The current incarnation of Garth Turner, MP was a lightning rod for criticism and political chatter of all sorts from the beginning. (I wrote “current incarnation” because I know almost nothing of his previous turn in Parliament before the Liberal landslide of 1993.) Anyway, from my perspective this is often a good thing for the individual member (especially a backbencher with a wee bit of wit and some stage ability), but it rarely does much for the party. A party on the Opposition side may be the exception but that’s certainly not always the case.

However, Mr. Turner has also recently represented himself as politician with certain strong principles and his actions today muddy that water quite a bit. He presented fairly sensible arguments for why joining the Liberal caucus does not violate his stated principle against MPs joining other parties without going back to the electorate. And, given the opportunity this move provided to challenge the government over its own late arrivals, today’s announcement was an effective political tactic. But, Mr. Turner’s actions, no matter what he says, do not represent a triumph of principle (at least not the one about MPs and party membership).

It is my contention that in politics principles are guidelines at best, rhetorical frosting at worst, and usually something in between. I don’t have much interest in arguing whether this is bad or good, but rather to establish a base of reference. This is a reality that I find is often obscured by proselytizing for one partisan side or another, and indeed for our civic religion itself, i.e. the idea of democratic government as the saviour from all ills. With that said, before today I would have placed Mr. Turner well over on the guidelines side of the political principles continuum and nothing I’ve read today has changed that.

My interest here is not to besmirch Mr. Turner (even if it were my opinion of him is quite irrelevant) but to elevate the bar of principled action and to make a point about politics in general. Being truly principled is very nearly impossible (I personally fail to be so every day), but I would appreciate if more politicians acknowledged that directly. Often an unequivocal statement is made, possibly with good intentions or maybe just to make a point in a verbal joust, and then later some circumstance requires that this be mediated or abandoned. There are times when I would accept an argument that such turns of events are evidence of hypocrisy, but despite my cynicism about politics I’m unwilling to say that’s always the case.

I’m not sure how I would have approached this situation if I were to be in Mr. Turner’s place. It seems to me that he made his decision by giving more weight to other considerations, in particular his desire for more influence in Parliament, which is entirely valid. And, I can’t say with certainty that any of the alternatives would have improved my view of today’s events. (I’m most certain Mr. Turner will be criticized no matter what he chose to do or say; as I said earlier he is a political lightning rod.) Would it have been better if he had simply announced his intention to seek the Liberal nomination in Halton? How many people would appreciate the nuance of an Independent MP joining with a Parliamentary caucus without joining the party itself?

In the final analysis, I think Mr. Turner’s statement on this comes very close to acknowledging the distance between his earlier statements and today’s announcement. It may just be that in the dirty world of modern politics everything gets dragged down into the muck. And so, I remain a little bit disappointed and just as cynical and pessimistic about this whole politics thing.

Just for the record, I dislike most of the politicians I’ve actually met in person, I’m firmly in the non-partisan camp, and I generally don’t vote. However, following the sometimes amusing and occasionally horrify spectacle that is politics in Canada (and it’s fellow democracies) is a guilty pleasure. You should need no further evidence than that to convict me of hypocrisy.

The Tories (who have a lot of money to spend on such things) have created an ad campaign that tries to sell the fact that Grit leader Stephane Dion is not decisive enough to do the job. It would appear they’re trying to raise the specter of the Tories’ greatest asset from the last round: Mr. Dithers, a.k.a. former Liberal PM Paul Martin. From my perspective, the party machinery is trying to strengthen their base before the official campaigning starts. Once the election is called they can come out with their focused five (or whatever number they choose) priorities message and appear more positive. And, the truth is, it will probably work out very well for them. That’s regrettable, but that doesn’t mean much in politics.

There’s been some commentary about how this is an American-style campaign. I disagree that the Americans have a monopoly on this stuff; I think this is a very Canadian-style campaign. The only thing that might make this an American-style campaign is if the Conservative Party were to run these ads (and only these or similar ads) during the official election period. Negative personal attacks have been common enough in every election I’ve experienced. The only difference in the US elections is that down south nearly every ad is a personal attack whereas here in Canada the parties seem to prefer mixing in more of the warm and fuzzy positive messages.

I don’t disagree with the fact that past negative campaign ads have ad little or even negative effects, but there have also been other factors at play. For example, in 1993 I think the Tories were cooked no matter what they did.

All of that aside though, I still hate these kinds of ads; they always strike me as incredibly juvenile and arrogant. Like a lot of political statements and Question Period “questions” it tends to come out sounding like a middle school playground. Did too, did not, did too, etc. And, on top of that, these particular ads come across very elitist. That is, the common folk are not able to figure out on their own whether Dion is a good leader or not. As for the flip-flops: every politician in a prominent position (and who wishes to hold onto said position) has done some flip-flopping. It’s the nature of our system.

