Warren Kinsella, Member of Parliament?

If you live in the Toronto area, Warren Kinsella may be coming to a riding near you.

Kinsella recently reaffirmed his intent to run for Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Party in the next federal election.

Readers of The Politic know that Kinsella is our dear friend. Two years ago, he launched our continuing Meet the Players series with a tour de force interview.

All of us will follow Kinsella’s campaign with great interest. And one/some/many of us actually hope he wins.

Hypocritical or Flip Flopping? Take Your Pick…

Ivison points out that the Liberal party has launch its own set of campaign attack ads to counter the Conservative’s attack ads:

The Grits released two new television ads Friday, with the tagline: “Is this your Canada or Harper’s?”

One takes aim at the Conservative government’s decision to sole source the new generation of fighter jets, at a cost of $16-billion. The other targets the government’s move to reduce corporate taxes.

Except of course it was the Liberal Party of Canada that first signed onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program in 2002.

In addition to that history lesson lets see what the Liberal Party had to say in 2008  about corporate tax cuts:

“We will accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by the 2012.” – Liberal press release, June 19, 2008

Contempt for Parliament from Thee but not from Me

I don’t have much use for any of the political parties right now.  I’m rather ticked off with both the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it’s the NDP who have particularly irked me the past few days.

I don’t have an issue with them refusing to buy in to the agreement on the release of documents relating to the detainee scandal.  I’m willing to believe that’s a principled opposition stance… I’m inclined to think it’s more partisan gamesmanship, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt.  The NDP certainly have reasonable cause for concern.  We have a government that has been trying to keep the entire matter quiet.  If I was in opposition, I’d be wary that they’re suddenly willing to have an open investigation.

Their decision spawned some typical partisan sniping:

[Liberal house leader Ralph Goodale] also suggested that the NDP’s decision to back away from the deal came as no surprise “because they just didn’t seem to be engaged in the reality and the substance that was involved here.”

Whether they were fully engaged or not doesn’t really absolve the other parties for behaving like children.  Anyway, it’s Ottawa, and a little childishness is to be expected.  Regardless, any sympathy I had for the NDP disappeared in but a few days.

“We’ve got to make sure that Karla Homolka doesn’t get a pardon and we want to work with the government to find a way to make sure that happens,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

I guess a principled stance is only worthwhile as long as it doesn’t preclude them from getting their vitriol on.  As the above quotation demonstrates, the NDP (unwilling to bend on the document issue) will sign on to whatever vengeful policy the Conservatives bring forward – no matter how ill-conceived such a manoeuvre – as long as it allows them to enforce their particular version of justice.

The Conservative party were found in contempt of parliament for their handling of the Afghan detainee file.  The NDP has shown that they don’t have much more respect for the parliamentary process.  So, dear NDP, the next time a principled stance is assumed to be political opportunism, this is why.

The Liberals and Helena Guergis

So, is it obvious to anyone else but me that the Liberals are now setting the stage to court Helena Guergis over to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Their rhetoric against the government (about how this Minister was incompetent and that her behaviour was unacceptable as an MP et al.) and the demands that she should be fired was going full steam when they felt fairly confident that the Conservatives wouldn’t do anything about it.

Now, when the Government took immediate action and left them flat-footed and windless, they are shocked and dismayed that an MP should be so callously treated by their Party.

The Liberals, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have become so conciliatory lately in their language and are painting her in the role of the “victim” at the hands of a ruthless and unforgiving Conservative Party of Canada.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if even already, Ms. Guergis has been quietly assured (or at least has had it suggested) that there would be a place for her with the Liberals, if she so chose. And why not? She appears to have significant backing in her riding and may very well be a “winner” in the next election, provided she was running for a Party instead of as an Independant.

And she wouldn’t even have to “cross the floor” to do it.

End result for the Liberals? If you can’t take the riding with a Liberal, try and pinch it with a former Conservative.

For the Liberals, MP means Missing Parliamentarian!

