Politics in 2013

[Edward Campbell]

Better solution:  Not one red cent until they order the RCMP into the Senate and open the books of both houses to the OAG for public discussion and disclosure.

Tell them that you're cutting them off until they reform.

Giving them more because "They're less incompetent" just encourages a race to the bottom.

Disagree. Now is the time for partisans to engage their respective parties and to demand change. Dollars speak louder than polls.

 

[dapaterson]

Disagree. Now is the time for partisans to engage their respective parties and to demand change. Dollars speak louder than polls.

Precisely.  Dollars speak louder.  And withholding dollars until there is change is effective.

Unless, of course, you've got friends who'll drop $90K for you to make your problems go away, but not have the money show up on the party's books.  That's also an effective way of getting what you want.  But then we're crossing that pesky line from "partisan support" to "corruption."


Interesting that most major dailies have multiple letters to the editor from well-connected Canadians bemoaning the fact that Mr Wright has left government for a mere $90 000 payoff to a senator.  Almost as if there's an organized campaign going on to cover for Mr Wright's "indiscretion".

 

[Edward Campbell]

I noticed those letters, too. Nigel Wright's actions remain, for me, inexplicable: stupid, at best, maybe even verging on criminal.

Maybe political chiefs of staff are different from military ones but, briefly, many, many years ago, I was a chief of staff of sort - to a branch chief in NDHQ (a two star) and my job was to relieve him of detail and make things run more smoothly. I had to understand what was important and make his priorities mine - and the staff's. I had to have, at least, a good mid-term view on our work. That's where Mr. Wright failed, miserably, in my opinion: he tried to solve an immediate term problem but he failed - and that's the inexplicable part - to think the thing through, even in the mid-term. He didn't make things smooth; he dropped his boss, the PM, right into the shit.

At its simplest level - using Warren Bennis as a guide - they ALL failed; not only did they not "do things rights," they really didn't "do the right thing."

I have written to the PM (to his political correspondence secretary) telling him that I want even more public accountability from officials - elected, appointed and hired. I want the AG to look into parliamentary spending, too. But I also told him that I regard l'affaire Duffy, as he does, as a distraction and a disappointment - but a symptom of the Ottawa disease that he told us all he came here to cure. What I really want, I said, is smaller, less intrusive, more efficient, more effective and better focused government.

 

[dapaterson]

Of course, the Duffy et al scandal will suck the air out of Ottawa for a few months, slowing down other governmental activities.  Government inaction can be a good thing, if it slows the onslaught of "good diea fairy" initiatives.

 

[Edward Campbell]

So Duffy found a way to serve his country after all? 

 

[dapaterson]

So Duffy found a way to serve his country after all? 

Reminds me a bit of Montreal's late Mayor Drapeau.  Immortalized by the Gazette's cartoonist for his statement "An Olypics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby"; Aislin drew a naked, rotund Mayor Drapeau clutching his belly and holding a telephone saying "Allo, Dr Morgentaler?"


I'm hoping Sen Duffy can make as much of a contribution to Canadian visual arts...

 

[Nemo888]

It is a completely non-partisan fact. Democracy is a high maintenance bitch.  If we neglect it we get what we deserve.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It is a completely non-partisan fact. Democracy is a high maintenance *****.  If we neglect it we get what we deserve.

I do not often agree with you, but this got to be one of the best posts, ever.

Well done.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Apparently we are having a mandatory ethics and values meeting tomorrow, gee it's just like the Liberals, senior guys get busted for doing stupid stuff and rest of the staff who generally have a better grasp of ethics anyways gets the lecture.

 

[OldSolduer]

I do not often agree with you, but this got to be one of the best posts, ever.

Well done.

I agree as well. Canada has the government it deserves.

