blevkog

As pointed out in the linked Globe and Mail article, Stephen Harper is backtracking on promises made in the Conservatives own accountability package. I realize that the package is not yet law, but this is not a good start for a candidate that promised a nearly mythical accountability with every breath during the election campaign. The early days of a government can go a long way in setting its tone, and the first month of this one has been marked by bungling, evasion, and yes, ethical questionability. It doesn't scream the word "accountability" to me, I don't know about you.

Unless, of course the Conservatives meant The Federal Accountability Act to be read poetically, sort of like the Liberal Red Book of years gone by. "It's not really a working document," I can hear them say, "rather a political interpretive dance to promote the impression of accountability, without all of the contingent hinderances of having someone looking over your shoulder all of the time."

For instance, in the preamble, we see that

A Conservative government will hold those responsible for wrong-doing to account, we will root out remaining problems and impose new reforms.

However, they apparently withhold the right to define what "wrong-doing" actually means. As for "root out remaining problems", I think that they must mean "get rid of any vestige of Liberal appointees". Watch out, Mr. Shapiro, you might soon find yourself reformed, if you know what I mean.

The best part is inside the actual document, where 'lil Stevie promises to (emphasis mine):

Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and confirmed through a secret ballot of all members of Parliament, not just named by the Prime Minister. This appointment process will include:

The Ethics Commissioner
The Auditor General
The Chief Electoral Officer
The Information Commissioner
The Privacy Commissioner
The Registrar of Lobbyists

So, you must have been just kidding the other day when you asked Ed Broadbent if he would abandon his ailing wife to come to your rescue as a new, ahem, PM-appointed, ethics commissioner. Or was that part of the dance, too?

Now, if I flip to page 11 of your dance program, and I know it's yours, Stephen, because it has the awful little graphic with your signature taking up the bottom third of every page (sheesh, look in the mirror much?), I find a section titled "Strengthen the role of the Ethics Commissioner". Well isn't that interesting! I suppose you really meant the next ethics commissioner, but oh well, you're stuck with this dance partner for now. Here is the bulletted list of items that Stephen Harper, would do (emphasis mine):

Stephen Harper will:
• Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators.
• Prevent the Prime Minister from overruling the Ethics Commissioner on whether the Prime Minister, a minister, or an official is in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code.
• Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.
• Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests.
• End “venetian blind” trusts that allow ministers to remain informed about their business interests, and require all ministerial assets to be placed in truly blind trusts. • Allow members of the public – not just politicians – to make complaints to the ethics Commissioner.
• Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code.

I highlighted a couple of these because they really do apply directly to the case at hand. Others in the list are also arguably in play here, too.

First, by not even meeting with the current ethics commisioner, Harper, or should I say Stephen Harper, is effectively overruling him on matters related to this case.

And secondly, this whole affair is about the alleged inducement of David "Unprincipled Bastard" Emerson to cross the floor essentially the morning after the election. In accepting the portfolio of International Trade, Emerson is going to have to deal with the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, and yet he is on the payroll of Canfor. How any ethics commissioner is going to allow this to go by is beyond me, so it appears that at the outset, Harper, sheesh, Stephen Harper, has enraged his constituency to bring over a person who will have to recuse himself from perhaps the most important duty his job is going to call for. Unless, of course, Emerson learns to dance, too.

Critics will say, the accountability act is not yet law, and in fact isn't worth the PDF it's written on until it is, so why the quibbling? Because, Stephen Harper has promised to "lead by example" (his words) in his opening message in the Act. This is not leading by example, this is the same politicking that we have become accustomed to seeing in Canadian politics; usually from Liberals. If I was a CPC with any principles at all, I would not be very happy right now.

Posted by kevvyd on Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 8:30 AM | Permalink