Five Years in the Life of a Government. This is Accountability?

News yesterday was that the Auditor General is investigating the office of the Federal Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet, a bogus office created under the Harper government's so-called Accountability Act.

Ouimet's annual report contained zero findings of wrongdoing -- for the fourth year running. That in itself should send up a red flag.

Had she at least reported the theft of sticky notes or something, it may have sounded credible. But we have one of the most corrupt governments on record. If she couldn't find anything, then she's obviously not looking.

So I have created a report for Oimet.

1. Used funds from oil and gas sector to run anti-Kyoto campaign ads, with money going to Friends of Science, a group associated with the Fraser Institute. Also affiliated is Stephen Harper's long time friend, John Weissenberger.

A Globe and Mail feature article by Charles Montgomery today has delivered what should be a death blow for the climate change denial and anti-Kyoto attack group, the Friends of Science. The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”

2. Hired a firm guilty of corruption and war crimes, to provide security in Afghanistan.

3. Travel luxury class, bilking Canadian taxpayers out of thousands of dollars.

4. Billed Canadian taxpayers for their fundraisers.

5. Changed their expense records on their website to hide abuse of tax dollars.

6. New Senator Mike Duffy violated ethics when he interfered with the 2008 election campaign

7. MP Gary Lunn involved in collusion scheme.

8. Abused franking privileges.

9. Appointed climate change deniers to Science Board, meaning we are paying salaries of people working against our interests.

10. In and out election scheme.

11. Fired Dan Veniez from Ridley Terminals because he exposed scheme to subsidize U.S. Coal Industry.

12. Questionable relationship of Michael Fortier and public service contracts.

13. Enormous numbers of patronage appointments.

14. John Baird interferes with streetcars for T.O. Then tells them to flick off.

15. Pet Mackay pork barrels infrastructure spending.

16. Bribed a dying man for his vote.

17. Rampant cronyism.

18. Appoints friends to Toronto Port Authority.

19. Family members put on payroll.

20. Record spending on polls.

21. Rod Bruinooge and the Waverley Overpass.

22. RCMP investigations into misuse of voter lists.

23. Abuse of police connections.

24. Tony Clement's questionable G-8 spending.

25. 50 million on signs.

26. Almost 100 million on self-promotion ads.

27. Requested more money for an office with no function.

28. Names party insider as RCMP chief.

29. Big cardboard cheques.

30. Excessive G-20 spending.

31. White collar crime.

32. Christian Paradis - enough said.

33. Infrastructure money going to private religious schools.

That's only a partial list. And she can find no wrong doing?

Accountability, Transparency and Words That Work

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Canada's Access to Information Act was passed into law by Pierre Trudeau in 1983.

Conceived in the late 1970s, drafted and passed into law in the early 1980s, the Act was quite radical in its impact. It created an enforceable right of access for Canadians, subject to limited and specific exceptions, and provided for an appeal process for refusal of access independent of government, first, to an Information Commissioner and then to the Federal Court. Despite ongoing criticism of the legislation, there is no doubt that it has served to slowly but nevertheless effectively strip away much of the natural resort to secrecy which has been one of the less useful legacies to the country of British parliamentary government. In short, the Act established new standards for the release of information which required often reluctant Ministers and bureaucrats to embrace the tenets of open, more transparent government. One cannot pick up a thoughtful editorial, public affairs magazine or throne speech and not find these concepts now heralded as one of the essential bases of the "new", more relevant politics. (1)

The act wasn't perfect but it was a start and has been a useful tool, especially to journalists. It has also been a thorn to many politicians of all political stripes, as they have tried to stall information they'd rather not have made public. But it rarely worked.

Eventually the truth came out, and the fact that they tried to withhold that truth, only made the potential scandal worse.

Then along came Stephen Harper, and he would do more to circumvent the access to information act than anyone before him. But he wrapped it up in language designed to placate a distrustful public. And that language was courtesy of Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

Because while we sought transparency, they instead gave us 'accountability'.

I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the financial services industry as well as Members of Congress. But if you asked the American people, accountability is a much higher priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can’t even explain what transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands accountability from all sectors of the economy ... and the government. (2)

Those are the words of Frank Luntz and he used the notion of 'accountability' as part of his book: Words That Work. And when I say the notion of accountability, I mean exactly that.

It's interesting that the entire 'Accountability Act', came not from anyone in the legal, civic or justice community, but from a Republican pollster whose job it is to get people elected and keep them in power. And not by being a better or more ethical government, but simply by using words that work. 'Accountability', not 'transparency'.

