In that context – as the Member of Parliament for Whitby-Oshawa – Jim Flaherty was just doing his job when he wrote a letter to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, urging it to grant a radio licence to a company in his riding. But Mr. Flaherty is also the Minister of Finance, a title that appeared under his signature in his letter to the CRTC. Cabinet members are held to a higher standard than ordinary MPs, and the rules are clearly set out in Parliamentary guidelines. According to Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State:
“Ministers must not intervene, or appear to intervene, with tribunals on any matter requiring a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity, except as permitted by statute.”
As one of the most senior and experienced members of the Harper government, Mr. Flaherty should be intimately familiar with the rule. Rather than concede the mistake, however, his office responded to initial reports with a defiance that has become lamentably typical of this government: He would, he said, “continue to be a strong advocate for the people and community I represent. It is my job.”
On Friday, that blustery tone changed. Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson ruled that Mr. Flaherty had breached the Conflict of Interest Act, and issued an order directing him not to do so again without first contacting her office.
“It is improper for you, as Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Greater Toronto Area, to have written a letter of support on behalf of a constituent to an administrative tribunal in relation to its decision making,” she said.
Mr. Flaherty responded that the addition of his cabinet title was an accident. “In fact, I insisted the M.P. reference be added to the text to emphasize the point,” he wrote. “However, due to an oversight my ministerial title was used in the signature block. This is regrettable and I can assure the Ethics Commissioner that this will not happen again.”
It was the correct response, it was just a day late. Rather than simply admit the mistake in the first place, Mr. Flaherty turned a minor issue into a matter of controversy, and added to the impression that the first instinct of the Harper government is to bully its way out of any situation that arises, backing down only when confronted.
About the same time Mr. Flaherty’s office was issuing his initial defiant response, a court in Alberta was hearing testimony against Edmonton MP Peter Goldring on a charge of failing to provide a breath sample. Mr. Goldring was stopped by police after an officer saw his SUV leave the parking lot of a neighbourhood bar. Though polite at first, testified Const. Trevor Shelrud, Mr. Goldring became unco-operative, ignored demands, refused to get off his cellphone or give a breath sample.
“He was really condescending, snarky, dismissive, he raised his voice, he was cutting me off,” Const. Shelrud said. “The impression I got was that he really didn’t like being told what to do.” (Mr. Goldring’s lawyer challenged Const. Shelrud’s characterization, pointing out that such words did not appear in the officer’s notes).
In yet another minor tempest Thursday, the Prime Minister’s Office responded to a news story related to campaign spending by MP Dean Del Mastro with a clumsy attempt to smear the reporter.
None of these events, on its own, is enough to condemn a government. But, like bits of straw and the proverbial camel’s back, they add up. Over seven years in government, the Conservatives have amassed quite a few bales of straw related to their confrontational tactics and contempt for criticism in any form. Voters may not recall each incident, but over time they absorb the attitude, and at some point they may decide they’ve had enough. If senior ministers like Mr. Flaherty, or Mr. Harper himself, see no reason to offer due respect, the message filters down through the ranks. Voters notice. And even the Tories can’t bully voters without consequences.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: Kelly McParland
No comments:
Post a Comment