It is a completely non-partisan fact. Democracy is a high maintenance *****.  If we neglect it we get what we deserve.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jeffrey Simpson, a charter member of both the chattering classes and the Laurentian elite and no fan of Prime Minister Harper offers his completely fair and unbiased  :sarcasm:  assessment in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/for-conservatives-this-too-shall-pass-unless-it-doesnt/article12043923/#dashboard/follows/

For Conservatives, this, too, shall pass (unless it doesn’t)

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 22 2013

For a government already adrift at midterm, the Nigel Wright-Mike Duffy affair, coupled with the resignation from caucus of another Conservative senator, Pamela Wallin, represents an unwelcome distraction. It’s doubtful that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s speech to this caucus on Tuesday – in which he declared himself “very upset” – will quickly end the distraction.

This is supposed to be a government fixated on “jobs and the economy,” or so every announcement says, despite unemployment’s being 7.2 per cent and growth’s being 1.5 per cent, dismal numbers by any historical measure.

For a while, however, the fixation shifted to damage control. When it was over, not much control had been exercised over the damage. From the relatively innocent start of the affair, leaks about expenses for four senators (three Conservatives and one Liberal), the Harper government and its minions had tried all the classic techniques: dismiss, deny, stonewall, delay and cover up.

These were, of course, the very charges the old Reform Party (from which many of this group of Conservatives emerged) used to castigate the Liberals, often with good reason. But that was then, and now is now, and it’s the Conservatives who are the ones displaying the traits they once decried.

If history be a guide, the details of this affair will be soon forgotten. In the great scheme of things that will lead to the results of the next election, the fate of a handful of senators and one chief of staff will not count for much, if anything at all. Many Canadians – the majority most of the time – do not follow politics, and what little they do process tends to reconfirm their already formed beliefs, one of which is that all politics is shady and all governments display varying degrees of incompetence and inefficiency.

If – and this is a big if – any long-term political damage is done, it will be because the affair illustrates two characteristics of the government, neither of which is terribly pleasant.

The first is ubiquitous, juvenile partisanship in which there seems too few people prepared to step back and say, “Wait a minute, is this right?” As is evidenced on the energy file, this is a government of salesmen, not statesmen. Salesmen don’t let facts stand in the way of the pitch, tend to be very inward-looking and, when confronted with a defect to their product, try to polish the blemish rather than investigate the cause.

The second, flowing from the first, is the rather monochromatic way the government looks at the world. These Conservatives are a far narrower coalition than previous Progressive Conservative governments that were much more moderate and rounded in how they saw the world – which ultimately drove harder-line conservatives to a revolt that broke up the conservative world. When that world re-emerged, a narrower ideology took hold.

Within this ideological framework, there are few people willing to say everything is not black or white. And so a kind of blinkered mentality set in that, to some extent, all parties in power can exhibit but that is particularly prevalent and, ultimately, dangerous in ideologically narrow groups.

Ms. Wallin and Mr. Duffy were not made senators to use such analytical gifts as they had as journalists, but rather to use their communication skills to sell the party’s message, having taken the party’s coin. And Mr. Wright, who was himself a long-time fierce partisan, has now been replaced by someone, Ray Novak, whose entire political career has been at the service of Stephen Harper – hardly someone whose track record would lead to the question “Is this right?” as opposed to “What does this do for us?”

A major cabinet shuffle is in the works, and existing ministers have been asked whether they intend to run in the next election. But shuffles tend to be overrated as elixirs for political retooling because voters focus on the leader.

There are eight or 10 backbenchers who have served their apprenticeships and could not be worse, and quite likely would be better, than some of the nondescript cabinet ministers.

And then there are the higher-profile ministers who might wish to leave: to wit, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, afflicted with a painful ailment, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay, with a portfolio full of cock-ups, a new infant son and a chance to make money somewhere else, the last Tory surrounded by the hard-line breed running the show.

Jeffrey Simpson details "two characteristics of the government, neither of which is [in his view] terribly pleasant":

    1. "Ubiquitous, juvenile partisanship" - I agree with him, on this one; the Harper Conservatives are relentlessly partisan, so, to some degree is every government but Prime Minister Harper
    seems, to me, to take it to greater lengths than any prime minister except Pierre Trudeau; and

    2. "The rather monochromatic way the government looks at the world" - I also agree, in part, with this but I doubt it is much of a problem. Canadians don't care much about foreign policy and
    some Canadians actually share the government's "monochromatic" world view. The Canadians who are all hot and bothered are part of the Laurentian consensus and they aren't going to
    vote for Stephen Harper under any circumstances so he needn't worry about offending them.