And it worked for a while. That was until it was determined that this government was the most secretive in this country's history.

Robert Marleau, the information commissioner when Harper assumed power, resigned:

... a few months after issuing a set of failing-grade report cards that blamed those "at the very top" for systematically denying Canadians information about what the government is doing in their name. (2)

And our new information officer, Suzanne Legault, has given the Harper government a failing grade. And while they continue to take Luntz's advice and use the word 'accountability' as much as possible, nothing has changed.

So when David McKie asks recently, the G-20 and G-8 expenses debate, is it really about transparency, we are not the ones to ask. We're not familiar with the term. We've been Republicanized.

What we have recorded to date is about a quarter of a billion dollars. In other words, a fraction of the total bill, which we're told is comprised mostly of security costs born by the RCMP and CSIS. Because of security concerns with those organizations, a detailed breakdown of the remaining costs may never come. If it does, the information, as it was this summer when foreign affairs first released its costs, will be heavily censored. This is not transparency.

You had us until you mentioned the 'T' word David.

Might I suggest you head down to the bookstore or library and pick up a copy of Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear, By Frank Luntz. He's co-wrote everything from our Accountability Act to our Environmental Platform. A must read if you want to translate the language of Stephen Harper.

It'll come in handy when we start the debate on health care in this country, up to now a taboo subject for this government. I can hardly wait.

Sources:

1. THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT: A CRITICAL REVIEW, Minister of Public Works and Government Services 1994, Cat. No. IP34-6/1994E, ISBN 0-662-22683-0

2. This holiday, pity the poor watchdog, By James Travers, Toronto Star, December 24, 2009

Harper is Requesting More Money For an Office that Doesn't Exist

Back in July, I reported on a story I'd been tracking about Harper's creation of a phantom appointments commission, to make sure that government jobs would go to those most qualified, and not just to party faithfuls.

Obviously he had no intention of creating such an office because he presented party faithful and long time fundraiser, oil baron Gwyn Morgan in to head up the office.

He had to know that his name would be rejected, and then he could blame others for killing the office. In fact he did.

Harper signalled that the move effectively kills the commission, a key part of his accountability and ethics package.

By abandoning his proposed Public Appointments Commission, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is providing fodder for those who argue his accountability agenda is little more than a public relations ploy. Harper's choice for heading the commission, former EnCana chief executive officer Gwyn Morgan, was rejected by a Parliamentary committee. In an ensuing temper tantrum, the Prime Minister swiftly announced the commission would be shelved.

And yet we learned in June of this year, that although the office was scrapped, taxpayers are still funding it.

Secretariat, created by an order in council on April 21, 2006, to "lay the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the commission," is still operating. The secretariat has cost taxpayers more than $1-million over the last three years, including $633,000 spent in 2006-2007—most of which went to salaries and $82,000 in severance payment for layoffs. It has a yearly budget that's just more than $1-million, though for 2007-2008 (the last year that is posted) it lapsed most of it, using only $113,000.

But if you think that's nuts, would it surprise you to learn that Harper has now put in a request for more money, to fund a phantom office, that exists only on paper? What's the money really for? Do both of his faces need lifting?

As Greg Weston says: Taxpayers funding 'ghost' commission

Canadian taxpayers have shelled out more than $1 million for a federal appointments commission that has no commissioners and hasn’t overseen a single appointment in four years.

In fact, it isn’t even supposed to exist.

Stephen Harper created the commission in 2006, and promptly scrapped it in a huff. Yet the spending continues, and indeed the commission lives on, despite serving no apparent use.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Harper Government Being Taken to Court Over Lack of Accountability

Recent reports have revealed that 90% of the infrastructure projects are proceeding without an environmental impact study, and as a result two agencies are taking the Harper government to court.

Now I know that many people will say that they were being forced to get the money out the door as soon as possible, so didn't have time for any studies. However, there are two contradictions to that. First off, they dragged their heels when it came to providing any stimulus at all.

Remember the Parliamentary crisis?

And second, they sure did a lot of study into how they could direct the stimulus money into improving their political fortunes, while ignoring any notion that the money should go to communities who suffered a greater impact from the downturn.

Projects may avoid federal review
Cabinet okays exemptions Infrastructure work to be funded without environmental-impact studies
By MIKE DE SOUZA,
Canwest News Service
November 16, 2009

More than 90 per cent of the thousands of new infrastructure projects across the country are slated to get funding from the Conservative government without being required to undergo a federal assessment of their environmental impact, Canwest News Service has learned.

