Harper hardball backfires
Harper hardball backfires
Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, May 16, 2007
You wonder when the tough guys in the Prime Minister's Office are going to realize that their intense partisanship, and juvenile tactics, could be hurting, rather than helping, their cause.
You can bet more than one of Stephen Harper's ministers, and some of his brighter backbenchers, are worried, and occasionally embarrassed, by the sour vibe constantly emanating from the PMO.
They dare not voice public dissent, of course; when Harper makes an enemy, it is for life. But moderate, mature voices in the Conservative party -- and they exist -- are clearly not being heard.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Instead, Harper's front bench follows the same script, answering every question with an often unrelated counter-attack. The only exception to the barrage of provocation is the Bloc Quebecois: Gilles Duceppe's recent leadership flip-flop, for instance, inspired only gentle jibes from Tories. Harper needs Quebecers to like him.
For Liberals, though, it is bare-knuckle abuse. So, for example, every time Liberal MP Garth Turner asks a question about income trusts -- a matter of intense interest to his constituents -- he is chided for leaping from the Conservatives to the Liberals without facing the electorate. Fair enough the first few times, but it gets tiresome after several months.
When Liberal MP Scott Brison asks a question about taxes, say, he is teased about his indiscreet e-mail on income trusts that came to light during the last election. When Liberal MP Irwin Cotler yesterday raised a question about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hateful views, he was reminded that his wife left the Liberal party because of its allegedly lukewarm support of Israel.
But the worst example is the prime minister's continued inference -- most recently in a speech to military families in Petawawa -- that opposition parties are "tarnishing" the reputation of Canadian troops by asking questions about Afghanistan. This may be cementing his popularity with the military, but to many, it looks like a crude attempt to stifle debate.
A less serious, but typical, example of this overkill came last week when New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton accused two Tory ministers -- Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Lawrence Cannon -- of "trying to fly under the radar when it comes to revealing expenses on their travel." The travel in question -- apparently short hops by air around small town Quebec --hardly qualifies as joy rides, and the missing receipts are plausibly a result of administrative carelessness.
But this government has made an obsession of accountability; it deserves to be questioned closely about apparent abuses. Instead of an explanation, Layton got a non sequitur from Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan. He accused Layton of taking a "chauffeur-driven limousine," instead of his bicycle, 194 times in one year when Layton was a Toronto city councillor -- "even though he lived downtown." Added Van Loan, to the roars of the Tory gallery, "and he had a free transit pass!"
Pathetic enough that Tory inquisitors had to dig back seven years to get any dirt on Layton, it wasn't even good dirt. Layton later explained he never took a limo to work (a 10-minute walk from his Toronto home) but used a car to get to the airport when he was head of the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Nor was it a limo, but a city vehicle driven by disabled workers and shared by all 43 councillors as a cost-saving measure.
Of course, Layton never got a correction. In fact, Van Loan recycled an edited version of the mini-smear yesterday. Which raises a question that has nothing to do with Layton's ethics: don't Tory researchers have more serious work to do?
Behind the scenes, too, they are obsessed by tactics and trivial revenge. Yesterday, the official languages committee was left in limbo after Tory MPs -- "guided" by the PMO, as Liberal MP Raymonde Folco put it -- refused to choose a new chair. This conveniently prevents MPs from debating Harper's controversial move to kill a program offering money to minority language groups, and others, that want to pursue Charter cases.
Even the benign practice of marking the death of distinguished Canadians with a statement from the PMO is tainted by partisanship. Soldiers killed on duty, politicians, hockey greats like Boom Boom Geoffrion are appropriately honoured.
But there was not a word from Harper about journalist June Callwood's recent death or humanitarian work. She was no Conservative, but she was more than a political figure. It is typically small-minded of this PMO not to acknowledge that.
But it is in the business of sharpening divisions, not healing them.
Susan Riley's column runs Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail:
Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, May 16, 2007
You wonder when the tough guys in the Prime Minister's Office are going to realize that their intense partisanship, and juvenile tactics, could be hurting, rather than helping, their cause.
You can bet more than one of Stephen Harper's ministers, and some of his brighter backbenchers, are worried, and occasionally embarrassed, by the sour vibe constantly emanating from the PMO.
They dare not voice public dissent, of course; when Harper makes an enemy, it is for life. But moderate, mature voices in the Conservative party -- and they exist -- are clearly not being heard.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
Instead, Harper's front bench follows the same script, answering every question with an often unrelated counter-attack. The only exception to the barrage of provocation is the Bloc Quebecois: Gilles Duceppe's recent leadership flip-flop, for instance, inspired only gentle jibes from Tories. Harper needs Quebecers to like him.
For Liberals, though, it is bare-knuckle abuse. So, for example, every time Liberal MP Garth Turner asks a question about income trusts -- a matter of intense interest to his constituents -- he is chided for leaping from the Conservatives to the Liberals without facing the electorate. Fair enough the first few times, but it gets tiresome after several months.
When Liberal MP Scott Brison asks a question about taxes, say, he is teased about his indiscreet e-mail on income trusts that came to light during the last election. When Liberal MP Irwin Cotler yesterday raised a question about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hateful views, he was reminded that his wife left the Liberal party because of its allegedly lukewarm support of Israel.
But the worst example is the prime minister's continued inference -- most recently in a speech to military families in Petawawa -- that opposition parties are "tarnishing" the reputation of Canadian troops by asking questions about Afghanistan. This may be cementing his popularity with the military, but to many, it looks like a crude attempt to stifle debate.
A less serious, but typical, example of this overkill came last week when New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton accused two Tory ministers -- Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Lawrence Cannon -- of "trying to fly under the radar when it comes to revealing expenses on their travel." The travel in question -- apparently short hops by air around small town Quebec --hardly qualifies as joy rides, and the missing receipts are plausibly a result of administrative carelessness.
But this government has made an obsession of accountability; it deserves to be questioned closely about apparent abuses. Instead of an explanation, Layton got a non sequitur from Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan. He accused Layton of taking a "chauffeur-driven limousine," instead of his bicycle, 194 times in one year when Layton was a Toronto city councillor -- "even though he lived downtown." Added Van Loan, to the roars of the Tory gallery, "and he had a free transit pass!"
Pathetic enough that Tory inquisitors had to dig back seven years to get any dirt on Layton, it wasn't even good dirt. Layton later explained he never took a limo to work (a 10-minute walk from his Toronto home) but used a car to get to the airport when he was head of the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Nor was it a limo, but a city vehicle driven by disabled workers and shared by all 43 councillors as a cost-saving measure.
Of course, Layton never got a correction. In fact, Van Loan recycled an edited version of the mini-smear yesterday. Which raises a question that has nothing to do with Layton's ethics: don't Tory researchers have more serious work to do?
Behind the scenes, too, they are obsessed by tactics and trivial revenge. Yesterday, the official languages committee was left in limbo after Tory MPs -- "guided" by the PMO, as Liberal MP Raymonde Folco put it -- refused to choose a new chair. This conveniently prevents MPs from debating Harper's controversial move to kill a program offering money to minority language groups, and others, that want to pursue Charter cases.
Even the benign practice of marking the death of distinguished Canadians with a statement from the PMO is tainted by partisanship. Soldiers killed on duty, politicians, hockey greats like Boom Boom Geoffrion are appropriately honoured.
But there was not a word from Harper about journalist June Callwood's recent death or humanitarian work. She was no Conservative, but she was more than a political figure. It is typically small-minded of this PMO not to acknowledge that.
But it is in the business of sharpening divisions, not healing them.
Susan Riley's column runs Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail:
posted by PDO at
6:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home