Does Olivia Chow Actually Understand How Parliament Works?

Olivia Chow says Tory Senators should be working to pass legislation... when there is no legislation to pass

Following sightings of some Conservative Senators on the campaign trail, Trinity-Spadina MP Olivia Chow is crying dirty pool.

Chow has even taken to posting "Not Wanted" posters in her riding featuring photos of Senator Mike Duffy campaigning for Tory candidates. She's calling for NDP supporters to photograph campaigning Senators and send the photos to her campaign.

Chow insists that taxpayer dollars should not pay Senators to campaign for their Party's candidates.

“Why should taxpayers foot the bill for this?” Chow mused. “The Senators should be working to pass bills to help people instead of campaigning. ...These people are supposed to be passing important bills for all Canadians.”

Which, frankly, makes one wonder if Olivia Chow has any idea whatsoever what happens in Parliament when an election is called. The first thing that happens is that Parliament is adjourned. That means that any bills that have not yet been passed by the Senate and received Royal Assent die on the order paper.

Simply put, the Senators couldn't be working to pass bills that help people, because there are no longer any bills to pass.

If Chow were more noted for her thoughts on Senate reform, one would expect Chow to offer some kind of idea on how to make passing bills during election time a possibility: such as any bills that have passed the committee stage, and all their readings in the House of Commons to continue being debated in the Senate during an election.

Then again, as Mrs Jack Layton, Chow's idea of reforming the Senate is to abolish it. So we should expect no such suggestions.

This is unfortunate because Chow actually has a very good point. It's not right that Senators -- representing any party -- should be able to campaign on the public dime.

“This is not right and it is not fair,” she complained. Again, she's actually right about that.

There are two clear solutions: the first is that Senators should stop receiving paycheques once an election is called; paycheques that should not resume until after the election is over. Likewise, all the perks that come with being a Senator, including their travel and hospitality allowances, should be suspended.

But there's a better reform yet: Canadians could also be deciding which Senate candidate to vote for, as these Senators could potentially be worrying about an election campaign of their very own.

That's yet another reform that Olivia Chow seems to have no time for. But for largely-empty complaining, she seems to have all the time in the world.

Conservative Senators Join CHRC Battle

Finley, Tkachuk, Duffy, Wallin stand up for freedom of speech

Several Conservative Senators have arrived late to the battle to reform Canada's Human Rights Commissions, but they have arrived all the same.

Partially in response to a controversial letter written by University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle to Ann Coulter in advance of a planned speech there (which was cancelled just minutes prior to its scheduled start), Senators Doug Finley, David Tkachuk, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy have begun to speak out against the censorious labours of Canada's human rights regime.

The four have begun to lead a Senate inquiry into freedom of speech in Canada -- drawing long-overdue Parliamentary attention to the excesses of Canada's Human Rights Commissions.

"Despite our 400-year tradition of free speech, the tyrannical instinct to censor still exists," Finley announced. "We saw it on a university campus last week. And we see it every week in Canada's misleadingly named human rights commissions."

"Too many Canadians, especially those in positions of authority, have replaced the real human right of freedom of speech with a counterfeit human right to not be offended," he continued.

Tkatchuk blamed Houle not only for the letter to Coulter, but also for the mob mentality of the protesters who eventually managed to shut her event down.

"The mob took its cue from the provost," Tkachuk said, and noted (in not-so-charitable language) that Houle's letter was a little extreme. "The letter closed with a line that could have come straight out of the re-education camps of Pol Pot's Cambodia."

Mike Duffy noted that, in cases like those pursued against Ezra Levant and Macl
eans Magazine, the Human Rights Commissions have clearly overstepped their authority, both actual and intended.

"Prosecuting the actions of journalists was clearly not the intention of Parliament when it passed hate speech laws," he noted.

Finley stated that the intention of the inquiry was to draw Parliament's attention to the excesses of the human rights commissions. Even if the inquiry results in no more than that, it has already been successful.

"If we can rededicate our parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service," Finley announced. "But if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty — the duty to uphold our Constitution and the rights it guarantees for all Canadians."

