Senator Michael Duffy, as he is styled in Hansard, gave his maiden speech in the Senate yesterday and used the occasion to praise the prime minister and then please the prime minister with some shots at Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams and PEI Premier Robert Ghiz He also forced some debate on the use of BlackBerrys in the Senate. Some highlights:
“…one cannot be a successful leader without sound political judgment and the courage to make tough decisions despite determined opposition.
I am here to tell honourable senators today — this is where the hard part begins — Stephen Harper has both that judgment and that courage. He has an economic plan that I believe is right for these troubled times. Despite the bleating of a few, this economic action plan does more for more people in more parts of Canada than any budget in my memory.
Duffy's BlackBerry then buzzed and, true to form, he stopped what he was saying, read it, and then immediately worked it in to his speech:
My BlackBerry just went off with a message from my staff person in Prince Edward Island, who reminds me, having read this text in advance, not to forget how important small business is to P.E.I. Sixty per cent of all our economic activity is small business.
Shortly after that, he took on Williams and Ghiz:
Honourable senators, I urge you to ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism on the East Coast, particularly the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who, I believe, does not do Newfoundlanders and Labradorians any favours by the kind of personal attacks he has made over the last couple of years; nor by his remarks that paint Newfoundlanders, who are the among the most generous, caring and committed Canadians, as greedy and selfish. Those remarks are unworthy of the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Honourable senators, I was disappointed to see that our dynamic young Premier in Prince Edward Island, Robert Ghiz, has climbed into bed with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and honourable senators know what a grotesque scene that is. Do honourable senators know what happens when two politicians climb into bed together? One of them comes out on top and I am afraid that when one is in bed with Danny Williams he will come out on top and I would hate to see where that will leave P.E.I. in the end . .
Senator Joan Fraser, who, like Duffy, was a journalist — she was the editor of The Montreal Gazette — prior to her appointment quickly follows and has some bad news for the new senator from Prince Edward Island:
We are always glad to see new senators, particularly when they come from the world's greatest craft.
The honourable senator obviously has many friends in his caucus, and I am sure they have all been helping, supporting and instructing him. However, I wonder whether any of them have yet drawn to his attention a Speaker's ruling that suggests that BlackBerrys are not okay in the Senate chamber.
But, happily for Duffy and other Blackberry-addicted Senators, the Senate rules have been slightly modified, as the Speaker of the Senate, Noel Kinsella, rules:
Senator Duffy: It was brought to my attention that devices that make noise are not allowed in the chamber. I did not realize that BlackBerrys are banned.
The Hon. the Speaker: As reference has been made to the Rules of the Senate, and as it is the responsibility of the Speaker to maintain order and ensure that the rules are followed, I must say that the Honourable Senator Duffy is absolutely correct. Rule 19(4) states that “No person, nor any Senator, shall bring any electronic device which produces any sound . . .” into the chamber.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: It is my understanding that BlackBerrys indirectly make a sound in this chamber by interfering with our sound system. If the Speaker is ruling that it is okay to bring BlackBerrys into the chamber if they are on vibration mode, that is okay, but I do not think that is what we understood to be the situation
The Hon. the Speaker: They did interfere with our older loudspeaker sound system, but we modified the system in the chamber so that they no longer interfere. That is the technical advice we received.
The rule is that if a device makes a noise, it is not allowed in the chamber.
Newfoundlanders appear 'greedy and selfish' because their premier asks Stephen Harper to keep a promise he made to them?
And Islanders might end up disadvantaged–I won't dignify Duffy's crudity by repeating it–because their premier sides with Williams?
Well, it's good, then, that both Islanders and Newfoundlanders have this unelected, unrepresentative ventriloquist's dummy with a Blackberry to speak for them and their interests.
Heaven knows the men they elected can't be trusted to do the job.
Glad to see Duffy in the Senate. He will bring some fresh insght into that stuffed up chamber.
As to the treatment on NFLD, all Canadians are being asked to make sacrifices through reduction in transfer increases not reduction in any current payments.
