Within 24 hours of Mr. Rathgeber’s (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.) exit from the Conservative caucus, members of the government’s backbenches began to take aim at the now Independent MP by disputing his comments and questioning his professionalism.
“He can’t get along with people in the sandbox,” said Tory MP Greg Rickford (Kenora, Ont.), Parliamentary Secretary for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. “Brent spoke for himself. He’s always been that way. As a provincial legislator he couldn’t get along with people.”
Mr. Rickford told The Hill Times that he “didn’t appreciate” statements made by Mr. Rathgeber following the announcement of his resignation late last Wednesday evening.
Mr. Rathgeber announced his resignation from the Conservative caucus on June 5 on Twitter, hours after the Conservative-dominated House Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics Committee amended his private member’s bill, Bill C-461, which would have required the annual salaries of public servants in excess of $188,000 to be made public. Conservative members of the committee raised the disclosure threshold to $444,000.
This amendment, dubbed by Mr. Rathgeber as “the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back,” led the Alberta MP to announce his resignation from Conservative caucus late Wednesday night.
The morning after announcing his resignation from the Tory caucus, Mr. Rathgeber wrote on his blog that the “Government’s lack of support for my transparency bill is tantamount to a lack of support for transparency and open government generally.”
On his blog, Mr. Rathgeber wrote that the $188,000 salary was a compromise itself, and noted that various provinces have “sunshine laws” that disclose the names and departments of individuals that make upwards of $100,000.
“Even setting the benchmark significantly higher than any of the provinces that maintain ‘Sunshine Lists’ was apparently not supportable by a Cabinet intent on not disclosing how much it pays its senior advisors,” wrote Mr. Rathgeber.
He also identified the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) former chief of staff Nigel Wright, and the $90,000 cheque Mr. Wright gave to Senator Mike Duffy to cover ineligible expense claims as a contributing factor to his decision to leave the Conservative caucus.
“We have morphed into what we have once mocked,” he wrote.
Mr. Rathgeber ended the scathing blog post by writing, “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.”
In a press conference following his arrival in Edmonton on June 6, Mr. Rathgeber blasted PMO staffers for controlling MPs as though they were “trained seals,” although he said he supported Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.).
“He doesn’t speak on my behalf. I’m very comfortable with what comes out of my mouth as a Parliamentary Secretary for Aboriginal Affairs ... It’s disappointing,” Mr. Rickford said following Friday morning’s Question Period.
Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) claimed that he was unaware of Mr. Rathgeber’s comments when The Hill Times caught up with him on Parliament Hill Thursday evening.
“I didn’t see his comments,” Mr. Poilievere responded skittishly as he attempted to open locked doors on the first floor of Centre Block.
“I think the government is very transparent,” he said before entering an unlocked office to the surprise of a Parliamentary staffer working diligently inside.
Fellow Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Alta.) made a point of addressing Mr. Rathgeber’s comments head on in Question Period on June 7, using his members’ statement to rebut the suggestion that he or his fellow backbenchers were “trained seals” obedient to the youthful, short-panted minions of the PMO.
“I’m just saying that calling us ‘trained seals’ and ‘trained puppets’ is not what effective representation is all about,” Mr. Obhrai said Friday afternoon outside the House. “I’ve been in this Parliament for 15 years. I’ve been very fortunate to represent my constituency. Their views have come forward.”
Mr. Obhrai denied that Mr. Rathgeber’s decision to quit the Conservative caucus and sit as an Independent MP was symptomatic of a wider sentiment in the Tory backbench.
“We’re very happy the way things are going. One million people were employed since we took power, our economic agenda is moving rapidly — that’s what my people are interested in,” he said.
Some of the more well-known free thinkers of the Tory caucus praised Mr. Rathgeber for his integrity and commitment to his constituents, but rejected the suggestion that they were on the PMO’s leash.