Oh well, no one has yet convinced me it’s worth my time and energy to vote whenever they do get around to calling another election.

However, the fact that it doesn’t surprise me doesn’t mean it doesn’t annoy me. In the article I linked the legislation is defended with fear: terrorists and pornographers are using the Internet and therefore CSIS and the police must be allowed to eavesdrop. That’s a legitimate argument (eavesdropping is a well established police procedure) but please don’t try to convince me it’s a good idea to allow it without requiring a court order.

It’s going to take a good while before the passage becomes really viable and at that point there’s nothing anyone (especially not the Canadian government) will be able to do to prevent some heavy environment impact. (I think it’s a relatively sure bet that a ship will at some point spill something nasty while traversing the northwest passage.) However, right now the possibility of an open passage raises the geopolitical question of “who’s in charge?.” And, quite honestly, given the likely candidates and my current knowledge (as always, admittedly limited) I’d prefer see the answer to remain Ottawa.

But, what I really wanted to say was this: I think that Michaelle Jean is an excellent choice. As I noted above, the job is mostly about being a public face for governement and Canada. The power remains in technicalities alone; the job is a performance. And, performance is going to be familiar to someone who has made their living as a television presenter.

Of course, the similarities with the current Governor General do give this appointment the appearance of formula, but the proverbial advice to not fix what isn’t broken applies to the PMO as much as anyone else.

The whole point of Canada being a democracy while retaining a hereditary monarch as her head of state is that the monarch is above politics. That idea is built on a lot of wishful thinking, but it isn’t without some truth either. At the moment there’s no better way to demonstrate the benefits of monarchy than having Her Majesty visit Saskatchewan and Alberta regardless of what is going on in Ottawa. And, besides, if she visits now for a week she will have come and gone long before Election Day rolls around.

There are a lot of people doing a lot of work to organize performances and events for the Queen’s visit. It severly overvalues the politicians to postpone or cancel those events on their account. If the government falls during her Majesty’s visit then Paul Martin and crew simply don’t get any royal photo ops. I’m pretty sure the only people who might have a problem with that are members of Mr. Martin’s cabinet.

… [O]ur problem is not with the people of the country. It’s with the prime minister, it’s with the leader of the country.

The message is being heard loud and clear. People are talking about it. They are reacting and it’s the subject of debate in the country. That’s exactly what we want to accomplish.

I suspect that the Premier also making a local political calculation. Newfoundlanders have a strong independent streak, but despite the narrowness of the Confederation vote back in 1949 I don’t think many would choose to break the union now. It’s in the best interests of the Premier to pick a fight with the Feds, but not to appear as a seperatist. Letting the flag issue drag out too long risked weakening support his real issue (offshore royalties) among the more patriotic citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and among other Canadians.

I just hope that the Premier is right. It’s possible that not everyone sees it this way, but I’ve often thought that one goal of equalization was to be uneccessary. Allowing the provincial governments to control all their offshore royalties strikes me as the best available way to achieve that. I could be wrong about this (economics is not my strongest area) but that’s they way I see it right now.

The CEO of the company even posted a letter on the swimwear line’s website with some interesting comments. I won’t quote the whole letter (although I do suggest reading it), but I did want to include this portion:

I should temper this letter by saying that I completely understand that most of Canada does not receive a lot of education on Newfoundland. Being from Winnipeg originally, my move to Newfoundland in 1998 really opened my eyes. … This province has bent over and taken it from the feds for too long, and it is about time that someone stood up against it. I encourage everyone out there to read up on the subject, and not fall into the trap of believing stereotypes.

Of course, not everyone is happy about the situation. Many feel that it’s improper to use the Maple Leaf for partisan politics. But, regardless of what anyone thinks the national flag represents both the nation and the government. It’s difficult to truly protest the actions of the federal government while prominently displaying the chief symbol of its authority. (And, I must note, that it’s a little hypocritical for the leader of our present government to reprimand someone else for making the national flag a political tool. If it’s permissible to promote the federal government with the flag, I think it’s also okay to protest against that government with it.)

I may or may not post more about my own views of this situation, but at this point I will say that I’m happy to see the people of Newfoundland and Labrador asserting themselves about the offshore revenue issue. It’s clearly impossible to remove the Maple Leaf without angering many other Canadians. I would hope, however, that the majority will look past the flag and see the more important question. In the words of His Worship Andy Wells, Mayor of St. John’s, as reported by CTV.ca, “The majority of Newfoundlanders support Premier Williams’ position on this issue — it’s part of a larger problem we have with our whole relationship with Canada.”

Update (30 Jan 2005): The Unabashedly Canadian site was put back online as of 13 January 2005. The original letter was archived and I have changed the link above.