Partisanship complaint

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings has written to the Clerk of the Privy Council to protest against the partisan language in this release from the federal Department of Justice.  The Clerk, Wayne Wouters, is a former deputy minister of the Treasury Board, incidentally, which oversees the rules keeping party politics from interfering in government. Here's Jennings' letter.

January 29, 2010

Mr. Wayne Wouters

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet

Privy Council Office

Langevin Block 80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, Ontario     K1A 0A3

Dear Mr. Wouters

I am writing to request action concerning a press release that was issued by the Department of Justice and posted on its website which I believe violates the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.

The press release issued January 29, 2010 and entitled “NEW SENATORS TO HELP END OPPOSITION OBSTRUCTION OF LAW-AND-ORDER BILLS”  contains the following claim:

The opposition has obstructed that agenda in the Senate, most notably by gutting Bill C-15 – a bill proposing mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, and a key part of the government’s efforts to fight organized crime.

A copy of the release can be found posted here: http://justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2010/doc_32473.html

Quite apart from the dubious nature of this claim, it seems clear to me that including this partisan attack as part of press release that was issued using public service resources is a clear violation of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.

The Code states that “Public servants must work within the laws of Canada and maintain the tradition of the political neutrality of the Public Service” and  requires that public servants “perform their duties and arrange their private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time under the present government that a purportedly non-partisan department has been forced to put out a press release that goes well beyond the provisions of the code. On February 23, 2007, the Department of Public safety issued a press release stating that “At a time when the Opposition Parties are being soft on security and soft on terrorism, Canada’s New Government remains unwavering in its determination to safeguard national security and is committed to working with all its partners to protect the safety and security of Canadians.”

Again on March 3, 2009 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issued a press release that includes the following claim: "While Liberals try and please special interest groups our Conservative government will seriously defend our sealers and we will continue to fight for the rights of hard-working Canadian sealers, on the international stage and here in Canada, so they may provide a livelihood for their families through our lawful, sustainable and humane hunt."

As the official responsible for ensuring strict adherence of the principles of non-partisanship by Canada’s public service, I am requesting that you instruct the Department of Justice to remove the January 29, 2010 press release from the department’s website. I further request that you issue instructions to this department and all others that this kind of partisanship in communications products issued by non-partisan departments and agencies will not be tolerated in the future.

Yours truly,

Marlene Jennings, MP

Critic for Democratic Reform and Government Ethics.

Taking flight

Two reporters travelling with the Prime Minister have registered protests, via blogs, over the  novel way the PMO is blocking them from asking any questions during his stop this afternoon in Newfoundland. They are being held  captive on a plane. Yes, you read that correctly. You can read  about it  here (James Fitz-Morris, CBC) and here (David Akin, CanWest). 

This is really turning into a red-letter day for accountability. Actually, it's been quite the month  on that theme.

Senate reform: reprise

Given new Senator Runciman's comments of today, which seem to indicate a certain ambivalence about the value of an independent Senate, I am reprising this blog post of a few weeks ago (**And relatedly, update-ishly, I should also hail this useful, well-researched  post from Kady O'Malley.) Pasted in full, below, is what I had to say on the business of Senate reform earlier this month:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is making clear that he wants a new Senate and he will be appointing five new senators soon as part of his bid to get one. But let's be clear -- the new Senate he wants bears no resemblance to the old dream of Reform Party idealists.  To wit:

1. I keep hearing Conservatives say that they need a majority in the Senate so that they can carry through their legislative agenda from the House of Commons. Excuse me?  You need to appoint a majority in one place because you can't get a majority in the elected legislature? If Liberals did this during their minority rule (when Paul Martin appointed non-Liberals to the chamber), we would (appropriately) have seen a revolution in the West;  triple Es carved into every field past the Ontario border.

So, one question  no one's answered for me yet: Why should you have a majority in the Senate if you can't get one in the Commons?

2. The larger point, though,  is that the Senate isn't supposed to be a mirror of the House of Commons. It's supposed to be a check on the tyranny of blunt representation by population. (So that we weren't passing bills only that suit Quebec and Ontario, with their huge, Central Canadian  domination of the Commons.)

When Harper and others were calling for Senate reform in the 1980s and 1990s, they were asking for a chamber that would be different from the House of Commons; one that would  challenge legislation passed by the majority. It's supposed to be a check on the Commons, not a rubber stamp. Again, imagine the outrage from smaller provinces if the Liberals, while they were in office, argued that they had to fix the Senate so that it blindly adhered to their strength, based mainly in Toronto and Montreal. 

That leads to the next question: if Harper's new idea of Senate reform is just to have a chamber that does what the Commons orders it to do, then why have a Senate at all? Abolition is a much cheaper option, in the long term.

Friendly (or not so much) dictator: the sequel

Globe columnist Lawrence Martin intends to do for Stephen Harper what he did for Jean Chretien. Here's the news release:

For Immediate Release: Penguin to publish a new book on Harper’s first four years

 

January 29, 2010 (Toronto) - Penguin Group Canada announced today it will publish bestselling author and Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin’s Harperland, a new book on Harper’s first four years in power.

 

The book is described by Publishing Director Diane Turbide as “the first substantive book on Harper’s highly-controversial governance. It will take us far beyond episodic journalism to give us the real measure of this prime minister's impact on the country."