"In a pluralistic society like Canada, we must protect our right to peacefully disagree with each other," Finley concluded. "We must allow a diversity of opinion — even if we find some opinions offensive," Finley said. "Unless someone actually counsels violence or other crimes, we must never use the law to silence them."

Doug Finley has clearly found the right cause to fight for on Parliament Hill. The battle to reform Canada's Human Rights Commissions will not be won easily -- nor should it be fought quietly.

Why Canadians Don't Want an Election

At some point, enough is enough

Canadians do not want an election.

Almost no one, anywhere, seems to be willing to argue against this evident point.

When Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff recently announced his intention to defeat the government on a non-confidence motion and send Canadians back to the polls -- hopefully to elect a Liberal government. Canadian voters responded distinctly, as Ignatieff's polling numbers took a dive.

Liberal whip Roger Cuzner credits the dip in Ignatieff's poll numbers to his election-mongering.

"Normally going into an election, there’s about 65 per cent of Canadians who continue to say they don’t want an election," Cuzner explained. "That’s historically. Now it’s a little bit higher. It’s about 70 per cent. That’s probably being reflected. He’s being seen as the guy who may be responsible for it."

The lack of desire for an election seems quite troubling to Ottawa Citizen columnist William Watson.

"What is it about elections we dislike so much?" Watson asked. "After all, our parents and grandparents fought in a world war in which thousands of them died so that we could keep having elections. To be picky, maybe we fought so that Frenchmen, Britons, Norwegians, Dutchmen, and so on could keep having elections."

"It also probably bothers many Canadians that while the election is on they feel obliged either to pay attention to what's going on in their democracy or feel guilty about shirking their democratic duty," Watson continues. "But there's the bit I don't understand. It's not really a duty. It's a great opportunity. This is the one chance we get, not to decide things -- we're not yet so democratic that citizens actually get to decide things -- but to decide who gets to decide. How is it that people don't want to exercise that power as often as possible?"

Watson is certainly right about one thing: an election is a valuable opportunity to discuss the important issues and weigh our political leaders' stance on them.

But at a certain point, Canadians want their elected decision makers to actually make a few decisions before sending them back to the polls.

There's something very troubling about opposition politicians treating sending Canadians back to the polls as a matter of due course. When Canadians have been taking measure of the current political situation in Ottawa, they simply do not see the same urgent need for an election that Michael Ignatieff claims to.

In any government it should take a serious matter of confidence to spark the defeat of the government. To repeatedly send voters back to the polls demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for the electorate that many voters simply cannot swallow.

At some point Canadians want their politicians to stop running for election, and start doing the nation's business.

It isn't that much to ask.

Fortunately, the current Conservative government could last for a long time, so long as Conservative Senator Mike Duffy hasn't missed his mark.

"There are at least four chances for the Opposition to defeat the government in the next month," he explained. "And I think, given the public mood, I predict that that will not happen."

"I think after three or four times, everybody will relax and say, well, here we are," Duffy added. "So I think potentially, if it doesn’t happen next month, I think we’re looking at next spring, unless an odd development occurs in the province of Quebec that would turn off the Bloc."

So Canadian voters can sleep a little more soundly knowing they don't have to go back to the polls for the fourth time in five years. William Watson, it seems, may not sleep quite so soundly.

Presumably, the Wrong Kind of Journalist

Senate becoming retirement home for journalists?

Writing in a blog post on the Georgia Straight website, Charlie Smith seems to be taking issue with the appointment of journalists to the Senate.

Smith notes that it seems to be happening more and more often. Linda Frum Sokolowski was appointed to the Senate yesterday. She was preceded in December 2008 by former CTV personality Mike Duffy, another appointment that Smith seemed to take enough umbrage with to identify within the very title of his post.

Frum and Duffy's fellow journalists in the upper chamber include Conservative Pamela Wallin, as well as Liberals Joan Fraser and Jim Munson. Conservative Pat Carney and Liberal Laurier LaPierre both recently retired.

Smith -- whom one assumes wouldn't accept a Senatorial appointment if offered one -- muses that a revolving door between journalism and the Senate has emerged, similar to one between politics and lobbying.

