Distemper of the times

Three items in the news over the past 24 hours  are threatening to whip up some worrisome sentiment among politicians and the public.

1.  Richard Colvin's testimony to the Commons committee on torture of Afghan detainees is making him a target for a discrediting campaign. So far, it's not very pretty.

2. The story of Conservative mailings to Liberal ridings, accusing MPs of being anti-Jewish, is not the kind of thing you'd expect to happen in this day and age.

3. The reports of Harper's trip to Amritsar, and the chaotic visit to the Golden Temple, has people on all sides worked up. (We closed the comments on the earlier post, incidentally, because of what people were saying about Harper. And yes, commenters, I do know the communion-wafer story was exposed as false. The mention was to draw a parallel to the potential for controversy.)

For the record, I don't believe that any politician, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is interested in opening up this vein of anger within the Canadian public. Politicians have the tough job of managing divisions in this country, not increasing them.  The fact that our Parliament includes people who would like to secede from Canada, for instance, is an example of how we manage divisions by keeping them in the realm of open, civilized debate. Probably a good idea to keep this in mind with the kind of stories we're seeing in the news this week.

Comments

[Andrew]

You know, it's not so much a *blog* as an opinion column, Susan, when comments are routinely censored and commenting closed.

And, on topic, I'd opine that there's plenty of precedent for charges of anti-Semitism being levelled in modern Canadian politics from the attacks made on Stockwell Day back in the Canadian Alliance days. Star columnist Slinger opined that Hitler would be voting for Day, I clearly recall, and attempts by the MSM of the day to tie Day to the neo-Nazi car mechanic (whose name I've mercifully forgotten) in his region also happened.

Thanks for not censoring this comment to show that the Star's TV ads pushing your web version and the ability for readers to express their opinions wasn't a load.

[Gabby in QC]

"And yes, commenters, I do know the communion-wafer story was exposed as false. The mention was to draw a parallel to the potential for controversy."

Sorry, I'm not buying it ... the way you phrased the communion-wafer lie had nothing to do with drawing parallels and all to do with reviving a false story. I'm sure you could have phrased that "parallel" differently. How does "I am told that refusing prasad and langar is somewhat like *shoving a communion wafer in one's pocket*, but that's another story" draw any kind of parallel? Anyone reading that would interpret it as just one more example of Harper purportedly doing something to offend a religious group. To paraphrase the adage, the "distemper of the times" has many fathers and mothers, and civility is an orphan.

[Catherine]

The Harper party is nasty and divisive.

They have, apparently, no low bar measure that they respect.

Partisan to the rotten core.

[jenna]

I guess I'm really confused here. There were a number of Canadian journalists on the trip to India, but not one of them has come out to support this story you are trying to spin. Where was Graham Richardson (CTV) or John Ibbitson (Globe and Mail) while the PM was refusing prasad and langar. Certainly Richardson was at the temple, as he made it into one of the shots of the PM. Don't tell me they were trying to protect the PM from some bad press.

[MyThought]

Gabby will defend Harper no matter what nasty things he does. Unbelievable.

I have never seen politics in Canada so low and mean.

It's a disgrace.

[woods]

The communion wafer story was false? Was the CPAC tape doctored?

[wascally wabbit]

Dear Gabby - to quote someone who must be one of your "saints" - there you go again!

For the record - I started the wafer gate story - because the evidence was clear on TV - PM Harper joined the line for communion - took the Host in his hand - but did not put it in his mouth at the altar rail - also quite clearly put his hand to his side...not so clearly into his pocket - but that was up for speculation. The point that was being made - then and now - is this action was quite sacreligious - in and of itself. whether Mr. Harper put it in his pocket - for later consumption - is totally irrelevant and simple misdirection - which you practice a good deal of - it seems!

[Gabby in QC]

"Gabby will defend Harper no matter what nasty things he does."

And MyThought will criticize Harper no matter what he does, doesn't do, or is accused of doing, whether it's true or not. Of course, MyThought is completely impartial in his/her assessments of the PM's actions, right?

I questioned the credibility of this post on one point. How? By pointing out that an item used by Ms Delacourt as fact had been proven false. I remain skeptical about her explanation about drawing a parallel. How does that "defend Harper no matter what nasty things he does"?

For someone whose moniker is "MyThought" you certainly don't seem to think much beyond the "Hate Harper" meme.

