PATRONAGE...a dirty word?

Not at all.



Given my strong feelings in favour of deep-sixing the Senate, you might assume that I am down on Patronage. Not so.



I just believe, for reasons previously and amply given, the Senate is a waste of time for everyone - Partisans included.


When I say that I am in favour of Patronage, I am speaking about the placement of Partisans in key (sensitive) government positions such as positions that render quasi-judicial decisions. Such positions, are known as Governor in Council (GIC) Appointments, and can be found on various Tribunals and Boards such as the Refugee Board, the Veteran's Pension Board, and the National Parole Board etc. These GIC appointments are made by the Prime Minister himself.

Let me be perfectly clear though, I am not speaking of favouritism in the letting of Contracts such as we witnessed in the Quebec Advertising Scandal. Contracts are for specific goods or services and it matters not whether the person or persons supplying those needs are political or not. We must adhere to a strict Tendering Process for Contracts, otherwise we descend into the Realm of the Banana Republic.


I continue...

The Patronage, I support - the placement of Partisans in key government positions - performs two important and essential roles in modern day democracies.



First, it mobilizes people to form / back a political organization for the purpose of seeing that their organization attains power. Can't you just imagine 300 plus Members of Parliament trying to operate independently - without Party affiliation. I cringe. Think of how hard it is for your local Council to reach a consensus and they have far fewer members. So for Democracy to work, people are needed to come together to form and support a Party. In recent experience, we have the example of Preston Manning and his Reformers coming together to form the Reform Party which in due course merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form today's governing Conservatives.


These concerned citizens come together, albeit not totally without self-serving expectations, but most are highly motivated to better their country.


In my own case, I have been a Tory supporter since I was 11 or 12 when I started to put up campaign signs around our village. I still remember fondly traveling the County of Northumberland in George Coling's station wagon equipped with one of those roof top loud speakers advertising an upcoming Tory Election Get-together. What fun!


My reward was the excitement of being involved in real Election Campaigns. As I grew older, my involvement increased but I never profited financially from it. My reward was confined to trying to make our Province / Country a better place in which to live; that was all the reward I needed. That said, I do not have difficulty seeing others benefit as a return on their volunteer hours for helping their Party achieve Power.

In that regard, I well remember being responsible for determining which of our County's Law Firms would obtain non-tendered federal law work during the time of Joe Clark's Government in 1979. (Not being in a major centre, my own small firm did not qualify for any of this government business). The hue and cry though that went up from the Liberal Law Firms was something to behold. Why, "they had done this work for decades and now it was arbitrarily being taken away from them". The Liberal Press was full of the horror stories. And yet, when Clark's Government fell but 9 months later and that legal work returned to those same Liberal Firms, not a word was said: not by the Tory Law Firms which barely had time to issue their first bills; not by the Liberal Firms which viewed the return of this work as their just due, and more importantly, not by the Liberal Press which considered all things Liberal to be right.



Second, Patronage enables the winning Party to put their stamp on government. Without loyal supporters in place, it is much more difficult, indeed nay impossible, to roll out the Party's Platform.



Allow me to provide you with some personal examples. I worked for a number of Departments that contained GIC appointments and later in my career, I even held such a position myself for a brief period of three years. (I may someday write a Blog on that very trying but interesting period).



In any event, I remember speaking with one such GIC Appointee of the previous Government, who decided to resign his post due to the fact that he readily admitted he was not "philosophically in tune with the new Government". (I can tell you that such resignations did not happen very often and it was a credit to his honour that he did so). This chap had initially been appointed due to his 'liberal' philosophy which was evident in his Board Decisions. With the recent Election of a Conservative Government, the need for a more Conservative approach to Decision Making was now called for.

When I worked for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in the mid 1980s, we entered office at a time when a Commission had been struck to determine why decisions on Veterans' Disability Pensions were taking so long and were too often negatively decided. The first thing our Minister did was to shut down the Commission since he did not want to wait a year or more for its recommendations. He knew what needed to be done and his Philosophy of Speed and Generosity was soon absorbed by the GIC community. Within mere months, Veterans and their Representatives such as the Royal Canadian Legion noticed a vast improvement in the decision making process.

In recent years, another area of concern has arisen with respect to the the determination of who qualifies for Refugee Status. Simply stated, the process provides applicants with an end run around the formal immigration application process. When individuals are suffering true persecution, this end run is understandable. Too often though it is used by unscrupulous smugglers to defeat the true purpose of Canada's Refugee System. Under the Liberal Administration, the vast majority of GIC Decisions were favourable
to the Refugee Applicants even though it was conceded that only a minority were true Refugees. The Liberals were more focused on voter support from the ethnic communities.

Since the Election of the Conservatives, favourable decisions in Refugee Cases are now in the minority which is consistent with the view held by the average Canadian and, as I mentioned, is in keeping with the overwhelming consensus that most applicants are true Refugees (i.e. in danger of Persecution).


Finally, there is also a misconception out there that government appointees are not hard working - that their roles are both cushy and plum. Again, this is not true from my experience.




Given their background - hard and faithful work on behalf of a Party - the appointees for the most part are prepared to do what it takes to make a difference (i.e. they are already motivated). From the outside it may look plush, but in reality it has often meant disruption to the appointees and their families since in many cases they are obliged to uproot and move to a new city. Often their work entails writing decisions which are then subject to review by the Federal Court. Having been a Legal Advisor to a number of GICs I can tell you first hand that such writing is not an easy task.



Then there is the travel. It all sounds quite glamorous - being in different cities each week - living in nice hotels etc., and it is - for a week or two. After that it is a drudge. Living out of a suitcase and logging thousands of miles on plane soon loses its appeal.

Bottom-line; We are indebted to our Partisans and owe them a vote of thanks.

As I see it...

"Galagher"

The Nerve of the Have-Nots and Where is PEI on the Issue?

Ontario and Quebec are at Copenhagen this week where they have gone on record as opposing any subsidy on their part to assist Alberta in achieving carbon reduction.

The nerve!!

To begin with, what the Hell are Provinces doing at Copenhagen? International Forums are State and not a Provincial matters; a Country needs to speak with one voice - not three.

Anyway, back to the issue of these two ingrates.

Over past decades Quebec has benefited mightily from the huge transfer payments it receives from Alberta.

Ontario, as Canada's manufacturer, too has benefited greatly by selling its finished goods to the West. Now, ironically, it too may start to receive Western Transfer Monies as a result of its new Have not status. Plus, where does Ontario expect to receive its future Oil supplies?

Where is the equity - the fairness in their self-serving stance?

If Quebec had oil, as opposed to water power, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would oppose any attempt by the ROC to impose carbon caps. Such an issue alone would likely be enough to see Separation finally come about.

It may just have this effect for Alberta - and perhaps Saskatchewan. While the numbers favouring separation have been low in the West, compared to those in Quebec, this issue, if left unchecked, is likely to spike those numbers considerably. And for the West - Separation will be no Bluff.

In the interim, it will certainly help the Wild Rose Party become the next Provincial Government.

As Ralph Klein, a great Canadian so aptly said a few years back, 'let the Eastern Bastards freeze in the Dark'.

We deserve no less.

As I see it...

"Galagher"