On obstruction

Once again the Cons and their allies are demonstrating their belief that accountability applies to everybody but themselves - this time through two stories about potentially illicit activities which may have helped them to take power in the first place.

First, the Hill Times reports on the Cons' efforts to hold the Procedure and House Affairs Committee hostage over for the past six months to prevent it from investigating Conadscam. And it looks like the Cons' latest excuse is to try to pretend that the mandate of a House of Commons committee is limited to whatever the government wants to see discussed:

Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sask.), Parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, told The Hill Times last week that the government brought a motion forward at the committee to move on to a study of Bill C-6, the Visual Identification of Voters Bill, after weeks of filibustering the opposition´s motion to study the Conservative Party´s election advertising finances. Bill C-6 has been at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee since November 2007. Mr. Lukiwski said the committee is "still at a bit of an impasse," however, because the opposition is not agreeing to study legislation.

"We would like to start studying C-6. We would like to start studying legislation. That´s the mandate of our committee. Until the opposition agrees to that, I guess we won´t."...

(Lib MP Karen) Redman said the opposition has tried to come to a compromise on many occasions and the government has simply filibustered any attempt to move on. She said the opposition has proposed focusing on the "in and out" scheme one day a week, while focusing on legislation the other day, or increasing the meeting days to study both. "We have dealt with legislation and we have shown willingness to accommodate the legislative agenda," she said. "There´s been no compromise, no middle ground. The government is trying to prevent this at all costs, not just for embarrassment because they may intend to use this in a future election. Timing is of the utmost importance given we have a government that´s determined to defeat itself."...

(NDP MP Yvon) Godin disputed Mr. Lukiwski´s claim, however, saying if the government stopped filibustering the motion to study the "in and out" scheme, it would´ve been over with since last fall and they would have moved onto legislation months ago...

Mr. Godin said the fight is on (sic) one of principle now because the Conservatives have been filibustering for too long and the opposition believes they´re simply doing so because they want to use the same election advertising financing practices in the next election, potentially a few weeks from now. "They´re not going to dictate to us that we´re not going to deal with a big issue that they´ve created with this in and out...(W)hat they want to do is dictate to us because they don´t have a majority, they are a minority government, how we will do the work and we´re not just going to let them do it. They´re not going to get away with this, and I hope Canadians see what they´re trying to do. As I said last week, what do they have to hide?"

Meanwhile, one of Deceivin' Stephen's closest allies is also in trouble with Elections Canada over a scheme which looks to have combined questionable funnelling of charitable donations with illegal third-party election advertising. And unlike Harper's minions when it came to Conadscam, Barry Cooper isn't even willing to try to defend his side of the story for fear that he'll let some of the truth slip out:

Cooper, who also writes a political column for the Calgary Herald, refused to say whether he knew the university account was used to buy the radio ads.

"I'm not answering those kinds of questions because there's a lot of ambiguity (on what the radio ads were) and I'm not going to clarify them for you," Cooper said in an interview. "These are facts that may be at issue in some kind of legal case, and that's why I'm being evasive."

It remains to be seen whether any of the investigations will result in any firm outcome before Canada's next trip to the polls. For now, all evidence suggests that Harper and company will continue to put as many roadblocks in the way of the truth as they possibly can - and even if the Libs continue their pattern of delaying any election in hopes of a Con implosion, there's no particular reason to think the Cons will suddenly develop a conscience about suppressing information before 2009.

But whether or not the Cons succeed in avoiding having to answer directly for their wrongs, their consistent pattern of concealing the facts about their own actions should offer plenty of reason not to trust either their claims to believe in accountability, or their protestations of innocence. And the more dishonest the Cons show themselves to be, the less likely Canadians are to believe a word they have to say when the next election rolls around.