The Globe and Mail¹ (6 June 2010) reported on even Conservatives questioning this method of communication.

“The MEP is the crucial communication instrument for a minority government that values staying on message above all else — a transformation that federal officials and public-policy analysts say is undermining democracy.

While all governments try to control the message, the ambitious sweep of MEPs is unprecedented in federal politics. Critics say it contradicts the core campaign promise that brought Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power — introducing a new era of transparency and accountability in government.

“We discussed every single issue and micromanaged every news release — everything,” said one former Harper-era PCO official.”

The Canadian Press reportedly has about a thousand of these MEPs and they extend into all sorts of realms of discourse, including foreign relations and events. The Star² (8 June 2010) also reported on MEPs saying

“There’s no question it has a bit of a chilling effect on people, because they know that they have to avoid being off-message at all — and that’s what the government wants,” said one currently serving diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of career reprisals.

The central direction of foreign service officers is unparalleled, says retired diplomat Gordon Smith, who served Conservative and Liberal prime ministers as Canada’s ambassador to NATO and the European Union, was a former deputy minister of Foreign Affairs and a senior official at PCO.

“What other conclusion can one draw? But it reflects a very considerable concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office,” said Smith, who left government to join the University of Victoria in 1997.”

When the Conservatives don’t want information spread they simply disappear a MEP. When they do want to manage how it’s spread, they approve the MEP and control its content. That way they can be prepared to respond to and test public perceptions. Furthermore it gives them the opportunity to always shape public perspective in favour of Conservative doctrine.

The CBC³ reported (7 June 2010) on one example of the use and effect of MEPs with respect to Canadian ivnolvement in Afganistan.

“The government used MEPs to script the words it wanted to hear from the mouths of its top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers in 2007-08 to divert public attention from the soaring double-digit death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.”

This is a frightening extension of control. It’s reminiscent of the propaganda techniques used in totalitarian regimes. In a democratic society we should not have a government exhibiting this degree of control over the context and content of information regarding our country and goings-ons.

Since the remarks get pulled back into the public sphere regularly to haunt him, it’s reasonable to consider his old commentary in relation to what he’s done as Prime Minister and figure out if his thinking has grown or changed much.

A lot of people are probably familiar with the speech I’m referencing (full text available on the CTV Web site¹). In the speech, Harper made a bunch of disparaging remarks about his country and fellow citizens, and presented a perspective that was grossly simplistic. While some of what he said was probably intended for humour value, the observations, jokes, and overall perspective represent his manner of thinking.

I’ll quote Mr. Harper and then match the quote to something relevant in his tenure as PM.

1) “…it’s legendary that if you’re like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.”

• Change? Yes: This jest makes one think that Harper wasn’t very impressed with Canadians’ knowledge of history, current events, government, etc. Considering his joke presented the problem, he must have been concerned about this lack of knowledge. Usually a lack of knowledge is solved through learning, or education. While Harper used to be concerned with Canadian education, now he prefers to cut programs designed to improve it.

2) “Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.”

• Change? Not really: It’s possible Harper’s comment was relatively neutral, suggesting simply that there’s a connection between welfare and low economic growth, indeed you’d imagine that if there isn’t much economic growth there might be more unemployed people needing assistance. However taken in context of the rest of his cynical speech it reads more like he’s disparaging the normally high standard of living we have and Canadian attitudes toward helping those who are less fortunate. He begrudgingly succumbed to improving the employment insurance program. In late 2009, the Conservative minority needed a way to survive a non-confidence vote. They traded their normally feeble stance toward EI for the NDP’s timely demands and temporary support. Background from the CBC² (12 September 2009). The Calgary Sun³ (21 December 2009) reported on the surprising $1B in EI this resulted in–badly needed within the context of an economy hurting from the global economic crisis. Harper was dragged into this one so I can’t give him a “yes” for change in this respect. Also I cannot seem to find any articles confirming whether or not he learned that Canada is not on the European continent.

3) “In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don’t feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don’t feel bad about it themselves, as long as they’re receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.”

• Change? No: Canadian news agencies like the CBC⁴ reported in October 2008, when the economy was heading downhill, job losses were mounting, and people were worrying about how bad it might get that Harper suggested buying stocks. One would have to imagine that he believes the unemployed receive extremely “generous social assistance” for that kind of commentary to resonate.