So, below is a list of all those Liberal MP’s who did not show up for work, or were directed not to by their unelected leader when it came time to vote on the Budget [h/t to Alberta Ardvark & The Phantom Observer]:

MP = Missing Parliamentarian

Bagnell, Larry – MP – for Yukon, Yukon
Bennett, Carolyn – MP – for St. Paul’s, Ontario
Bevilacqua, Maurizio – MP – for Vaughan, Ontario
Byrne, Gerry – MP – for Humber–St. Barbe–Baie Verte, Newfoundland and Labrador
Cannis, John – MP – for Scarborough Centre, Ontario
Coderre, Denis – MP – for Bourassa, Quebec
Cotler, Irwin – MP – for Mount Royal, Quebec
Dhalla, Ruby – MP – for Brampton–Springdale, Ontario
Duncan, Kirsty – MP – for Etobicoke North, Ontario
Eyking, Mark – MP – for Sydney–Victoria, Nova Scotia
Foote, Judy – MP – for Random–Burin–St. George’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
Fry, Hedy – MP – for Vancouver Centre, British Columbia
Garneau, Marc – MP – for Westmount–Ville-Marie, Quebec
Kania, Andrew J. – MP – for Brampton West, Ontario
Karygiannis, Jim – MP – for Scarborough–Agincourt, Ontario
LeBlanc, Dominic – MP – for Beauséjour, New Brunswick
MacAulay, Lawrence – MP – for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island
Martin, Keith P. – MP – for Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca, British Columbia
McTeague, Dan – MP – for Pickering–Scarborough East, Ontario
Murphy, Brian – MP – for Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe, New Brunswick
Murphy, Shawn – MP – for Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
Murray, Joyce – MP – for Vancouver Quadra, British Columbia
Pacetti, Massimo – MP – for Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel, Quebec
Patry, Bernard – MP – for Pierrefonds–Dollard, Quebec
Regan, Geoff – MP – for Halifax West, Nova Scotia
Sgro, Judy – MP – for York West, Ontario
Silva, Mario – MP – for Davenport, Ontario
Russell, Todd – MP – for Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador
Trudeau, Justin – MP – for Papineau, Quebec

Why am I posting this when so many others have? Well, I believe it important to make the information as visible as possible to as many people as possible. Even if one person sees this list and chooses to contact their MP about it to demand answers about their lack of representation, then it was worth it.

Why is this important? Because these so-called Parliamentarians appear to be more interested in playing games rather than actually representing the people in their constituencies. In the same vein as my previous posts,

• Lions and Tigers and Budgets! Oh my!
• Michael Ignatieff is playing games with Parliament
• Michael Ignatieff: Recent History Repeating

the Liberal Party of Canada is content to usurp the values of democracy and opt instead for gamesmanship to say one thing and do another. There’s another word for that; it’s liar.

As identified in Alberta Ardvark’s comment section, maryT noted the phony photo-op the Liberals posed for regarding the “locked doors” of Parliament, which were actually open behind them [FAIL].

Yeah, so after making such a huge stink about Proroguing Parliament, they don’t even have the guts to show up!

Now THAT’S Leadership eh?

Advice to Liberals: Lose and then Reflect

Jeffrey Simpson writes:

Mr. Ignatieff, therefore, has to appeal beyond the travails of today to offer a better tomorrow and, in so doing, reconnect with those convictions that once defined the Liberal Party. Giving effect to those convictions – a strong central government, an activist state and an internationalist foreign policy – will take money that the federal government doesn’t have, and won’t have without raising taxes.

It’s good advice, but it’ll never happen under the current minority government situation; with the Liberal Party a whisper and a vote away from being the next government.

The Liberal Party of Canada needs to spend one term, possibly two, sitting in the opposition benches of a majority Conservative government before any real perspective on governing is achieved. The Liberal party had grown stale and corrupt under the heavy hand of Prime Minister Chretien (as any government would after 12 years) and the constant saber-rattling from the official opposition has done nothing to quell the stench of that staleness. I think the parade of new Liberal party leaders further proves the party needs to do some deep reflection before it can be handed the keys to Canadian government.