[MyThought]

Gabby - if Harper lies, and he does, I will call him out. If Harper has broken promises, and he has many times, I will call him out. If Harper abuses the use of our taxpayer money on self-promotion and campaigning, which he is doing, I'll call him out.

Gabby, if Harper shot your mother in the face, you'd defend him.

Why aren't you upset about some of these things?

I was upset with the Liberals a few years ago. I had not problem seeing the rights and wrongs - why can't you?

[Gabby in QC]

Wascally Wabbit, resurrect the story of the communion wafer if you want. Take credit for it if you want. The fact remains the newspaper that picked up YOUR story later recanted, which speaks to YOUR credibility.

From the CBC/new-brunswick/story website:
« The apology, which ran on the provincial newspaper's front page on Tuesday, said the story that ran on July 8 that accused Harper of placing a communion wafer in his pocket was ***"inaccurate and should not have been published."*** »

[Darwin O'Connor]

"The fact remains the newspaper that picked up YOUR story later recanted, which speaks to YOUR credibility."

I think it speaks more to the newspaper's (and to Susan Delacourt's) credibility to deny something that appears to be true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94msCdMBGMY

[Gabby in QC]

My Thought: “I was upset with the Liberals a few years ago. I had not [sic] problem seeing the rights and wrongs - why can't you?”
Because my thoughts are MY thoughts, not YOUR thoughts. I weigh issues based on whatever information I gather, not based on what you have gathered or what truth you believe to possess and impart. You have formed your opinions, and I have formed mine.
Have I prevented you from calling Harper out? No. If you have any facts, other than your thoughts/opinions, to add to the very specific objection I raised in Ms. Delacourt’s post, please bring them up. But all you’ve done is pointed to my partisan view, which I’ve never denied. You’ve added absolutely nothing to the specific question I raised in Ms. Delacourt’s post.
Finally, leave my mother out of this discussion.

[MyThought]

Gabby - enough already. You call everyone out if they don't quite see Harper as you do. You're his biggest groupie.

I'm not going back and forth on this with you and wafergate is way past talking about.

You support lies, misinformation and nasty politics - go ahead.

At some point the Con supporters will have to face some truths.

[Gabby in QC]

MyThought, it may have escaped your notice, but I have addressed what I perceive to be inaccuracies rather than anyone's personality.

You're the one who's gotten personal, even dragging my mother into your poorly argued and irrelevant comments. What's next? Are you going to drag my father in too?

If you can't argue your point with facts rather than with extraneous side issues beyond 'ohhh, no fair! Gabby defends Harper' - that's your problem, not mine.

[Ozy3]

Gabby, do you defend Harper at Canada's expense?
Or is there no difference in your mind between the two?

When Harper stacked the Senate with a record 27 senators in 10 months, after slamming Chretien for doing the same thing over 13 years, did you defend that action? How did you reconcile Harper replicating an act that he alleged was an act of corruption and immorality by Chretien?

Did you defend Harper when he promised at Sault Ste Marie that he would appoint judges biased towards Conservatives just like Chretien had appointed Liberal-supporting judges?

Did you defend Harper when he promised to raise the EI premiums after 2013 and use the $6.7 billion projected surplus by 2017 to pay off some of our projected debt? And he promises to do this after the courts announced that Chretien's decision to do the same thing was illegal? How do you reconcile Harper's duplication of the very tactic that he equated to a theft of Canadian taxpayers when he was in Opposition?

Did you defend Harper's 2004 letter to the GG asking her to approach the opposition parties to form a government if Martin's minority government was dissolved? In other words, Harper wanted the GG to allow an "Opposition Coalition" to take over the government *without an election* if the reigning minority government collapsed. Sound familiar? Think of the "undemocratic" Coalition of Dion that tried to "usurp the Canadian voters' democratic rights" in December 2008.

There are many more examples but let's just summarise here: Harper accused the Liberals of ruining Canada by stacking the Senate, appointing political favourites to court benches, raising EI premiums to pay off the debt, and trying to form a coalition government to replace his minority government if it lost a vote of confidence. Yet, he is either proposing or has proposed the exact same measures that he equates to government corruption. And let's not forget his criticism of Chretien's decision not to go to Iraq, and his desire to apologise to President Bush Jr for our refusal to participate in that illegal war.

So, in light of the above and using specific and exact examples of what other commentators have been saying about Harper, I'll ask again: do you defend Harper irrespective of the impact of his actions on Canada's welfare?
Where are your "facts" to support your stance, other than emotional rhetoric?