Although environmental assessments are generally required for projects that receive federal funding, exemptions were approved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet last spring to speed up the approval process on certain types of projects with small budgets.

The small percentage of environmental assessments is the result of a program designed to kick-start projects and avoid extensive consultations that would "slow projects and threaten Canada's economic recovery," the government said.

"Large-scale projects that could potentially impact the environment were generally not eligible for the infrastructure stimulus fund," said Chris Day, a spokesman for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Minister John Baird.

"They may be considered for funding under other envelopes with longer timelines."

As a result, out of more than 3,000 projects that were approved for funding under the government's multibillion-dollar infrastructure stimulus fund this year, only two per cent will go through a federal process to evaluate their environmental footprint, according to Day.

Only 15 per cent of more than 1,200 projects approved for funding as part of the government's Building Canada fund for new infrastructure required the federal environmental assessment, he explained.

But some projects may still require a provincial assessment.

The exemptions for federal assessments were not introduced through legislation in Parliament and have been challenged in court by two environmental organizations, Ecojustice and the Sierra Club of Canada.

"It seems like they (members of the Harper government) are just making decisions arbitrarily," said Justin Duncan, a staff lawyer at Ecojustice.

The new figures were released following a scathing report this month by the federal environment commissioner, Scott Vaughan, that questioned whether the government is doing enough to find out whether its assessments were preventing adverse environmental effects from new projects.

Francine Richard, who directed the research on environmental assessments for the commissioner's report, said the federal process sometimes consisted only of a checklist of questions about whether there would be negative impacts.

"That's not sufficient,' she said. "We expect at least one sentence or something saying, 'This is not ... a concern and this is why.' "

Vaughan has recommended the government consider its findings as it does a scheduled review of the federal environmental-assessment legislation in the next year.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice has said he accepts the commissioner's recommendations.

At the time it introduced the exemptions, the federal government acknowledged in its notice that it had not done any specific consultations on the package, and there could be a risk of negative consequences for the environment.

Harper Secrecy is a Threat to Our Democracy

The more I thought about the latest Reform-Conservative maneuvering with regard to the Gun Registry, the madder I got. How dare they! To suggest that they will run attack ads against their opponents until they vote the way they want is fascism, not democracy.

Just who in the hell do they think they are?

Well I'm not the only one worried about the state of our democracy since this neo-conservative government took power. The most secretive, tyrannical bunch we've ever had the misfortune to know.

Keeping secrets hurts democracy
Globe and Mail
October 25, 2009

Accountability in politics is possible only when the governed obtain fair, unbiased information about the government's track record and future plans. The federal government preaches accountability, but is being only selectively transparent about its own spending activities. In addition to being bad public policy, this opacity does a disservice to democracy.

The latest example is the government's failure to provide a public accounting of its criminal justice reforms. The ambitious agenda – mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offences; restrictions on the use of house arrest; elimination of the faint hope clause for the most serious offenders – will surely increase Canada's prison population and spark the need for more prison construction. But the number of new prisoners the policy will generate is apparently a cabinet secret.

The Liberals are asking Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to conduct an investigation into the total cost of the reforms.

Compare this cloaking to Stephen Harper's boasting about his stimulus package. Websites, quarterly reports, signs and promotions that stack highways and drape commuter trains all attest to the government's largesse. Even here, there is less transparency than meets the eye. Considerable work by opposition parties and the media, including this newspaper, have shown patterns of spending to favour Conservative ridings, and suggest that less money has flowed to actual construction projects than the government would like the public to believe. (I was out on the weekend and found a sign in a church courtyard and at the foot of a creek. Not much action going on in either place)

The person best poised to dive into the numbers and serve as a watchdog is Mr. Page, but he can only measure given the information and resources available to him. He has done a remarkable job at divining the fiscal deficits the government is incurring, exhibiting a better track record than the government's own Department of Finance. But when it comes to measuring individual programs, and getting the resources he needs to do his job properly, he has been turned back at every opportunity.

The Conservatives have hindered his assessment of changes to the employment insurance system and of the economic impact of the stimulus package, and have fought his attempts to get a modest $1-million increase in his parliamentary allocation.

This sounds like politics as usual, but in bringing in the Accountability Act, Stephen Harper promised his government would be different. In any case, the Parliamentary Budget Officer should not have to police the impact of every government announcement.

A more respectful and consistent approach from the federal government where transparency is the norm, not the exception, would help build a healthier political culture in Canada. In a time of growing disenchantment, that would be a refreshing and welcome change.

