraged, not coerced. Irreverence and satire are legitimate and valuable forms of expression --they are part of the cultural inheritance of English-speaking countries. We test our institutions – cultural, political and religious – when we examine them with humour and skepticism. This kind of scrutiny enables us to grow – it helps us to separate what is essential from what is unimportant, what is holy from what is chaff. It prevents us from worshipping false idols, and gives perspective to issues and ideas that we take too seriously, or not seriously enough. Expunging these avenues of discourse from our conversational tool-box is a radical, ill-conceived plan. It will close the doors of communication rather than quell disagreements.
Drawing a co-relation between the cartoons and potential future violence perpetrated by Islamic murderers is a dangerous connection. It simplifies Islamic terror to ‘cause and effect’ – but words and cartoons don’t cause people to behave with violent frenzy.
Suggesting that printing these cartoons ‘puts our troops at risk’ is a short step from excusing or justifying future violence, as being in response to their publication by the Western Standard.
If A happens (the cartoons are published) and B happens (violent Muslims kill Canadians), it doesn’t follow that A caused B.
Did it ever occur to the Muslims who kill people in the name of their religion, that their violence and intolerance is not ‘sparked’ by cartoons, but rather, the cartoons were sparked by Muslim violence and intolerance.
If I have to order it from their website, I'll grab a copy of the Western Standard this month. And if radical Muslims kill our soldiers in the days and weeks ahead -- I'll blame the killers.
canadianna
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Who's More Qualified?
One would think that after having an old white guy and a billionairess sharing the Ministry of Human Resources & Social Development, that having someone from a more average background would be considered 'refreshing' despite her lack of political experience in these areas.
Today Carol Goar of the Toronto Star takes issue with Harper's choice of Diane Finley for that role. Apparently a male celebrity (Ken Dryden), and a woman who has achieved the only work experience she's known through nepotism and the political connections of her family (Belinda Stronach), are more qualified to represent the interests of the unemployed and ordinary women and families than-- well -- an ordinary woman.
Goar's column implies that Finley's background in agriculture and business do nothing to prepare her for her new role where she will handle tough issues like EI and daycare. The choice of a novice, Goar reasons, means either Harper intends to withdraw Ottawa from the policy making aspect of the department, allowing provinces to take over (how novel, a federal government allowing provinces to make policy within their jurisdiction) or that "no one in Harper's inner circle has given much thought to the social affairs ministry." Goar goes on to say that once the big five portfolios are filled, the rest is just "plugging the remaining candidates into available openings."
The real concern to Goar seems to be the announcement that the Choice for Childcare allowance would being on July 1st and Harper's affirmation that a Conservative government will withdraw from the childcare agreements. Goar says:
Both Dryden and Stronach were political neophytes when they assumed their roles as Minister. Neither had a background that would suggest an understanding of the needs of the average family, the ordinary woman, the unemployed. Neither speaks French, where Diane Finley is bilingual. It would seem if we're grading on potential, Finley equals or betters the previous novices by virtue of her simple background and her language skills.
Goar says:
canadianna
Today Carol Goar of the Toronto Star takes issue with Harper's choice of Diane Finley for that role. Apparently a male celebrity (Ken Dryden), and a woman who has achieved the only work experience she's known through nepotism and the political connections of her family (Belinda Stronach), are more qualified to represent the interests of the unemployed and ordinary women and families than-- well -- an ordinary woman.
Goar's column implies that Finley's background in agriculture and business do nothing to prepare her for her new role where she will handle tough issues like EI and daycare. The choice of a novice, Goar reasons, means either Harper intends to withdraw Ottawa from the policy making aspect of the department, allowing provinces to take over (how novel, a federal government allowing provinces to make policy within their jurisdiction) or that "no one in Harper's inner circle has given much thought to the social affairs ministry." Goar goes on to say that once the big five portfolios are filled, the rest is just "plugging the remaining candidates into available openings."
