A tale of two scandals.
I know, I know. I should just "get over it". But having recently read a few rightwing blogs bemoaning the shamelessly liberal (that is, Liberal) media and civil service bloc in Canada, I'm drawn to this nice anecdote about the way the Canadian election was covered.
First, in the G&M, Jeffrey Simpson fulminates about the RCMP's role in the election:
So why did the RCMP [make public its intentions to go forward with an investigation of the Goodale budget leak]? Why did Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli send a letter to NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis confirming the start of a formal investigation in response to a letter she had sent the force asking for one?
... The first defence/explanation of the RCMP action is the “damned-if-they-did, damned-if-they-didn't” one. The argument goes: If the RCMP had not announced the investigation, and the fact of the investigation became public later, the RCMP would have stood accused of covering up for political purposes.
This defence/explanation cannot withstand the counter-argument that the RCMP was never obligated to confirm or deny anything, even to an MP. The force could simply have acknowledged receipt of her letter and said it would be studied.
Whether or not it was their prime motivation, the RCMP took overt action to screw the Liberals during the campaign, and right at the time (just post-Christmas with the Tories surging) that it could do the most damage. To do so might not have been so unfair if there was a serious suspicion that Goodale's office had leaked the numbers early to help cronies on Bay Street. But, as CathiefromCanada noted, quoting a CTV report, that wasn't the story -- though it would be once the investigation went public:
[Drummand] believes the original sources of the information were "definitely" not within Goodale's office, but elsewhere in the Liberal government. "I heard it secondhand, but not from Finance," said Drummond. "Liberal strategists were the sources ... from Ottawa. A lot of people seemed to know there was an announcement (coming) and some people seemed to know what it was," he added.
Those people were idiots and deserve to get their clocks cleaned, but the political fallout was bound to follow the much more damning, but unlikely, insinuation that Goodale's own aides has leaked the budget, and by implication, shaped the budget, to enrich Liberal business interests.
Meanwhile, the Tories had their own potentially explosive scandal in the works, regarding the Grewal doctored tapes. Here's what I read in the G&M four days after the election:
Stephen Harper failed to meet federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro despite repeated attempts over four months to interview him for an inquiry into the Gurmant Grewal affair, Mr. Shapiro noted in a report released yesterday.
Despite a code of conduct that says it is an MP's duty to co-operate with an inquiry by the commissioner, Mr. Harper's office told Mr. Shapiro he could not find time in his schedule to answer his questions between August and November of last year. Instead, Mr. Shapiro spoke to an aide.
...On the eve of a no-confidence vote last May 19 that the Liberals won by one vote, Mr. Harper's office released excerpts of recordings Mr. Grewal made, and asserted that Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, chief of staff to Prime Minister Paul Martin, offered him and his wife, Nina, also an MP, patronage jobs if they switched sides.
Two weeks later, under pressure, Mr. Grewal began releasing versions of all the conversations -- the first with 14 minutes missing. The last version showed that while Mr. Murphy and Mr. Dosanjh said he would be welcomed to the Liberals and did not rule out appointments, they refused to make any deal.
In his report, Mr. Shapiro cleared Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy of violating the code.
And the kicker (emphasis mine):
The report was ready last Friday but delayed to prevent accusations of political favouritism in the last days of an election campaign. In the report, Mr. Shapiro wrote that he wanted to ask Mr. Harper when he knew about the surreptitious recordings of conversations that Mr. Grewal, then a Conservative MP, had with senior Liberals about switching sides for a crucial no-confidence vote.
Dan Cook hammered on the potentially damaging the hypocracy of this tale could have been for Harper, especially in those last few days when Tory votes were going soft:
The Conservative election platform emphasized the importance of the Ethics Commissioner. His role, it said, should be strengthened. He should be allowed to hear complaints from members of the public. He should have the power to fine violators. A strong accountability act, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper told reporters yesterday, will be his new government's first order of business.
...A great many people made themselves available to Mr. Shapiro during his inquiry, including Mr. Martin. Mr. Harper did not. The commissioner wanted to clarify just when Mr. Harper first learned that Mr. Grewal was secretly recording his talks with the Liberals. "Unfortunately, although we made numerous attempts between August and November, we were informed Mr. Harper's schedule did not permit an interview." Mr. Harper left it to his communications director, Geoff Norquay, to do what Mr. Harper should have done: turn up personally to answer questions at some point during those four months.
Mr. Harper's platform hammered home a demand for "accountability." Go figure.