"The problem with the revolving door is that it creates an incentive for politicians and political aides to try to curry favour with those special interests," Smith writes. "They know that if they play their cards right, they won't have to worry about finding employment when their government service ends."

"Now, we're in the strange situation of having a revolving door for journalists," Smith continues. "If they don't step on too many toes, they know they might be in a position to land in the Senate, thanks to the actions of recent prime ministers."

Smith seems to be suggesting that the allure of political patronage may provide incentive for journalists to be biased in their work.

The problem is that the two individuals who Smith seems to single out for special treatment -- Duffy and Frum -- don't really support his argument.

Many Liberals like to point to Mike Duffy's treatment of Stephane Dion's abortive CTV interview as evidence of media bias. Yet they still can't account for the fact that Dion's functional illiteracy in English is fair game within Canadian politics -- after all, functional illiteracy in French so often has proven to be.

In fact, many viewers of Mike Duffy Live often accused him of being a Liberal hack -- but such things are apparently so easily forgotten.

Linda Frum, meanwhile, was a columnist for the National Post, and several other publications. Columnists, whose trade tends to be opinion writing, rarely pretend to be impartial. Only an individual whose media literacy suffers to a spectacular degree would attempt to argue they are, or even should be.

Despite Smith's objection to the appointment of journalists as Senators -- and four of 105 members hardly represents a deluge of journalists in the upper chamber -- politics is actually an ideal trade for journalists.

As journalists, the job of the reporter is to ask the questions that need to be asked, and tell the stories that need to be told. The job of the political reporter is to dig in the dark corners of government and tell the citizenry what they find.

The work of government -- especially recently -- is often conducted in various panels of inquiry, where a journalist's skills would serve them -- and their country -- particularly well.

When one considers this, one begins to wonder if Charlie Smith's objections to journalists, particularly Mike Duffy and Linda Frum, isn't really with journalists accepting political appointments, but rather if they're simply being offered to who Smith regards as the wrong journalists.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Montreal Simon - "Stephen Harper and the House of Pork"

The Whininess of Whiners And Their Enablers

Liberal party unwillingness to accept responsibility for its own defeat reinforced by "experts"

One of the disappointing institutional character traits to emerge out of the Liberal party's christening of itself as "Canada's natural governing party" has been an unwillingness on the party's part to accept responsibility for its own defeats.

Over the past three years, the Liberal party and its supporters have rarely hesitated to blame its last two electoral defeats on something other than itself -- anything other than itself.

They blamed the NDP for competing against them and winning seats that would otherwise be won by Liberals. They blamed the RCMP for announcing an investigation into a leak involving a taxation decision on income trusts. They blamed CTV for airing an interview which revealed Stephane Dion's inability to use the English language functionally.

But an opinion article appearing in the Victoria Times Colonist written by Carleton University's Andrew Cohen reveals a disturbing tendency by partisan "experts" to peddle these excuses under the guise of their expertise.

Cohen's article is a feverish mish-mash of what-ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting that Dion may have won the election if not for that dastardly Mike Duffy, just as Paul Martin may have won the 2005/06 campaign if not for the dastardly RCMP:

"The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council conducted a review. The council is a self-regulatory body comprising more than 720 Canadian radio and television stations. It administers the industry's broadcast code of conduct.

Its two reports, which were released recently and largely ignored by the media, criticized CTV for breaching the code, a finding CTV strenuously rejected. That was revealing.

But what's more revealing is what this little saga tells us about how things are done in this country. It's about politics, ethics and maybe ambition, too.

On CTV Atlantic, the council concluded that Murphy asked a question that was 'confusing, and not only to a person whose first language is other than English.' It said that Murphy mixed tenses (past and present) and moods (subjunctive and indicative). In other words, Dion was justifiably puzzled.

In light of the badly worded question, which Murphy could have clarified, the panel called the restarts "a courtesy" to Dion. It also said repeating questions isn't unusual in broadcasting and particularly justified here, given Murphy's convoluted question.

Moreover, because Murphy never refused Dion's requests to restart the interview, Dion had reason to believe that the embarrassing footage would not be used.

