Contempt of public

Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro's report on the Grewal taping scandal gives rise to some shocking circumstances - but the shock has nothing to do with the facts found by Shapiro, which are basically as expected. From Shapiro's press release about the report:

The report was, in fact, ready for release last Friday, January 20, 2006, pursuant to our normal practice of releasing inquiry reports as soon as they are available. In this case, however, I decided that the report should be released shortly after the federal election had been held, so that my Office would:
- avoid any perception that, on the last day of a volatile electoral campaign, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner deliberately released an inquiry report that contained comments on individuals who were involved in the electoral process; and
- ensure that the report would be considered on its own merit, rather than being used as an electoral spin, and possibly be labeled as a tool for unjustified interference in an ongoing democratic process in which Canadians were engaged.

Let's translate this into plain English. As of last Friday, Shapiro had completed his neutral, non-partisan report into the facts surrounding the Grewal affair. Rather than letting that report be made public according to the normal procedure, he unilaterally decided that the facts shouldn't intrude on the ongoing election campaign, and that instead Canadians should go to the polls with a less than complete picture of the actions of members of two of the parties running for office.

In light of some of the rhetoric surrounding the income trust investigation, I won't be surprised if Lib supporters use Wilson's decision as a model for what the RCMP should have done - suppress the issue until after the campaign is over with, at which time the public can be allowed to know what's going on with its elected officials. But to me, that's the wrong position. Instead, the RCMP handled its side of the bargain properly by ensuring that the public was informed of the facts.

In contrast, an officer appointed by Parliament went out of his way to hide the truth behind the actions of two members of that Parliament, for fear that the public couldn't be trusted with the truth in an election campaign. And in my view, that precedent does nothing but to "(weaken) the public's trust and confidence" in an office which is supposed to keep Parliamentarians honest.