As Low as is Necessary

A couple of days ago I wrote a post about Harper's disgusting remarks directed to the Liberals, specifically:

“The continuing actions of the Liberal-appointed Nuclear Safety Commission will jeopardize the health and safety of lives of tens of thousands of Canadians,” Mr. Harper said.“Since when does the Liberal party have a right from the grave, through one of its previous appointees, to block the production of necessary medical products in this country? This is not in the public interest ... The longer this goes on the greater will be the public health damage and the Liberal party is standing in the way of fixing this.”

I entitled the post, How Low can He Go? and I think perhaps we now have some of the answer to that question from Tony Clement.

Let's go back a bit. It began with Harper in QP, then an unusual Committee of the Whole HoC met last Tuesday and it was quite clear that the Con's had been instructed to keep that strategy going. It was painful for me to watch to be honest.

Linda Keen is the Pres. and CEO of CNSC. By all accounts she has a stellar record as a public servant. She did not shut down the NRU. The AECL volunteered to do so when it was pointed out that they were in violation of their license. So with that little bit of background, how was she treated by the Con's during this meeting? In the most partisan manner possible.

Here's an example from Hansard. It's a bit lengthy, so feel free to scroll through it if you wish.

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Chair, my colleague is absolutely correct. This is a safety issue and most importantly a safety issue, but it is a needs issue for those people who need this product.
I would like to lead my questioning toward Ms. Keen.
In your opening comments you described yourself as an expert in nuclear safety. As I have said, we are talking about safety. You also stated in your opening comments that yours is a non-partisan position. I would like to follow up a little bit on that.
Your appointment to the CNSC was in the year 2000, I understand, is that correct?
Ms. Linda J. Keen: That is correct.
Mr. Ted Menzies: And you were a career public servant before that time? Is that correct?

Ms. Linda J. Keen: I did work both in industry, and with the federal and provincial governments, yes.
Mr. Ted Menzies: Until your appointment at CNSC my understanding is that you were assistant deputy minister at the Department of Natural Resources when the now opposition House leader was the minister of natural resources. Is that correct?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Chair: Order, order. The hon. member asked a question. Order, please. Ms. Keen has the floor.
Ms. Linda J. Keen: Yes, I would like to answer this question by saying that I am an Albertan. I was born in Alberta. I never belonged to any political party in my life.
I joined the public service in fact when there was another government in power. I am saying that I am non-partisan. I serve with good behaviour. I have met every requirement of the Ethics Commissioner and I do my work on a non-partisan basis and I have no political affiliation.
Mr. Ted Menzies: The question I asked was, were you the deputy minister at the Department of Natural Resources when the minister of natural resources, the now opposition House leader, was the minister.
Ms. Linda J. Keen: Yes and I was appointed by the Public Service Commission.
Mr. Ted Menzies: Thank you. The opposition House leader in fact recommended your appointment. Is that my understanding?
Ms. Linda J. Keen: I have no idea. I was interviewed by PMO. What they did was they went out and searched for people. I applied, I was interviewed, and I was given the appointment. I have no idea about the recommendation. I applied for the job.
Mr. Ted Menzies: Before you worked at natural resources were you also at the Department of Agriculture when the opposition House leader was minister of agriculture?
Ms. Linda J. Keen: I will have to recall because--
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of order. This line of questioning is essentially insinuating that political considerations are affecting the professional judgment of a public servant.
We are here, Mr. Chair, to adjudicate a dispute that AECL quite properly said was a difference of professional opinion.
This commissioner is entitled to the respect of the House and she is not receiving it.
The Assistant Deputy Chair: I do not think that falls under the realm of a point of order.
We will go back to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
______________

This is just one example of the way she was treated. She was accused of not caring about people and the medical implications, she was accused of being more interested in red tape and so on. It was awful. Politicians may sign up for this kind of abuse, but how on earth are we to attract dedicated, talented public servants if they are to be subjected to this nonsense?

So now, we come to today and Tony Clement on QP.

Tony Clement made no apology for the partisan gamesmanship leading up to an emergency legislation-forced restart at the reactor in Chalk River, Ont., last week.
"Some times you gotta fire a couple shots across the bow to make sure the opposition knows that you're serious about the issue," he said.

Yep, that's right. According to the Con's it's perfectly okay to trash someones reputation as long as it serves your political needs. (Do check out the vid to the right of the article. Hubris and arrogance on display.)

Clement said the Conservatives singled out Keen's actions because they thought the Liberals were going to turn the shortage into a partisan issue and delay the reactor's restart.

Translation: they saw this as a something that could damage the Con's. Again, trying to best their opponents politically, they threw an innocent under the proverbial bus.

I'm not sure how it gets more disgusting than this, but as Steve V. pointed out on the earlier post, I've said that before.

This government is pathologically consumed with gaining a majority, imo. Interestingly, they seem to veering away from their "safe" course. This incident, Bali, Gun Control issues, Afghanistan, the lack of clemency for Death Penalty prisoners outside the country are but a few examples of how they seem to have switched strategy.

With all of their polling, chuckle, they seem not to be making any headway with their middle of the road approach. So, perhaps they will be more honest about who they are. It certainly seems that way and I say, keep it up. The hidden agenda thing is tough to fight credibly. It's too easily parodied and dismissed. I say, bring it on, show us how you are different from the Lib's and go to the court of public opinion. I suspect that the accusation by the NDP that the Con's are just like the Lib's got under Harper's skin and he wanted to put a stop to that.

Fair enough. Show us who you are and I'm certain that Canadians will show you who they are.

How low will they go? As low as necessary and innocents be damned.