Okay, maybe Cherry, 79, is too old. How about Senator Rob Ford? How would you like that, downtown Toronto?
Seriously, any of these initiatives—and Harper probably has many more up his sleeve—would perfectly underscore the contempt for public opinion, the ethical collapse, that distinguishes this shameless government. It is hard to beat the $90,000 payoff to Senator Mike Duffy—indeed, Harper Senate appointments in general—but you sense the prime minister’s job is not finished. There are still enemies to crush, constituencies to offend.
There have been pleas and suggestions in the media recently, urging the Prime Minister to tone down the aggression, turn on the charm, speak to his hurting people in reassuring and reasonable ways. He is capable of making a persuasive argument, we are reminded; he often does so when abroad.
But these kindly advisers make a fatal mistake: they assume he cares what Canadians think. They have not been paying attention.
This Prime Minister notices, certainly, when his own (shrinking) base becomes restive. They didn’t like the idea of selling Saskatchewan’s big potash company to foreigners; they balked at an intrusive online surveillance bill; and some are growing weary of the party’s infantile attack ads. Others are pushing against Harper’s refusal to reopen the abortion debate.
And, evidently, they didn’t like the way Duffy handled his book-keeping, wondered how the portly Senator could plead poverty after a lifetime pulling down six-figure salaries, and didn’t understand how Duffy could continue to represent Prince Edward Island when he only holidays there.
So Harper’s best-known cheer-leader is gone from the Conservative caucus after a tumultuous week, a victim of his own mistakes and a belated nudge from the PMO. Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s right-hand man and Duffy’s bank-of-last-resort, is gone too.
But no contrition, no explanation, no concession to outraged opinion from a sullen Prime Minister. Harper never apologises, never accepts responsibility, preferring to lay blame on bureaucrats or, however implausibly, Liberals. This passes for strength in some circles. To everyone else, it looks like plain stubbornness.
And so it is claimed that Harper “was not aware of the specifics” of the payment from Wright. (He was only the piano player.) This careful wording is certainly designed to obscure. It is reminiscent of Harper’s claims, in 2005, that he didn’t know what his emissaries offered dissident Conservative MP Chuck Cadman, who was dying of cancer, to secure his support for a crucial vote. It wasn’t a “bribe”, though.
Harper’s loyalty to Penashue—not personal, but professional—is equally damaging to his party’s brand. Proceeding with a byelection in Labrador before a full report on the former minister’s overspending in the last election was, many argued, inappropriate. Harper batted away objections like black flies: if you are Conservative, apparently, the usual spending rules don’t apply.
This is a species of the “moral relativism” Harper deplored in his predecessors, when he was full of righteous anger at the corruption and cronyism of the Chrétien era. We’ve seen, repeatedly, that anything (except sexual indiscretion) is permissible in Harper’s holy war against political opponents. Until someone, like Duffy, is publicly exposed. Then the miscreant is quietly cut loose.
Harper’s first ethical lapse came shortly after the Conservatives took office in 2006. After vowing never to appoint anyone who was not elected to his Cabinet, or to the Senate, the new leader accomplished both in one stroke when he elevated Montreal businessman Michael Fortier to Cabinet, as minister of Public Works—and made him a Senator.
After Fortier was dispatched by voters in a West Quebec riding in 2008, along came former CFL commissioner Larry Smith, appointed to the Upper Chamber in 2010 to prepare for elected office. Smith—who lamented the “dramatic, catastrophic” pay cut he faced—placed third in the 2011 general election in a Montreal-area riding. Did he return to private life, chastened? No. He was immediately reappointed to the Senate by Harper.
Today, Harper’s moral confusion has become almost Mulroney-esque. He was going to be a new broom; instead, he faces questions about large payoffs. When he talks about accountability now, people laugh. It isn’t that people are cynical; they have just been watching.
But all is not lost. Appointing that celebrated ethical contortionist, Poilievre, to Cabinet will surely turn things around.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: SUSAN RILEY
No comments:
Post a Comment