It Loves Me. It Loves Me Not.

I enjoy the Globe and Mail, read it every day, and some of their columnists are terrific. So I've been struggling these last couple of days with the paper's endorsement of the Harper government as their choice for this election. I know, I'm a Liberal and I wasn't destined to appreciate it in the first place, but it has been the history of that newspaper with the Conservative government that has created my confusion.As I read the editorial, I noticed online that the paper, in one of its "Our Time To Lead" contributions, talked about the heavily partisan nature of the House of Commons ("Partisanship Rears Its Ugly Head", April 28, 2011). I realize it was a contributor's column to the paper, but still, they published it and I thought it was true. The problem is that the paper on one hand was endorsing a government which on the other hand was guilty of some of the most partisan actions in Canadian history. As I said, I'm confused.When first elected four years ago, I was appointed to Parliament's Ethics Committee and was on a steep learning curve. Rather dramatically, the Globe and Mail published a series of articles on the Afghan detainee issue that rocked the House. I recall distinctly the countenance of the government members on the committee and how they sought to quickly undertake damage control. Those were difficult days. The Globe especially performed some remarkably diligent investigative work to uncover the story, but as they attempted to report it the government repeatedly refused to release the full documentation, opting to redact most of the information. Some of the pages were completely blacked out. Yet the paper persisted, pressing the Harper regime to be more transparent and accountable. It didn't work but the pressure of those days was intense, with government members filibustering and a handbook teaching Conservative members of committees how to derail proceedings secretly distributed. It was all an attempt to stall and deny Parliament and it formed an early indication of how the Harperites would treatment Parliament in the years to come.The "Our Time To Lead" article effectively spread blame to all parties for their rampant partisanship, as was only right, but anyone in Parliament acknowledges that the Harper Conservatives have taken their ideologies to astonishing - and rebellious - new levels, even resulting in contempt of Parliament itself. It's almost as if the Globe placed the economy over democratic institutions in deciding its endorsement, and that is a troubling twist. No economic management of a nation can succeed when a government fails to respect those institutions created for proper accounting. The Harper government was found in contempt specifically because it wouldn't accede to the financial accountability demanded by the House of Commons itself.It was as if you were an investor present at a company's annual meeting, desiring to know how your shares were doing. The CEO refuses to open the books, providing a proper accounting. When you and other shareholders rise up and demand to see the spread sheets to ascertain the true value of your holdings, you are denied once again. To top it off, the company itself is in a heavy deficit situation and has accumulated over $200 billion of debt just in last few years. Which one of us would keep our investments in that firm? This is what the Harper government has accomplished and yet still receives the endorsement of some. For Canada's chief business daily, its backing of the present government despite such egregious dealings troubles our understanding.This isn't about the Liberal or Conservative label; it's about Parliament being the ultimate guarantor of this nation's finances. The sheer skullduggery of the government's partisan behaviour in the House is indeed unprecedented, but its fudging of the financials from fighter jets to summits edges us ever closer to economic brinkmanship. For the Globe to publish an endorsement of a party while at the same warning against its lack of accountability and transparency is a circle very difficult to square. To back a government that has just lost the confidence of the Speaker and the House because of its lack of financial clarity and transparency is difficult for many to get their heads around. It's been that type of campaign.