Most Shameful Politician of 2012: Peter Van Loan

Peter Van Loan is a sore winner

Peter Van Loan doesn't believe in the concept of shame.

Well, check that. He believes that others might feel shame and that it can used as a weapon against your enemies. But is he ashamed of anything he's said or done since the May 2011 election? He'd tell you "no".

What's especially galling from Peter Van Loan is that the absence of shame permeates all of his statements. He'll say the most embarrassing things without a tinge of self-awareness that the statement is so entirely warped.

An early example from late 2011 when Conservatives were calling people in Liberal MP Irwin Cotler's riding asking what party they would support when he'd retire.

Cotler has asked House Speaker Andrew Scheer to investigate the matter and determine whether his privileges as a member of Parliament have been breached by the calls. 

Van Loan said if such a finding is made, it would have widespread ramifications for freedom of speech. 

“To say that one cannot speculate on his future,” he said, “that that form of freedom of speech should forever be suppressed, is to me an overreach that is far too great.”  

Cotler, however, said the spreading of false and misleading information is not covered by freedom of speech, noting the existence of laws against false and misleading advertising.

In Peter Van Loan's worldview, lying is just hunky-dory. He's the Government's House Leader. What is said in the during Question Period by the Conservatives is his responsibility.

And the man is perfectly fine with lying.

But in 2012, he topped EVEN THAT.

In early December 2012, Peter Van Loan got up angrily from his seat during Question Period after the Speaker ruled on the NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen's point of order.

The Speaker ruled in favour of the Conservatives.

But out comes Van Loan waving his finger at Cullen and from all accounts, said some disrespectful things to him. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, sitting nearby, told Peter Van Loan in no uncertain terms that this would not be tolerated.

Conservative colleagues of an irate Peter Van Loan pulled him away from the NDP bench.

To recap: Peter Van Loan receives a ruling from the Speaker in his favour, loses his temper, walks over towards the Opposition, talks shit and has to be dragged back to his seat.

This, you'd imagine, would make him contrite if only for appearances.

Not Peter Van Loan.

Peter Van Loan used the opportunity to suggest that it was Thomas Mulcair's temper that caused the disturbance and that his colleagues feared for his safety.

In the midst of bad behaviour, Peter Van Loan tried to score political points by laying the blame on his political opponents and appear the victim.

He appeared on morning shows to express the same thing: he was the victim.

Shortly thereafter, in the much less viewed House of Commons, he apologized for using "an inappropriate word".

Peter Van Loan is the perfect representative of the Harper Government: unabashedly shameful.