If the Ethics Commissioner is someone you are "loath" to work with, someone you're insinuating is a partisan hack, then wasn't it highly irresponible of you not to replace this dubious individual (as only the PM can do) in your first week in office? I thought you said we were going to have a more accountable government with you guys in power. I guess if you replace him now it'll kind of look like you're doing it to avoid answering some sticky questions. Hmm. Tough spot for you, eh?
- 30 -
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.
As a Conservative, I'm pretty dissappointed so far as well....
Post a Comment