On Duffy's broadcast, the council's judgment was harsher. It called his performance unfair and unbalanced. It said that Duffy misrepresented the views of one of his guests, Liberal MP Geoff Regan. In the end, Duffy breached the industry's code of ethics.

Is all this a grammarian's revenge, Miss Thistlebottom in full flight? A silly parsing of sentences? A regulator's punctilious dressing down on decorum? Does it really matter how Dion was treated by CTV, particularly by Mike Duffy?

Actually, yes, particularly in a country where the RCMP might well have determined the outcome of the 2006 election, when it announced an investigation, in mid-campaign, into allegations of irregularities on the part of finance minister Ralph Goodale. It caused a sensation. The Liberals lost that election; no charges materialized.

Last October, polls suggested the Liberal party's ascent stalled after the interview. While we cannot say if Dion's momentum would have brought his party victory, it isn't impossible.

In other words, CTV may have thrown the election to the Conservatives. In running the embarrassing outtakes, it reinforced an image of Dion as incomprehensible and indecisive."

The fact that millions of other Canadians understood Steve Murphy's question to Dion perfectly well seems to be lost on Cohen. As does the fact that if one of the political leaders running to be Canada's Prime Minister is severely hampered in his ability to use of one Canada's official languages, the public has the right to know about this.

Cohen seems to overlook the fact that Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale had declined to launch an inquiry into the allegations. When one considers that criminal charges were laid in the affair, Goodale and Martin's decision was grossly irresponsible. It took the NDP's Finance Critic, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, writing a letter of complaint to the RCMP to get the investigation launched.

If Goodale and Martin had done the responsible thing and launched a probe before the election, the RCMP investigation would have likely already been underway by the time the election began.

In other words, even if the RCMP investigation was the Liberal party's undoing, it was their own doing in the first place.

This is before one even mentions the fact that the Liberal party was already extremely vulnerable to charges of corruption after the ground-shaking revelations of the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. They knew it well enough to threaten then-Opposition Leader Stephen Harper with a lawsuit for so much as speaking about the implications of the scandal for the Liberal party.

Harper wisely told the Liberal party to stuff a sock in it.

Likewise, Cohen seems to overlook the fact that, as it pertains to Dion's language issues, Canadians -- citizens of an officially bilingual country, and Cohen may want to remember that -- had a right to know. When the matter was discussed a few days later on Mike Duffy Live, the story was Dion's language issues.

Cohen, himself a Journalism professor, would know full well that if the false starts were the story, the rest of the interview is not part of that story and would be discussed later, if at all.

Cohen goes on to lob accusations that Duffy received his Senate seat as a reward for the allegedly-scandalous Dion segment -- Green party Elizabeth May, herself no stranger to self-indulgent whining, has also suggested that Duffy received his seat as a reward for a media hit job on her. He tries to bolster his case by noting that Duffy has been particularly partisan since being appointed, attending various party fundraisers, and noting that Pamela Wallin hasn't done the same.

Yet Cohen would also be overlooking the fact that Duffy realistically showed no such fervour for partisanship during his career as a journalist, although he was often accused of partisanship by each side of Canada's partisan divide.

It isn't at all as if Mike Duffy ever wrote an op/ed column making excuses for the Conservative party's electoral defeats -- which is more than can be said for certain journalism professors.

Not Your Grandfather's Party?

Mike Duffy hails the Tories as the party of the future

There's certainly something ironic about being told the Conservative party "is not your grandfather's party" by someone old enough to be almost anyone's grandfather.

Yet that was the scene at a recent Conservative party fundraiser in Wendover, Ontario when Conservative Senator Mike Duffy promoted his party as the party of the future.

“The Conservative Party is not your grandfather’s party, it is the party that will take Canada into the future," Duffy announced. "You have many achievements to be proud of.”

Duffy alluded to a few specifically: Canada's first Muslim MP, Canada's first black MP, Canada's first female Cabinet Minister, and the first French-Canadian Governor General.

It's true that the Conservative party has accomplished far more than it tends to get credit for. Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker eliminated racial criteria from Canadian immigration policies. Fellow Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was instrumental in leading the international charge against South African apartheid.

Yet Duffy's insistence that the Conservatives are the party of tomorrow falls fairly hollow when one considers that the party doesn't have a youth wing.