4) “…our executive is the Queen, who doesn’t live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.”

• Change? No: Although he didn’t appoint this particular Governor General, Harper phones her up for a little friendly prorogue whenever he’s having a bad day.

5) “…the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.”

• Change? No: He still doesn’t seem to believe that the Senate is important in our political system. The proof is in his actions. He said it wasn’t important because it was an appointed body of buddies. Yet Harper has appointed many senators, in spite of committing to making it an elected body.

6) Referring to the executive, two legislative houses, and supreme court: “. . . if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that’s described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.”

• Change? No: Harper reaffirmed how imbalanced our system is when he twice prorogued parliament (see the little friendly prorogue link above) and went ahead carrying out his Conservative program, unchecked and chock full of deficit. Of course, if he’d just let our system’s watchdogs do their jobs, we might have a little more checking going on.

7) “. . . the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.”

• Change? Yes and No: Although it sounds like Stephen Harper doesn’t like the NDP much (he saw them as interference) he’s grown to see them, like the Liberals and Bloc, as a source for occasional support deals–when it serves his ulterior political motives. I mentioned one example above: the EI versus non-confidence issue. Harper also once upon a time, approached the NDP to help him form a coalition to topple the former Liberal government. If you’re Harper, that’s making a deal with the devil. Of course, they’re too far apart ideologically for that to have worked and when it truly didn’t work he chose to brush his little rejection under the carpet. Later, running from his own imminent loss to a non-confidence vote and Liberal/NDP coalition, he dishonestly framed coalitions as undemocratic⁵. Seems even lost opportunities with the devil can come back to bite. The CBC⁶ article from 1 December 2008 says
  

  “All three opposition leaders accused Harper of reversing his position, pointing to a 2004 letter to the governor general by then Opposition leader Harper that suggested he be allowed to form a coalition government if Paul Martin’s Liberal minority government were to fall. Layton said Harper should remember the meetings in which he proposed the coalition. “I walked out,” the NDP leader said, adding that he wrote about it in his book.”

People change. At least I believe people are capable of changing. Cynics might like to argue that point with me (if you convince me to change my mind–I’ll have proven my point). Often times, in the public sphere, a politician will take a particular stand at one point in time and years later, if he or she changes position, the media will call out the past position as though the politician is being dishonest.

While it may be the case that the politician is indeed being dishonest, sometimes it’s also possible that the person’s experience and thinking simply evolved over time. If politicians would just, publicly state when they’ve changed their minds and what led them to change their minds, I think it would go a long way toward dispelling the aura of dishonesty.

I’d rather vote for people that show me they’re capable of learning and addressing situations the best way possible, rather than sticking to some preconceived notion in spite of contrary evidence or public opinion. I don’t see Stephen Harper doing that but I also don’t see him changing much.

First, there’s the Business News Network² (BNN) interview he did the previous day. When BNN asked him about the risk of the prorogue to our reputation in the world as a “reliable” and “stable” country he responded that there was

“…zero risk… The games begin when parliament returns. The government can take its time now to do the important work to prepare the economic agenda ahead.”

That little statement implies a lot. Harper gives the impression that important work doesn’t take place while parliament is in session, but rather games do. That’s something of a slap to our democratic institutions. The idea that the “important work” is done by just a small group of individuals, not even representing the majority of Canadian votes and outside of the government institutions created to democratically represent our will, is pretty presumptuous for a prime minister. The prime minister was once considered “first among equals”³ it’s too bad that Harper has so powerfully furthered the trend away from that stance.

In addition, it’s not too hard to recall that the Conservatives are the ones directly responsible for any games that may be taking place in parliament. Let’s review.

• 2007 there was the 200 page book the Conservatives made for their members on how to obstruct parliament.
• 2008 there was Harper’s prorogue precedent, which he pulled off largely in reaction to the crisis he provoked through his own parliamentary budgeting games.
• 2009 there was the underhanded procedural trick the Conservatives came up with to kill bills and invalidate parliament’s work.
• 2009 there was the Conservative boycott of a special committee looking into the Afghan detainee abuse issue

The Tories are guilty of causing parliament to operate in a dysfunctional way and then running from that dysfunction under a number a of guises, the most recent being Harper’s need to do “important work.”