If the Dog Isn't Watching, Why Feed the Beast?

Since we've now realized that the Conservatives' accountability act was just a PR gimmick, why are we still paying to staff the offices they set up?

The appointments commission is only functional on paper, and the Conservatives have been breaking every rule with regards to patronage appointments, nepotism and lobbying.

Now we learn that their watch dog is not watching anything, so why not just shut the whole thing down?


Critics call on federal whistle-blowing watchdog to step down
By Andrew Mayeda,
Canwest News Service
July 5, 2009

OTTAWA -- Nearly two years since she was appointed by the Harper government, the head of a federal agency designed to protect whistleblowers is off to an underwhelming start, critics say.

As part of the accountability reforms put in place in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives beefed up legislation that gives public servants a confidential outlet for reporting wrongdoing, while protecting them from reprisals. In August 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet to enforce the new act.

However, Ouimet has yet to report a single case of public-sector wrongdoing to Parliament. Her office has not referred any cases to a new tribunal of senior judges that has the power to award as much as $10,000 in compensation to whistleblowers who have been punished for coming forward, as well as to discipline their bosses.

Of the 114 cases of alleged wrongdoing and the 42 complaints of reprisals reported to her office, Ouimet has taken on five formal investigations - none in the last fiscal year.

New Democrat MP Paul Dewar said the performance of the office has been disappointing, given the fact that the Conservatives rode to power largely on their promises to root out corruption in government.

"We had hoped when it was brought into force that the office would be . . . proactive, and it wouldn't be like the Maytag repairman and sit back and say, 'Well, everything seems to be fine,'" he said.

Some whistle-blowing advocates go even further, calling on Ouimet to step down less than two years into her seven-year term.

"It's not polite to call for an agent of Parliament to be removed, but it's very hard to see how Madame Ouimet can salvage her reputation," said David Hutton, executive director of Federal Accountability Initiative Reform, an organization that supports whistleblowers.

For the system to work, whistleblowers must trust the person to whom they report wrongdoing, and believe that action will be taken, said Hutton. "I think she has completely blown her credibility with those people."

As a former bureaucrat at the Public Works department, Allan Cutler blew the whistle on contracting irregularities in the now-infamous sponsorship program. Cutler, who ran as a Conservative candidate but was defeated in the 2006 election, now heads an organization that assists whistleblowers called Canadians for Accountability.

The small organization, which runs on volunteer staff, has heard more than 35 cases of wrongdoing in the public service, according to Cutler.

He believes that Ouimet, whose office spent $3.6 million last year and employs 20 full-time staff, should be more willing to "rock the boat" like other officers of Parliament, such as Auditor General Sheila Fraser and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.

"It's not working," said Cutler. "It can work, if you have the right person at the head. There's got to be a desire to make it work."

Ouimet defends her record, noting that she has spent considerable time and energy setting up the office while dealing with numerous complex cases.

She points to a case where a whistleblower reported that a colleague at a "busy federal mechanical facility" had engaged in potentially life-threatening actions. The commissioner spoke with a senior official at the organization, and the "situation" was addressed within 48 hours.

"If I may use a fire-station analogy, we don't wait till there's a huge fire," Ouimet said.

Nevertheless, she acknowledges that her office still needs to build confidence among the roughly 400,000 public servants covered by the act, and she says her office plans to invest more this year in "getting the word out."

"Certainly, at this time, we have a lot of people who come with private grievances, as opposed to (cases in the) public interest. So we need to invest more time explaining what our role is. It is confusing to citizens and to public servants."

Others say the government needs to make legislative changes to better protect whistleblowers. Joanna Gualtieri, a former Foreign Affairs employee who blew the whistle on excessive spending on overseas residences, has been battling the government in court for more than 11 years.

Under the current law, the integrity commissioner can only cover up to $3,000 of a whistleblower's legal costs, she noted. "The way the office was established, it was just doomed to fail," said Gualtieri.

Three Years and Poilievre is Still Wimping Out on Accountability

It's been more than three years since the Conservatives rode into power on the promise of an accountability act, and yet they still have not delivered.

Apparently critics were right when they said it was no more that a public relations gimmick, and the fact that Pierre Poilievre actually sought the advice of the U.S. Republican Party before it was drafted, says it all.

Now NDP Pat Martin is suggesting that the entire idea be scrapped, because we are paying to staff an office that only exists on paper.