The real concern to Goar seems to be the announcement that the Choice for Childcare allowance would being on July 1st and Harper's affirmation that a Conservative government will withdraw from the childcare agreements. Goar says:
The rookie minister will be no impediment to Harper's plan to dismantle Canada's embryonic child-care system.Impediment? I would think Diane Finley will be the implementer of the change. I doubt Harper would delegate such heavy responsibility to someone he believed incapable of the task. In a minority parliament, Harper doesn't want to be running Ministries. He wants Ministers who can manage on their own.
Both Dryden and Stronach were political neophytes when they assumed their roles as Minister. Neither had a background that would suggest an understanding of the needs of the average family, the ordinary woman, the unemployed. Neither speaks French, where Diane Finley is bilingual. It would seem if we're grading on potential, Finley equals or betters the previous novices by virtue of her simple background and her language skills.
Goar says:
the 48-year old businesswoman who represents the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, has never displayed any interest in social issues.And a 38 year-old business woman representing Aurora did? You have to wonder what criteria Goar used for determining that anything in Stronach's or Dryden's life experience, let alone their work experience or political experience would make them better as Ministers of HRSD than Finley -- unless it's simply the party affiliation that renders Diane less qualified.
canadianna
Monday, February 13, 2006
Skating avoids controversy
I tuned in to CBC's coverage of the Pairs Figure Skating. Rest assured there will be no repeat of last year's controversy where the French judge was allegedly told to vote for the Russians in exchange for the Russian judge's vote for the French Dance Team, initially denying Jamie Sale and David Pelletier the gold.
This year, rather than the scores being out of 6 and listed by judge country at the bottom of your screen, the scores are totalled for us -- Technical Elements + Program Components - Deductions = Total
For those of us who have watched figure skating and despised the politics so evident with the judging, at least it will no longer be evident. Instead, political or personal bias will be hidden. This does nothing to assure that vote-buying is not a factor. In fact, it's simply a way for us to be kept out of the loop.
I don't know what real efforts have been made to clean up the judging, but it would seem this superficial change will only aggravate viewers who liked making the comparisons between individual judge's scores, for each skate.
Well, not giving us all of the information is a way to avoid scandal, but it does nothing to ensure that judging irregularities will be noticed or prevented.
canadianna
This year, rather than the scores being out of 6 and listed by judge country at the bottom of your screen, the scores are totalled for us -- Technical Elements + Program Components - Deductions = Total
For those of us who have watched figure skating and despised the politics so evident with the judging, at least it will no longer be evident. Instead, political or personal bias will be hidden. This does nothing to assure that vote-buying is not a factor. In fact, it's simply a way for us to be kept out of the loop.
I don't know what real efforts have been made to clean up the judging, but it would seem this superficial change will only aggravate viewers who liked making the comparisons between individual judge's scores, for each skate.
Well, not giving us all of the information is a way to avoid scandal, but it does nothing to ensure that judging irregularities will be noticed or prevented.
canadianna
St. Garth--Patron Saint of the Petulant & Self-Righteous
Ethical: Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.No less that 166 Canadian Members of Parliament have crossed the floor since 1921. Not one has ever resigned his seat to seek approval of that decision from his constituents in a byelection. Rather than simply suggesting he'd like to change the status quo, Garth Turner has taken the extra step and insisted that David Emerson set precedent.
Turner's blog predicts his own banishment to the rafters in the House and the basement of government. He laments that he is not being allowed to speak his mind (while doing precisely that), and criticizes Harper for trying to strong arm him into toeing the party line.
My problem with Garth isn't his opinion. It's the way he has expressed it. He could have stuck to his principles without showing contempt and disrespect for both the Prime Minister and the entire Conservative caucus. Instead, the way Garth tells it, he stands alone -- one man with principles and a spine, floundering in a sea of unprincipled jellyfish.