It should also be said that if Conservative supporters across the country (both big “C” and little “c”) feel like they didn’t get a chance to effect change – without the hindrance of a minority government situation – they are unlikely to consider any other party in the near future.

Polarization of the vote and constant minority governments may become the norm in Canadian politics, and that should strike fear in any Canadian concerned about the future of Canadian democracy.

The Liberal Party needs to lose and lose badly.

Michael Ignatieff and the Continuing Saga of Unfulfilled Promise

(No, I’m not going to write a Dear John letter to Michael Ignatieff.  I never expected him to amount to great leader; I just hoped he might become one.)

I’ve found Ezra Levant to have been a little reactionary regarding the Afghan detainee scandal.  The allusions made by Liberal MPs and pundits implying Canadians have committed war crimes are a little distasteful, but it does not seem helpful to get into a debate about whether or not someone made such a claim explicitly or implicitly.  Nonetheless, he does nab Mr. Ignatieff saying something rather disappointing:

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

“Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance,” he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, “the conduct of our troops in the field” and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

“This is really serious stuff,” he said, adding that Liberals “will not let up about this.”

(via The Canadian Press)

One of my hopes for this prorogation was for Mr. Ignatieff to begin showing some leadership.  Whatever one’s political inclinations, I hope most of us believe that a strong and principled opposition is healthy for our democracy.  I haven’t seen that from Mr. Ignatieff in the past, and, by conflating the conduct of Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with the conduct of our political leadership, he does a disservice to those of us who wish to see an open and impartial investigation.

On this topic, Canadian Cynic asks:

There’s nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada’s military. They have rules. They’re supposed to know those rules. And they’re supposed to follow those rules. And if they don’t follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what’s wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?

He is, obviously, correct.  Accountability does not disappear with the donning of a uniform.  My issue with Mr. Ignatieff’s insinuation is that we don’t have a whole lot of information to back it up.  In fact, we have stories of soldiers trying to do the right thing.  I can be as much a fan of hyperbole as the next person, but it is unhelpful in the pursuit of truth to begin with the concern that our troops are behaving inappropriately.  Further, such a stance only helps to marginalize the views of those of us who believe we need a fair investigation in order to find out what happened rather than a witch hunt.

I understand Mr. Ignatieff’s desire to score some political points.  Lord knows, the Conservative’s have scored enough at his expense.  However, what we, as a nation, need most from Mr. Ignatieff is an opposition leader who shows, you know, leadership.  Mr. Ignatieff has a wonderful opportunity to define his leadership on his own terms.

He’s not off to a good start.

Michael Ignatieff is Right About Pay Equity

Below, Richard notes a couple of new initiatives by the Liberal Party, including their intention to recognize pay equity as a human right.

Here’s the thing, they are, partially, correct.

A quick caveat, I am, generally, not a fan of the way pay equity is wielded.  A concept that was born to address discriminatory behaviour against vulnerable segments of the population has become a weapon used to engineer wealth redistribution surreptitiously.  It’s dishonest, and it’s an abuse of the legislative process.

A second caveat, I am on record as being against the expansion of ‘human rights’.  I hold a narrow definition, and I do not think pay equity (even the good kind) falls into it.  Further, I am offended by the Human Rights industry in Canada.

So, let’s assume, arguendo, that we’re talking about an acceptable form of pay equity, and by ‘human right’ we mean some good legislation that the government enforces through an appropriate process.  (I know this is open for debate, but these topics are being debated thoroughly on Richard’s post; I want to talk about something more narrow.)  With these assumptions, Michael Ignatieff is right.

From the article in The Toronto Star:

To that end, he [Michael Ignatieff] introduced Wednesday a private member’s bill aimed at reversing a controversial measure in the 2009 federal budget.

The budget essentially reclassified pay equity as a labour issue to be negotiated in collective agreements, stripping the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its authority to adjudicate pay equity complaints.

Anyone see the same problem with the Conservative’s re-classification that I do?  The Conservative’s measure has put pay equity in the hands of unions.  If we assume that pay equity (however defined) is worthwhile, it has no place as a bargaining chip in a contract negotiation; a union should not have the right ditch it on behalf of its membership and those who will eventually join the union.

