When lies don't matter
From the National Post:
Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday he didn't know Ontario's Health Minister had a past that included addiction to illegal drugs, but insisted he is proud of George Smitherman's ability to beat the problem and to publicly admit to it.
"I've always been proud of George Smitherman, whether in his capacity as a public representative or in his capacity as a minister of health and I'm even more proud of him today," Mr. McGuinty told reporters after participating in the announcement of a major investment by an auto-parts company.
Don't get me wrong. It's great that George Smitherman was able to beat his addiction. But the Minister of Health has to make some tough choices about how health dollars are spent. How much for cancer? How much for nursing? How much for air ambulances?
How much to deal with drug addiction, and how?
Just three weeks ago, there was this announcement:
The McGuinty government is establishing an external task force to provide advice to the government on how to improve methadone treatment in Ontario, Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman announced today.
"The positive value of methadone treatment for people with opiate addictions and for society as a whole is enormous. Our government wants to make sure those Ontarians who need this service have access to high quality methadone treatment and that this treatment is provided in a safe and effective way," Smitherman said. "The guidance received from this task force will enable us to move forward with effective strategies for improving methadone treatment."
Isn't it reasonable to demand to know what in a potential minister's recent past could influence his decision-making? A major bout of cancer or an addiction to drugs both seem important to how a particular person will serve as health minister. Smitherman says his addiction spanned five years in the early 1990s, meaning this happened in the last 10 years or so. This is not about smoking a few joints back in university twenty or more years ago. This is about illicit drug use as an adult within the last few years.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying Smitherman is automatically ill-suited for the position of minister because of his former addiction. What I am saying is that the question was never considered by Dalton McGuinty when he offered Smitherman the job because Smitherman did not tell him about the problem.
Did McGuinty ask? I doubt it.
My problem is that McGuinty is proud of Smitherman. Of course, on a personal level, he can be proud of Smitherman. But McGuinty is the premier. He has a huge responsibility to all Ontarians. And he has just been blindsided by his health minister.
What McGuinty should have said is this:
As a close personal friend of George Smitherman, I am proud of the way he has overcome his past addiction. But as premier, I have a special responsibility to the people of this province. The Ministry of Health has the responsibility in dealing with drug addiction as a public health issue. How he discharges tha responsibility has serious repercussions in health and crime. As such, I feel that a full disclosure to me about George's past with drugs was necessary when I offered him the position of Minister of Health. As a result, I have asked the minister to step aside from his duties for the next four weeks while a full accounting of the details is made. Those details will remain private. I am fully confident that I will conclude that George is by far the best Minister of Health this province has ever had and that he will return to cabinet.
I'm not saying I agree with all that, but it's the sort of thing a premier would say in an attempt to stave off scandal. The point is, the premier was lied to by one of his cabinet ministers, a lie that potentially could have prevented him from becoming the minister in the first place. Whether it would have ultimately mattered is not relevant -- it was the lie that matters.
George Smitherman should not have made the decision that a recent serious and long-term drug addiction was not relevant to his ability to discharge his duties as Minister of Health. That was Dalton McGuinty's call.
On the other hand, I am not shocked that Smitherman did not tell McGuinty the truth when McGuinty was building his cabinet. It's only human to avoid mentioning bad things, especially if not directly asked. I'm assuming McGuinty did not ask his potential ministers, "Have you ever been addicted to drugs?" Still, he could have asked Smitherman whether there was ever a major health condition requiring treatment in Ontario in his past that would colour his perception on health issues.
What is disturbing, therefore, is not Smitherman's past addiction, or Smitherman's lack of disclosure, but rather McGuinty's vapid response. McGuinty is sending out a dangerous message: When you work for me, a lie is not a firing offence.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Interesting angle, one I hadn't considered before
Posted by: Matt at May 14, 2006 01:53 AM
If you are that concerned about lies why don't you go after Emerson for lying to all of his constituents? The Stephen Harper party rewards such behaviour. Should SH expect a resignation from Emerson?.And wouldn't Emersons past involvement in the logging industry leave him biased? SH knows full well that he LIED and yet still promoted him. Someone convince me that there is a difference between this and Smitherman.