Disagreeing with leadership isn't new to the Conservative Party. It's something conservatives do because it's part of who we are. We won't dance to a tune we don't hear. Refusing to dance is not offensive. Pointing at the dancers and telling the world they are wrong-- nay, not simply wrong, but unethical and unscrupulous because they don't hear your tune -- that's just arrogance. Garth has not left any room for the possibility that it isn't his opinion Stephen Harper finds objectionable, it's his attitude. Garth has been disloyal, indiscreet and self-aggrandizing.
Here is what Turner could have said when asked what he thought of Emerson crossing the floor to sit in a Conservative Cabinet:
People are aware that I believe an MP should go back to the people should he
Mr. Harper did not support anti-floor crossing legislation when his party was on the other side of the equation last year, nor did he demand a byelection. He has been consistent in his views and I respect that. Not one Liberal supported a bill to limit floor crossing that was presented to Parliament just last fall. Perhaps in the next sitting of the House, if I, or someone else puts forward a bill setting out conditions for such a move, some Liberals might be inclined to support it now. At least we'd see if their current attitude is because it's happened to them, or if they are truly committed to a change in the practice.
decide to switch parties. In Canadian history, this has not been the established
practice, and while I personally would want to do that were I in Mr. Emerson's
position, our system of government elects a person, not a party. Mr. Emerson is
the MP for Vancouver Kingsway regardless of what party affiliation he holds. He is
under no obligation to resign his seat and I doubt the Prime Minister is going
to change over a hundred years of precedent.
The above response would have made his point, respected the positions of others, and focussed questions on the Liberals. Instead, here are some selected quotes from Turner's blog (I haven't included any of the whining about his future in th party):
February 6, 2006
First, I pledge to remember every day that my job is not to serve the party or the prime minister, but rather the people who sent me here.
(MPs) shouldn't each be just one more vote in the House supporting the government, or one more name on the party ballot, but instead independent people who are here to reflect the views and hopes of those who sent them.
* note that Garth doesn't think Party loyalty is an integral part of his being an MP, yet he's insisting on it from David Emerson.
** Garth believes in the independence of MPs -- no toeing the party line -- but then suggests that unless David Emerson serves under the Liberal banner he was elected with, or is elected under the Conservative one he has chosen, his integrity is in question. Garth's independence matters, Emerson's doesn't. Garth intends to be true to himself, rather than to his party -- fine, but if party line doesn't matter to Garth, then why be concerned about which party Emerson belongs to, so long as he serves his constituents well?
February 7, 2006
We had national caucus this morning. I cannot tell you what was said (well I could, but I won't), because caucus only really works when people know it's private (. . .) I knew there would be MPs in there pissed at not having made cabinet, and showing it in their body language (and there were). . . . I knew that my coming back here after being away for 13 years, walking in to a party once again in power might irritate others who toiled for years in opposition (and that happened, too.)
(Harper's) style is collegial, and after the meeting he sat there and talked to whomever wanted to talk, until they were all done. I have witnessed many leaders in action from Trudeau to (John) Turner, Mulroney to Chretien, Martin and Harper, and it was the first time I had seen one listen.
* this is the day after the Cabinet announcements. Mr. Turner first tells us that he cannot divulge caucus business, and then goes on to give two examples of conflict within caucus. The man can't be trusted. How free will caucus members feel to express themselves with Garth present, knowing that he's posted about concerns they spoke of privately?
** Apparently Harper gave Garth a chance to express himself, and actually listened to Garth's concerns, but when Garth later realised that Harper hadn't fallen into line with Garth's way of thinking, Garth decided to go on the offensive.
February 9, 2006
. . . why I wanted to return to Ottawa. It was not to be a minister with a limo, but, as I exlained, to try and empower elected people more, to make them relevant and free, so the voters would also become more empowered.
By the time I got to Parliament Hill, I was infused with the spirit of a new era in government, stated on the belief that we would see freedom reign in the Chamber and that the days of subjugation of MPs by the prime minister's office were numbered. . .
Everybody who makes up the government should be elected. They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government. Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people . . .