But can we really believe this latest excuse for running from Parliament? In the same Globe and Mail article we find out that Tom Flanagan, who was the former chief of staff to Stephen Harper was interviewed on CBC. Flanagan seems to have made the point that Harper requested the prorogue in order to put an end to the inquiry on the Conservatives’ Afghan torture scandal.

(Update 13 January 2010 – MP Charlie Angus (NDP) wrote up a good piece on Harper’s “coup of pinstripes” notion that parliamentary democracy creates instability)

Backtracking, I’ll start with the recent news reporting that Harper will ask the Governor-General to prorogue parliament today, until the end of March 2010 (after the Winter Olympics). Without the prorogue, parliament would otherwise resume on 25 January 2010.

Why would Harper want this extended prorogue? Several reasons seem to benefit the Conservatives: one is that a bunch of bills will die¹, another is that it buys them time to dilute their scandals or otherwise cause the scandals to fade from the public memory (e.g. afghan torture, imbalanced stimulus money, environmental inaction, etc.), finally it gives Harper a chance to take over the Senate with Conservatives. According to CTV’s² (30 December 2009) chief political correspondent, Craig Oliver:

“”(Prorogation) has the great convenience of course of getting this government out of any kind of political trouble, because Parliament will not be sitting until after the Olympics. . . The plan is for the government to come back with a very brief throne speech just talking about what’s to come in the economy, and then a budget probably in days.”

Prorogation will also serve another purpose, Oliver said. Harper will likely appoint another group of new Senators, which will mean the Conservatives will finally hold a majority in the Red Chamber, and by extension, on Senate committees, Oliver said.”

Shouldn’t we be surprised that Harper wants to appoint unelected Senators? No, it’s perfectly consistent with his lies about reforming the Senate. He’s striving for Conservative control with a total disregard toward improving the democratic process. He already acted contrary to his own words on the subject and has proven he has no accountability in this regard.

The London Free Press³ (30 December 2009) pointed out how the prorogue would shut down further inquiry to the Conservative Afghan torture scandal.

“Preventing the return of Parliament until after the Olympics would effectively shut down all government committees, which would stop MPs from pursuing the Afghan detainee controversy until Parliament returned.

“If the government attempts this manoeuvre, it’s a shocking insult to democracy,” said Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale. “The government is in a very sticky place with respect to Afghan detainees and they’re running from accountability here — this is a cut and run government.”"

It’s worth noting as well, that preventing Parliament from functioning until after the Olympics, stands a good chance of replacing the negative opinions on the Conservative minority government from fomenting in the public eye and instead replacing them with the optimism and goodwill likely produced through the spectacle of the Olympics. The world’s eyes will be on Canada and all the press will be covering the events. Not only would Parliament resume at a time when the public is in a generally positive mood toward Canada but also much of what had happened prior to 2010, will have effectively been wiped clean from the public memory. The Tories are masters of spin.

So what was going on this time last year: the Conservative minority government found itself in very hot water. It had just come out of an election in which Canadians were once again unwilling to vote-in a Conservative majority government. As parliament met, the Conservatives washed aside real consideration for the economic crisis, instead presenting an inadequate budget that did more to play partisan games than to suit Canadian needs or to develop an effective parliament (minority government are supposed to get the other parties of parliament to cooperate with them on a mutual agenda, the Tories prefer to obstruct parliament).

The opposition parties met and decided two things. First, that they’d lost confidence in the minority Conservative government (Stephen Harper as PM lost the confidence of the house), and second that they could form a stable coalition to serve as an alternate government. According to a Globe and Mail⁴ (3 December 2008) article, which included this point from University of Saskatchewan constitutional scholar David Smith

“As for the opposition parties and their coalition plan, the expert consensus is that they’re following to the letter the precedent established in Canada for the sovereign’s representative to approve a change of government without an election.

The test that has to be met is, first, has the government lost the confidence of Parliament?; second, has an election just occurred?; and, third, is there a viable alternative to the government?”

Nevertheless Stephen Harper ran and asked the Governor General to either dissolve (require a new election–an unlikely option after just coming out of one) or prorogue parliament rather than face the vote of non-confidence by the opposition.

