The recommendations made by Phase 2 of the Gomery Report into ADSCAM go too far, a number of former politicians of different stripes say. Read the story here.
More than 60 former politicians, business leaders and retired bureaucrats are warning Prime Minister Stephen Harper that implementing some of Justice John Gomery's reforms may do more harm than good.
(...)
In his second and last report on the sponsorship scandal, Gomery said the federal government should take power away from cabinet ministers and their political staff, and beef up the ability of MPs and civil servants to keep Ottawa clean.
(...)
They single out a recommendation that would reduce the influence wielded by the clerk of the Privy Council. They also object to a reform that would take away the prime minister's power to appoint deputy ministers.
The letter says that as the head of the government, Harper needs the ability to "organize it in ways that best respond to your objectives."
Don't forget: the people saying this aren't just Conservatives. It's a serious statement.
I think what the critics of Gomery's recommendations mean is that some powers are best left to the elected head of government, for if such powers were relinquished to civil servants, then the Prime Minister would have little or no control over the agenda and direction of government with respect to the platform upon which the governing party had run in the election which placed it into power. In effect, taking away too much power from the PM would be tantamount to disenfranchising those who voted them in and could potentially leave power in the hands of those who lost and who are supported by the civil service in a partisan way and in line with the agenda of said election losers.
There must be a balance, in my view, between strong enforcement of rules and laws against corruption and abuse of power and the ability of the PM to implement a democratically-required agenda for Canada. Of course, the whole thing is complicated, but I think the main point of the multipartisan group issuing the caution to PM Stephen Harper is easy enough to grasp.
And this brings me once again to the question of the credibility and impartiality of the Gomery recommendations. Recall I posted here on TCS about Gomery's appointment of longtime Martin crony and financial facilitator of his purchase of Canada Steamship Lines, Raymond Garneau, to oversee the recommendations phase of the report: see here and here.
The question of Gomery's blatantly clear (I have established this in my previous posts) conflict of interest in appointing Raymon Garneau has yet to be asked by the MSM.
I have a further question: did Martin crony Garneau have a hidden agenda to make recommendations based upon whomever won the election? Did he have two sets of recommendations, one for Paul Martin and the Liberals and one for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?
I dare these players to respond. What better way to bring the whole smelly situation out into the open so Canadians can judge for themselves?
This question must be asked! If I don't ask, who will?
And, in light of this hitherto-unasked question, is the Recommendations Phase of the Gomery Report effectively rendered invalid due to apparent conflict of interest?
Should PM Harper necessarily implement all of the recommendations, or ignore it on the grounds of lack of integrity and credibility of the Report and proceed to implement a somewhat different, more workable set of rules and laws?
I warned of this. I warned that Gomery must cancel the Garneau appointment or face the possibility of the Report being rendered invalid. Who listened? Not Gomery. Garneau stayed right where he was appointed.
We shouldn't be surprised, then, that the Recommendations are causing controversy.
Come on, let's get this out into the open! Let's get talking about it! It's our country and we cannot allow the cronies of a disgraced, ultra-corrupt former regime to set the agenda today!
