After quitting the Tory caucus, MP Brent Rathgeber pens one of the most devastating and pointed critiques of the Harper government I have ever seen. One is left wondering how many others in the Conservative base feel the same way.
I STAND ALONE
Late last night I notified the Board of Directors of the Edmonton-St. Albert Conservative Association of my difficult decision that I was resigning from the Conservative Caucus to sit as an Independent in the House of Commons.
[…]
Recent allegations concerning expense scandals and the Government’s response has been extremely troubling. I joined the Reform/conservative movements because I thought we were somehow different, a band of Ottawa outsiders riding into town to clean the place up, promoting open government and accountability. I barely recognize ourselves, and worse I fear that we have morphed into what we once mocked.
My constituents demand better. My constituents simply do not care what somebody, who they hope will never become Prime Minister, did or didn’t do seventeen years ago. They do care, however, about the relations between a sitting Senator and Langevin Block (PMO). For a government that was elected on a platform of accountability, my constituents are gravely disappointed. They appreciate human frailty but when a group misses its self-proclaimed standards, a little contrition and humility not blust and blunder, is the expectation.
To say that we are somehow better than the other guys is similarly woefully inadequate. If we are measuring our ethical performance against the Sponsorship Scandalized Liberals, perhaps we need to set our ethical bar a little higher.
[…]
I can only compromise so much before I begin to not recognize myself. I no longer recognize much of the party that I joined and whose principles (at least on paper), I still believe in. Accordingly, since I can no longer stand with them, I must now stand alone.
28 responses to ““I fear we have morphed into what we once mocked””
Thanks for this story, Bartholomew.
I wish all MP’s had this kind of principle in dealing with their parties.
Surely cabinet and the PMO are getting very nervous. Mark Warawa was all full of support for Brent’s decision. I am wondering how many of the other (rightfully) disgruntled backbenchers are considering the same action.
Pundits used to say not having a majority was what kept the Conservative backbench in line. As for setting the ethical bar higher, the Conservatives do expel the people who are caught cheating on their housing expenses, unlike the Liberals who still have Wayne Easter in their caucus. But the drama is now about Harper because he couldn’t handle this issue properly.
I fear Rathgeber is getting far too much credit. He is too late in his criticisms and far too polite. The Conservatives are the most corrupt party of poseurs I’ve ever witnessed. The fact that this MP dredges up the ancient ‘sponsorship scandal’ in comparison to the dozens upon dozens of Con scandals is as cheap a tactic as those he despairs in his own leadership.
If we’re being honest, the Sponsorship Scandal isn’t the only scandal in the history of the Liberal party. It’s merely the most recent in a long list. And if it’s “ancient”, that isn’t because the Liberal party has been pure and virtuous since then: it’s because the Liberal party has been out of power.
So don’t assume that Canadians in general are going to share your take on all this. Trudeau’s recent decisions and declarations may help, if he really follows up with them; but no matter what, it’s going to take a lot more work on the part of the Liberal party to earn back the trust of Canadians.
That is the disturbing thing, isn’t it? How does one change that culture of nastiness within the governing party of the day? Strict consequences, perhaps? Especially since it just seems like a matter of time before members of a new governing party start misbehaving.
I guess people could elect a new party to government (i.e., the NDP), but I sort of doubt they’d be much better.
I’m sure an NDP government would be all the worse, actually (without even getting into the horrific misgovernance we could expect under them). But I’m afraid that people may well decide to give them a chance at the next election, unless the Liberals re-establish themselves as the viable alternative to the CPC.
Yeah, I could see it happening. And I don’t know if I’d expect disaster, but one thing I would not be looking forward to is the confidence an NDP government might give the intolerable separatist movement in Quebec, what with the NDP’s stance on the Clarity Act. I am not interested in those squabbles, and I am hoping the separatist movement will remain fairly weak. For national unity reasons alone I can’t support the NDP federally.
However, Mulcair is certainly looking like the more impressive of the party leaders these days, at least insofar as performance in Question Period is concerned. Not sure if that will make an impression on the general public, but we’ll see. In the mean time, I think Trudeau’s Liberals need to start getting a firm message out that goes beyond “hope and hard work.” The longer I wait for a firm policy idea (even if it is somewhat general), the more empty the message of hope and hard work seems. The senator and MP expense idea is a start. Maybe more good ideas will trickle out.
Living (now) in Quebec myself, that’s exactly why I am so adamantly opposed to the NDP.
As for crafting a compelling electoral narrative: for a long time now, I’ve been saying that the Liberal party should position themselves as strong federalists – speak out strongly against Bill 14 in Quebec, against the NDP’s appallingly pro-separatist positions on the Clarity Act and other issues, against the Conservative party’s support for Quebec “nationhood”, and so on – but for the most part, I’m still waiting.
Vancouverois, the Liberals supported the Quebec “nationhood” motion, too. (And remind me whose idea it was in the first place?)
Sadly true; most Liberal MPs did vote for it (and I believe it was originally Ignatieff’s idea, is that what you’re referring to?). However, it was Harper who put it on the Parliamentary agenda, and there was not a single Conservative or NDP vote against it. The only MPs who did vote against it were Liberals or Independent (Garth Turner).