It does have various campus organizations at Universities across the country, but there's little question that the party is neglecting to develop the talents of its youngest members and supporters.

Certainly Preston Manning's Manning Centre for Building Democracy does a lot of valuable work in this regard for Canadian conservatism in general. Furthermore, the Tories do have a number of rising young stars in their caucus, both in the House of Commons and the Senate.

But if the Conservative party wants to be the party of tomorrow, it needs to start building for tomorrow today. A national organization would allow young Conservatives to gain valuable experience in the party and begin the arduous climb up the party ranks.

The Liberal party and NDP both have youth organizations to build for the future. In not having such an organization the Tories have placed themselves at a distinct disadvantage.

If the Conservative party wants to escape the fate of being the Grandfather's party of Canada it needs to start incorporating its grandsons and granddaughters into its organizations.

The establishment of a youth wing would be a pivotal start.

Just What Canada Needs... More Separatism

Liberal Senator muses about Newfoundland separatist party

In comments made on a St John's radio station, Liberal Senator George Baker has managed to set off what could become a major political controversy.

While speaking about the budget -- and, more specifically, $1.7 billion that some Newfoundlanders believe they're been bilked out of -- Baker mused that federal neglect of Newfoundland could lead to the formation of a separatist party in Newfoundland.

"When you talk about young people, you may see in the future a new political party on the horizon that represents Newfoundlanders just like the Bloc Quebecois represents the people of Quebec better than any other political party," Baker said.

The $1.7 billion represents 20% of Newfoundland's budget, and is only the most recent in a litany of fiscal grievances the province holds not only with the Stephen Harper Conservatives, but with the federal government in general.

"If this continues for [Harper's] term ...then what you are going to see is a completely different party," Baker later told CTV. "There's going to be a political party that says, 'We are going to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador.'"

"It's gotta be stopped, if its not stopped in the House of Commons, they are going to be facing ...a new party in Newfoundland that would be comparable to the Bloc [Quebecois]."

"This should be reason enough to have a Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador running in the next federal election if this keeps up, and a real campaign to get them all elected," Baker added.

Naturally, the Conservative party from trying to take advantage of his comments, somewhat disingenuously.

"I think [the comments] are very concerning. [You've] got a member of the Liberal caucus calling on the creation of a 'Bloc Newfoundland'," said Stephen Harper spokesperson Kory Teneycke. "He's talking on the most glowing terms imaginable about the Bloc Quebecois and what they've been able to achieve. Clearly, this is beyond the pale and Sen. Baker should be removed from the Liberal caucus."

Conservative Senator Mike Duffy expressed deep concerns about the sentiment. "George Baker's a great Canadian, or he used to be," Duffy mused. "I can't wait to hear what he has to say about it, because it's certainly not the old George that I know and love."

"I'd probably consider it," Baker mused when asked if he would lead such a party. "But I'm a bit too old."

Interestingly, separatism has a long but quiet history in Newfoundland -- a province which had to vote in a referendum twice before joining Canada.

Michael Ignatieff should remove George Baker from his caucus. To disagree with the government's fiscal treatment of Newfoundland is one thing -- Newfoundlanders do, indeed, have a strong case to argue.

But to pretend that disagreements over money is reason enough to seccede from Canada is, indeed, beyond the pale.

The last thing Canada needs is more separatists.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Peter L Whittle - "Baker Tells It Like It Is"

Townie Bastard - "Baker Off the Deep End Again

Some Shit, Suffice it to Say, Just Don't Wash Out

There are some metaphors you can't withdraw

For all the years that Conservative Senator Mike Duffy has spent covering Canadian politics, one would expect that he'd have a better idea of what does and does not fly in Canadian politics.

Judged on his performance since entering the Red Chamber, one would have to think again.

First, during his maiden speech, Duffy allowed himself to be interruped by his trademark Blackberry.

This provoked a short discussion regarding the rules of the Senate. It seems that telecommunications devices, even when set to vibrate, were previously banned from the Senate chamber because they interferred with the sound system. When the old sound system was replaced the ban was lifted.