Posted by: at May 14, 2006 06:24 AM
To add to my previous post.....
"McGuinty is sending out a dangerous message: When you work for me, a lie is not a firing offence."
"Stephen Harper is sending out a dangerous message: When you work for me, a lie is not a firing offence."
See the similarity.....
Posted by: at May 14, 2006 06:38 AM
Emerson did not lie. He ran as a Liberal, and won as a Liberal. After he won, and ended up in opposition, he was offered the chance to join the government, which he did. He did not hide that he ran as a Liberal. He did not intend to join the Conservatives while he ran in the election.
Smitherman was, and is, a drug addict. He ran for elected office with that in his past. He was offered the ministry with that in his past. He did not disclose his past. He took his oath and sat in cabinet with that in his past.
Nice try, though.
Posted by: Steve Janke at May 14, 2006 09:37 AM
Very interesting post. If one does not disclose certain details of one's past that could be construed as a conflict of interest, is that a lie?
Not sure, but I do think it has moral implications.
Posted by: Joanne C. at May 14, 2006 10:45 AM
Something else to consider, why come forward with this info now, why wasn't there full disclosure before he got the post of Health Minister.?
Me-thinks, the skelton in the closet is the answer, someone in the know from Smithermans past was about to spill the beans, it's much easier to fake self-rightousness and come clean about ones past, than it is to be forced to explain, your past lack of respect for the laws of this land.
Mcguinty truly was blindsided with this revelation
and now sees Smitherman for the manipulative liar he is.
Smitherman is unfit to be a Minister of anything and should resign pronto.!
Posted by: William at May 14, 2006 10:45 AM
So we have junkies as a leaders what's next?
Posted by: george at May 14, 2006 11:03 AM
LOL... Get over Emerson guy's... It's because of Emerson and his years in the Lumber industry we got 5 billion + and not the 3.5 Billions the liberal gov't was going to settle on. I really could care less he won as a liberal and changed sides... What's Belinda's excuse??? She Ran for the Conservative party and tried to use dady's money to buy the leadership...she didn't even rank getting into Cabinet after that with the Conservatives... Then at a point where they could have forced an election she crossed the floor??? For a cabinet post??? But that's alright??? Then when they have the big run off for the Leadership she announces she won't run for it because she's not bi-lingual??? Give me a break....she knows she can't because 1.she crossed the floor, and 2. They will be sitting in opposition for the next 6-10 years min.
In regards to comparing the two in the above article lets look at that sentence and sub in Belinda...Mrs Stronach is sending out a dangerous message: When you are me, a lie is not a firing offence.
I think that to compare any of them you need to be impaired on some of the same drugs the above MP admits to taking.
The Skeleton in the closet posted by William is the most likely reason for coming clean....just like Svwen of the NDP and the $50k Diamond ring... the cops are on to you or the media has the story and they tipped him off so admision is now the "Slick Willy" thing to do...but not until someone else points it out or threatens to take it public. A security check of MP's prior to them being nominated or as part of the nomination would probably bring out alot more details about these clowns then we know...you don't get into politics and make it to the big leagues without a few skeletons...
Posted by: MrEd at May 14, 2006 11:08 AM
Forgive me, o/t but timely. The Daily Times, in this case is a *New voice for a New Pakistan*, thus worthy of a grain of salt.. so,
Did you see this yet?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Israel to bomb Iran?
Posted by Picasa Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next “month or two or three,” an Israeli official has been quoted here as saying.
http://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 14, 2006 12:56 PM
Interesting
Posted by: Wannabeleader at May 14, 2006 02:36 PM
What McGuinty should have said was this...