This was the press and institutional culture in which our election was covered: two explosive issues managed in such a way to benefit the Tories and hurt the Liberals in the campaign. American lefties ask, with justification, "What liberal media?" I aks: "What Liberal media?"
First, in the G&M, Jeffrey Simpson fulminates about the RCMP's role in the election:
So why did the RCMP [make public its intentions to go forward with an investigation of the Goodale budget leak]? Why did Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli send a letter to NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis confirming the start of a formal investigation in response to a letter she had sent the force asking for one?
... The first defence/explanation of the RCMP action is the “damned-if-they-did, damned-if-they-didn't” one. The argument goes: If the RCMP had not announced the investigation, and the fact of the investigation became public later, the RCMP would have stood accused of covering up for political purposes.
This defence/explanation cannot withstand the counter-argument that the RCMP was never obligated to confirm or deny anything, even to an MP. The force could simply have acknowledged receipt of her letter and said it would be studied.
Whether or not it was their prime motivation, the RCMP took overt action to screw the Liberals during the campaign, and right at the time (just post-Christmas with the Tories surging) that it could do the most damage. To do so might not have been so unfair if there was a serious suspicion that Goodale's office had leaked the numbers early to help cronies on Bay Street. But, as CathiefromCanada noted, quoting a CTV report, that wasn't the story -- though it would be once the investigation went public:
[Drummand] believes the original sources of the information were "definitely" not within Goodale's office, but elsewhere in the Liberal government. "I heard it secondhand, but not from Finance," said Drummond. "Liberal strategists were the sources ... from Ottawa. A lot of people seemed to know there was an announcement (coming) and some people seemed to know what it was," he added.
Those people were idiots and deserve to get their clocks cleaned, but the political fallout was bound to follow the much more damning, but unlikely, insinuation that Goodale's own aides has leaked the budget, and by implication, shaped the budget, to enrich Liberal business interests.
Meanwhile, the Tories had their own potentially explosive scandal in the works, regarding the Grewal doctored tapes. Here's what I read in the G&M four days after the election:
Stephen Harper failed to meet federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro despite repeated attempts over four months to interview him for an inquiry into the Gurmant Grewal affair, Mr. Shapiro noted in a report released yesterday.
Despite a code of conduct that says it is an MP's duty to co-operate with an inquiry by the commissioner, Mr. Harper's office told Mr. Shapiro he could not find time in his schedule to answer his questions between August and November of last year. Instead, Mr. Shapiro spoke to an aide.
...On the eve of a no-confidence vote last May 19 that the Liberals won by one vote, Mr. Harper's office released excerpts of recordings Mr. Grewal made, and asserted that Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, chief of staff to Prime Minister Paul Martin, offered him and his wife, Nina, also an MP, patronage jobs if they switched sides.
Two weeks later, under pressure, Mr. Grewal began releasing versions of all the conversations -- the first with 14 minutes missing. The last version showed that while Mr. Murphy and Mr. Dosanjh said he would be welcomed to the Liberals and did not rule out appointments, they refused to make any deal.
In his report, Mr. Shapiro cleared Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy of violating the code.
And the kicker (emphasis mine):
The report was ready last Friday but delayed to prevent accusations of political favouritism in the last days of an election campaign. In the report, Mr. Shapiro wrote that he wanted to ask Mr. Harper when he knew about the surreptitious recordings of conversations that Mr. Grewal, then a Conservative MP, had with senior Liberals about switching sides for a crucial no-confidence vote.
Dan Cook hammered on the potentially damaging the hypocracy of this tale could have been for Harper, especially in those last few days when Tory votes were going soft:
The Conservative election platform emphasized the importance of the Ethics Commissioner. His role, it said, should be strengthened. He should be allowed to hear complaints from members of the public. He should have the power to fine violators. A strong accountability act, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper told reporters yesterday, will be his new government's first order of business.
...A great many people made themselves available to Mr. Shapiro during his inquiry, including Mr. Martin. Mr. Harper did not. The commissioner wanted to clarify just when Mr. Harper first learned that Mr. Grewal was secretly recording his talks with the Liberals. "Unfortunately, although we made numerous attempts between August and November, we were informed Mr. Harper's schedule did not permit an interview." Mr. Harper left it to his communications director, Geoff Norquay, to do what Mr. Harper should have done: turn up personally to answer questions at some point during those four months.
Mr. Harper's platform hammered home a demand for "accountability." Go figure.
This was the press and institutional culture in which our election was covered: two explosive issues managed in such a way to benefit the Tories and hurt the Liberals in the campaign. American lefties ask, with justification, "What liberal media?" I aks: "What Liberal media?"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home