May 13, 2005

CPAC

May 13 - Sorry about the light posting. CPAC today has been far more interesting than anything I could write.

When I got in this morning, I switched on CPAC in hopes of seeing some testimony from yesterday's testimony of the Gomery Inquiry, but instead there was testimony from a Commons committee. I was about to switch to a news channel when I heard the name "Earnscliffe" and looked closer at the TV screen. It said April 18, and was indeed the testimony was before the Commons public accounts committee posted about here and here.

I was shocked at how whiny Terrie O'Leary and David Herle were, whereas Allan Cutler and (this is really hard to write) Warren Kinsella were professional and direct. As I had come in at the tail end I missed what Auditor-General Sheila Fraser might have said, which is regrettable.

[Maybe "testimony" is the wrong word. Everyone called before the committee is seated together at a table and Committee members (seated at an opposite table) can direct questions at whoever they chose in whatever order they chose. My prior concept of testimony before a committee had been for one person at a time to appear and answer questions.]

Beryl Wajsman's testimony at the Gomery Inquiry from earlier today was on CPAC when I woke up this afternoon, and he seemed extremely defensive and clearly anxious to clear his name. But I have to say that Jean Brault remains the far more impressive and credible witness.

Points to Wajsman, though, for saying he had discussed Brault's testimony with Joe Morselli. Chuck Guite and Jacque Corriveau claimed they had neither read nor talked to anyone about any of the prior testimony before their appearances - perhaps trying to emulate Chretien's dismissive attitude toward the proceedings? - which just doesn't seem credible.

Now Question Period is being re-broadcast. It seems Mark has decided the House of Commons is far more interesting than O'Reilly or the Jays!

It makes me wonder how many Canadians are watching CPAC these days - possibly for the first time ever - and therfore paying attention to national politics during the most tumultuous period in Canadian politics since TV cameras were installed in the House.

I can't help but hope that millions of Canadians are watching. The best defence of a democracy is an involved and engaged electorate which, because it is involved, draws its own conclusions by directly observing what is being said rather sound-bites and provides its own analysis of events without the need for media spin. That would be bad news for any party hoping to operate without transparency, which is good news for us.

We can only hope.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Hi Debby, Common  Sense? Common  sense  is  enough  to  give  you  a  migraine  at  times.  Help  please!  WHERE  IS  THE  LOGIC  for  giving  450  Million  Tax  Dollars  to  Bombardier  for  making  new  aircraft  when  after  propping  up  our  national  airline,  another  carrier declared  bankruptcy  on  the  CBC  news  today?      March  13/05. I  believe  it  was  Jetsgo  or  similar. How  can  Paul  Martin  and  the  Crippled  Liberals  justify  another  donation  to  Quebec? How  can  the  Liberals  expect  to  get  any  votes  from  the  West  with  another  dump  of  our  tax  revenue  into  Quebec? Is   it  now  standard  practice  for  all  Canadian  Governments  to  flame  out  on  some  sort  of  aircraft  related  scandal?  (i.e.  the  Mulrooney  Conservatives  -  Airbus). Soon  the  Liberals  will  be  history  and  I  wouldn't  be  surprised  if  the  NDP  came  through  strongly  from  behind,  because  everyone  tells  me  they  do  not  trust  Harper  and  his  Corporate  bottom  line  focus. Sorry  about  this  rant  on  an  impulse,  but  does  anyone  else  see  the  politically  stupid  nature  and  timing  of  this  $450  million  gift  of  our  money  to  a  Quebec  darling?   You  don't  suspect  that  some  of  those  funds  could  be  spirited  through  Bombardier to  friends  and  croneys  of  the  Liberal  Party  whose  days  in  power  are  numbered, do  you? Damn,  I  am  so  suspicious.  There  must  be  some  reason  for  it.    73s  TonyGuitar

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 13, 2005 09:39 PM (rmMzv)

2 More interesting than the Jays? Not possible.

Posted by: Jay at May 14, 2005 12:30 AM (PuNh2)

3 TonyGuitar: Welcome to the Liberal country of Canada. You are right, it makes no sense. That's not the point. The Liberals are trying to buy votes (everywhere except, it seems, Alberta...maybe I'm just paranoid because I live there). I'm hoping that yes, everyone IS watching CPAC. God knows I only tuned in a month or so ago and am totally hooked. More to QP than Gomery but still. The idea has to be (since CBC & CTV & Global all seem to be in the Libs pockets) you tell 2 friends, then they'll tell 2 friends... The good thing about CPAC is, even though it's gov't run, it's not edited by gov't it's LIVE. (Okay, you have to ignore some of the "shows" they provide because... I don't know why... as they are truly Lib-leaning.) I had NO IDEA what an embarassment Anne McLellan was until a couple of lunches watching QP (I work from home - it's now my staple, this week has been KILLING ME lol). I'm sure I'm not the only one in my riding (hers). We are living in scary times, but the scariest thing seems to be that so few of us realize it. And if we're counting on the MSM to spread the word? hmmmmm we're in trouble

Posted by: Candace at May 14, 2005 02:50 AM (R7nd+)

4 If the liberals aren't trying to buy votes in Alberta I'd have to guess it's because they see it as a lost cause - from their point of view. Sort of like trying to bribe the Pope into joining the dark side.

Posted by: Jay at May 14, 2005 03:24 AM (PuNh2)

5 Sorry to have to post this but when I hear the word "Gomery" my eyes glaze over. I've heard more than enough - the current government is corrupt through and through. Enough already, throw the bastards out. The problem is who will replace them - I hear more and more from people who just can't warm up to Harper. I think Margaret Wente in today's Globe and Mail is on to something when she refers to Harper's unrelenting negativity.

Posted by: John B at May 14, 2005 08:24 AM (ju7Wp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
19kb generated in CPU 0.0123, elapsed 0.09 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0813 seconds, 147 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.