Senator Duffy is as derivative in the Senate as he was on CTV; “nattering nabobs of negativism” is a direct lift from Spiro Agnew.
That speaks volumes regarding both Duffy and Harper.
Whoops, now I check “nattering nabobs” was actually written by William Safire for Spiro.
However, I'll consider that merely further evidence that neither Agnew nor Duffy ever considered independent thinking a virtue worth pursuing.
Some expressions become part of the vernacular, without any attribution necessarily given every time the expression is uttered. Like Bush 41's “read my lips …” Clinton's “it's the economy, stupid …” among others.
I wonder if you would similarly accuse Pres. Obama of not pursuing “independent thinking” because he happened to have borrowed a few phrases himself:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/19/america/19campaign.php
«”Don't tell me words don't matter,” he said in his remarks. ” 'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.' Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words? Just speeches?”
The passage was similar to one used by [Massachusetts Governor Deval] Patrick in response to similar criticism.»
An apologist's slant – I would submit – is nearly always a dangerous, slippery slope.
Clutch at straws if you must. Introduce straw men arguments if you must. The issue at hand is Senator Duffy's verbatim lift. It does Senator Duffy, nor his political party, nor his political master no credit. Or do you disagree?
Additionally, might I solicit your wisdom on the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7645593.stm
The Canadian confederation is a sham. It is nothing more than. Tyranny of the majority, Per Capita Colonialism, Democratic Discrimination by all of the national proxy parties of the majority ON/QU against the minority, Reverse robin hood. Steal from the poor minority and give to the vote rich majority. And those are the nice terms. Don't give us your crap about feed us please on a per capita basis NL'ians have contributed four times as much as the next nearest province.
EQUALITY OR EXIT!
Wow, it was not necessary to link to a BBC site to revisit that hoary item. The coverage here in our own country was wall-to-wall. Maybe you thought the BBC coverage would lend the item more weight? 😉
Anyway. I dug up the comment I posted on another blog when that item was making news. Here's my apologia pro Stephano Harpere.
beginning of apologia
For those who maintain that Mr. Harper's speech was a word for word copy of PM Howard's, have a look at the text of the two speeches side-by-side, not just the video circulated by the Liberals.
Word for word? Not quite. Compare the two speeches: http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/080930_harper_howard_e.pdf
You will notice in the side-by-side comparison that there are several passages in Stephen Harper’s speech that are not found in Howard’s. Were they added by him? By his speech writers? I don’t know. Only the two people involved know for sure. Everything else is mere conjecture.
I decided to copy the speeches in their entirety, Howard’s onto one word processing document, Harper’s onto another. Howard’s fits into 1½ pages, Harper’s into 3¼ pages.
Needless to say, that’s using the same exact formatting in both cases. My word-processing application does not appear to have a word counter, so I don't have the exact word count.
I am not pleading FOR plagiarism, borrowing texts or other. What I am disputing is using the phrase word for word in the instance of Mr. Harper's speech. It is clearly not the case.
Since PM Howard and then-opposition Leader Harper apparently shared the same POV on Iraq, and PM Howard apparently mentored Mr. Harper, it is conceivable they decided to share each other’s statements as they would deliver them to their respective HoC.
Furthermore, the Liberals and the Bloc are using the borrowed speech to prove that had Mr. Harper been PM at the time, Canada would be in Iraq. According to Bob Rae, the speech proves “Canada has lost its voice on the world stage.”
One thing lost in that argument is that PM Chretien himself was willing to participate in the Iraq War if the United Nations had sanctioned it. Thus Canada's voice would have been subordinate to the UN's.
Finally, if the Liberals had dug around a bit more, they would have found a letter written by Mr. Harper in 2005 to The Washington Times http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~dastow/harper-wtimes.txt where he revised his position on Iraq (as did Mr. Ignatieff)
Mr. Harper wrote in 2005:
“On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.”
See? If Mr. Harper had known then (2003) what he knew later (2005) his position would have been different.
end of apologia
And as for Sen. Duffy’s borrowed phrase, my original comment stands.