Stephen Harper, Then And Now
As you may have heard by now, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is in a bit of trouble after attempting to intervene before the CRTC on behalf of a radio station based in his riding. Such interventions violate the rules laid down for ministerial activity under the Harper government. There is no particular ambiguity on this. Once again a Conservative Cabinet minister stands in open violation of the rules with no apparent consequences whatsoever. One wonders what the rules are there for, if they do not have to be followed.
A particular irony in this case, though, is the parallel it bears to a case which occurred in 1994. On that occasion the letter-writer was Liberal minister Michel Dupuy, and the Opposition critics included, among others, a populist Reform MP by the name of Stephen Harper. In Parliament, Harper brandished a copy of the ministerial guidelines as they existed at the time and denounced Dupuy’s actions. His leader, Preston Manning, agreed, saying: “this whole affair, from the letter writing to the prime minister’s comments, is either an example of gross stupidity or unethical conduct, or both.”
Chretien responded that the whole matter had been referred to the Ethics Commissioner, a statement which was at best, shall we say, flexible with regard to the truth. Harper leaped on this as evidence that the government was “lying” to Canadians. The Parliament echoed with Opposition demands for Dupuy’s resignation.
Well, once again we have a Cabinet minister attempting to intervene with the CRTC on behalf of a broadcast station.
Just for the sake of clarity, I think the government should outline for Canadians which of the “rules for Cabinet ministers” ministers are actually required to follow. Obviously some of them are optional.
Tweet
Purple Library Guy
Clearly the cure for the Conservatives is Conservatives–surely they will now enact mandatory minimum sentences for bigwigs who violate rules, demonstrating the consistency of their principles . . . no?
Sam Gunsch
excerpt: “A particular irony in this case, though, is the parallel it bears to a case which occurred in 1994.”
The list of this type of black and white hypocrisies being established by the HarperCon Borg must have set a record by now.
And this from the ‘accountability, law and order’ cult.
I’m starting to wonder whether the HarperCon methods are approaching the Soviet level of political hypocrisy and management of political communication?
Sixth Estate
I don’t know whether “Soviet” is the right word for it, but the recent up-is-down reversal on crime rates certainly struck me as Orwellian.
G.J.W.
Harper did say. I am the law. I make the rules.
Seems we will be out blocking highways and railroads too, to get rid of Harper.
me-me-me-its-all-about-me
To be fair, Opposition Parties suddenly changing their tune once they move to the other side of the House isn’t particularly unusual. However, when it happens repeatedly, it is often a sign that the government of the day has passed its “Best By” date and starts seeing a slide in the polls. At this point, the government starts hunting for ways to look like it has cleaned up its act.
Unfortunately, this government seems to continue to sail along, ethics violations or incompetent ministers notwithstanding. Witness the recent by-elections where:
a) In Calgary, the CON won anyway, even though their provincial cousins seemed to be sitting on their hands in order to teach them a lesson about flirting with an upstart opposition party.
b) In Durham where, after Bev Oda, voters gleefully voted, “More of the same, please”.
Unfortunately democracy doesn’t work very well when the media universe is stuffed full of misinformation and spin-doctors.