In the closing moments of an excellent At Issues panel on CBC's The National last night, National Post columnist Andrew Coyne explained why traditional Question Period theatrics are so feckless when a real scandal envelopes government. [If the Opposition] would slow down and ask short simple questions, rather these kind of multiple-part grandstanding theatrics, but they don't seem to be capable of that. What sort of short questions, host Peter Mansbridge asked. [S]imple questions of fact that put ministers on the record, where you can then compare what they say on the record with what they say later. It's more in the nature...

22 May, 2013

Several Globe and Mail reporters who looked looked at the leaked Colvin emails that fueled Christie Blatchford's recent philippics against the diplomat came up with a very different picture. To begin, here's Paul Koring: The Harper government has blacked out large sections of relevant files handed over to the independent inquiry probing allegations of transfer to torture of detainees in Afghanistan, despite the fact that its investigators have the highest levels of national security clearance. The heavily redacted documents...

01 December, 2009

The Star's Tonda McCharles reports that the Conservatives are changing tack in the torture scandal. "It is our understanding that other current and former DFAIT employees will be testifying before the Parliamentary Committee. Their testimony will provide important context and information about this issue." ...

20 November, 2009

The anonymous senior official inside Transport Canada who responded to contrarian's revelation that the Harper Government steered Infrastructure Stimulus Plan paving projects to federal Tory ridings in Nova Scotia, responds to reader feedback: What your readers may not know is that senior bureaucrats are moved at the behest of the Clerk of the Privy Council and approved by the Prime Minister — a subtle but important distinction.  They (we) are not Liberal appointees any more than the current crop are Conservative appointees. When the Liberals were in power, they were convinced that some deputies were closeted Conservatives (as many were/are).  It doesn't...

21 June, 2009
Several readers argue there's nothing wrong with the Harper Tories steering infrastructure money to their own ridings, or pushing out deputy ministers who object, because (1) the money will be spent anyway, (2) the Liberals did it too, and (3) most senior civil servants are Liberal appointees. After the jump, a spirited response from longtime gadfly and former Dartmouth City Councillor Colin May, but first, contrarian reader Wayne Fiander weighs in: 
Since you went to great trouble to note [ousted Deputy Transport Minister Louis] Ranger's expertise, you should have also informed your readers that Mr. Ranger "in the mid 90's, took a two year assignment with the Privy Council Office. He then returned to Transport Canada as Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and was appointed Associate Deputy Minister of Transport in 2001"  and was appointed DM at Transport Canada in 2002.  His connection to the Chretien Liberals is quite deep and therefore sheds the full light on his obviously political comments.
Good point. I should have noted that. But the implication that a two-year stint in the PCO 15 years ago justifies Ranger's firing is bogus. The Harper crowd used public money for partisan purposes. That's corrupt. Full stop. Getting rid of qualified civil servants who raise objections to this corruption is of a piece with that.
19 June, 2009