But as it turned out this was the least of Duffy's problems. In his maiden speech Duffy made a rather unsavoury metaphor.

"Honourable Senators, I was disappointed to see that our dynamic young Premier in Prince Edward Island, Robert Ghiz, has climbed into bed with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and honourable Denators know what a grotesque scene that is," Duffy said with a wink. "Do honourable Senators know what happens when two politicians climb into bed together? One of them comes out on top and I am afraid that when one is in bed with Danny Williams he will come out on top and I would hate to see where that will leave PEI in the end."

The obvious homophobic undertones of Duffy's speech may sound similar to those familiar with the outrage directed at former Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair over a Brokeback Mountain parody featuring Stephen Harper and George W Bush in a tent together.

For his own part, Danny Williams characteristically spun the comment into a diatribe against Stephen Harper.

"Duffy was very much over the top," Williams said. "Duffy is being manipulated and told what to do by the venomous, nasty Harper Conservatives."

Duffy eventually offered a poor excuse for an apology over the remarks. "Honourable senators, if the metaphor I used in my speech on February 3 was offensive to some members of this chamber, I withdraw the metaphor," Duffy announced.

But suffice it to say that some shit just doesn't wash out. Duffy's comments would be inexcusable in any context, whether meant to be humorous or not.

Some things, once said, simply cannot be unsaid. Duffy owes Danny Williams, Robert Ghiz and the people of Canada an apology.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Stephen Pate - "Mike Duffy, No One Can Control Him"

Russ Campbell - "New Senator Mike Acquits Himself Rather Well"

Edward G Hollett - "A Duff in the..."

Thanks, Chronicle Herald....

David Bulger oversimplifies Canadian law in regards to residence

Among those looking for further excuse -- any further excuse -- to complain about Stephen Harper's recently-appointed Senators, University of Prince Edward Island law professor David Bulger seems to think he's hit a home run.

Mike Duffy's appointment to the Senate, he insists, is unconstitutional.

Bulger insists that Mike Duffy resides in Ottawa, not Prince Edward Island.

"What it comes down to is: does he have to be a resident in the province at the time when he’s appointed? Some of us, and I am one of them, would argue yes," Bulger insists.

Bulger goes on to claim that the Elections act is the only piece of legislation in Canada that defines an individual's residence. "It states if you work in one place and you live in another, then where you sleep is your residence — and Mike Duffy sleeps in Ottawa," he continued.

Unfortunately for Bulger, however, this isn't true. The truth is that various pieces of legislation in Canada define what an individual's residence is. These acts cover various things, from taxation to eligibility for social services.

While for the most part these acts stipulate that individuals have to live full-time in those provinces in order to be eligible for social services, these laws do maintain exceptions for individuals who must spend significant portions of the year -- in some cases, up to eight months -- living outside of their home province for the purpose of work or education.

To top it off, Bulger's insistence that where an individual sleeps defines their residence is incredibly oversimplistic. It overlooks the very nature of the profession that Duffy -- and many other Canadians -- work in.

Simply put, Duffy works as a journalist. His job -- which one expects that he will be resigning from -- required him to spend significant portions of the year in Ottawa.

Duffy's job is very similar to other examples: blue collar shift workers who often work in other provinces while maintaining residences at home, and the other example that Bulger himself mentions, that of a Member of Parliament.

In the specific latter case, the individual in question lives for significant portions of the year in Ottawa while they work in Parliament. Yet when election time rolls around, these individuals vote not where they sleep for most of the year -- in Ottawa -- but rather in their own ridings, where they presumably maintain permanent residences.

Likewise, shift workers who in many cases can sleep up to two thirds of the year in aother riding, province, or even country vote not where they sleep, as Bulger insists, but in the riding in which they maintain permanent residences.

One would have expected a Constitutional expert of Bulger's alleged calibre to know the difference. One would at least have expected the editorial staff of the Chronicle Herald to check Bulger's facts before reporting them.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Canadian Firebrand - "Mike Duffy Gets His Reward"

John Cairns - "Big TV News Names to the Senate: Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin"

LeDaro - "Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin: Santa Did Visit Them"

Harper Makes His Senate Appointments

Prime Minister appoints 18 to the upper house

A matter of considerable controversy for the last couple of weeks, Stephen Harper announced his appointments to the Senate today.