SJ, your thought presupposes that McGuinty is a leader with integrity.
This is a man who has blatantly lied and broken more campaign promises than any other Canadian politician in recent memory.
Why on earth would he start acting with integrity at this stage of the game, eh?
mhb23re
(email is above username & google webmail service)
Posted by: mhb at May 14, 2006 03:52 PM
"Emerson did not lie. He ran as a Liberal, and won as a Liberal."
If you asked every constituent in his riding who voted for him (and the Liberal party) if he lied to them, what do you think the majority of the answers would be?
Regards
Posted by: at May 14, 2006 05:09 PM
Horrible blog Angry. For a right winger your blogs are usually well thought out and reasoned (unlike Kate @ SDA), but this is pure partisan garbage.
Hey why dont we just ask all cabinet ministers to submite everything they've done in every minute of their adult life so that they might not possibly be in a conflict. An individual should not be federal minister of heritage if they have ever rented an American made movie. An individual should not be minister environment if they've ever owned anything large than a 1.6 litre four banger Honda Civic.
Your slinging mud here. I thought you were above that.
Posted by: KC at May 14, 2006 06:36 PM
Oh yeah, movie rentals and consumption of fossil fuels is roughly equal to using illicit drugs and hiding that while running for office.
I know you were presenting the extreme argument, but that's just stupid.
Stupid.
If you can't see the harm in hiding a drug addiction while being a cabinet minister, then I'm pretty sure I don't want you picking my country's leaders.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at May 14, 2006 07:25 PM
Yukon,
It is relevant when you follow from Angry's illogical argument on this one. He has stretched the meaning of "conflict of interest" to absurd lengths, in a circuitous attempt to sling mud at Mr. Smitherman for his own personal problem. By his standard any lifestyle choices/mistakes would be a "conflict".
Smitherman wasnt a drug addict which he was a cabinet minister so it is irrelevant.
It is YOU I dont want picking my countries leader and please dont take the name of my home territory in vein.
Posted by: KC at May 14, 2006 07:37 PM
Interesting and well thought through.
Slightly different topic:
You write, "Isn't it reasonable to demand to know what in a potential minister's recent past could influence his decision-making?"
I think you are right there. Which is why Harper's complete dismissals of questions surrounding Minister O'Connor (a former lobbyist for many military equipment-makers) are infuriating to me.
Posted by: mark at May 14, 2006 09:10 PM
"Horrible blog Angry."
Thanks for letting me know.
"For a right winger your blogs are usually well thought out and reasoned (unlike Kate @ SDA), but this is pure partisan garbage."
Weird, I thought this was one of my better posts. Oh well.
Posted by: Steve Janke at May 14, 2006 10:01 PM
In your eyes, his drug addiction may disqualify him as a provincial health minister, but how about the Presidency of the United States of America?
Posted by: Rodney at May 14, 2006 10:16 PM
Dalton McLiar was elected on lies to voters and he makes no apology for that, he would lie to voters again and say it's for their own good.
Truth is irrelevant to the Liberal Party, nothing they say has any real meaning, it's just what they say.
Posted by: infidel at May 15, 2006 01:13 AM
Your home territory is my adopted one, KC. I maintain a residence in Whitehorse, just over the bridge on the Riverdale side. Funny you mention it, though, since the Yukon's premier was a convicted heroin trafficker who hid his crimes throughout his election. Lots of Yukoners would like a do-over on that.
So, apparently, my requirement of a leader to disclose his past isn't what you want in your Canada? Enjoy a few more A. Gaglianos, then. Hope you'll be happy.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at May 15, 2006 02:19 AM
Politics can be a natural attraction for drug users who need gobs of cash to pay for the habit. Back-slapping jovials.
They could be slipping bag fulls of cash out of the back door, but not much notice is taken by employees who just want to keep their job.
