- Whose Rules Will be Respected, Those Founded in the Law or Those Founded in Harper.

Submitted: 7:20am, PDT, 11 Oct.'10 Hill Times
Opposition critics warn Wright's PMO to run into too many conflicts, Tim Naumetz, October 11, 2010
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/pmo-10-11-2010

The issue here is how would anyone outside the Harper inner circle know if a person were actually and effectively being recused when appropriate while in the PMO office, or had actual and effective conflict of interest screens. And, how will anyone know once that person goes back to work for their present company.

This article indicates that the extent of participation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is to give advice on how to avoid conflicts - vis.:

"'So on those kind of cases we would be particularly vigilant to assist that person to find mechanisms such as conflict of interest screens [prevent access to discussions or government dealings with the firm] to avoid dealing with somebody they knew they wanted to work with afterwards,' said Ms. Dawson."

There is no reference to any kind of continual supervisory function to ensure that these safeguards are being properly installed or how effective they are. And once that person goes back to their present company, then what.

Stephen Harper's press secretary, said ". . . will respect all of the rules".

But this is coming from the office of the PM who 'makes his own rules'. So, the question is whose rules will be respected, those founded in the law or those founded in Harper.

Also, one very important aspect of 'respect for all the rules' is respect for the purpose and intent of all the rules. Can any Canadian honestly say that Stephen Harper and the Con's have respected all the rules, their the purpose and intent.

If Harper and the Con's were a traditional Canadian government that respected Parliament; respected the legislation, especially the ones that they themselves passed; respected the right of all Canadians to be given the truth and forthwith and without stonewalling, without obstruction, obscuration or obfuscation, and without MEP's; and, for whom truth is not found at the end of a spin.

Then, perhaps people could have some confidence in the actuality and effectiveness of this recusing, some confidence when Harper says they will "respect all of the rules".

The Opposition have to continually hold Harper's feet to the fire and Harper gives not an inch without a bitter fight. It seems to me that we will likely never know if there are actual conflicts and Harper would fight bitterly to prevent us from finding out.

Access to Information and Accountability is ineffective to obtain information, especially at the PMO level.

As noted by current Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, neither the Access to Information Act, nor the Privacy Act, has any teeth. A current example is when her office found Veterans Affairs bureaucrats violated the Privacy Act in there use of information in someone medical file, no one was punished and she is not allowed to comment on motive.
Five years later, information access is still stalled,
gloria galloway and bill curry, Globe and Mail, Oct. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/five-years-later-information-access-is-still-stalled/article1750812/

Harper and the Con's in the '06 election promised to give the access commissioner '“the power to order the release of information” and to let the commissioner see cabinet records to ensure government claims of cabinet confidentiality are justified". (IBID)

The then Access Commissioner John Reid, in a special report to Parliament, wrote that the Accountability Act will “increase the government’s ability to cover up wrongdoing, shield itself from embarrassment, and control the flow of information.” " (IBID)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html