While most of the talk is focussed on 'senate reform' and 'patronage' - as it should be - or about whether or not Mike Duffy's appointment is a breach of ethics, I found something else curious.
It may be just a given but I haven't seen or heard too much on this subject. But in today's Vancouver Sun and yesterday at the Globe and Mail website there were specific comments about Wallin's and Duffy's appointments. Both papers made the comment that their appointments were made in part because of their objections to the coalition.
For many of the other people who were named this is a given but these two appointments were supposedly made because of their belief in senate reform regardless of their partisan views. Further to that, why does it really matter if any of these people sit specifically as 'Conservatives' if some were made outside of political affiliation? This is something both Wallin and Duffy, and others have agreed to do.
Many questions, indeed, surround this entire episode.
-- Sent from my mobile device