- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
New' government showing its age
TheStar.com - columnists - `New' government showing its age
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/206311
April 24, 2007
James Travers
Aging is inevitable even for governments that perpetually boast about being "new." Wear and tear, the revenge of rookie mistakes and the temptations of power all take their toll.
So it is that an administration still claiming to be in its prime now seems a little old and tired. At a time in the political life cycle when most governments are peaking in public opinion, Stephen Harper's is back about where it was on election day in January 2006 and keeps bumping up against the trust ceiling.
No single reason fully explains that reality. But somewhere in the mix now poisoning Conservative majority prospects are a pair of early appointments a more experienced prime minister wouldn't have made and Harper surely must now regret.
One is Gordon O'Connor, the defence minister in the news again over Canada's see-no-evil handling of Afghanistan prisoners. The other is Michael Fortier, the unaccountable senator who is also the unaccountable minister of the same big-spending, historically corruption-prone public works department that sheltered the Quebec sponsorship scheme.
It's said that no good political deed goes unpunished. Harper's generosity to a former arms industry lobbyist and loyalty to his former leadership co-chair inflate that axiom from warning to prophesy.
Predictable from the start, O'Connor's troubles would be bad enough if limited to huge new military spending that's already attracted Auditor General Sheila Fraser's close attention. But they are mushrooming to intolerable along with a prisoner controversy that suggests the minister is at best misinformed or at worst negligent.
Along with either misunderstanding or putting a jolly face on Ottawa's suspect arrangement with Kabul, the minister somehow missed that what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq made humane treatment of detainees in Afghanistan a precondition for mission support here at home.
Even if O'Connor doesn't get it, Canadians grasp that our behaviour there is inextricably linked to our declared purpose of advancing human rights, democracy and rule of law.
With the exception of the few still clinging to delusions about how modern conflicts are resolved, most Canadians also understand that the way we treat others is principally about us. It reaffirms our values, declares how we expect our troops to be treated and offers hope to ordinary Afghans that the future won't be just a replay of the past.
A country both at war and rebuilding the armed forces requires a credible minister. Voters and taxpayers must have confidence that life-and-death decisions are being taken wisely and believe that there's nothing driving sole-source contracts beyond urgency.
It's also true – although not as seminal – that a "new" government still campaigning against the failures of the old must match actions to words. That's not happening and makes Harper a victim of his own contradictory commitments.
Having already diluted campaign promises to be accountable, Harper is now forced to defend public works contracts that don't pass the critical smell test, as well as the judgment of a minister who can't be questioned in the House of Commons and, in the perfect Conservative fixed-election-date universe, won't be until October 2009.
There's no proof that a pending $400 million public works contract was influenced by alleged corporate connections to Fortier. But Parliament is the appropriate place to ask those questions and others, like his curious decision to appoint a former Quebec separatist minister to head an inquiry focused on Liberal advertising spending.
Those sympathetic to the Prime Minister will note that he can't win. One minister is a problem because he's being hounded in the Commons and the other because he's out of reach in the Senate.
Those who aren't say Harper is in a box of his own making. His government would be less vulnerable on Afghanistan and more accountable to voters if the Prime Minister hadn't taken a flyer on O'Connor or breached trust by appointing Fortier to the Senate, cabinet and public works.
One option is a cabinet shuffle. A defence minister contributing to public uncertainty about a difficult mission would be heaved and Fortier would be told to get the necessary stamp of approval in the next by-election or step aside.
But a Harper weakness is that he won't admit mistakes. Just as he did when his campaign backroom wrongly accused then prime minister Paul Martin of supporting child pornography, Harper is prolonging the agony and eroding his own carefully crafted leadership image.
Prime ministers resist tossing ministers to the wolves fearing that feeding only encourages howling. But protecting the vulnerable only makes governments weak and old before their time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers's national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. jtraver@thestar.ca.
Even if you are a Conservative/Harper supporter you can see where Harper would be tempted to move O'Connor in a cabinet shuffle.
If we had a Defence Minister who could do a better job of explaining to the Canadian public why we are in Afghanistan one would hope support for the mission would increase.