[Gabby in QC]

Ozy3 said: “Gabby, do you defend Harper at Canada's expense?”
Oh, my heavens, you’re certainly attributing far more power to me than I could ever have or want. My support of the Conservative Party and PM Harper is damaging Canada? Me oh my! I am SO dangerous, for merely having a political POV that differs from yours. And you accuse me of “emotional rhetoric”!?!

Despite your overblown rhetoric, I’ll be addressing some of the actions you fault Harper for in separate posts - unless I grow increasingly bored with repeating the same arguments I’ve posted elsewhere when those issues first came up.

• A bit of history on Senate appointments:
Sept. 7, 2006, PM Harper goes before a Senate committee to advocate for limited senate reform (Bill S-4) - term limits. (Video of PM before Senate committee here: http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&Page=index#tag)

http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/jmunson/documents/english/Clippings/20060908.nationalpost.htm
“The Prime Minister was making an unprecedented appearance before a Senate committee struck to examine legislation that limits senators' terms to eight years instead of forcing them to retire at 75. Mr. Harper described that bill as a precursor to the larger overhaul he wants to make to Parliament's Upper Chamber, including holding national elections for Senate positions and ensuring greater representation in the Upper Chamber for Western Canada.”

That legislation was rejected by the Liberal majority in the Senate.

Then there was this:
http://tinyurl.com/ycluclj (unfortunately the entire article is now available to subscribers only. I quoted from it when it was still available to all)
“The Hill Times, May 12, 2008
Senator urges Prime Minister Harper to fill increasing Senate vacancies
Currently, there are 14 Senate vacancies, but there will be 30 vacancies by the end of 2009.
… Sen. Moore wants to address the number of vacancies in the Senate, currently at 14 and rising to 30 by the end of 2009, *by forcing the prime minister to make appointments within six months of a Senate seat being vacated.* …
Sen. Moore disputed Mr. Van Loan's assessment, saying that the Constitution requires that the governor general, traditionally on the advice of the prime minister, make Senate appointments when seats are vacated. He said until the Constitution is changed, the government should follow the existing law.
Liberal democratic reform critic and MP Brian Murphy (Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, N.B.) said the government is not following the law by refusing to appoint Senators and is doing "a disservice" to provinces with vacancies. "I think it matters because you have a Senate that exists and it should be fully filled," Mr. Murphy told The Hill Times last week. …”

IOW, Liberal Senator Moore was so intent on having the vacant Senate seats filled that he introduced a bill in the Senate (bill S-224) to compel the PM to do so.
So what happened?
The PM gave in and appointed senators to fill those vacancies in Dec. 2008. Why? I assume for two reasons: one, not wanting to be dictated to by the proposed legislation in bill S-224, but primarily, because of the threat of a coalition designed to oust the recently elected Conservative government.
The PM decided to act lest those vacant seats be filled with appointees inimical to Senate reform. This quote from the PM leads me in that direction
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1105040
« "Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," said Mr. Harper. "If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for."
By filling the open Senate slots, Mr. Harper has put them out of reach of the Liberal-NDP coalition that could attempt to defeat the government in the confidence vote that will follow the Jan. 27 budget. »

To quote John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
And that can apply not only to the question of Senate reform but also to other situations the PM has found himself in.

[Gabby in QC]

Ozy3 said: “Did you defend Harper when he promised to raise the EI premiums after 2013 and use the $6.7 billion projected surplus by 2017 to pay off some of our projected debt? And he promises to do this after the courts announced that Chretien's decision to do the same thing was illegal?”

Umm, sorry to have to tell you this, but once again, you need to do some fact-checking. Look at the chronology:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/new-arms-length-crown-corporation-to-administer-ei-surplus/article669921/
“New arms-length Crown corporation to administer EI surplus
GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA — With a report from The Canadian Press
Published on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008 8:40AM EST
Last updated on Monday, Mar. 30, 2009 3:07PM EDT

The government's giant Employment Insurance surplus is to be administered by a newly created arms-length Crown corporation in response to criticism of the ballooning cash reserves.

Under the new rules, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board must ensure premiums collected do not exceed payouts. The present system collects far more each year than it spends, and the surpluses are treated as part of the government's general revenue. The government keeps the accumulated $54-billion surplus on the books, even though it has been spent. ...

The government move is in line with independent recommendations from bodies including the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser has repeatedly called on Ottawa to separately account for the EI surplus instead of plowing it into general coffers. …”

So, the government set up an arms-length Crown corporation in February 2008 (the Globe & Mail story was “Published on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008 8:40AM EST”) to administer EI Funds.
Don't get excited over this: "Last updated on Monday, Mar. 30, 2009 3:07PM EDT." That's around the time the Globe & Mail made changes to its website. That's why it says "updated."