On balance, this will provide fuel for anti-Harper campaigns but, as I have said before, he can turn this into a (very minor) win by using it to press for an elected Senate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Same subject as above - the potential for electoral fallout - in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harpers-tried-and-true-crisis-management-tactics-fall-short/article12050938/#dashboard/follows/

Harper’s tried-and-true crisis management tactics fall short

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 22 2013

Stephen Harper’s approach to managing crises – fire, stonewall and punt – was on vintage display as he addressed caucus over the Senate expenses scandal. That approach has served the Prime Minister well in the past. But it may not work this time, because this time is different.

Let’s take a look at the Prime Minister’s crisis-management strategy: First and foremost, it involves sacrificing anyone whose actions threaten to damage the Conservative government’s credibility.

When Bev Oda, then international co-operation minister, was found to have claimed lavish expenses for parts of a trip to London – switching hotels and charging for a $16 orange juice – she publicly apologized, repaid the money, resigned from cabinet and as an MP not long after.

When allegations surfaced that Helena Guergis, then a cabinet minister, might have been involved in improper lobbying by her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer, Ms. Guergis was forced to resign from cabinet and caucus.

When foreign minister Maxime Bernier left sensitive documents in the apartment of his girlfriend, he resigned.

Senators alleged to have filed improper expenses? Senators are out of caucus. The chief of staff tried to smooth things by personally paying one senator’s expenses? The chief of staff is gone.

A second element of that scandal-smothering approach is to punt the issue to a neutral third party and then refuse to answer any further questions, claiming officials must be allowed to do their jobs.

In various controversies, the Tories have invoked investigations by Elections Canada, the courts, the police or this or that commissioner to get to the bottom of allegations of wrongdoing. Either the investigations came up empty-handed, or reported long after the issue had faded from the public mind.

This time, the parliamentary ethics commissioner and a Senate committee are looking at the Senate expenses affair. Sure enough, Foreign Minister John Baird urged the opposition to give the commissioners time – no doubt hoping they will take a great deal of it – to do their jobs.

The third element is to minimize the exposure of the Prime Minister. In this respect, it is interesting to compare Mr. Harper’s approach with that of Paul Martin when he became prime minister and inherited the sponsorship scandal. Sponsorship was, of course, a whole lot bigger than Senate expenses. Millions in taxpayer dollars were involved and there was clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing almost from the start. Mr. Martin held a press conference and went on tour, declared himself “mad as hell” at what was going on within his own party, and convened a public inquiry.

None of this saved his government from defeat at the hands of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. Afterward, many Liberals concluded Mr. Martin should have stonewalled. He should have said the RCMP was investigating and refused further comment on the grounds that the police needed to be allowed to do their job.

Mr. Harper clearly agrees with that assessment. He has held no press conference, called no public inquiry and is now in Latin America on a trade mission, leaving underlings to handle the outrage in the Commons. And when in doubt, please refer to Mr. Baird’s comments above.

So why might this approach not work? Simply because the government’s actions have angered the very people who voted this government in – those who are naturally suspicious of Ottawa and who counted on the Conservatives to clean the place up. They may see firing everyone involved as a good first step, but they want answers and they want their Prime Minister to tell them what happened and to hold himself accountable.

That’s why the tried-and-true tactics of fire, stonewall and punt might not work this time. That’s why there is so much unhappiness with how this Prime Minister is handling this file.

John Ibbitson is the chief political writer in the Ottawa bureau.

The final two paragraphs are all you really need to read. The all important socially liberal (or indifferent) and fiscally conservative part of the base of the Conservative Party of Canada - that part to which I and most suburban Ontarians (and many Albertans and British Columbians, too) representing the margin of victory in 35± ridings belong - is very upset. Will it vote Liberal? Maybe not, but it might sit on its hands or it might, as our friend dapaterson suggests withhold its financial support.