He used this delay tactic to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt on the proper plan of the opposition and our democratic process. The Conservatives presented the public with false rhetoric about the options (going to the polls again or accepting a coalition representing the majority of the votes).

In the same Globe and Mail article cited above, it identifies some of the difficulties involved in the situation.

“Using prorogation to duck a confidence vote that would terminate the Conservative government is unprecedented, and, although the Governor-General has the power to refuse Mr. Harper’s request, she likely would find herself in stormy constitutional waters if she did.

However, she’d be on firm ground if she granted him a qualified prorogation, severely limiting his ability to govern until he faces the opposition parties in the House of Commons, one of Canada’s leading experts on parliamentary procedure said yesterday.

Queen’s University political scientist C.E.S. Franks said an unprecedented use of prorogation could validly be met with an unprecedented use of the reserve power of the Queen’s representative – the power that can be exercised by the head of state in a parliamentary system without the approval of another branch of the government.

In effect, the Governor-General, by agreeing only to a qualified prorogation, would declare that the government exists in the same state as during an election campaign: unable to carry out anything but the most routine operations, barred from making appointments, executing new policies or authorizing major expenditures. The reason for this is that nobody knows which party ultimately will have the confidence of Parliament.”

Another Globe and Mail article⁵ (2 December 2008) discussed the Governor-General’s options (written by historian Bob Beal). It explains

“If the House decides it does not have confidence in the present government, the Governor-General will have to wonder if the House might have confidence in a different government drawn from the same House. . . .

Constitutional experts say in that situation the most minimal use of the Royal Prerogative would be to let the House get on with its work and let a new prime minister test the confidence of the House.

Accepting the prime minister’s advice for dissolution and an election in the present situation is also a possible, and proper, use of the prerogative. But that would establish a precedent, so far unknown, of the Crown interfering in the work of a newly elected House when it seems possible a new prime minister might be able to command the confidence of the House.

The current Prime Minister could ask the Governor-General to prorogue this session of Parliament, to delay the work of the House until the New Year, an exercise of the Crown’s reserve powers. That request would raise questions that have never been raised before. It seems a murkier situation than a request for dissolution would be.

The Governor-General could refuse a prorogation request on the same grounds as refusing a dissolution request, that the refusal would represent the most minimal use of the Crown’s powers and the least Crown interference with the work of the House. This session has hardly begun, and a confidence vote is scheduled within days.”

As we now know of course, the Governor-General did accept the prorogation request but oddly, not as a qualified prorogation. This stance did not seem to fall in-line with the regular process that would be expected to occur. The process I would have expected, would be that the non-confidence vote would have been allowed, and then the alternate government would be given its chance. But it also allowed the Conservatives to continue governing, making appointments, policies, etc. In fact, as the CBC⁶ reported (22 December 2008), Harper went ahead and appointed eighteen people to the Senate during the prorogue–trying to increase its total number of Conservatives.

“The deluge of appointments sets a record for the most Senate seats filled in a single day and is part of Harper’s efforts to ensure a Tory toehold in the upper chamber. Until now, the prime minister refrained from filling most of the vacancies — with the exception of two — because of his long-held position that those sitting in the Red Chamber should be elected.”

Even though the majority of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives, even though all opposition parties (which did, collectively enjoy the majority of Canadian votes) were set to vote non-confidence in Harper and his Conservatives, the Governor-General allowed parliament to be put on hold, while Harper had free reign to continue acting against the majority of the Canadian will. Why?

In a Globe and Mail roundtable discussion⁷ (2 December 2008), John Manley (former liberal MP), referring to the Governor-General said

“I think the advice that she would probably receive would be that if the purpose of the prorogation is simply for the government to avoid facing a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, then that’s not an appropriate use of the prorogation of power. I’d be surprised if she agreed to that.

I also think that refusing the advice of the Prime Minister to grant prorogation would be entirely unprecedented. We’re going to see something for the very first time with this. . .”

She didn’t refuse the PM. I would guess that the argument in favour of the Governor-General’s position at that time was that she should act in the way that involves only the most minimal use of the Crown’s powers so as to interfere as little as possible with with the work of elected representatives.

Thus her decision could have been based on an idea that granting whatever the prime minister wanted would be the least interfering action. In other words not asserting her will, which could be contrary to the PM’s. Unfortunately, in that situation, her action actually interfered far more with the functioning of our democratically elected representatives than if she had either allowed the non-confidence vote (and then the alternate coalition to govern), or even granted a qualified prorogation.