Of course, the Conservatives are still falling back on the tired 'it was all the opposition's fault', when they rejected a Tory fundraiser to head up the appointments commission. They've got to let it go. They tried to pull a fast one, but it didn't work.

Federal Public Appointments Commission should be scrapped: NDP
The PM abruptly cancelled the patronage watchdog office in 2006, but it has spent more than $1-million since.
The Hill Times,
June 15, 2009
By Cynthia Münster

The government should scrap the Federal Public Appointments Commission because it still doesn't have a promised patronage watchdog and has spent $1-million since 2006, says NDP MP Pat Martin.

The commission and the secretariat itself fall under the portfolio of the Prime Minister and the PMO and his Parliamentary Secretary Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) declined to respond to questions on the subject. When asked in Question Period in May, Mr. Poilievre said the officials within the secretariat are "in the process of establishing this important enhancement in the way appointments are done. Our government came forward with a very qualified nominee to head a review board for public appointments. The opposite decided to play partisan games with that nomination.

As such, our government was unable to fill that position," stated Mr. Poilievre. "We continue to make appointments based on merit and the government is currently laying the ground-work for the eventual establishment of a public appointments commissioner."

Treasury Board President Vic Toews (Provencher, Man.) told Civil Circles he wasn't aware of the state of the appointment or commission. "The only thing I know is the commissioner was rejected by the House," said Mr. Toews.

Calls to the secretariat were responded by Privy Council Office spokesperson Myriam Massabki, who would only say the office is setting the stage for the commissioner's office to be established, while acknowledging they've been doing it for two years.

"I don't have details of what they are doing exactly but their mandate and this is what they are doing, they are currently laying the grounds for the eventual establishment of the commission, I don't have any other detail on that but we have, as you know, the government has appointed a number of qualified individuals to key positions, that was done in the past and continues to be done," said Ms. Massabki.

Once the commission is set up, the secretariat's job will be to assist the commission, "providing policy and operational support to the chair and members." After the House rejected Mr. Morgan's appointment—MPs rejected him on comments he had made on immigrants, questioning the wisdom of multiculturalism—Mr. Harper said it was an "irresponsible decision" by the opposition and his government would need a majority to do that in the future, suggesting he would take it to the polls.

Lorne Sossin, director of the Centre For Professionalism, Ethics and Public Service at the University of Toronto Law School, said the "foreboding" comments worried people in the administrative justice community. "I think many people took that to mean that the Conservatives were going to be scaling back or not moving forward on the pledge to bring greater merit-based transparency to their appointments and that they would go back to business as usual, which has always included factors other than merit," said Prof. Sossin.

He said although a minority government is an "ideal time" to move forward with this kind of initiative because of an overarching need to have government act in some non-partisan ways and acceptable to other parties, he added that "he is afraid" it may take another crisis, "another Gomery-style set of events" to get these changes to happen.

It may also be that the government doesn't want another set of eyes watching its every movement. "You have to live by these institutions once you create them and Harper's disputes with Elections Canada, disputes with the Military Complaints Commissioner, the Nuclear Safety Commission when Linda Keen was there, there's a track record of being fairly abrasive with a number of these outside independent bodies and the appointments process is part of that governmental responsibility to show respect for the independence of these bodies by making sure they get really qualified people who merit the appointments, I see all of these issues as connected around the government's commitment to accountability," said Prof. Sossin.

Liberal MP Alan Tonks (York South-Weston, Ont.), who was part of the committee that looked at the Federal Accountability Act in the last Parliament, said it's an opportunity lost, but not forever.

"It's one that they could address and make that appointment, bring all parties together behind that and follow through on a promise that they made and put an infrastructure in place that transcends politics and whoever is the next government, inherits something that is very strong foundation as a mechanism in the public appointments process," said Mr. Tonks. "Patronage—and I use the term patronage because it was what was originally what the call for a Public Appointments Commission was all about—and patronage has no boundary or monopoly with respect to political party," said Mr. Tonks.

"There will always be charges that individuals are appointed because of their connections, the important thing is not their connections, it's their qualifications and capacity, experience and ability to do the job and the only way that will inevitably satisfy that first requirement, that people are qualified, it's to have an instrument that transcends partisanship like the Public Appointments Commission so it would be wise for the government to follow through on their promise because it's in the higher public interest and it would be wise for us to press it in Question Period with a well-prepared question and a preamble that sort of indicates that this is a very important part of the democratic and Parliamentary infrastructure," said Mr. Tonks.

The Conservatives have shown once again that they are all bluster and no substance, and who better than Pierre Poilievre to prove my point.