You could almost argue that Stephen Harper’s government is acting as a shill for Big Labour.

(By the way, I’m not suggesting that any unions would do away with pay equity in order to secure a better dental plan; I’m just saying we shouldn’t even give them the option.)

Now, I can envision a convincing counter-argument that pay equity isn’t a good thing as it is currently enacted, and that its enforcement shouldn’t be delegated to Human Rights Commissions.  These may be solid points, but they do not justify the action taken by the Conservative government.  Just as it is wrong to use pay equity to enact wealth re-distribution, it is wrong to use procedural measures as a salvo against the nature of pay equity and the use of Human Rights Commissions.  It seems especially egregious to do it through the budget.  If the government wishes to take on pay equity or Human Rights Commissions, they should do so head on.  Crafting duplicitous legislation is unbecoming of a democratic government.

I still don’t trust Michael Ignatieff with the task of crafting appropriate pay equity legislation, but I don’t really trust Stephen Harper with it either.

Two Thumbs Up for Two Ideas from the Liberal Party

Today, the Liberal Party proposed two bills, both of which, in my initial assessment, merit two enthusiastic thumbs up.

First, the Liberal Party proposed to return rural mail delivery to its 2005 levels, when there were 55,000 more rural mailboxes in service than there are today.

Second, the Liberal Party pledged to treat pay equity as a human right.

Both ideas are quintessentially Canadian, and reflect our core values of equal access and equal opportunity–two values that have made Canada the light of the world.

Canada was Complicit in Torture, Diplomat Says

Well, the news is here.  After the Conservatives failed to keep Richard Colvin silent or ignored, we learn that Canada may have sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured.  Mr. Colvin, a diploma with Foreign Affairs, described a pattern of misbehaviour among Canadian officials in Afghanistan that facilitated torture.

Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.

“There was indeed a policy, but behind the military’s wall of secrecy, that’s exactly what we were doing,” said Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and military brass have a bit of a different take on the subject.

The Conservative government and senior military brass were in full damage control Thursday as they sought to discredit accusations from a top diplomat that Canada turned a blind eye to reports that Afghan prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers surrendered them to local control.Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed Richard Colvin’s allegations that virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

As MacKay went on the offensive in the House of Commons, the recently retired head of Canadian forces overseas, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, said there was no way that Canada would have knowingly participated in a “war crime” of handed over detainees to torture.

So, who do we believe?  The Liberal’s Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae, suggests we should trust Richard Colvin’s account:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that [Defence Minster Peter] MacKay’s attacks on Colvin — a man who is now Canada’s head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy is Washington and presumably considered credible enough to hold the senior post — are “reprehensible.”

Rae also pointed out that MacKay contradicted himself in the Commons by insisting that Colvin’s story was “full of holes,” but then later saying that the diplomat’s concerns played a part in Canada’s decision to strengthen its transfer-of-prisoners arrangement in 2007 to allow for followup visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured.

My guess is that Colvin’s story is a little embellished.  Without any corroboration, I’m hesitant to believe that the Canadian establishment in Afghanistan was so completely infested with corruption and criminal activity.  Nonetheless, on the whole, I’m ready to side with Mr. Colvin.  The government’s argument is weak and implausible.  It seems unrealistic that no prisoners whom Canada turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured.  Mistakes are going to happen, sadly, but the Conservatives’ offensive is just a little bit too much.

Even if the government was not complicit in any wrongdoing by senior officials in Afghanistan, its refusal to properly confront this issue after the fact makes them accomplices.  If they want to return to side of the righteous, they must make sure that this never happens again; they must take the NDP’s advice and create some sort of public investigation.

It is imperative that any investigation be public.  Stephen Harper’s government has already made too much of an effort to hide inconvenient testimony to be fully trusted to take care of this matter on their own.

Moreover, considering that Canadian investigators in Afghanistan are willing to turn a blind eye to the rape of children – even when our soldiers alert them to the tragedy – how can the public trust them to ever hold the guilty accountable?

Next Page »