It also set a precedent that the Governor-General essentially rubber stamps the PM’s advice when it comes to proroguing parliament. Stephen Harper, having caused that precedent to be set is unashamed to repeatedly use it to his advantage.

December 2009 and we’ve learned that when the Conservative minority government is most likely to fall, is faced with Canada’s greatest hardships, holds no confidence, or is being battered by its own scandals, it runs away. It tries to buy itself time to diffuse its problems or whitewash them in the public eye.

Stephen Harper has a free pass to buy himself time with another extended prorogue because of the precedent he established with the Governor-General in December 2008. While parliament is stuck doing nothing, he gets to continue his Conservative agenda by stuffing the Senate with his cherry-picked, unelected officials–remember his pattern, it’s what he did last year.

To leave this subject, I’d like to ask, aside from political opportunism (the Senate issue), why else might Harper go so far as to request the extended prorogue?

He has more information about the goings-on of the Conservative minority government, he has the information on the Conservative Afghan torture scandal, which won’t be released. While that’s a hot issue, it isn’t threatening his government to the extreme that 2008′s non-confidence vote/coalition did. Perhaps Harper knows that what is yet to come from the Conservative scandals will reach a point that boils past the level we saw in 2008.

(Follow up from the Toronto Star after the Governor-General granted Harper’s request)

“Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper’s election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a “fog over information” has crept across the government’s activities. Marleau said complaints to the commissioner’s office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year.

. . . public servants, ambassadors, as well as cabinet ministers and Conservative MPs are muzzled or kept on a short leash. Canwest News Service revealed last week that Environment Canada’s scientists, once among the most media-accessible specialists, have been slapped with orders to refer all journalists’ queries to the government where communications officers will help them respond with “approved lines.”"

It’s not a good sign when the information comissioner complains that the government is putting a fog over information.

Getting information out to the public is one issue, how it’s presented is another and Harper’s Conservatives have a machine for that too. The Toronto Star² reported (26 May 2008) about the Con machine (first part of a good series they wrote on the topic).

“Questions on the hot issues of the day all get funnelled through this office, the “communications and consultations” unit of the Privy Council Office. . . Public appearances by cabinet ministers – whether it’s a speech or an interview – are carefully staged, starting with a “message event proposal” vetted by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

And in a marked change from previous governments, now even basic demands for information from reporters, once easily fielded by department spokespersons, are sent to this office for review – and often heavy editing – before they are okayed for public release, government insiders say.”

It shows how contolled the information we receive from the government is, everything is crafted for the spin the Conservatives desire.

It goes further than information and messaging though, government appointed watchdogs that were supposed to ensure more accountability also get silenced when their message isn’t helpful to the Conservative cause. There are a number of examples, I won’t try to point them all out but consider what the National Post³ (18 June 2009) said of budget watchdog, Kevin Page (PBO).

“the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (OPBO) provides authoritative, non-partisan financial and economic analysis to support Parliament and parliamentarians in exercising their oversight role over the government’s stewardship of public funds and in ensuring budget transparency.

Kevin Page was appointed as the first budget officer in March of 2008. It was a move intended to create more transparency in government by explaining to Canadians about fiscal planning and scrutiny of budget estimates. In government there is so much spending that goes unaccounted for, unexamined, and unexplained that I had high hopes for Mr.Page. Unfortunately, it appears his job has been hampered by a plague of budget cuts.

Mr. Page has said a lack of consistent reporting and transparency from the government has made estimating difficult, but he has still projected far larger deficits than the government. From reworking the estimates, to revising corporate revenue projections, he has angered the Conservative government by challenging its forecasts. For essentially doing his job. For holding to account Mr.Flaherty when he makes predictions like this. Part of being “accountable” is having an authority which is able to hold the government to their projections.”

The Globe and Mail⁴ (26 June 2009) corroborates this issue. Kevin Page was supposed to more or less say what the Conservatives liked and when he didn’t, they implied they wouldn’t fund his office anymore. That threat would essentially have shut him down, but instead they offered this.