While some may not be willing to admit to it, Harper's appointments weren't the partisan landslide that many of them were expecting.

It would be disingenuous to pretend that partisan considerations didn't enter Harper's appointments at all. Defeated MP Fabian Manning, former MP Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, former New Brunswick MLA Percy Mockler, Tory organizer Michael MacDonald, and fundraiser Irving Gerstein seem to round out the most blatantly partisan of the appointments.

Certainly, many will point to retired broadcaster Mike Duffy as similarily partisan. Yet they will conveniently ignore that Duffy has spent his career being accused of partisanship from both sides -- by both Conservatives who dislike journalists who show Canadians any negative aspects of their party, and by Liberals who aren't accustomed to being asked many hard questions.

Similarily, some will certainly try to portray Pamela Wallin's appointment to the Senate as a reward for her role on Harper's Afghanistan Commission. Yet they'll overlook the fact that Wallin has also been the recipient of Liberal party patronage as well -- she has previously served with distinction as the Canadian consul general in New York.

Even when Harper's so-called "window dressing" appointments lack some of those made by past Liberal governments. Nancy Greene, a winner of an Olympic gold medal and an astounding 13 World Cups, certainly cannot compare with Montreal Canadiens great Frank Mahovlich for public appeal. As with Mahovlich, however, Greene's performance in the Senate will tell the tale of her suitability for the chamber -- Mahovlich's performance demonstrated that he had no business being there in the first place.

Another notable appointment is that of Patrick Brazeau, the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Brazeau adds a key aboriginal voice to the Conservative caucus, and will challenge the views of many conventional aboriginal leaders such as Phil Fontaine, whom Brazeau has challenged in the past.

As the National Chief of the CAP, Brazeau represents a segment of the aboriginal population that is frequently ignored in Canadian politics -- off-reserve aboriginals.

While many will seek to portray Brazeau's appointment as merely a reward for his support of the Conservative party -- and to an extent it almost certainly is so -- Brazeau will prove to be a valuable addition to the Senate.

The Conservatives have also suggested that each of these Senators will be expected to resign their seat should any of their provinces enact Senate election legislation or call a Senatorial election. Expectations are that Pamela Wallin will be the first to have to do so when Saskatchewan calls a General Election, currently slated for 2011, that is expected to be accompanied by an election for the Senate.

Of course this is a thin answer for the concerns raised by many of those who favour an elected Senate to an appointed body. While the government can expect these Senators to resign in the event an election, it cannot force them to actually do so.

And while elected Senators would have been preferable to any appointment, at least Canadians will not have to tolerate the farce of Green party leader Elizabeth May being appointed to the upper house.


Other bloggers writing on this topic

KenonCanPolitics - "Harper Senate Appointments"

Dirk Buchholz - "Deck the Halls With Patronage Appointments"

Unhyphenated Canadian - "Would You Be On Our Way To Senate Reform If..."

So, Let's Define "Sleaze", If We May...

Apparently, tough questions reserved for Conservatives alone

Let's take a quick survey here. Which of the following scenarios is sleazier?

Dragging an alleged big-money offer to a deceased politician out from the grave for partisan gain, or asking the people flinging those accusations the kind of tough questions that various confusing ambiguities regarding the situation demand?

Garth Turner, you're up first:

"The lowest and sleaziest moment thus far in a sad tale: Mike Duffy asking Cadman’s daughter, live on TV, if her dying dad was “fuzzy on drugs” when he told her about the Conservative offer. To her credit, she did not tell him to get stuffed."

At face value, Turner would seem to have a point. It seems like a fairly sleazy question.

Then one remembers that Cadman was, at the time, dying of skin cancer. He was literally within the last few days of his life, likely being administered pain killers to help him cope with the notable agony dying of malignant melanoma.

The question addressed to Jodi Cadman should be considered a tough question for a reason. Tough questions aren't obligated to be tough.

While perhaps dabbling on the side of the uncouth, the question warrants consideration.

