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.

Comments

[Michael G]

This should be much bigger news.

[John Merritt]

Just a note on the journalists, articles and blogs that are posted within your newsprint. I greatly appreciate how you are able to cover thoughtfully, with passion, and without obviuous vitriol events of the day.

One of the main reasons I discontinued my cable TV service, I tire of listening to the pundits instead of plaudits as you so effectively produce daily. My congratulations to each journalist in this fine newspaper. Thank you for the education, entertainment and enlightenment. Have a great weekend to each of you.

[jon drake]

Agreed this should be much bigger news. The Liberals should be held to account for their complete failure to recognize Canadians are eager to see changes in the criminal justice system.

[MJH]

Liberals just hate to see any good news directed at the Conservatives! Sour grapes anyone?

[Sarann]

It's so unethical, but that doesn't seem to bother conservatives. More campaigning on my dime.

[Ozy3]

Um, why is the Department of Justice (DOJ) celebrating and announcing the appointment of new Senators as part of the Tories' plans to get tough on crime?

Isn't that a political message reserved for the political party to pitch on its own website and media outlets, rather than the Ministry of JUSTICE? If DOJ is a political entity, then is the mandate of DOJ's lawyers to seek "victory" for the ruling party in courtrooms, or justice for the Canadian people? My recollection of the Bar Course was that Justice lawyers are present to assist the court in making an informed decision, not to defeat adversaries in the promotion of the ruling party's political agenda. In fact, the Crown has a very heavy burden to provide full disclosure and assist judges by identifying pertinent caselaw, even if the latter harms the Crown's case.

In light of that duty, this is a very odd way to inject partisanship in what should be a neutral organisation. After all, if the need arose, wouldn't DOJ lawyers be required to prosecute the very party members whose agenda they're now advertising on their website (e.g. for abuse of authority, corruption, etc)? Such actions seem to raise a considerable apprehension of bias and impropriety on the Ministry's part. DOJ is the Canadian People's advocate, not the private law firm of the government in power.

Is it really appropriate for the Ministry's website (which allegedly serves all Canadians) to quote the Minister as saying: “The opposition has obstructed that agenda in the Senate [to tackle crime]?” And I'm really disturbed that DOJ would post the following excerpt: “'By appointing me as a Senator, Prime Minister Harper is also sending a clear signal to Canadians and Quebecers: our Government stands up for the rights of victims, not the rights of criminals,' said Senator Boisvenu. 'The victims of unscrupulous white collar criminals, violent and repeat offenders and sexual offenders, can count on us to defend them.'”

So, DOJ was not standing up for the rights of Canadians before this appointment came along, even during Harper's last 4 years in office? And will the rights of criminals now be erased, notwithstanding the Charter, international human rights, habeus corpus, principles of fundamental justice, etc, etc? And by only referring to 'white collar' crime, is Boisvenu saying that victims of blue collar criminals can go to hell? Or is he saying that violent, sexual and repeat offenders are exclusively comprised of blue collar workers? Either way, this man's mouth is a liability and I question his suitability to be named a senator. I also question posting such inflammatory and ignorant remarks on the Ministry of Justice's website. Don't DOJ lawyers know how misleading these remarks are regarding our legal system and principles?

Second, how is the appointment of senators a sign of getting tough on crime? Is Harper saying that he has already told these Senators to vote the way he wants, rather than allowing them to decide the best interests of Canadians? Are these Senators openly admitting that they're there to serve the government, irrespective of the harm that a government proposed bill could inflict on the country? Why are they celebrating and praising a bill that they haven't even seen yet? What if the latter has anti-abortion clauses added on, or other questionable addenda? It's like a Russian figure skating judge celebrating Olympic gold for her country as soon as she gets named to the judging panel by the IOC. And the Ministry of JUSTICE is celebrating this manipulation of power? Odd.

I really don't think the public website providing information to all Canadians on their rights and laws, irrespective of their backgrounds or political affiliations, should be advertising subjective and personal opinions like this. What's next? Criticism of judges appointed by Chretien and Martin on DOJ's website because of their political associations (as Harper did in his speech at Sault Ste Marie)?

I find it very disturbing that the ruling political party uses all government fora and venues as its personal advertising property to promote its agenda, irrespective of the appearance of impropriety or bias. Government information sources should not be a means of influencing voter opinions or distorting perceptions of opposition parties. Voters don't expect The Public's defenders to critique opposition parties purely for the benefit of their political masters.

Sour grapes indeed. I think Neocon Tory voters are so blinded by their hatred of liberal principles that they don't even understand the responsibility of protecting their own rights and privileges as citizens. Their thinking is governed by their animosity towards all things "liberal" rather than their comprehension of Canada's democratic principles and best interests. Election by hatred, rather than reflection appears to be the Tory mantra. Nice.

[zed j]

Clearly, our government should meet different standards of non-partisanship than a media source. However, it would be nice to see the Star meet some level of non-partisanship which it purports to value.

[Frank Docherty]

MP Marlene Jennings forgot to mention the most "Dangerous Website in Ottawa" ( http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/fair-website-called-most-dangerous-ottawa ) Partisanship? Perhaps truth and justice may be a priority?

[Jim M]

Thanks for taking a stand for us (mere citizens), Marlene Jennings.
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Stand+Up+Runnin/23722319

[MyThought]

Since when is "information" bias? Ms Delacourt shows a copy of a letter that "actually" exists. She didn't make it up.

When are the right going to stop attacking the messenger and blaming Liberals for everything?

Seems there are 2 choices - admire Harper, admire Harper -facts, truth, etc don't matter.

If you don't admire Harper and see some problems you are attacked, even if the issue is "true".

This is pathetic.

[Margo]

Ahem, more results from the reign of the prorogie prime minister. How would you like your prorogie's served?? With governor general cheese or departmental bacon?

[Wild Irish renegade]

The Liberals got away with this sort of thing for donkey's years. It is only right and proper that they should be on the receiving end. Who knows it might contribute to their improvement next time around--that is if there is a next time around . . .

[ConEd]

one of the things that amazes me about the so-called "Conservative" party is how far away they are from their origins. Respect for the taxpayer was once their mantra, and as one poster here remarked, they are 'campaigning on my dime.'

I think the recent fall in the polls for the Conservatives. And if they get obliterated in the next election, want to guess how furious their quiet backbenchers will be? You will not see Harper waiting around for a comeback. The backbench will eat him alive. You can only push around some people for so long.