“Mr. Page has been offered the $2.8-million budget he was promised more than a year ago. But the condition is that he no longer report on “the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy” directly to the House of Commons and the public.”

So he gets to keep doing what he was supposed to do, just so long as it doesn’t get easily released to the public, without presumably going through the Conservative stamp of approval machine.

Finally, the Toronto Star⁵ (24 December 2009) reported on the muzzling phenomenon, as I mentioned, it extends well beyond Page.

“Three essential oversight agencies will begin 2010 without leadership and wearing government-issued blinkers. By hook and crook, Harper Conservatives have gutted the effectiveness of the Military Complaints Commission, the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP and the Office of the Information Commissioner.

All three top posts are now empty. Not one was vacated quietly.

Peter Tinsley is howling that pushing him out of the job will effectively kneecap the already crippled inquiry into claims that Afghans tortured prisoners. Paul Kennedy is furious not to be staying to bring fully independent investigations and civilian oversight to the RCMP. Robert Marleau retired as information commissioner in June, a few months after issuing a set of failing-grade report cards that blamed those “at the very top” for systematically denying Canadians information about what the government is doing in their name.”

For a party that spoke a lot about accountability and claimed not to have secret agendas, the actions they’ve taken while in office give every impression that they’re anything but accountable or open.

For more information about Canadian access to information take a look at Stanley Tromp’s site⁶, where he’s published an extensive report on the issue. It’s a very long report, several hundred pages, but you can focus in on the issue of the Conservative minority government’s secrecy with the brief and informative postcript⁷ (PDF).

Informative read from the University of Alberta’s Centre for Constitutional studies, regarding Freedom of the Press and Harper’s Media Policy.

“”When I become prime minister I will undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government… That is my commitment to you.”

“Cleaning up government begins at the top,” he added, accusing Prime Minister Paul Martin of deflecting blame whenever the taint of scandal touches him.”

In principle of course, I don’t think many would argue that greater government accountability is not only important but necessary for the well-being of our democracy. Unfortunately, the Conservatives’ act was largely just an act. It did little of what the Conservatives led Canadian citizens to believe they’d do. Worse, the Conservatives have repeatedly acted against the spirit of not the letter of the act. Here’s some background and evidence.

Democracy Watch² (16 December 2009) reported on the Conservatives progress since 2006, noting that they’d increased or attempted to increase accountability in a few instances but also that they’d weakened it in eight ways, failed on 29 promises, and ignored 90 loopholes or flaws in the accountability system. Thus they gave the Conservatives a much lower grade than the Conservatives originally set out to earn. Democracy Watch also graded the main parties’ platforms^2b, with the NDP in the lead.

CBC reported³ (25 October 2006) about Justice John Gomery’s concerns his commissions studied recommendations on accountability had fallen into a black hole. John Gomery of course was responsible for the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal and so the 18 recommendations in his reports would have been incredibly relevant to for the Conservatives’ push on accountability. The article states

“Gomery said he thought the government would have taken action on the recommendations by now, or at the very least, started a debate on the issues covered by the inquiry. The inquiry covered a lot more ground than does the accountability act, he said. The act is designed to make the government more transparent and to crack down on unethical government actions. It also tightens political financing laws in Canada. It has not yet been proclaimed into law, although it has passed second reading in the Senate. Gomery said his request for a report on implementation did not mean that the government should do nothing for two years.”

Since Gomery’s report recommended solutions to the very lack of accountability that enabled both the sponsorship scandal to occur and the Conservatives to trumpet their accountability credo and thus eake their way into an minority government, why didn’t the Conservatives pay attention to it?

Gomery was back in the news with a Calgary Herald⁴ report (13 March 2008).

“Gomery told MPs on the government operations committee he was profoundly disappointed the Harper government ignored many of his recommendations because its signature Federal Accountability Act will not fix the imbalance of power between MPs, the prime minister and cabinet.”

According to the article the Harper government never responded to Gomery’s recommendations. Instead the Harper government has let the power of unelected political aides increase.

CBC reported⁵ (12 January 2007) that the Conservatives were already neglecting their own Accountability Act. It had become law in December of 2006. That same month Harper’s Conservatives made 118 appointments but were accused of violating the spirit of their act, which required that an independent body oversee such appointments. This trend would continue.