TheStar.com - columnists - `New' government showing its age
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/206311
April 24, 2007
James Travers
Aging is inevitable even for governments that perpetually boast about being "new." Wear and tear, the revenge of rookie mistakes and the temptations of power all take their toll.
So it is that an administration still claiming to be in its prime now seems a little old and tired. At a time in the political life cycle when most governments are peaking in public opinion, Stephen Harper's is back about where it was on election day in January 2006 and keeps bumping up against the trust ceiling.
No single reason fully explains that reality. But somewhere in the mix now poisoning Conservative majority prospects are a pair of early appointments a more experienced prime minister wouldn't have made and Harper surely must now regret.
One is Gordon O'Connor, the defence minister in the news again over Canada's see-no-evil handling of Afghanistan prisoners. The other is Michael Fortier, the unaccountable senator who is also the unaccountable minister of the same big-spending, historically corruption-prone public works department that sheltered the Quebec sponsorship scheme.
It's said that no good political deed goes unpunished. Harper's generosity to a former arms industry lobbyist and loyalty to his former leadership co-chair inflate that axiom from warning to prophesy.
Predictable from the start, O'Connor's troubles would be bad enough if limited to huge new military spending that's already attracted Auditor General Sheila Fraser's close attention. But they are mushrooming to intolerable along with a prisoner controversy that suggests the minister is at best misinformed or at worst negligent.
Along with either misunderstanding or putting a jolly face on Ottawa's suspect arrangement with Kabul, the minister somehow missed that what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq made humane treatment of detainees in Afghanistan a precondition for mission support here at home.
Even if O'Connor doesn't get it, Canadians grasp that our behaviour there is inextricably linked to our declared purpose of advancing human rights, democracy and rule of law.
With the exception of the few still clinging to delusions about how modern conflicts are resolved, most Canadians also understand that the way we treat others is principally about us. It reaffirms our values, declares how we expect our troops to be treated and offers hope to ordinary Afghans that the future won't be just a replay of the past.
A country both at war and rebuilding the armed forces requires a credible minister. Voters and taxpayers must have confidence that life-and-death decisions are being taken wisely and believe that there's nothing driving sole-source contracts beyond urgency.
It's also true – although not as seminal – that a "new" government still campaigning against the failures of the old must match actions to words. That's not happening and makes Harper a victim of his own contradictory commitments.
Having already diluted campaign promises to be accountable, Harper is now forced to defend public works contracts that don't pass the critical smell test, as well as the judgment of a minister who can't be questioned in the House of Commons and, in the perfect Conservative fixed-election-date universe, won't be until October 2009.
There's no proof that a pending $400 million public works contract was influenced by alleged corporate connections to Fortier. But Parliament is the appropriate place to ask those questions and others, like his curious decision to appoint a former Quebec separatist minister to head an inquiry focused on Liberal advertising spending.
Those sympathetic to the Prime Minister will note that he can't win. One minister is a problem because he's being hounded in the Commons and the other because he's out of reach in the Senate.
Those who aren't say Harper is in a box of his own making. His government would be less vulnerable on Afghanistan and more accountable to voters if the Prime Minister hadn't taken a flyer on O'Connor or breached trust by appointing Fortier to the Senate, cabinet and public works.
One option is a cabinet shuffle. A defence minister contributing to public uncertainty about a difficult mission would be heaved and Fortier would be told to get the necessary stamp of approval in the next by-election or step aside.
But a Harper weakness is that he won't admit mistakes. Just as he did when his campaign backroom wrongly accused then prime minister Paul Martin of supporting child pornography, Harper is prolonging the agony and eroding his own carefully crafted leadership image.
Prime ministers resist tossing ministers to the wolves fearing that feeding only encourages howling. But protecting the vulnerable only makes governments weak and old before their time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers's national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. jtraver@thestar.ca.
Even if you are a Conservative/Harper supporter you can see where Harper would be tempted to move O'Connor in a cabinet shuffle.
If we had a Defence Minister who could do a better job of explaining to the Canadian public why we are in Afghanistan one would hope support for the mission would increase.