The solution - which will be a political winner, in my opinion - is to cleanse the temple, so to speak, by driving out the money lenders: letting the Auditor General look at parliament, too; bring in the RCMP - even when CPC members are involved, and press, harder, for an elected Senate. It will also give him a political legacy that will eclipse that of other Canadian prime ministers except, maybe, Macdonald and Laurier.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And there is a lighter side:

Source: Gable in the Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/captains-request/article11638060/#dashboard/follows/
(Reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And there is a lighter side:

Source: Gable in the Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/captains-request/article11638060/#dashboard/follows/
(Reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail)

Perhaps 'lighter', but I don't think the issue is anywhere near 'Titanic'.

I'm also pretty sure, but may be wrong, that it was the MSM that named it the 'Harper Government' as a way of demonizing them and not the CPC themselves.

 

[OldSolduer]

Just as a trip down the rabbit hole it appears to me to be qualify for politics all you have to do is scream shrilly "burn the witch" or "you must resign" or stamp your feet while stating you hate a certain American president.

Such is the state of Canadian politics. :facepalm:

Oh, I notice Mr. Mulcair has been somewhat silent.......

 

[Jacky Tar]

I've noticed Mr. Mulcair's silence as well. I'd like to think it stems from taking the high road, so to speak, but I suspect it's more a case of not wanting to draw fire himself. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, hasn't been in federal politics long enough to get in shit, so I think one might actually be able to say it is high-mindedness on his part that he's keeping silent.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just as a trip down the rabbit hole it appears to me to be qualify for politics all you have to do is scream shrilly "burn the witch" or "you must resign" or stamp your feet while stating you hate a certain American president.

Such is the state of Canadian politics. :facepalm:

Oh, I notice Mr. Mulcair has been somewhat silent.......

I think that's unfair, Jim. The politicians I have met were, pretty much, committed to public service - in the best sense of that word. Sure they were partisan, sometimes almost childishly so, and sometimes they were frustrated by the need to be partisan. One politician explained it as: "I think we, the team (party) to which I belong, has the best, overall, programme for Canada - where the other parties have better ideas we'll steal 'em. The best way to do what's best for our country is to gain and hold power. That is a highly partisan exercise and it is one in which, however reluctantly, we must engage."

Some politicians are venal - in about the same proportion as the general population; some are fools - also in about the same proportion as the general population; and so on; BUT most - in my opinion - are trying to do what they honestly believe is in the best interests of their community, their country and, indeed, the whole world.

There are some politicians, not all that many, who, over the years, I have thoroughly detested - on both policy and, in a couple of cases, personal grounds - but I still judge that they, too, were trying to do what they thought best.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The prime minister took questions in Peru about l'affaire Duffy, according to this excerpt from a CBC News report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/22/harper-peru-mining-trade-senate-scandal.html

Harper frustrated, sorry, angry about Duffy expense repayment
Prime minister says he 'was not consulted' and did not sign off on chief of staff's 'gift'

CBC News Posted: May 22, 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that not only did he not know about his chief of staff's "gift" to repay Senator Mike Duffy's expenses before the story broke in the media, he was not consulted and did not sign off on Nigel Wright's decision to write a personal cheque.

Answering questions from reporters during a joint press conference with Peruvian President Ollanta Humala Tasso, Harper said he had been through a "range of emotions" since learning about how Duffy's repayment happened.

"I'm sorry, I'm frustrated, I'm extremely angry about it," he said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took questions from reporters for the first time since the resignation of his
chief of staff Nigel Wright over the Senate expenses scandal. Earlier Wednesday, Harper met with
Peruvian President Ollanta Humala in Lima.
(Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

"My belief here was reasonable, and what I think anybody would have expected, that when it was said that Mr. Duffy had repaid his expenses, that indeed he and not someone else had repaid his expenses," Harper said.

"I know Mr. Wright assisted him or did this for him because he wanted to see the taxpayers reimbursed. That's the right motive but nevertheless it was obviously not correct for that decision to be made without my knowledge or without public transparency."

