- Vetting of Important Political Appointments Only In America, You Say . . . Pity!

Posted: 12:51 PM on October 16, 2010
Laureen Harper persuaded Governor-General’s wife into role, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, October 15, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/laureen-harper-persuaded-governor-generals-wife-into-role/article1760060/

"The Prime Minister really wanted David Johnston to serve as the next governor-general "

With all due respect for the GG and not to question his integrity in the least.

If the new GG were chosen from a panel that was independent, objective and arm's length, with instruction that 'partizans need not apply', then way would Stephen Harper be so keen on this particular choice.

It is trite to say that Harper does everything for exclusively partizan purposes. Then why, exactly, was he so keen to have this GG.

This is not a 'trite' question given the likelihood that Harper will approach him to make decisions that go to the very heart of Canadian democracy.

A person need not be partizan to share the Harper views - but, perhaps this is why Harper was so keen, actually finding someone.

To suggest that someone hold such views, in and of itself, can hardly be considered an attack on their integrity. A person may come to a decision quite honestly but based on a particular ideology and so biased. In fact all decisions are based on some ideology, even if it is that decisions ought to be objective, fact based.

Keep in mind that Rainer Knopff was a member of that selecting panel.

Knopff is a "member of a group known as the Calgary School" (a group of like-minded academics from the University of Calgary’s political science and history departments in Calgary, Alberta, Canada . . .
The School is of a decidedly conservative political leaning, and has been described within The Walrus magazine as "a rambunctious, Rocky Mountain brand of libertarianism" that seeks "lower taxes, less federal government, and free markets unfettered by social programs such as medicare that keep citizens from being forced to pull up their own socks." (Wikipedia)

Sounds a lot like Harper and the Con's doesn't it.

The issue is: are decisions made by someone who shares Harper's ideology truly representative of all of Canada. Harper isn't, Con'ism isn't and the Harper ideology isn't.

Given that there is no recourse in this case; the Opposition may not be availed the opportunity to present the case for the vast majority of Canadians; Canadian would in all likelihood never even know what consideration were actually made.

This is a very important issue.

In my Post (cicblog.com/comments.html) of 12 Jul.'10 "Harper Secret Committees - Be Scared, Very Scared."
I recommended:
"Here's an American tradition that ought to be borrowed on such occasions:

PUBLIC, OPEN AND TRANSPARENT VETTING

If Mr. Johnston is such a Constitutional and legal expert where did he stand on the past four constitutional issues:
- dissolving parliament for the last election,
- Proroguing Parliament in Dec '08,
- Proroguing Parliament Dec.'09
- the refusal of Harper to abide by the Will of Parliament with regard to the Afghan Detainee documents."

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html