Even those who've been touched by suicide might not necessarily appreciate what Denise Batters has gone through since the death of her husband David in 2009.
It's commendable that Batters has attempted to turn her former MP husband's suicide into something positive by raising public awareness about mental illness. The question, however, is whether this merits her appointment to the Senate, or for that matter, if it's why she received the appointment?
The answer to both the above obviously is no. To have this highly political appointment by Prime Minister Stephen Harper shrouded in something else doesn't seem right. Some might even call it cynical.
Granted, when it comes to the cynical partisanship of Senate appointments, Harper's choice of Batters, a successful lawyer, is arguably better than many.
Rather than Senate appointees from other occupations, her chosen occupation would allow her a better understanding of the laws she is supposedly required to scrutinize. (I hear the PM is even appointing journalists to the Senate these days, or at least certain kinds of journalists. I personally hold out little hope.)
Similarly, her role in the Saskatchewan Party government as chief of staff to the Justice minister and her time at the Crown Investment Corp. offer added depth of understanding of government.
Add in her recent advocacy of mental health issues and the fact that she is a woman (five of Saskatchewan's six senators today are women) and Batters is a stellar choice in comparison to her provincial colleagues. She is a political spouse but - compared with Liberal appointee and political wife Pana Merchant - her credentials go beyond that.
And compared with ultimate Tory backroom boy Dave Tkachuk - who was appointed more than two decades ago so that former prime minister Brian Mulroney could get the GST through the Liberal-dominated Senate - her appointment will be seen as deserved and wildly popular.
But is Harper truly interested in advocates for causes? Is there anything to suggest that the PM wants senators with a depth of understanding of the law and governance to scrutinize his omnibus bills?
By 2015, Harper will have made more Senate appointments than any other PM in Canada - an estimated 62 senators. Yes, that would be the same former Reform MP/Opposition leader Stephen Harper, who once told Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, "We don't support any Senate appointments," and called the Senate a "dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister."
Harper also said "Canadians ... are ashamed the prime minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."
In fact, back in 1996 Harper lambasted Chretien's selection of former Alberta Liberal leader Nick Taylor, saying that Taylor's "only real qualification to the Senate is that he was the Liberal leader and had the audacity to continue to be the Liberal leader during the period of the National Energy Program."
Well, in Harper's world today, you don't need audacity to put your name forward and run for office. You just have to be a partisan.
Batters has not been appointed for her advocacy, her knowledge of the law, or her qualifications in government that perhaps needs some additional perspective.
All her government jobs in Saskatchewan were cabinet appointments. In fact, some Sask. Party insiders bemoan that it was her appointment as then justice minister Don Morgan's chief of staff that ignited the high salaries taxpayers pay for similar jobs today.
It was also while she was Morgan's chief of staff that the government passed its bill for Senate elections in the province. That she would now be appointed by Harper goes beyond being ironic.
Again, Batters deserves kudos for raising mental health awareness these past few years. But what of those who dedicated their entire careers to this issue or any other equally worthy causes? Will they ever be appointed as senators? If it were an issue of advocacy, wouldn't we be appointing the best qualified, deserving advocates rather than those most politically connected?
What Batters has personally endured is tragic. But let us not accept it as veiled justification for another political appointment by Harper.
Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: Murray Mandryk
It's commendable that Batters has attempted to turn her former MP husband's suicide into something positive by raising public awareness about mental illness. The question, however, is whether this merits her appointment to the Senate, or for that matter, if it's why she received the appointment?
The answer to both the above obviously is no. To have this highly political appointment by Prime Minister Stephen Harper shrouded in something else doesn't seem right. Some might even call it cynical.
Granted, when it comes to the cynical partisanship of Senate appointments, Harper's choice of Batters, a successful lawyer, is arguably better than many.
Rather than Senate appointees from other occupations, her chosen occupation would allow her a better understanding of the laws she is supposedly required to scrutinize. (I hear the PM is even appointing journalists to the Senate these days, or at least certain kinds of journalists. I personally hold out little hope.)
Similarly, her role in the Saskatchewan Party government as chief of staff to the Justice minister and her time at the Crown Investment Corp. offer added depth of understanding of government.
Add in her recent advocacy of mental health issues and the fact that she is a woman (five of Saskatchewan's six senators today are women) and Batters is a stellar choice in comparison to her provincial colleagues. She is a political spouse but - compared with Liberal appointee and political wife Pana Merchant - her credentials go beyond that.
And compared with ultimate Tory backroom boy Dave Tkachuk - who was appointed more than two decades ago so that former prime minister Brian Mulroney could get the GST through the Liberal-dominated Senate - her appointment will be seen as deserved and wildly popular.
But is Harper truly interested in advocates for causes? Is there anything to suggest that the PM wants senators with a depth of understanding of the law and governance to scrutinize his omnibus bills?
By 2015, Harper will have made more Senate appointments than any other PM in Canada - an estimated 62 senators. Yes, that would be the same former Reform MP/Opposition leader Stephen Harper, who once told Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, "We don't support any Senate appointments," and called the Senate a "dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister."
Harper also said "Canadians ... are ashamed the prime minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."
In fact, back in 1996 Harper lambasted Chretien's selection of former Alberta Liberal leader Nick Taylor, saying that Taylor's "only real qualification to the Senate is that he was the Liberal leader and had the audacity to continue to be the Liberal leader during the period of the National Energy Program."
Well, in Harper's world today, you don't need audacity to put your name forward and run for office. You just have to be a partisan.
Batters has not been appointed for her advocacy, her knowledge of the law, or her qualifications in government that perhaps needs some additional perspective.
All her government jobs in Saskatchewan were cabinet appointments. In fact, some Sask. Party insiders bemoan that it was her appointment as then justice minister Don Morgan's chief of staff that ignited the high salaries taxpayers pay for similar jobs today.
It was also while she was Morgan's chief of staff that the government passed its bill for Senate elections in the province. That she would now be appointed by Harper goes beyond being ironic.
Again, Batters deserves kudos for raising mental health awareness these past few years. But what of those who dedicated their entire careers to this issue or any other equally worthy causes? Will they ever be appointed as senators? If it were an issue of advocacy, wouldn't we be appointing the best qualified, deserving advocates rather than those most politically connected?
What Batters has personally endured is tragic. But let us not accept it as veiled justification for another political appointment by Harper.
Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: Murray Mandryk
No comments:
Post a Comment