 

The Martin book will chronicle how Harper has come to be the master controller, dominating every aspect of governance. It will assess his accomplishments and failings and his effect on the workings of the democratic system.

 

The "democratic deficit," as it is sometimes called, has become an issue of such concern to Canadians that they recently staged nationwide protests over Harper's decision to suspend parliament. The book will chart how, since Pierre Trudeau, Canada has seen a steep decline in its democratic standards.

 

As a two-volume biographer of Jean Chretien, Lawrence Martin described how the Liberal prime minister pushed the limits of prime ministerial power to the point where he was called the friendly dictator. Harper, says Martin, chose not to depart from the script. "Remarkably, he has come to cast an even wider and tighter net than Chretien. His power is such that the country under him can truly be called Harperland."

 

Lawrence Martin is a journalist and the author of ten books, five of which have been national best sellers. Educated at McMaster and Harvard, he has served as both Washington and Moscow bureau chief for The Globe and Mail. He was also a correspondent for the paper in Montreal, Queen`s Park and Ottawa, where he is now a national columnist. Among his books are The Presidents and the Ministers, Breaking with History - The Gorbachev Revolution, biograhies of Mario Lemieux and Lucien Bouchard and two volumes on Jean Chretien. He is the recipient of journalistic awards and McMaster University’s Lifetime Leadership Achievement award.

Stephen Harper's ability to see the future

Back in  January,  2006, nearing the victory that would make him Prime Minister, Stephen Harper declared:

"I'm not sure there's such a thing as a true Conservative majority in the sense of a Liberal majority. The reality is we will have for some time to come a Liberal Senate, a Liberal civil service - at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals - and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals... There's certainly no absolute power for a Conservative government ... we'll have checks on us and limits on our ability to operate that a Liberal government would not face."

 

When Harper made those comments, they were intended as reassurance to voters worried about what Conservatives would do with a majority. Today, however,  thanks to a confluence of news events, we are reminded that those "checks and limits" still exist for Mr. Harper and his government... much to their annoyance, apparently.

* Witness, for instance, this incredibly partisan press release on a government website. (Is that allowed under Treasury Board  rules? Anyone know?) Apparently, however, we are now to be reassured that the Senate will soon no longer be acting as a check or limit  on the Conservative government. Phew. Good to know.

* And then there's the Supreme Court's new ruling on Omar Khadr, reminding the law-and-order fans in the Conservative government that there are some outstanding legal issues surrounding Khadr's ongoing detention.

*And then there's also that pesky public service -- foreign affairs officials such as Richard Colvin, or former government watchdogs, such as the ones who appeared this week to remind us of notions of "independent oversight." 

Four years ago, Harper foresaw all these possible impediments to his authority as useful reassurance for voters. Today, however, they seem to be a bit of a bother -- like the prorogued Parliament, as a matter of fact.

 

Just visiting

Here's who popped by the Star's Ottawa bureau today for a little visit. It was just a drop-in call while he was on the fourth floor here at the National Press Building; no agenda. He reports that he's been (pleasantly) surprised by the turnout on the Hill this week for Liberal hearings on various issues. That's my messy office in the background. 

Women and children in Canada

Prime Minister Stephen Harper just spoke to the World Economic Forum in Davos and noted, toward the end of the speech, that the well-being of women and children was indeed a top priority for Canada this year.

By coincidence,  the World Economic Forum has been tracking how well Canada itself has been doing on this front, domestically speaking, through the annual Gender Gap report.  And as it turns out, Canada has been slipping in the rankings since 2006 -- when the forum started its annual reporting on the gender gap.  We've gone from 14th place in the world (among more than 100 nations) to #25 in 2009.  

The slippage is mainly in the areas of "political empowerment" as well as health, survival and literacy. You can view the 2006 report here and the 2009 report here.

Recalibrated

 Several polls, including an Angus Reid survey in today's Star and the new EKOS poll out today, continue to show the Conservatives and Liberals in a dead heat. Perhaps this was the purpose of the "recalibration" the Prime Minister talked about -- maybe he wanted to level things out in the interests of a fair fight?

Stronach's aid to Haiti

Via the Huffington Post, in a piece by Oxfam America's Coco McCabe, we learn what Belinda Stronach has been doing to help in Haiti relief.

This is the story of Belinda's Boxes.

That's my nickname for a load of cargo that was shipped from Canada to help with Oxfam's relief effort in the battered capital of Port-au-Prince. Some of it, about 70 tons' worth, arrived courtesy of the Belinda Stronach Foundation, an organization that works with humanitarian groups like Oxfam to deliver medical and other essential supplies.

It's a story of dedication and urgency, and of the inevitable challenges that arise during an emergency when everything needs to happen at once--and can't.

Fear and loathing

Fear and loathing

The Liberals are holding a session on "governance" today on Parliament Hill and it's proving to be fascinating. Present are three former watchdogs of government, who have been dismissed or replaced after being publicly critical. They are: Linda Keen, who oversaw nuclear safety, Peter Tinsely, who oversaw military complaints, and now, as I write this, Paul Kennedy, formelry the RCMP complaints commissioner.
All are sounding warnings about politics' intrusion in oversight of government. The crowd here is silent and riveted -- even and maybe especially the journalists -- because what's being discussed here isn't just governance. It's about intimidation and bullying, which is definitely not governance.