The opaqueness of Canada's Conservative government
Following the whole David Emerson debacle, current Parliamentary ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro will be looking into whether the ex-Grit Member of Parliament breached the ethics code. He intends to launch a preliminary investigation into the matter.
According to the Canadian Press: "Shapiro, who did not speak to reporters Friday, appears to be basing his investigation on elements of the parliamentary conflict-of-interest code that prohibit inducing an MP to change his or her vote for personal benefit."
This, coming after the outcry on the issue of Emerson's floor-crossing right into a Tory ministerial post, is not entirely unfair, especially when Prime Minister Stephen Harper had promised to bring in greater governmental transparency and ethics. However, instead of co-operating with the examination, the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) is resisting it entirely, so far as to say, in a recent, and strongly worded, press release, that Harper was "loath" to participate.
Further to the release, the PMO stated: "This Liberal appointee's actions have strengthened the Prime Minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."
It sounds like a very flimsy excuse. If Harper creates a new ethics commissioner, one would expect this person to be as non-partisan as the Liberal appointee. Unfortunately, Shapiro has encountered some harsh criticism for his work from all sides (including Ed Broadbent of the NDP); he has been accused of taking a partisan stance for not investigating a Liberal MP during the election, but he was not allowed to take action in between Parliament sittings. However, the new Conservative government will not sit in the House of Commons until April 3.
The credibility of Shapiro may be questioned, but it's really that of the Tories which is on the line. After coming into power on a commitment to clean up corruption, it appears more and more that Harper is more than reluctant to investigate any decay of ethics within his own party, and more than willing to engage in what he railed against during the campaign. At the very least, former Prime Minister Paul Martin immediately launched the Gomery inquiry upon taking office, so he could clear his name and government of scandal.
This turn of events is disappointing, to say the least, and may not bode well for the electorate during the course of Harper's leadership. Will we be able to trust him with future decisions for the country? Hard to say. At this time, we will have to wait until the House sits, to see how competent (or incompetent) he genuinely is. But in terms of transparency, ethics as promised by the Tories? It appears that it will all be as clear as mud from here on in.
According to the Canadian Press: "Shapiro, who did not speak to reporters Friday, appears to be basing his investigation on elements of the parliamentary conflict-of-interest code that prohibit inducing an MP to change his or her vote for personal benefit."
This, coming after the outcry on the issue of Emerson's floor-crossing right into a Tory ministerial post, is not entirely unfair, especially when Prime Minister Stephen Harper had promised to bring in greater governmental transparency and ethics. However, instead of co-operating with the examination, the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) is resisting it entirely, so far as to say, in a recent, and strongly worded, press release, that Harper was "loath" to participate.
Further to the release, the PMO stated: "This Liberal appointee's actions have strengthened the Prime Minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."
It sounds like a very flimsy excuse. If Harper creates a new ethics commissioner, one would expect this person to be as non-partisan as the Liberal appointee. Unfortunately, Shapiro has encountered some harsh criticism for his work from all sides (including Ed Broadbent of the NDP); he has been accused of taking a partisan stance for not investigating a Liberal MP during the election, but he was not allowed to take action in between Parliament sittings. However, the new Conservative government will not sit in the House of Commons until April 3.
The credibility of Shapiro may be questioned, but it's really that of the Tories which is on the line. After coming into power on a commitment to clean up corruption, it appears more and more that Harper is more than reluctant to investigate any decay of ethics within his own party, and more than willing to engage in what he railed against during the campaign. At the very least, former Prime Minister Paul Martin immediately launched the Gomery inquiry upon taking office, so he could clear his name and government of scandal.
This turn of events is disappointing, to say the least, and may not bode well for the electorate during the course of Harper's leadership. Will we be able to trust him with future decisions for the country? Hard to say. At this time, we will have to wait until the House sits, to see how competent (or incompetent) he genuinely is. But in terms of transparency, ethics as promised by the Tories? It appears that it will all be as clear as mud from here on in.
posted by Grace at
10:56 PM
2 Comments:
Who shall guard the guards?
Clearly something stinks in Denmark (on the Rideau), and the stench emanates from both the former governing party and the current one. The average citizen reads or hears about the shenanigans and shakes his or her head, disbelievingly.
There are two issues: (1) Whether we need an ethics commissioner to keep Parliamentarians on the straight and narrow and if so what kind of commissioner with what kind of powers. (2) Should the Emerson-Harper deal be investigated and should Harper cooperate with the ethics commissioner.
In my view the answer in both cases is Yes.
Yes to a properly constituted Ethics Commissioner, appointed as a member of the civil service, with a legislated independent mandate, and an a mandate to be impartial.
Yes to Harper and Emerson cooperating with the Ethics Commissioner.
Stephen Harper campaigned on a platform of ethics, as Mr Clean, bringing a new broom to the capital city. He won a narrow victory. Now it is time for him to govern in a clean and ethical manner. By doing these two things – passing legislation for an independent ethics commissioner, and cooperating re the Emerson walkabout – he will be acting in accordance with promises made before the election.
By not doing these two things, he will be breaking promises made to the voters.
It is as simple as that, and no contortions of logic an obscure this moral simplicity.
By
Anonymous, at 11:43 AM
Hmm, in NZ this would be called "waka jumping"; think "jumping ship" to get the idea.
Some of our smaller parties got so concerned about the possibilities that "anti-waka jumping legislation" was promoted and adopted. Hasn't worked worth a damn...
Who guards the guards?
NZ Parliament has its own little way of handling this. It is called the Priviledges Committee. As Auntie Helen has been finding in recent times, there is nothing quite like the Opposition bloodhounds with government blood in their noses...
By
The probligo, at 9:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home