So, I see that Harper has fired the head of the CNSC.
Politically speaking, you could see that coming a mile off when Harper first accused the head of the CNSC of being a "Liberal appointee". Besides triggering what I'm sure will be one of the more expensive wrongful dismissal lawsuits that Canada has experienced as a result of politicians playing politics with the bureaucracy, we must consider the implications of this latest action of the Harper government.
Not only has the Harper government violated the arm's length relationship between various agencies of the government and the politicians, but they have sent a very clear message to the bureaucracy: "Do it our way, or be fired".
Think about this for a moment. The CNSC is bound by a series of acts of legislation passed by the House of Commons. Further, the CNSC is responsible to the House of Commons, not merely the minister and the will of the Cabinet.
Yet, here we have a governing party who either by intent or ignorance (and neither is excusable) has chosen to try forcing its political will on a body whose role is quite deliberately designed to operate at some distance from the often mercurial whim of politicians.
Now, let's consider Harper's track record since he took up residence at 24 Sussex Dr. On the subject of the panel struck to oversee reproductive technology contains no domain experts, and I have my suspicions about the connections to the Forced Birth crowd of some of the members. Then there is multi-billion dollar cuts made in 2006 aimed squarely at programs such as Status of Women Canada, or the Court Challenges Program.
Consider what this means for more visible tribunals and commissions in Canada that operate, in theory, at arm's length from the government. If you do not bend to Harper's will, you will be fired/dismantled etc. This is troubling, when the government has a great many agencies it funds that operate at arm's length to the activities of Parliament itself ... for very good reasons.
The Harper government has just shown us once again that it does not operate with any spirit of compromise. When they don't get their way, they lash out looking for revenge. This is not good government, it is government by ideologue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ... -
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
4 comments:
The Harperistas are putting on their brown shirts again. Are they going to go after the Canadian Human Rights Commission next?
Totally disgusting and I hope Linda Keen sues the pants of Lunn and Harper for their incompetence. The only problem with this is that the taxpayers of Canada are the ones that end up paying, not those who are responsible. This government needs to be fired now, why wait for an election?
MAS
This is just another stone that they're going to be buried under. Harper and his conservathugs had the opportunity to fix this problem with the Chalk River reactor when they came into power, again they took the 'Don't worry, be happy' method of dealing with things not to their benefit.
They further aggravated it by then trying to lay the blame onto the previous government exclusively. Sorry, doesn't wash with me, you knew about it and did nothing about it. And now you're going to fire someone who went out of their way to point out the problem (as it was their job to do so) simply to hide the compounding error?
Personally, I hope Keen kicks Lunn's butt in court. Nothing like a messy public court battle, in fact I think that would be in her interest; if she settles out of court they'll just shit can her later on some technicality, just out of spite.
E.
Another note, the other reason she may have been fired is a nastier one, since she's no longer an employee she no longer has any legal representation from the union. Without legal counsel, she had little choice but to back out of the hearing before the House Committee.
E.
Post a Comment