The Globe and Mail⁶ (5 January 2008) reported about a broken election promise the Conservatives had made requiring “ministers to record their contacts with lobbyists.” the article states

“In the 2006 election campaign, the Conservative Party platform pledged a new law to “require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.”

However, a federal spokesman said the new rules are not going in that direction. The new regulations are the details of how the Lobbying Act, which was passed in 2006 [emphasis mine], will work.

“The balanced approach that we determined as a Parliament was to put the positive obligation on the lobbyists,” said Mike Storeshaw, a spokesman for Treasury Board President Vic Toews.”

It doesn’t sound like the Conservatives followed through with a regulation that would make government more accountable, rather one that introduces easy ways out for officials communicating with lobbyists.

That year continued to show Harper breaking his promises for more accountability in government. After he talked up a storm about reforming the senate, pushing to turn it into an elected body, his actions went in the opposite direction. The Star⁷ (29 December 2008) pointed out that

“With his appointment of 18 Senators, most of whom are Conservative party cronies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has added another broken promise to the 27 democratic reform and government accountability promises the Conservatives have already broken since they were elected in January 2006.”

Note that Stephen Harper⁸ addressed a senate committee (7 Septemeber 2006) regarding his plans for senate reform.

“As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform – on their way to the top… But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government’s agenda. Nothing ever gets done. And the status quo goes on. Honourable Senators, this has got to stop… As yet another step in fulfilling our commitment to make the Senate more effective and more democratic, the Government – hopefully this fall, – will introduce a bill in the House to create a process to choose elected Senators. This bill will further demonstrate how seriously the Government takes the issue of Senate reform.”

Look back at that same Star (29 Dec ’08) article, which recalls that the Conservatives

“promised to establish an independent Public Appointments Commission to ensure fair, merit-based and widely publicized searches for qualified candidates for the PM and his cabinet to appoint to government agencies, boards and commissions.”

As stated previously the Conservatives already had a problem with their 118 appointments made in 2007, when they also pledged to have that Public Appointments Commission set up in no time. It seems that almost two years later, instead of setting up the commission they continued appointing people, actually over 1000 appointments. So it’s perfectly consistent that they’d do nothing on senate reform after two years either. Stephen Harper succeeded with his own right of passage to get elected and do nothing about senate reform.

These few examples show that Harper’s Conservatives cannot be trusted to act on their own accountability act. There are other examples including questionable use of campaign money, mistreatment of the financial watchdog, and mistreatment of a whistleblower, I’ll get to those in other posts but Greg Weston summarizes nicely in his Toronto Sun article (13 December 2009)⁹.

Other perspectives on the Conservative accountability problem include

• Keith Martin, M.P. — Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca¹⁰ (12 May 2006)
• Doug Banwell’s Blog¹¹ (4 April 2009)

This is of course important in terms of respecting the Geneva convention, human rights in general, but also because of how it reveals the nasty and counterproductive character of a government run by a party that seems incapable of the most basic levels of respect.

According to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act¹ (25 November 2005),

“…it is in the public interest to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of public servants;
confidence in public institutions can be enhanced by establishing effective procedures for the disclosure of wrongdoings and for protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoings, and by establishing a code of conduct for the public sector;

public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer and enjoy the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that this Act strives to achieve an appropriate balance between those two important principles;

the Government of Canada commits to establishing a Charter of Values of Public Service setting out the values that should guide public servants in their work and professional conduct;…”

And so the Act continues to detail responsibilities, procedures, etc. around whistleblowing activities. It clearly says that we need to have effective procedures for protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoings. Richard Colvin disclosed a public wrongdoing so why are the Tories lieing and lambasting him rather than protecting him and following the procedures to investigate?

In case the links above aren’t enough evidence of the Conservatives’ lies and stalling tactics, The Toronto Star² (16 December 2009) reported on the Tories preventing parliament from delving into Richard Colvin’s account, especially with respect to his rebuttal³ to Conservative counterclaims of the evidence.

“Seven Conservative MPs boycotted a special sitting of the committee probing allegations of detainee abuse, forcing its cancellation and leaving the opposition fuming at the government’s “dismissive” attitude to Parliament.”