Now let’s go to another interesting story, courtesy of Google:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081211/scoc_ei_081211/20081211?hub=TopStories
“CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Dec. 11 2008 11:31 AM ET
The Supreme Court of Canada says that Ottawa illegally collected employment insurance contributions for three years under the former Liberal government. ...
In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled EI premiums were inappropriately collected between 2002, 2003, and 2005. That's when the Liberal cabinet set EI rates directly without the authorization from Parliament and the employment insurance commission, a violation of the principle of no taxation without representation. …”
See? The Supreme Court ruling came after the Crown Corporation had already been set up by the government - in December 2008. That means that your claim “And he promises to do this *after the courts announced that Chretien's decision to do the same thing was illegal?*” is … how shall I put it … wrong!

[Gabby in QC]

Ms. Delacourt must be sick of reading these, but then Ozy3 asked so many questions, that I feel compelled to answer as many as possible. So here's another one ...

Ozy3 said: “Did you defend Harper's 2004 letter to the GG asking her to approach the opposition parties to form a government if Martin's minority government was dissolved?”
Ahh, another topic dear to my heart ...

Those who support the 2008 coalition continue to cite the 2004 letter to the GG as so-called proof of a duplicitous stance by Harper on the question of coalitions, but they forget to mention the difference between the 2004 agreement among the opposition parties and the formal coalition signed in 2008.
Those who supported and continue to support the 2008 coalition have conveniently forgotten:
1. Questions were raised by the media, and coy answers given by Jack Layton and Elizabeth May, about a possible coalition with the stated purpose of preventing the Conservatives from forming the next government - this, during the election itself. Those articles from various sources are still available via Google. Stephane Dion denied a coalition was in the works, but then signed the formal coalition document.

2. The coalition was formally formed a mere 31 days after the electorate had returned the Conservatives with a bigger plurality of seats than they held previously, and 13 days after Parliament met, not enough time for a party to show it could govern.

3. The 2008 coalition assigned cabinet seats to the NDP: http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/081201_Accord_en_signed.pdf
“*Six of these ministers will be appointed from within the NDP caucus, plus six Parliamentary Secretaries, sworn in as Privy Councillors, will also be named from the NDP caucus.* In the event the Prime Minister chooses to appoint a larger cabinet, the NDP proportion will be maintained.
Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois. ….”

4. The Liberals’ 77 seats plus the NDP’s 36 (total 113) was not sufficient to govern, with the Conservatives at 143. The coalition thus needed the support of the Bloc in order to survive. In effect, the Bloc thus governed Canada.

Contrast that with the 2004 letter, dated Sept 9, 2004
Was there any mention of a formal coalition in the letter? NO.
Did Duceppe agree to vote with the other two parties for a specified length of time? NO.
Did Duceppe receive a veto power by virtue of that letter? NO.
Duceppe probably agreed to nothing more than a "gentleman's agreement" to work with the other two parties on a case-by-case basis, with his usual mantra “if it’s good for Quebec …”
The Bloc did not have veto power like it effectively would have had if the 2008 coalition had been allowed to attain power.
Were there any Cabinet seats assigned to the NDP as a result of that letter? NO.
Were any Senate seats hinted at for fourth parties, like the Greens? NO.

So, none of the conditions put in place by the 2008 coalition, revealed only after the election, were present in the 2004 agreement. Definitely apples and oranges.

[Gabby in QC]

And to Ms. Delacourt’s probable relief, this is my last reply to an Ozy3 question.
“And let's not forget his criticism of Chretien's decision not to go to Iraq, and his desire to apologise to President Bush Jr for our refusal to participate in that illegal war.”
First, before you pat yourself on the back for that one, let me remind you that Michael Ignatieff also backed the Iraq War. He recanted, retracted, changed his mind, corrected his position - whichever way you want to say it. First he was for the Iraq War, then he changed his mind. Read what he had to say in Aug. 2007 here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t.html?ex=1343966400&en=cb304d04accc6df8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

What about Harper? True, initially he was for supporting the Americans in their Iraq decision, but in 2005 he wrote this letter to The Washington Times http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~dastow/harper-wtimes.txt where he said:
“… On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. …”
So, what took Michael Ignatieff a several pages spread in the NYT to say, Harper said in that brief paragraph - and two years earlier.