Harper's Cronyism Has Placed Under Qualified People in Key Positions

Harper first came to power when the sponsorship scandal had tarnished the Liberal reputation, and he promised to be the one to clean up government.

In a media blitz he announced an accountability act, that would ensure something like that would never happen again.

But after milking that scandal dry, and the Gomery report revealing that it was perpetrated by bureaucrats, and no elected official was involved; he moved on.

Besides the act was supposed to catch Liberals, not anyone in his own party, which is a shame because those are the guys who have taken corruption and scandal to new levels. Who knew? (besides me)

Patronage, nepotism, cronyism, fraud, sex, lies and videotape. They've got it all.

But instead of addressing these things when they surface, Harper's MO is to sweep them under the rug, and when the rug can no longer be walked on, he uses his executive powers to ignore subpoenas and sue our public service. A page out of Brian Mulroney's book.

On the first anniversary of the act that never was, the Toronto Star ran this article:

Tories' cronyism rampant, critics say
Two important provisions of the much vaunted accountability act haven't been implemented
January 01, 2008
Richard Brennan
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA–When the Conservatives were elected, they promised to do business differently. No more cronyism, no more backroom deals with party hacks. They were going to clean up Ottawa.

However, critics say Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has appointed hundreds of people with Conservative ties – the kind of cronyism the Conservatives and their predecessors used to howl about.

When the federal government was patting itself on the back last month on the anniversary of the passage of the Federal Accountability Act, it failed to mention that two key components – the appointments commission and the lobbying provisions – have not been implemented.

"The lack of a public appointments commission seriously undermines any credibility that Mr. Harper is serious about cleaning up how business is done in Ottawa," said New Democrat MPP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay).

Opposition parties insist Canadians were duped into giving the Conservatives a minority government in the January 2006 election. Government accountability was a big factor in the contest that banished the Liberals to official Opposition.

"After a full year, enough is enough. We're not going to let the Conservatives deceive Canadians any longer," New Democrat MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) said.

The Accountability act, drafted by the Tories in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal, passed the Commons and Senate and received royal assent in December 2006, but a separate cabinet order is required for many provisions to come into force.

There is nothing forcing cabinet to establish the appointments commission.

Treasury Board President Vic Toews told the House of Commons these two components of the Accountability Act are very complicated and require time to draft. A government official said it could be another six months before the new lobbying rules come in and, as for a public appointments commission, that may never happen.

Angus said if there was a public appointments commission the government wouldn't be in a mess with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

The Conservatives' hand-picked chair, Michael Burns, resigned from the Crown corporation after Parliament was forced to intervene when the shutdown of a nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ont., caused a critical shortage of medical isotopes nationwide. Burns, a Tory fundraiser, was appointed to the top job at AECL by Harper's government in October 2006.

"One of the key elements to (having) the public appointments commission is to make sure that there is a process in place to carefully vet the public appointment and ensure that the government isn't just parachuting cronies into key posts," Angus said.

Since taking office, the Conservative have made 1,132 appointments – 410 in 2006 and 722 posted so far this year – and critics have said many of them are patronage appointments.

Another anniversary has passed and still no appointments commission or lobbying rule are in place, though we've been paying the staff for two years, running up more than one million dollars, mostly to pay salaries for people who techniclly have no jobs.

The PM abruptly cancelled the patronage watchdog office in 2006, but it has spent more than $1-million since.

Three years later, there is no new commissioner nominated and the Public Appointments Secretariat, created by an order in council on April 21, 2006, to "lay the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the commission," is still operating.

The secretariat has cost taxpayers more than $1-million over the last three years, including $633,000 spent in 2006-2007—most of which went to salaries and $82,000 in severance payment for layoffs. It has a yearly budget that's just more than $1-million, though for 2007-2008 (the last year that is posted) it lapsed most of it, using only $113,000.

There are two employees working at the secretariat: deputy executive director Christine Miles and administrative assistant Joanne Leblanc. Their salaries amount to most of the secretariat expenses, $88,000 in 2007-2008. A search through the orders in council website shows almost 3,000 public appointments were made since Feb. 6, 2006.

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) said the secretariat is "all smoke and mirrors" and "they should just fold up their tent" because the government is still making appointments in the same way previous governments did; "by the Rolodex of Conservative Party faithful, not by merit and certainly without any scrutiny or examination by an independent commission." Declared Mr. Martin: "

Only people who pay a lot of attention to Ottawa know that no such appointment process exists, because it was featured and advertised and promoted and promised, a lot of people probably think there is such an appointments commission and when they look it up in the government registry, sure enough, there's the office, there's the budget, but there's no commission so it is completely disingenuous and in the interest of honesty and transparency they should just lock the door and re-appoint these people to something more useful. You are probably wasting some decent, administrative talent, if nothing else."