In a Toronto Star opinion piece, James Travers noted

“Honesty would have ended the Afghan prisoner abuse controversy now testing the ruling party’s commitment to accountability and the Prime Minister’s campaign to neuter Parliament. Instead of candour, Harper hung the Conservative defence on the suspect argument that there is no proof Afghans tortured Canadian prisoners.”

Even if history proves Colvin’s accusations incorrect, his treatment in this situation is off-base. The Conservative minority government has not protected him and has not tried to maintain or enhance public confidence in the integrity of public servants (quite the opposite), thus the Conservatives are on the wrong side of values set in the Charter.

However, the speech wasn’t Harper’s. He copied it from another country’s prime minister and passed it off as his own. He didn’t bother to cite the original author. Thus, on a matter of national importance, putting human lives at risk and influencing the course of world history, Harper committed plagiarism.

The speech Stephen Harper delivered was in fact plagiarized from Australian PM, John Howard. To be precise although we know Stephen Harper didn’t write the speech, (like some other politicians) he often doesn’t write his speeches. Not writing one’s own speeches, while perhaps regrettable, is not the same as plagiarism, it’s a matter of using speech writers. Regardless, Harper ought to be directly accountable for the plagiarism. Here’s why.

While Stephen Harper might deliver many ghost-written speeches, he doesn’t typically give credit to the speech writers when the speech goes over well. He doesn’t stand up and say this was written by so-and-so. Rather he takes credit for the speech, as the one delivering it, as representing his perspective, as representing the position of the Conservative party, even Canada’s stance, depending on the circumstance.

We know Stephen Harper is quite conscientious of the message he delivers and likely works closely with his speech writers. His Conservatives have set up one of the most impressive spin and message control machines in Canadian politics. Prior to 1988, he even wrote speeches for Preston Manning, so he knows what’s involved.

If it’s standard practice to accept the glory of a good speech, then Harper must take equal responsibility of accepting the blame for a speech gone bad. But he didn’t.

According a CBC¹ article (30 September 2008) on the subject the speech writer was quickly sent to publicly take the blame, thus deflecting responsibility from Stephen Harper.

“”Pressed for time, I was overzealous in copying segments of another world leader’s speech,” Owen Lippert [the speech writer] says in a news release sent out by the Conservative camp on Tuesday afternoon.”

While this event may lead the public to lose some of its trust in Stephen Harper’s honesty or accountability, that issue pales compared to the more pressing matter, which is that one of our political leaders tried his best to commit Canada to grave action without putting truly Canadian perspectives at the center of his argument, nor even verifying what he was presenting.

Harper undeniably delivered a copied rationale–no matter how faulty it was–of another country, and used that as Canada’s own. How can the public trust that Harper’s Conservatives will hold Canadian interests and perspectives at the crux of their vision for Canada? Harper acted on the behalf of other countries making Canada’s best interests subservient to foreign interests. The argument he plagiarized promoted one of the poorer courses of action that could possibly have been taken on the world stage.

It wasn’t the only time Harper delivered a plagiarized speech. He also delivered a speech that plagiarized Ontario Conservative leader, Mike Harris. The CBC² also reported on this (4 October 2008).

“Ottawa-South candidate David McGuinty said Friday that similarities had been found between a 2002 speech by the former Progressive Conservative leader and a 2003 address by Harper in the House of Commons.

The Liberals cite Harris’s Dec. 4, 2002 speaking notes as posted on the Montreal Economic Institute website. . .”

Perhaps this is a lesser problem since at least it came from a Canadian Conservative. It’s still a problem because it shows Harper has a history of saying things that are not his own. How can we trust a “leader’s” perspectives when he will not even express them in his own voice?

This issue is also an embarrassment on the world stage as international news agencies carried the story. For example, the BBC³ (1 October 2008) reported on it and touched on the leadership contradiction we see in Harper.

“The BBC’s Lee Carter in Toronto says the revelation comes during an election campaign that has focused heavily on leadership, with Mr Harper depicting himself as honest and dependable, contrasting himself to Mr Dion, who has been criticised for poor leadership and communication skills.”

There is a PDF⁴ identifying the copied text in the speech, as well as a YouTube video playing the Harper/Howard speeches against each other. It’s pretty obvious how Harper plagiarized Howard.

“In 2003, Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister John Howard deliver largely identical speeches urging their nations to join George W. Bush’s Coalition of the Willing to go to war with Iraq.”