Was Jean Chretien’s decision such a brave one, as you suggest? Perhaps. But remember that had the UN sanctioned the Iraq War, Canada would have participated in it, so in effect Canada's voice, hailed as an independent one for refusing to join the Coalition of the Willing, would have been subordinated to the UN.

[Ozy3]

Gabby, you must learn to be more pithy in your responses. It's painful having to dig for something substantive in so much fluff. Drowning readers in gibberish is a sure sign that you can't answer my questions, not to mention, a little unethical. But given the disadvantage of your position, let's cut you some slack, shall we?

Harper and the Senate. Um, lemme see if I understand your logic. If Harper can't get *what he wants* through legal channels, he'll resort to doing what he has condemned for years as unethical and harmful to Canadians when Chretien did it? Would you buy the following argument by a defendant in court: "I tried everything to get my way in an ethical manner but she wouldn't agree, so I was forced to do what criminals have done before me to get my way." Yeah, I think your response is an admission rather than a rebuttal. And it didn't take me 100s of words to point that out. Thanks for trying, though.

EI premiums used as a tax to pay off deficit/debt: Boy, you had to go back to February of 2008 to find irrelevant information on Harper's proposal to use EI premiums to pay down the deficit? Here's something a little more timely and relevant, dating to September 2009: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/09/11/jim-flaherty-s-secret-weapon-an-ei-tax.aspx. (And it's from the National Post, in case you're going to accuse me of resorting to "Lefty Fluff Liberal" media.)

The Financial Post's verdict of Flaherty's latest EI strategy: "The real hidden surprise in the update (September 10, 2009] is that it failed to give any profile to the fact that the forecast reduction in the deficit benefits very significantly from a huge forecast surplus in Ottawa’s Employment Insurance system. The forecast total fiscal deficit, for example, falls from $27-billion in 2011/12 to $5-billion in 2014/15, a reduction of $22-billion. Where does this money come from? Employment Insurance premiums." And later, it states:

"Mr. Flaherty’s update gave no profile to the very significant role of the EI surplus of 2012–2014, in the forecast deficit reduction. As well, he pledged to return to balanced budgets without a tax increase. Isn’t an increase in EI premiums a tax increase?"

Flaherty's update of September 2009 post-dates the SCC's December 2008 decision.

Please re-read my original post, instead of engaging in that wonderful Tory tradition of "reinventing" history: Harper is going to use the EI premiums to pay off the deficit just like Chretien did. What do you not understand about this? Harper will not keep EI funds exclusively for the issuance of EI benefits - he will use the fund towards a different objective, i.e. reducing the deficit. Setting up a Crown Corporation to supervise how this is done doesn't deny the reality that Harper's disguising a "deficit tax" in the form or higher EI premiums. He slammed Chretien for doing this but he's doing the exact same thing. Do you understand? I'm assuming you're a voter so you really should understand this.

And finally, Harper's 2004 letter to the GG asking her NOT to call for a general election but to consult the opposition parties to form a coalition government if the Martin minority government was dissolved.

You ask a lot of questions on the details of the coalitions but you forget the most pertinent one that Harper did not address in his 2004 request to the GG:
- would the Canadian public get to vote for the opposition coalition that would form the government if the Martin government fell?

Or to quote Harper's televised speech on December 3, 2008, "The Opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your [Canadian voters'] say, without your consent, and without your vote." What more is there to say? Harper did what he accused Dion of trying to do, i.e. try to deny us a vote on a new government.

Your cut-&-paste responses are vacuous, verbose and signify nothing. You haven't had the courage to actually answer any of the questions raised in my earlier post. If anything, you've just demonstrated how desperate the Conservatives are to distract through invective and volume, rather than engage in substantive debate. I really, truly feel sorry for you. And sadly, despite the opening line in your initial response, let me assure you that you're not important at all in anyone's assessment of Harper. Our democratic system rightly defends your right to vote as you wish, irrespective of the quality of your choice.

P.S. Oh, and you forgot Iraq. Nice try.

[Ozy3]

Apologies to Gabby for the last line in my post. I didn't see your 4th response of yesterday. You did address the Iraq question and I overlooked that. I'm not a Ignatieff fan so I don't really understand the reference to him: I'm more interested in our current leader's consistency and quality of judgment. I'm just grateful that who ever was at the helm in 2003 didn't capitulate or apologise for our decision to go there. Nevertheless, mea culpa.