Parsley;
I am very encouraged by our Ag Minister's logic.
Here is a great example!
"Letter to the Editor Regarding David Emerson
2006-03-14 -
On March 10, 2006, a Letter to the Editor appeared in the Chilliwack Times saying that I had been silent on the "David Emerson Affair". I wrote the following letter in response:
Dear Editor:
I'm puzzled by letter-writer Bernie Hartinger (March 10, 2006 edition) who claims I have been silent on the "Emerson affair", and should therefore be ashamed of myself. There are no doubt many issues people can and do disagree with me about, but being silent is not one of my identifiable traits. For better or worse it's a personal characteristic and a public committment to be forthright whenever possible.
I have been interviewed and quoted many times by local journalists and radio shows on this subject, as well as TV interviews on CBC and talk shows in Vancouver and across the country. It's absolutely fair to disagree with what I've said, but it's unfair to say I've been silent.
Once again, for the record, regarding Mr. Emerson's decision to join the Conservative Party, I suggest there are two conflicting principles at stake. On the one hand, many people vote for a Party, the Leader, the platform, and lastly the candidate. People who feel this way are offended by Emerson's move (although others are simply angry partisans from 3rd Parties) and his decision is therefore unacceptable because the Party comes first and foremost.
Others (this principle was best enunciated by Edmund Burke) believe that when you elect someone you also ask them to exercise their best judgement. In other words, the Party comes second, and what's best for the country or constituency comes first.
In each of the 5 Parliaments since I've been elected, MPs have exercised this judgement and crossed the floor. Like some of the folks who have protested this most recent "crossing", I haven't always been happy with some of those decisions.
However, it is my belief that banning this practice will unacceptably strengthen the hand of all Parties and Leaders. In the last Parliament, for example, the NDP threatened to expel any MP who voted against the redefinition of marriage. When MP Bev Desjarlais did just that, Mr. Layton followed through with his threat, and Ms. Desjarlais subsequently lost her seat. The Party and leader won, while the individual MP- exercising her judgement- lost.
As I said, both arguments are 'principled', and therefore neither is absolutely right. It's my judgement, however, that in this conflict of ideas, it's better to allow MPs the freedom to choose.
I worry about moves to limit that freedom, and simply argue that we need to think through the implications of making our Party/Leader-centric system ever stronger, and the independent role of MPs ever weaker.
Sincerely,
Chuck Strahl, MP
Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon"
I believe PM Harper's selection of "Solomon" will be a great asset to Canadian farmers and the rural economy... if this kind of decision making process prevails!
God bless you Chuck!
And, God bless Canada!
I am very encouraged by our Ag Minister's logic.
Here is a great example!
"Letter to the Editor Regarding David Emerson
2006-03-14 -
On March 10, 2006, a Letter to the Editor appeared in the Chilliwack Times saying that I had been silent on the "David Emerson Affair". I wrote the following letter in response:
Dear Editor:
I'm puzzled by letter-writer Bernie Hartinger (March 10, 2006 edition) who claims I have been silent on the "Emerson affair", and should therefore be ashamed of myself. There are no doubt many issues people can and do disagree with me about, but being silent is not one of my identifiable traits. For better or worse it's a personal characteristic and a public committment to be forthright whenever possible.
I have been interviewed and quoted many times by local journalists and radio shows on this subject, as well as TV interviews on CBC and talk shows in Vancouver and across the country. It's absolutely fair to disagree with what I've said, but it's unfair to say I've been silent.
Once again, for the record, regarding Mr. Emerson's decision to join the Conservative Party, I suggest there are two conflicting principles at stake. On the one hand, many people vote for a Party, the Leader, the platform, and lastly the candidate. People who feel this way are offended by Emerson's move (although others are simply angry partisans from 3rd Parties) and his decision is therefore unacceptable because the Party comes first and foremost.
Others (this principle was best enunciated by Edmund Burke) believe that when you elect someone you also ask them to exercise their best judgement. In other words, the Party comes second, and what's best for the country or constituency comes first.
In each of the 5 Parliaments since I've been elected, MPs have exercised this judgement and crossed the floor. Like some of the folks who have protested this most recent "crossing", I haven't always been happy with some of those decisions.
However, it is my belief that banning this practice will unacceptably strengthen the hand of all Parties and Leaders. In the last Parliament, for example, the NDP threatened to expel any MP who voted against the redefinition of marriage. When MP Bev Desjarlais did just that, Mr. Layton followed through with his threat, and Ms. Desjarlais subsequently lost her seat. The Party and leader won, while the individual MP- exercising her judgement- lost.
As I said, both arguments are 'principled', and therefore neither is absolutely right. It's my judgement, however, that in this conflict of ideas, it's better to allow MPs the freedom to choose.
I worry about moves to limit that freedom, and simply argue that we need to think through the implications of making our Party/Leader-centric system ever stronger, and the independent role of MPs ever weaker.
Sincerely,
Chuck Strahl, MP
Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon"
I believe PM Harper's selection of "Solomon" will be a great asset to Canadian farmers and the rural economy... if this kind of decision making process prevails!
God bless you Chuck!
And, God bless Canada!
Comment