|
|---|
Thursday, 7 April 2011
You gotta give the Harper guys credit: they can come up with more explanations for why their leader ran an incompetent Prime Minister's Office (PMO) than you can shake a stick at.
So far we've seen the Harper defence segue through several defences.
Defence Number 1 - Give the Poor Guy a Break:
The first defence tried to turn those attacking Bruce The Mechanic Carson into zealots attacking a poor guy who had 2 criminal convictions way back in the 1980s, when he was young, but he had rehabilitated himself since then. So you were a real meanie to pursue this topic:
Harper said he knew Carson had had "difficulties with the law many, many years ago" and that after that time, he had a solid employment record including various jobs on Parliament Hill and he developed a good reputation."He was well-regarded. On that basis, the Privy Council Office gave him a security clearance," said Harper. "The fact is, I did not know about these revelations that we're finding out today. I don't know why I did not know."
Move along, folks: only a rehabilitated criminal here. He's done his time and reformed.
Defence Number 2 – No Crime Here:
 |
| The Harper Brains Trust |
"I think it's important to remember that Mr. Carson is not accused of anything that has to do with his employment in my office," Harper said Monday."These accusations relate to things that occurred afterwards. As soon as we found out about those matters, we turned them over to the authorities."
Move along, folks: no crime on my watch. Unless you happen to believe that a competent prime minister would first of all run a competent prime minister's office ...
Defence Number 3 – The Privy Council Dunnit:
This is a classic Harper defence, used many, many times over the past 5 years. It is really the Bart Simpson I didn't do it defence.
A PMO spokeswoman said Monday she could not discuss any details regarding Carson's security clearance."Consistent with our legal obligations to protect the personal information, we do not comment on the security screening details of current or former employees," said Nina Chiarelli, adding that it's not Harper's political office that decides on screening prospective employees."Security clearances are not made at the political level," she said. "Security clearances are given or withheld by (Privy Council Office) security working in conjunction with the RCMP."
Move along, folks: I didn't do it.
Defence Number 4 – Junior did it and didn't tell us:
This latest one surfaced today: it seems that finally the Privy Council found out Whodunnit.
Turns out it was some mid-level schmuck. He or she must've gotten the form that Bruce The Mechanic Carson filled in (showing all 5 convictions, presumably – the report does not mention this rather essential detail), read it through, sipped some coffee, thought about it, and scratched his or her head.
Then he or she decided that 5 convictions for fraud (plus – perhaps – the bankruptcies and problems with Revenue Canada, if these were also on the form) didn't really impact the decision to hire Carson for work in the PMO.
And Bang! a bright red stamp marked Secret was slammed on the papers, and the papers were filed away.
Of course, he or she did not tell anyone in the PMO about the convictions (and other stuff, if any) – he or she simply told Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian The Enforcer Brodie, that everything was OK – or, as Brodies says, he got a Yea.
Bruce Carson was cleared by a low- to mid-level bureaucrat to work in Stephen Harper's office, without the involvement of senior security officials or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office.That's the official explanation from the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic arm of the PMO.
Move along, folks: nothing here, the Carson clearance is all explained. Let's go back to Evil Coalitions of the Other Guys.
The Problem: The Scuttle Conversation
It turns out that Defence Number 4 just doesn't hack it. Not in the real real world.
After all, the decision to hire an Exempt – and Bruce Carson was one – is made by the PMO, according to the Privy Council. And in the PMO, that decision would be made by – you guessed it – Chief of Staff Ian The Enforcer Brodie. The guy who got the Yea from the Privy Council Office.
 |
| Carson, The Fiancee & long time friend Harper |
But didn't Carson say that he met with Brodie early in 2006, with the form that he had to complete, and told Brodie about all 5 convictions, that he asked Brodie if filling in those criminal convictions might not scuttle any chance he had of working in the PMO, that Brodie said he should fill it in, that he is pretty sure that he filled in all 5 convictions (but seems he didn't keep a copy of the completed form).
And next thing you know, he got hired, and all went swimmingly until recently.
Was it 2? Only the Form might know
Now, Brodie says that Carson only told him about the earlier convictions – the 2 from way back in the 1980s, and did not mention the second wave of 3 convictions from the 1990s.
Brodie, however, told APTN Carson never disclosed his 1990 convictions.“He briefed me regarding his early 1980s criminal record and disbarment. I was not aware of his more recent criminal charges until I read yesterday’s news reports,” wrote Brodie, in an email to APTN.
And this statement by Brodie opens up a few questions – see The Cat's post here for these niggling little questions.
 |
| The Mechanic & The Enforcer |
Nor do we know when and how Brodie told Harper about the first set of convictions, or if Harper and Brodie were aware of Carson's troubles with Revenue Canada when he as sitting at Harper's table discussing all kinds of sensitive information.
Or was it 5? Only the Form might know
Now, if only the Privy Council would let us know whether the form Carson filled in mentioned 2 or 5 convictions, then we might be a little further down the road towards finding out the truth of whether Harper showed gross incompetence in running his PMO, or just incompetence, or no incompetence at all.
If the form only shows 2 convictions, and says nothing about the second wave of 3 convictions, and nothing about Carson's bankrupcies and troubles with Revenue Canada, then this would add support to Brodie's version of what happened in The Scuttle Conversation.
But if that form mentions 5 convictions, then the questions The Cat raises in the earlier post still linger and need answering.
But if only 2, what about the RCMP?
Of course, if the form only shows 2 convictions, from the 1980s, then it would seem that Carson forgot to fill in the later wave of 3 convictions – little things like that can slip ones mind. And that is why the security clearance procedure presumably (I say presumably because nobody involved in this sad mess seems to want to be open with Canadians) requires a check up to be made by the RCMP on criminal convictions.
After all, if you try to immigrate into Canada, a criminal check up is required. Surely somebody wanting to work in the PMO – exposed to sensitive information about the nation's most important economic and security decisions – warrants a criminal check as well?
That would be a competent thing to do, eh?
So, let's see if the questions in my earlier post are answered by any or all of Harper, Brodie, Carson, the Privy Council and the PMO.
 |
| Deep Throat II (in disguise) |
 |
| Hercule Poirot |
And, of course, well before May 2 so that Canadians can decide whether to give Stephen Harper a majority government so that he can provide us with stable and professional governance, as only he can, he says.
In the meantime, Deep Throat II tells me that he and Hercule Poirot are busy talking to others who might shed light on these mysteries.
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
