Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin is having her expenses audited. Others senators are being audited as well and let’s not jump to any conclusions before the results are in. But what was strange is that the Conservatives, in the case of Wallin, tried to deny it was happening.
Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the Senate committee that reviews senator expenses, told The Globe and Mail that no, she was not on the list. But then, just a few minutes later came a CTV report in which Ms. Wallin herself confirmed she was being audited.
Why would Tkachuk, certainly in position to know, have denied it? Was he under orders from the Prime Minister’s Office to keep it under the wraps? Or was it just an interestingly timed brain malfunction?
The Senate-referral denial followed a denial by the Conservatives last week that they were behind a robocalls scheme on electoral boundary changes in Saskatchewan. That denial didn’t hold up either. When confronted by reporters with evidence, the Conservatives U-turned, confirming they were behind the calls.
In the midst of these unsustainable denials came a denial from Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield. It came in response to a question, a loaded one, from NDP member Robert Chisholm in the Commons on Monday:
“Mr. Speaker, it was not enough that the Conservatives shut down the Experimental Lakes Area, the ozone network, the PEARL research centre and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. They then stopped Environment Canada scientists from talking to the media. Now they are telling Fisheries and Oceans scientists that every publication they work on will have to have DFO approval before they can say anything. This is muzzling, plain and simple. What are Conservatives afraid of and why did the minster approve this policy?”
The Ashfield response: “Mr. Speaker, in fact there has been no change in DFO policy with regard to scientists.” He was asked again by another member. He repeated his denial.
Columnist Michael Harris had detailed the changes on publications policy in a column in iPolitics. He had interviewed several scientists. After the Ashfield denial, they confirmed their initial statements to Harris on the policy changes. As well, Harris had more evidence — an email from inside DFO referencing “new publication review committee procedures.”
Yet another denial, it appears, is failing to hold up and if anyone cared to go back in time they could find a truckload of other examples from this government of the same. Tory truthtellers are hard to find. In Ottawa a denial is becoming tantamount to a confirmation. The nation’s capital is becoming increasingly Kafkaesque.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement is the minister who presides over accountablity and open government. He is our Mr. Glasnost and he gave an interview to iPolitics this week in which, contrary to the impression left by the aforementioned examples, he appeared to suggest the Conservatives were becoming champions of openness.
Clement, we recall, was the minister caught up in the G8 boondoggle, the long-running controversy in which tens of millions of dollars, supposedly slated for border infrastructure repairs, went instead to beautification projects in his own riding. The auditor general was highly condemnatory. Through it all, Clement issued lots of dodges and denials but they all ended up sharing the fate of the other denials mentioned.
Given his obfuscatory record it was odd that Stephen Harper appointed Clement as his glasnost man but, as I say, it is rather a weird environment here. Credibility doesn’t count for much. Truth is a moving target.
Since taking up his post, Clement has been accused by the nasties on the opposition benches of keeping much information on the financing of projects hidden. But in the interview he sounded well pleased with himself. He expounded on the government’s three-pronged policy of open data, open information, open dialogue. It was like, ‘Come to us, citizens, and you’ll get the straight goods.’
In the interview, it might be noted, there were some things in regard to the government’s track record on openness that Clement didn’t get into. If his memory needs refreshing here, at the risk of being discourteous, are some examples that come to mind:
The institution of an unprecedented vetting system wherein all messaging has to pass through central command. The hoarding of information on program costing to the point where Stephen Harper became the first prime minister in history to be found in contempt of Parliament. The near-record use of time allocation, closure and other measures to limit Parliamentary debate. The muzzling of the science community. Mr. Harper becoming the first prime minister in memory not to hold open-ended press conferences. The shutting down of Parliament twice for blatantly political ends.
A few other examples: The surreptitious in-and-out affair. Allegations that robocalls were used to send Canadians to the wrong polling stations. The use of debate-limiting omnibus bills. The closing down of the long-form census and other databanks and websites. An edict exempting cabinet staffers from having to testify at parliamentary committees. Several instances of document tampering. The accountability-defying practice of having ministers under the gun not stand in the Commons and answer questions. Measures making it harder to use the Access to Information system. Appointing lapdogs as watchdogs, the prime example being the Integrity Commissioner.
Last but not least: Using civil servants as stool pigeons in a fake citizenship ceremony. The blocking of opposition members from Canadian delegations to international conferences. The unprecedented muzzling of the diplomatic community. The secret timing of cabinet meetings so that the media cannot pose questions before or after them. The suppression of potentially embarrassing research studies and reports. Misinformation campaigns on procurement costs on projects like the F-35 fighter jets.
All said, the fact that Mr. Clement didn’t choose to dwell on the government’s openness record to date was perhaps a good idea. If asked, he probably would have issued denials anyway. Which, in this town, is all we need to know.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Lawrence Martin
No comments:
Post a Comment