And what does our buddy Vic Toews have to say now? Treasury Board President Vic Toews (Provencher, Man.) told Civil Circles he wasn't aware of the state of the appointment or commission. "The only thing I know is the commissioner was rejected by the House," said Mr. Toews. That was three years ago Vic. You can't ride that forever.

A Deceptive Democracy. Sandra Buckler and an Act of War

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Whenever, therefore, people are deceived and form opinions wide of the truth, it is clear that the error has slid into their minds through the medium of certain resemblances to that truth." Socrates

On November 4, 2005; Parliament Hill was abuzz with the announcement that Stephen Harper, then leader of the Opposition, was going to speak to a room filled with journalists, MPs and staffers. Mind you in 2005, an announcement that Stephen Harper was going to speak to journalists was not really the news that it is now. In fact we would stand a better chance of seeing Haley's comet two years in a row.

But what made this announcement exciting, was all the election talk during a daily barrage of accusations in the House of Commons about Liberal lobbyists and a culture of entitlement.

... what appears to be a revolving door* that sees people go into government and then leaving, using their contacts to launch lucrative careers lobbying the government they once worked for. (1)

Harper was in his best fighting mode, honed during his presidency of the National Citizens Coalition.

Politics will no longer be a steppingstone for a lucrative career** lobbying government ... Make no mistake. If there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government, if that's true of you then you better make different plans or leave." (1)

This was the beginning of the launch of his Accountability Act, which would prove to be merely a gimmick, with no intention of ever being implemented. Those in attendance were quick to note that it was full of holes, but not yet aware that the holes were the entire substance of the act.

"The speech was rhetoric," said Conacher ... one area ... is the use of lobbyists in the election campaign. ... A little more than three weeks after Harper warned those looking to cash in to make other plans, [several] Ottawa lobbyists deregistered from lobbying for their impressive list of clients to take a seat in the Conservative war room. "To have lobbyists working inside their war room I don't think it meets the standard that's in the ethics rules..." Conacher said he believes lobbyists working on the election campaign violate existing ethics rules in Ottawa. "The lobbyist code of conduct says you can't put any public office holder in a conflict of interest."

But William Stairs, a spokesman for Harper, said the Tory leader's promise was only meant to crackdown on those who try to profit from being in government. "Mr. Harper's position hasn't changed," he said. "What is wrong is when people go from government to lobbying and they use their position in government or they've joined government in order to gain the experience and contacts necessary to allow them to go into the lobbying business and make all kinds of money. (1)

Lobbyists working in the war room at the time, included Ken Boessenkool and Goldy Hyder from Hill and Knowlton (Harper's first defense minister, Gordon O'Connor, was also from Hill and Knowlton, responsible for military contracts) Lisa McAdam from Strategy Corp., Yaroslav Baran from Tactix Government Consulting Inc., Tim Powers from Summa Strategies Canada Inc., and Geoff Norquay from Earnscliffe.

Another lobbyist preparing for an election at the time was Sandra Buckler, from several mega corporations, including Coca Cola. Buckler would build the framework for the most secretive government that Canada has ever had.

Sandra Buckler and This is War

In the United States, the Bush administration goes to exceptional lengths to control their message. They meet with friendly reporters on Fox News, they give interviews to pet right wing "journalists" at the Washington Times, and at public appearances, the audiences are vetted to ensure that only well-rehearsed softball questions are lobbed at the president. Bush has held fewer press conferences than any president since television first became a major part of political messaging, and when he does hold one, they are tightly scripted. (2)

From the onset it was clear that Stephen Harper was going to follow in George Bush's footsteps and stop freedom of the press in it's tracks. Since Canadians had always been frightened of his agenda, the only way he could forge ahead was to ensure that he could operate without the nuisance of journalists whose duty it is to keep us informed, while chronicling history as it unfolds.

After weeks of trying to gain access to ministers, Sandra Buckler, who replaced William Stairs as Harper's spokesperson, arranged a meeting with the Ottawa Press Gallery. But it did not go well. In fact, it wasn't so much a meeting as the announcement of a decree. Canadians would have no access to their government. End of!

