As touched on in earlier blogs, the Liberal government has disappointed many with its actions in several areas. These include:
- The sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, initially justified as a decision that had already been made by the previous government, even though it was later disclosed that the new government approved export permits covering 70% of the contract, and then quietly rewrote and watered down the rules for screening the export of military goods.
- Relaunching a court case that contends the federal government owes no special duty of care to those injured in the line of duty – a most curious action on the part of a Liberal Party that had condemned Conservative (mis)treatment of veterans and helped to pressure the then Conservative government into abandoning this court case.
- Going to court to argue that surplus funds from an account set up to pay compensation to victims of tainted blood during one time period should be returned to federal coffers and not used to pay tainted blood victims from other time frames.
- Continuing legal actions against a number of charities (initially targeted by the Conservative government for improper political activity), in spite of condemning such action while in opposition and promising a new approach when elected.
- Establishing a parliamentary watchdog to oversee the actions of government spy agencies, as demanded when the Liberals where in opposition, but then – according to a report from the Library of Parliament – providing that the work of this watchdog committee can be censored or blocked by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
- The Prime Minister’s response to criticism of the government’s reactivation of the Conservative legal challenge involving payment to injured vets was “we are proud that we are working very hard to restore the kinds of services and the kinds of respect that veterans have earned through their incredible service to our country, to its values, and, indeed, to the world.”
- When Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion made a decision regarding export permits covering the shipment of Canadian military goods to Thailand and claimed that information about the nature of that decision could not be disclosed because of the commercial interest of the companies involved, his Director of Communications expressed the view that “we’re actively working towards introducing greater transparency and rigour into our system going forward.”
- After the Liberals joined in unanimous support for an opposition motion that urged the government “to respect the custom of regional representation,” as it prepared to replace a retired Supreme Court judge from Atlantic Canada, a spokeswoman for the Justice Minister explained that the government’s vote on the motion only means that it is committed to including candidates from Atlantic Canada on its shortlist for the new appointment.
This last example reveals a government taking a simple, straightforward matter and making it far more complicated and messy than necessary. The government deserves credit for coming up with a new appointments process for the Supreme Court. It can also be lauded for indicating a desire to see more women, visible minorities, and aboriginal people on the bench. However, when the first vacancy that arises is from the retirement of a representative of Atlantic Canada – a region which has had a representative on the Supreme Court since Confederation, a practice that is arguably now a convention of our constitution – the government’s choice was obvious. Appoint a judge from Atlantic Canada.
Instead we have had a simmering controversy over what the government intends to do, given its insistence that the search for the new appointee must be Canada-wide (in pursuit of candidates who are women, visible minorities, and aboriginals). This has even led to the ludicrous situation, cited above, in which the government supported a motion endorsing the principle of regional representation and then claimed that its support only meant that candidates from Atlantic Canada would be included on the short list. Really! Does anyone actually believe that the government had contemplated compiling a shortlist without a single representative from Atlantic Canada on it?
The Liberals would do well to remember why they were elected. They were chosen to bring about real change – not to offer variations of the Harper policies, practices, and pontifications.