Perhaps more importantly, the Liberal party’s current leader might have been one of them, if he’d been in the House at the time. He is on record as expressing reservations about it – which is more than can be said for Harper or Mulcair.
I don’t have a lot of faith that Trudeau will push the issue, mind you. But he could, if he decided to do so.
I’ve found Trudeau’s language so far on Quebec to be a mix of promising and unfortunate. The promising part is that he seems happy to disregard the idea of catering to Quebec to get them to sign on to the constitution, because there are more important problems. That stance seems more on the side of not playing favourites with Quebec or catering to it than Mulcair’s or Harper’s (not now, but before he gave up on Quebec). So maybe the Trudeau Liberals will take the firmer position towards Quebec and federalism; he could pull it off without seeming nasty, which I doubt the Conservatives could do.
The unfortunate part is these little comments in which he seems to identify as a Quebecker first and a Canadian second, arguably. I don’t read very much into these comments, as I would happily call myself a Nova Scotian (having been born there and wanting to move back) without much thought, but they do allow Trudeau’s opponents (especially Conservatives) to carry on with their attack narrative.
I agree, on both counts! And I can’t help but think that increasing emphasis on the fortunate part would help to counter the forthcoming Conservative attacks on the less fortunate part…
But then, this is an important issue for me.
I think it’s an important issue in general (i.e., beyond being important to you), for a few reasons.
1. Canadians are sick of squabbling surrounding Quebec. (Some Canadians practically foam at the mouth as soon as one mentions Quebec.) The rest of Canada, especially in the west, will have little tolerance for a party that appears to be all about Quebec.
2. National unity is inherently paramount.
3. The NDP – the Liberals’ main opponent in Quebec at this time – is weak on national unity, and the Liberals can therefore draw a clear distinction between the two parties. The NDP might even get squashed in mushy territory between the Libs and the Bloc, which would not be great for them.
However, it was Harper who put it on the Parliamentary agenda
Nope, it was the Bloc who brought in a motion after Ignatieff started making noise about it during the leadership race. Harper amended the motion (or possibly displaced it with a new one; I’m not sure) to add “within a united Canada.”
Indeed. And then Michael Chong had to resign as intergovernmental affairs minister, since he couldn’t support it.
The recent issue around soccer turbans again shows the fine line Mulcair is trying to walk on “Quebec issues”. You can be sure he’ll get boxed in on one or two controversial issues between now and the next election.
@The Invisible Hand: You are correct that Harper was reacting to the Bloc, though procedurally I’m pretty sure it was tabled as a separate motion rather than made an amendment to the Bloc’s motion. Either way, I deplore the fact that Harper did support his own variation of it – it still claims that Quebeckers are “a nation”.
@CalgaryGrit: I agree, the NDP’s duplicity on national unity cannot help but come to light. I just wish that the Liberal party would take an active role in making sure that happens – more than just once or twice, because the NDP can be held to account on this issue in many, many different ways. And as Luke says, JT could do exactly that without seeming anti-Quebec. IMHO, he’s already taking the correct tack by saying that Quebeckers are better than their current provincial gov’t is making them out to be. I just wish he’d take that much further.
Agreed. The other problem for the Liberals is that sponsorship was significant enough to make people tune out and turn off. The Liberals set the bar high. This stuff is small potatoes by comparison. If you’re disgusted by government ethics, there’s an 80 percent change you tuned out long ago.
That will be relatively easy with the shenanigans of the freaky PM HARPY who will go down in history as the worst PM Canada has ever elected.Anyone beyond 25 or 30 actually remember the Liberal party and not by the media or their trolls who are basically 25 to 30 year olds. They do not accept being brain washed by the media or Harpy’s parrot trolls spreading his propaganda on a daily basis. We actually think for ourselves instead of listening to the propaganda.
Good for him. Let’s hope it leads to some real changes.
Listening to this guy’s unscripted scrum with journalists, I am wondering if the strict scripting of MPs by parties is really good for them. I guess it’s great for message control. However, to me, Rathgeber seems rather articulate, well-meaning, and conscientious. He could not possibly come across this way if he simply rhymed off talking points.
I’d probably have much more respect for the Conservative Party and its MPs if they spoke more freely. (Some of them at least. Rob Anders is hopeless.)
@Jymm: How long have you been following politics? It seems to me that EVERY party that’s in power long enough eventually devolves into this level of corruption
@Luke: Are you implying that your respect for Liberal and NDP MPs are an exception, and wouldn’t go up if they spoke more freely? That is, that they should remain scripted?
One thing that’s missing from Rathgeber’s statements above is how he spoke about how the party’s departure from conservative policies is a big reason why he’s leaving.
In essence, the fact that Harper isn’t conservative enough, and has been governing in a far more progressive fashion in order to win elections, is one of the reasons why his base is upset. But isn’t that a good sign? Doesn’t it reflect well on Harper’s government that he’s being less conservative in order to appeal to the rest of us?
