I won't rehash my blog of
November 6 - Decorum in the House; the
cynical silver bullet. If you're interested you can
review what I wrote. Today I'd like to draw attention to and expose,
perhaps a little more explicitly than others have, something about
Stephen Harper Canadians should be aware of and concerned about.
Once again I find myself referencing something
John Ibbitson has written so that I may highlight the issue I want
to address, namely,
"There is one other difference between Stephen Harper and John
Diefenbaker. There is nothing, nothing Mr. Harper won't do to
win."
Don't get me wrong, I like to see competitiveness in a
person and I too believe in doing whatever needs to be done to win,
within the rules of the game. But on that latter clarification - within the
rules of the game - Mr. Harper and his
inner-circle have a hard time distinguishing, I think, between what they
do day-in day-out, and ethics. Ethical behaviour, it would appear, being
in short supply.
What concerns me most is not the character flaw, but
rather that many Canadians
seem to confuse the personality trait with leadership. It's critical, I think, to distinguish between
ingenuity and confidence versus slime and bullying.
Forget for the moment that I or any other Canadian
may or may not agree with the Conservatives desire to extend the
anti-terrorism measure versus the Liberals purported wish against it.
That's not the point. Forget too that when Navdeep Bains was 9 years
old, his future father-in-law may or may not have been associated in
any way, shape, or form, with the Air India bombing. However, it takes
pretty sinister strategic thinking and forethought to get from those two
unrelated facts, to fabricating a cobbled-together link which at the
same time pays absolutely no regard, whatsoever, to the character
assassination of one Navdeep Bains. Or, was that just a bonus?
Getting back to the dynamics of Question Period,
CPAC is simply no replacement for being there.
With some degree of regularity, I watch NHL hockey
on TV. However, on those few occasions I attend in person, I watch an
entirely different game. Question Period is that, times a thousand.
That's why when I am in the gallery I watch very intently and
listen very little, rarely reaching for the telephone-like handset that
delivers what I shall loosely refer to as, sound.
The difference between a hockey player adjusting
himself or hoarking while possibly on camera, is they don't care and
it's part of the game. In Question Period they don't care either, but for entirely different reasons. During Question Period a member can
literally, or at least figuratively, stand at his or her seat and moon
an opponent safe in the knowledge CPAC will never pick it
up. It's forbidden.
On Wednesday, watching Mr. Harper and various
designated Liberals exchange on the Navdeep Bains debacle was NOT what
I was focused on. Instead, watching the likes of John Baird and Jason
Kenny was far-far more insightful.
Only once, and only for a fleeting moment, did I
once observe a look of worry in John Baird's demeanor. It was on
December 13, 2006, when he was still the Treasury Board boss and I was a
guest in the Government lounge. An issue had developed while Mr. Baird
was in the House during QP and he needed to come back and consult with
his army of minions in the lounge. It didn't look good. The guard came
down and there was a noticeable look of worry and concern. A look that
does indeed fracture the usual facade if you know to look for it.
I saw that exact same look of
momentary panic on John Baird's face Wednesday during Question Period at
the very instant it became clear the Prime Minister's attack strategy on
a man who happened to be wearing a Turban was about to go sour. The look
lasted all of five seconds, if that. Jason Kenny more nervously had the
exact same look, for maybe a second or two longer until the two looked
at each other and knowingly nodded. That's when it happened. All the
other stuff that is.
SOL shifted from it's usual meaning (s-out-of-luck)
and became save our leader. The concerted effort to
try and rescue the leader from his own gaffe would begin to occur just
as fast as humanly possible; to get the spotlight off PMSH and on
someone else, anyone else.
.jpg)
I carefully watched as the once cockily-held cut-out piece of paper from
the Vancouver Sun was quietly folded and put away. Following failed
attempts to go on the defensive by being more offensive, the statement
was never retracted, but the man himself did, retract that is, while
underlings did their best to try and cover, up. On that particular day
however, the Liberal team functioned, as a team.
.jpg)
3 o'clock never came fast enough for the beleaguered Mr. Harper. It was
written all over his face, even from the balcony. Never before have I
seen that glass of water reached for so often for so little intake, but
for so much swallowing.
.jpg)
While it was the turn of Liberal members to speak, at left is an example
of how
the "honourable" member for Ottawa West Nepean behaves. In
fairness to Mr. Baird, he was not alone. To watch and observe the antics
coming from all sides was worse than disgusting. Another time, I will
blog about the competence, or lack thereof, of the current speaker of
the house, Mr. Peter Milliken.
A notable few, Garth Turner included, participate in
no such capacity, where civility and professional conduct is not
sacrificed in the name of childish partisanship. While for the most part most members simply support
their parties' position, a few dozen behave like complete and utter
buffoons. Of one thing I am certain, few or none would behave the
way they do if there was
any chance CPAC was permitted to put the camera on, for
constituents to see, not just hear, what goes on during Question Period.
From people who watch Question Period everyday, even highly respected journalists who
sit and observe from on-high, the headshaking and ad-hoc comments later in the
foyer were nearly all the same; never before had they witnessed such a session. Neither had I.
You had to be there!
%20of%20Dan%20for%20Web.JPG)
.jpg)