“I don’t think that’s the way I think of myself, I hope that shows in what I do,” said MP Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, Ont.), who last fall went against the wishes of Mr. Harper and Government Whip Gordon O’Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ont.) when he introduced a motion last fall to debate the legal definition of life in an effort to revisit the status of Canadian abortion laws. Mr. Rathgeber supported Mr. Woodworth’s motion. Mr. Harper promised that he would not reopen the abortion debate during the last election campaign.
Mr. Woodworth said that he wasn’t considering leaving caucus, nor did he expect that more Conservative MPs were prepared to follow Mr. Rathgeber out of caucus.
“My idea about politics is that anyone who agrees with every single policy of any one party isn’t thinking hard enough,” said Mr. Woodworth, adding that under the party’s constitution MPs are able to vote freely on any matters outside of the budget, main estimates, or core government initiatives.
“I’m pretty comfortable with the budget, the main estimates, and the core government initiatives. Unless those things change dramatically, I can’t imagine any reason why I would leave the Conservative Party,” he told The Hill Times.
Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Sask.), well-known for his independent, outspoken, and pro-life views, shared Mr. Woodworth’s view. He praised Mr. Rathgeber as “a critical thinker” and described his colleague’s departure from caucus as “a loss to the party.”
“I think it’s unfortunate that he left the party because the greater cause of democracy would have been better served with him remaining in the caucus,” said Mr. Vellacott, who was first elected in 1997 as a Reform MP, and also served as a Canadian Alliance member before the founding of the Conservative Party in 2003.
Conservative MP Mark Warawa (Langley, B.C.) tweeted last week to
Mr. Rathgeber, “You are a man of integrity and will be missed.”
On the transparency issues raised by Mr. Rathgeber, Mr. Vellacott insisted that no government was perfect on the issue, and said he believed the Conservative Party continues to strive for transparency.
“If Brent had stayed within the caucus, he could have kept pressing those issues from within and he probably had a fairly responsive hearing on a lot of things from caucus mates and leadership. When you stay within and press it persistently and respectfully, I think you’re going to have a better result than from the outside,” he said.
The media storm triggered by Mr. Rathgeber’s announcement obscured another emerging challenge to Conservative Party unity. The same morning that Mr. Rathgeber’s comments were causing a stir in Ottawa, The National Post published a front-page piece by columnist John Ivison that quoted Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) as saying that “people would leave the party” and he himself would have to “think about” his future in the party if members voted to change the leadership selection process at the Conservatives’ policy convention in Calgary at the end of June.
Party members will vote on a resolution to change the leadership voting rules from equal weighting for each riding association, to a one-member, one-vote system. The current system was agreed upon as part of the negotiated merger between Mr. MacKay’s Progressive Conservative Party and Mr. Harper’s Canadian Alliance in 2003, but there have been repeated attempts to change the system throughout the merged party’s history.
The current system ensures that smaller riding associations have an equal say in the party’s leadership. One-member, one-vote would give much more sway over the leadership process to larger riding associations.
Most Conservatives who spoke with The Hill Times said that they favour the current system of leadership selection.
Conservative MP Parm Gill (Brampton-Springdale, Ont.) and Mr. Obhrai both said that they favoured the current system. Conservative MP Jeff Watson (Essex, Ont.) also said he opposed the proposal.
“I think the leadership selection based on points in every constituency mirrors the same way that a Prime Minister would achieve a mandate in a general election,” he said.
Asked if Mr. Rathgeber’s resignation and the looming policy convention spelled more trouble for the Conservative caucus, Mr. Watson replied, “I’m not going to comment for any other members of caucus. I speak for myself.”
Mr. Woodworth also downplayed suggestions that Mr. Rathgeber’s departure and Mr. MacKay’s musings were the latest events to signal his party’s demise. He called the prevailing media narrative “completely upside down.”
“I think it does a disservice to democracy in Canada for the media to jump on anyone who expresses an independent thought and say that somehow they’re creating weakness when really what they’re doing is contributing strength,” he said.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: CHRIS PLECASH
No comments:
Post a Comment