Especially when one considers that the claims being made by Jodi and Dona Cadman actually contradict the public statements of Cadman himself -- who publicly denied being offered anything in return for his vote -- it becomes especially prescient.

Meanwhile, Turner and his colleagues in the Liberal party have been going to town on "Cadscam" (as its been dubbed by various partisan bloggers) despite all the confusing inconsistencies in the entirety of the tale.

(And if one doesn't suspect that Turner himself is eager for a little revenge after being thrown out of the Conservative caucus, consider these comments:

"When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor MP The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power.

Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?"

Disgusting.

Was the offer of a million-dollar life insurance policy to a dying MP in exchange for his vote sleazy if it indeed happened? Absolutely.

But is dragging the entire allegation -- and Mr Cadman's memory along with it -- back through the mud again under extremely curious pretenses sleazy? The answer to this question is equally absolute, and the answer to this question is yes.

One has to remember that this is the same party that insisted a Commons Ethics Committee had to be called over rehashed (and extremely unconvincing) accusations against Brian Mulroney by Karlheinz Schreiber. Now, they're insisting that an Ethics Committee has to be called over another would-be scandal, this time based on rehashed (and extremely confusing) accusations.

It's pure sleaze. The situation itself is sleazy enough. One has to wonder how Garth Turner thinks he will benefit by heaping another helping of sleaze right on top it.

Torture Issue Reveals Liberal Weaknesses

Hypocrisy, thy name is STILL Liberal

Watching the Liberal party, it becomes apparent that they so desperately want to be Democrats.

After sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan in the absence of any democratic decision-making process, the Liberals recently introduced a motion into the House of Commons that would force the withdrawal of Canadian troops in 2009.

The Liberals have also jumped on another issue: torture.

Allegations that Afghani prison officials have been torturing prisoners has sent the Liberals scurrying to make the most of the opportunity.

On CTV’s Mike Duffy Live, Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff addressed a question regarding the Al Qaida and Taliban training manuals, which instruct captured fighters to lie about being tortured in order to manipulate courts against their captors. He responded by telling Duffy that the Liberal party believed in the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Unless, of course, you’re an Afghani prison guard – or the Conservative government.

Even in the absence of credible evidence of torture, Ignatieff has insisted that the allegations of torture are well-founded. And naturally, he would. The issue of torture has proven to be a very productive political issue for the Democrats against the Republicans in the United States.

Yet, when allegations of torture were raised against the United States, Ignatieff was conditionally supportive of torture.

In “Lesser Evils”, Ignatieff wrote, “To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil.”

Essentially, Ignatieff wrote that “coercive interrogations” (torture) could be justified in the face of a greater evil, so long as it were permissible under the rule of law. Not only did Ignatieff write in conditional support of torture, he also wrote in support of legalizing it!

To make matters worse for the Liberals, the current detainee transfer agreement that does not grant Canadian officials the privileges to monitor and visit prisoners in Afghanistan was actually negotiated by the Liberals.

Unfortunately for the Liberals (ironically Canada’s Republicans) they aren’t the Democrats. They aren’t even Democrat lite. Their hypocrisy only reveals deeper tendencies toward political opportunism.

Just to Reiterate: Scott Reid is Still a Clown

We remember This too, bud

Man. I just finished watching Scott Reid on Mike Duffy Live, and I can't get over how this guy proves more and more that he is a clown every time he's on TV.

Conservative strategist Tim Powers was seemingly gracious enough to stop PWNING Reid on TV this week (as he has been prone to do for consecutive weeks, if not months). Instead, the esteemed mr. Reid was given an opportunity to collide with Geoff Norquay.

Clearly never missing an opportunity to prove that he is, in fact, a friggin' clown, Reid took the opportunity to launch himself into conspiracy theorist mode, trying to hold the Conservatives responsible for an RCMP pension scandal that actually took place while the Liberals were in office, all the while claiming that the RCMP "screwed" the Liberal party by investigating the income trust leak.

This all despite the fact that former commissioner Juliano Zaccardelli was known to be extremely close to Jean Chretien.

So, just to reiterate: Scott Reid is a clown. As far as third-rate Warren Kinsella wannabes go, mr. Reid certainly does take the "intellectual" out of "intellectual coward".