But my comments were deemed not helpful, even though I chose them carefully and pulled some punches, suggesting Minister Emerson be given a little time before deciding on whether or not to get elected as a Tory.
I was just hoping that this time I would not be asked to choose -- between party and principle. I chose principle. My deepest loyalty is to what I believe . . . The Minister may decide not to take the heat. . . But he should still have the conviction to get elected a member of the team he chose. The same team I chose, and fought like a warrior to join . . .
hopefully he will decide that's the right course of action (resigning and running as a Tory) ( . . . ) Canadians are reasonable, even forgiving. Just be reasonable back.
I will try, at first, to get my government to champion these causes. If it does not, I will champion them myself. How will that happen? Well, just watch me.
* Garth wants to be more relevant and free, but doesn't allow the same for David Emerson.
** There it starts: he had hoped 'the days of subjugation of MPs by the prime minister's office were numbered'. By this time, Turner has expressed himself to reporters, on Mike Duffy's show and was under fire from Harper's office, not for a few answers to reporters, but for over-stating his case to whomever would listen. Not only did he question the boss' political judgement, he questioned his integrity -- which goes to motivation. All that on live TV.
***He states unequivocally that his is the only principled point of view, therefore both Harper and Emerson are unprincipled.
****As though he has taken a leadership role, Turner decides that Emerson should have time to think about his misdeeds, like a naughty child sent to his room. Should Emerson draw a conclusion that doesn't include resignation, judge & jury Garth Turner, concludes Mr. Emerson is a coward who has no integrity.
*****I'm not questioning whether he's right or wrong in his opinion, and neither am I fond of situational ethics but if Mr. Emerson believed he could better serve the people of Vancouver Kingsway, and BC and Canada in a role in government, in Cabinet, would it have been ethical of him to turn it down in favour of remaining loyal to his political party? Garth has left no room for any opinion but his own. He has drawn conclusions about Mr. Emerson's motivations, casting aspersions on his character.
****** Now, not only are Emerson and Harper wrong and unprincipled because they don't share his views, they are also unreasonable.
******* He anticipates his government will not stand up for the cause of a better democracy -- basically telling his readers that these appointments are just the beginning of a pattern. His whole tone suggests impure motives on the part of Mr. Harper. Turner's opinion of his party and its leader is low, and he presents himself as the lone champion of goodness and truth -- then he invokes Trudeau as an exclamation point.
February 10, 2006
And, yes, I will be making good on my personal commitment to the democratic process, tabling a private members bill forcing an MP who turns his or her back on a party to go back to the people for support. It's time we put voters back in charge. And it's a shame it ever came to this.
* Garth's public is petulance not valour. He has painted himself as the only person in the Conservative caucus with a commitment to the democratic process. Whether or not you agree with his sentiments, Garth should have let his groupies write this kind of stuff and let history determine its truth.
The expectation of loyalty is not exclusive to politics. Loyalty does not imply a blind willingness to follow a leader or an expectation of collective thought. In times of crisis, families and sports teams deal with disagreements in private and present a united face to the public. This public show of solidarity ensures that no matter the resolution of the contentious issue, no one loses face. It's a matter of respect.
I don't believe it was Garth Turner's opinion that drew the rebuke of the Prime Minister, and I don't believe he was asked to chose between party and principle. Turner was likely asked to be a team-player, but Garth's vanity was more compelling than giving his leader the benefit of the doubt and showing respect for his caucus. Shameful that Turner's expectations of David Emerson have exceeded his expectations of himself.
canadianna
Friday, February 10, 2006
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:
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:
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
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
Thursday, February 09, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
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.
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
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
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
Friday, February 03, 2006
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:
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:
- Toronto was safe and clean.
- The Canadian dollar was cheap, so sight-seeing and shopping didn't break the bank.
- 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
Thursday, January 26, 2006
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
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
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
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
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
Monday, January 23, 2006
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
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
Saturday, January 21, 2006
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
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 todayI 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
Friday, January 20, 2006
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)