Besides, it*s other people*s money, so liberally, who cares? TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 15, 2006 02:43 AM
Steve, this is a great post. It is extremely well-thought out. The fact that you are being so vehemently criticized is actually a compliment. The other side comes out strongest when they feel threatened (IMHO).
Posted by: Joanne C. at May 15, 2006 05:38 AM
I do not believe Dalton McGuinty that he did not know. All candidates are vetted in the major political parties for skeletons in the closet. This is a big skeleton. It would be interesting to enquire whether Smitherman was vetted like properly, or if he lied on his application. So either he lied to the Liberal Party of Ontario on his application, or Dalton McGuinty lied to the people of Ontario. I am going with the latter.
Posted by: Eric at May 15, 2006 08:30 AM
Of course the whole thing was qualified by Smitherman being gay. Which gets the automatic sympathy vote for any wrong doing while in public office. Just ask Svend.
What's next?
I didn't mean to commit murder, but of course the public will forgive me because I'm a gay, drug addict, suffering a bout of depression?
Well, that explains it. You're cleared of all charges. And because of your integrity and honesty - please do Canada a great service by staying in office.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 15, 2006 12:00 PM
Smitherman is playing the usual homosexual victim card, even though he is guilty as sin here. He should have admitted this right from the beginning. Anyways, he is homosexual so, it shouldn't be surprising that he's done drugs.
Now, Emerson was mentioned here. Emerson did lie. He said that he would be Stephen Harper's worst enemy. He lied to his constituents and those that voted for him as a Liberal.
Posted by: None at May 15, 2006 02:44 PM
Too bad all the adults opted out of this discussion.
Steve....it's great to question the motivation of McGuinty or Smitherman...BUT since when is past behaviour the only criteria for being accepted or denied in a job or position? Last time I checked substance dependence was categorized as a Disease.
Anyway...who said that McSquinty Did Not know about Smithermans past?
I doubt if I'd want to hire a drugged out loser or a lush. But simply having had a problem that is being dealt with at present is no reason to deny anyones competence or to assume a lack of it.
So what?
Either he can do the job or not.
In comparison..I don't care if Bill Clinton was a womanizer and cheated on his wife! Was he a good president? Well no, but I don't think for a minute that one thing has anything to do with the other.
I don;t care that GW Bush was a college clown and party animal. Is he a good president? I think so and if not the the greatest and best at least a better man than his opponents.
As far as I know several of our PM's have been full time drunks.....how bad were they as PM?
Not that bad.
I actually think that Ralph Klein was more effective in Alberta's government when he was knocking back 4 or 5 highballs over his extended lunches. But that's just me.
Anyway..with so much evidence of incompetence on McSquinty what's the point of trying to make so much of this?
Posted by: PGP at May 15, 2006 03:50 PM
This is disgusting.
Posted by: thickslab at May 15, 2006 10:21 PM
PGP, Your label of everyone in this thread a child didn't seem to fit so couldn't read further...
None, Emerson did not lie in the true sense at all. He said he would be Harper*s worst enemy and everyone agrees that he meant it at the time.
Harper asked Emerson to change his mind about being an enemy and help to settle the softwood stalemate.
So Emerson did not lie. Emerson was very civilized and put Canada first by changing his mind and delivering what Vancouver liberal voters wanted. Mills back to work and men back on the job.
It was the National Dipstick Party that was making all the Emerson fuss anyway. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 15, 2006 11:51 PM
Tony, you're way off here. He tells his constituents one thing and then gets bribed not to do it. Sorry, that's lying.
The voters voted for a liberal candidate, if he doesn't want to be one after the election, become an independent and run for the CPC. Don't circumvent the voters, after all, isn't the election about democracy?
You're wrong that this is just the NDP causing a fuss. Many CPC members were peeved off because of Brison and Stronach did and we would be hypocrites and liars to support this when we didn't support floor crossing before.
Posted by: None at May 16, 2006 09:06 AM
 
|
|