"That is why I accepted the resignation of my chief of staff," the prime minister said. "My point is on this that there is accountability when these things happen."
...
With files from The Canadian Press

I now have two questions:

    1. WTF was going through Nigel Wright's mind? and

    2. I wonder if he took a question from Terry Milewski ~ remember this event from the 2011 campaign?

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Oh, I notice Mr. Mulcair has been somewhat silent.......

Well, he's spoken up now, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndps-mulcair-takes-aim-at-senate-abolition/article12058932/#dashboard/follows/

NDP’s Mulcair takes aim at Senate abolition

GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 22 2013

Thomas Mulcair says he and his New Democrats are going to start talking to Canadians about the abolition of the Senate and will fashion the next election campaign around eliminating the red chamber.

“We’re here today to start rolling up the red carpet to the Senate,” Mr. Mulcair told reporters on Wednesday after his party’s weekly caucus meeting. “We’re starting a conversation with Canadians who agree with us that an institution comprised on unelected people who can, as they did in the case of [former NDP leader] Jack Layton’s climate-change bill, reverse legislation that was duly adopted by people who have been elected.”

The NDP Leader said he believes Canadians are ready to do away with a Parliamentary chamber “that contains mostly party bagmen, defeated candidates – and that’s becoming increasingly scandalous because of all the promises that Stephen Harper has broken. His 59 Senate appointments include a lot of people who have been rejected by the voters.”

Mr. Harper talked about the Senate in 2005 saying, if it can’t be reformed it should be abolished, Mr. Mulcair said. But the NDP, which has long argued for Senate abolition, is willing to follow through on that promise, he said.

The party has launched a website http://rolluptheredcarpet.ca/ that points out that the Red Chamber costs Canadians $92.5-million a year, an amount that equates to the combined average taxes of 8,000 families, and yet senators worked an average of just 71 days last year. It asks Canadians to sign a petition calling for Senate abolition.

Mr. Mulcair said he also plans to talk to provinces and territories and will back up the fight with an advertising campaign.

Calls to do away with the Senate may have some resonance now that Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau are accused of inappropriately taking money intended to compensate senators whose primary residence is outside the Ottawa region, as the travel expenses of Pamela Wallin are being scrutinized, and as the Conservative government tries to explain why Mr. Duffy was given $90,000 by Mr. Harper’s former chief of staff so Mr. Duffy could pay back the amount he owed.

A Senate committee that is accused of removing some of the more critical parts of a report on Mr. Duffy’s expense claims will reopen its probe of the PEI politician’s conduct. But the Conservative dominated Senate has rejected a Liberal motion to send the matter directly to the police.

Mr. Mulcair said “the whitewashing by the Senate was the beginning of the end of the Senate.”

The government has said Mr. Harper knew nothing about the payment that was made to Mr. Duffy but Mr. Mulcair said he doesn’t think there is anything plausible in the explanations provided by the Conservatives.

Still, Senate abolition could require re-opening the Constitution and co-operation of the provinces, which could be very difficult. The Harper government asked several months ago for the Supreme Court to determine whether the Constitution allows for a number of major reforms to the Red Chamber, including abolition. That ruling is expected to take some time.

Mr. Mulcair said it is useless to consider Senate reform. “You can’t reform something that contains people who have never been elected,” he said, “who don’t understand the very principles of our democracy, and who are behaving as the ones that we have just seen in the past week.”

For reasons I have explained more than once here on Army.ca, the NDP is wrong on this: a federal state needs a bicameral legislature. Not for "sober second thought" which is an even more offensive notion today than it was in 1867, but because a federal state is a bargain between (previously) sovereign political actors - the provinces in our case - and they need representation in that national parliament, something that the provincial premiers' Council of the Federation cannot provide.

 

[observor 69]

Perhaps 'lighter', but I don't think the issue is anywhere near 'Titanic'.

I'm also pretty sure, but may be wrong, that it was the MSM that named it the 'Harper Government' as a way of demonizing them and not the CPC themselves.

"Tories re-brand government in Stephen Harper's name"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-re-brand-government-in-stephen-harpers-name/article569222/
The source for this story is the G&M and I also found a similar story on the TO Star and the CBC.