The Parliamentary Press Gallery continues its war with the sparkling new Prime Minister's Office which has clamped down on photo opps, scrums news releases and other forms of the fodder and filler of political coverage. Last Friday, the PPG's executive took a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Director of Communications Sandra Buckler to iron out differences. But, from the sound of things, there are many new wrinkles in how the Harperites and the Hacks will interact with each other. Or not interact with each other.

Present were the PPG president Emmanuelle Latraverse, Stephanie Rubec (candidate for the presidency next year), treasurer Isabelle Rodrigue, Terry Guillon Chief of the Press Gallery and John Waterfield Manager of the Press Gallery. Buckler was accompanied by Stéphane Rondeau, Geneviève Desjardins, as well as Christine Csversko.

Here is an excerpt of a note to PPG members from their exec today, which sums up how badly it went. In the course of our short meeting, the PMO indicated that:

· They are considering no longer announcing Cabinet meetings to Canadians ahead of time in order to circumvent the Gallery’s right to post cameras and reporters on the third floor of the Parliament’s Centre Block (as per our understanding with the House);

· They reserve the right not to inform Canadians of the visit of foreign heads of state;

· They will no longer systematically grant access to a pool reporter at photo opportunities between the Prime Ministers and his guests. (3)

Even Time Magazine covered it with suggestions that it "smacks of totalitarianism." (4)

Press Gallery president Emmanuelle Latraverse, ended the meeting after twenty minutes, realizing that nothing was going to change and Harper released his scripted reply.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canadians have no right to know when the federal cabinet is meeting. In an ongoing battle with the parliamentary press gallery over media access, the Conservatives held the first unannounced meeting of the full cabinet in recent memory Tuesday.

... Traditionally, cabinet meetings have been announced in advance, which the House of Commons interprets as an implied invitation to the media to attend. Reporters then gathered outside the cabinet room to buttonhole ministers as they entered or departed. By holding the meetings in secret, Harper has now effectively banned journalists from the floor where cabinet convenes -- allowing ministers to come and go unobserved.

A heavier than usual contingent of Commons security staff patrolled the halls Tuesday morning, barring reporters from areas they had routinely frequented under past governments. "We're going to need hard hats pretty soon," said one guard, rolling his eyes. (5)

Tim from Peace, Order and Good Government, may have said it best at the time:

The Canadian right wing is relatively new to mau-mauing the media compared to their American counterparts, but they are nonetheless keenly taking up the cause. The destruction of public trust in major intuitions - the media, the courts - is an important part of their strategy to become the only purveyors of "the truth". In the U.S., this has allowed the Bush administration to lurch from one lie-induced crisis to another with relatively little difficulty, stabilized by a base of die-hard supporters who only believe what they hear on Fox News or from Rush Limbaugh.

Harper is pursuing the right wing media dream here in Canada, all the better to implement plans he knows the majority of Canadians would find unpalatable. The Conservative Party's loathing of public scrutiny should set off major alarm bells for us all. We've seen Republicans in the U.S. shred the constitution, declare the president above the law, and go to war based on rather transparent lies. With the assistance of a hobbled press corps, Harper could succeed in hiding his "hidden agenda" in plain sight. (6)

"Hiding his 'hidden agenda' in plain sight, is exactly what he has done, and after four years of watching from the sidelines, our media is once again putting up a fight. (7)

Will they succeed? We can only hope. Sandra Buckler was later fired (8), but not for battling the media, but for misfiring a grenade. She is now working as chief of staff fro Peter Van Loan.

Footnotes:

*See Lobbyists in, lobbyists out despite Tory promise to stop 'revolving door' by Bruce Cheadle, November 11, 2007

** See Conservatives duck repeated fire on Rahim Jaffer’s lobbying efforts

Sources:

1. Harper's use of lobbyists criticized, by Romeo St. Martin, PoliticsWatch, December 12, 2005

2. Controlling the Messengers, The Daily Trojan, University of South Carolina, March 28, 2006

3. Taking the Hill, By Antonia Zerbisias, Toronto Star, March 27, 2006

4. Controlling The Message, By Steven Frank, April 03, 2006

5. PM claims right to keep cabinet meetings secret, The Canadian Press, March 28 2006

6. Peace, order and good government, eh? Who promised you democracy would be easy? March 28, 2006

7. How to Lift the PM's Muzzle: Under Stephen Harper citizens' right to know has been smothered. Journalists must take a stand. By Helene Buzzetti and Press gallery colleagues, The Tyee, June 11, 2010

8. PM's communications head steps down, By Bruce Campion-Smith and Tonda MacCharles, Toronto Star