No, I don’t mean to imply anything of the sort re: Liberal and NDP members. I’d like reasonably unscripted MPs all around.
What do you mean by “departure from conservative policies?” Are you referring to Brent’s chief complaint about transparency and accountability? To me, while Reformers owned these issues once (so I’m given to understand), these are hardly matters that should be restricted to certain political affiliations. These are issues of interest to the full range of political thinking in Canada; everyone from socialists to anti-government libertarians would probably agree in the need for transparency and accountability insofar as public money and various other matters are concerned. The only people who don’t agree are those in power who have things to hide, and the hyper-partisans who support them no matter what.
I am not really getting a “not conservative enough” impression from Rathgeber’s complaint, unless you regard transparency and accountability as inherently conservative ideas (I don’t).
“Doesn’t it reflect well on Harper’s government that he’s being less conservative in order to appeal to the rest of us?”
If he is doing that, that is certainly one way (and a non-cynical one, at that) to look at it. And I’d agree they are being moderate on some matters – on some social policy matters [abortion, gay rights] they are staying pretty uncontroversial, as they are on some economic matters. In other cases – environmental policy, employment insurance – I doubt many would agree they are being particularly centrist. In any case, since Rathgeber’s complaint is not about these particular matters, I don’t really see how it is relevant.
Apparently Rathgeber did support that recent motion to investigate when life begins, which is generally interpreted as a sign that he’s a social conservative. So maybe that’s what Robert V has in mind.
However, so far I’ve seen nothing to indicate that that issue was behind his decision; he’s been pretty clear that it’s the lack of transparency, and iron-fisted control from the PMO. That second may be an oblique reference to the life motion, but more likely has to do with his own bill being quashed, IMHO.
No, read his full speech here: http://brentrathgeber.ca/wordpress/i-stand-alone/
I quote: “I will use my now unchained opportunity in Question Period to ask the Government pointed but fair questions on principles I believe that most conservatives still believe in but seem to have been abandoned or at least compromised by this Government in the name of political expediency. A return to balanced budgets, limiting the size and scope of government, the aforementioned open and transparent operation of government, belief in markets and eliminating corporate subsidies are all matters of importance to my constituents but have all been sacrificed to the altar of electoral calculation.”
Fair enough. However, it still seems pretty clear to me that the main impetus for his decision was a lack of transparency, coupled with iron-fisted PMO control:
“I have reluctantly come to the inescapable conclusion that the Government’s lack of support for my transparency bill is tantamount to a lack of support for transparency and open government generally. The government chose to gut my transparency bill despite not a single witness testifying at the Access Committee in support of either eviscerating amendment. The Committee hearings (as all are) were a charade. The decisions on amendments were made by unelected staffers weeks before the Committee hearings even commenced. Compliant MPs just do what they are told by PMO staffers. That the PMO operates so opaquely and routinely without supervision is an affront to the constitutional requirements of responsible government and is also the genesis of the current Duffy/Wright debacle.”
Every government has its Garth Turners and John Nunziatas – individuals who believe they are more important than the team. They briefly bath in media attention for a short period, then are forgotten. Politics is more like hockey than tennis – the best team, not the the best individual players, win.
Christy Clark’s stunning victory in BC made the point that voters don’t care about what the scandal-obsessed media think or what the pollsters predict. They make rational decisions all by themselves about who they trust or want to manage the economy.
Harper is not the type of leader to lose his nerve just because he is criticized by ankle-biters in the media. His relentless focus on “jobs-growth-prosperity” stands a very good chance of ensuring future electoral success, especially whn compared to what the opposition parties are offering.
Hopefully Brian Topp is telling Thomas Mulcair why it went so badly for Adrian Dix. And why the NDP lost to a scandal-plagued BC Liberals whose leader was fighting a caucus and party revolt (the 8:01 movement). Clarks positive and negative messaging was very effective and voters did not trust the NDP to manage the economy. Mulcair if he is smart will ignore the trivia in the Commons and focus on building his arguments for a NDP Government and how it would manage the economy, otherwise Stephen Harper’s smile on October 19, 2015 will be as bright as Christy Clark’s was on May 14, 2013.
I think you are quite right on the never-ending “jobs economy jobs, jobs, jobs, economy” propaganda is very effective. Despite the various holes in the message offered by the Conservatives’ own actions, they still appear to be the “stewards of the economy” as far as general impressions go. I think such impressions/emotional reactions significantly influence voters decisions. The BC election is very good evidence of the power of this messaging, and is also a telling lesson in how seriously dead-seeming governments are not necessarily so. This is certainly no time for the federal Liberals or NDP to get complacent, and no time at all for them to let the Conservatives continue to own the economy as their pet issue.
I’d take issue with calling the BC election result necessarily the result of “rational decisions” by voters (except in Vancouver-Point Grey). To me, it seemed much more like reaction to fear mongering and empty messaging than a well reasoned choice. Clark et al just repeated “economy economy economy” and “Adrian Dix is the evil ghost of Glen Clark” and people bought it, not that Dix and the NDP made enough of an effort to remind voters of the BC Liberals’ own and more recent record.