The Conservative government's reaction to Jennifer Lynch's stunt

I e-mailed and called some friends in the Conservative government today, both senior staff and MPs, to ask them what they thought about the Canadian Human Rights Commission's PR stunt -- their pre-emptive "self-investigation".

As I wrote yesterday, it is a ludicrous conflict of interest for Jennifer Lynch, the CHRC's chief commissioner, to hand-pick a person to review her agency. It is also inappropriate for her to engage someone to review her political mandate -- that's a job for elected politicians, not appointed bureaucrats who work for elected politicians. And, finally, I pointed out that Lynch's proposed review carefully avoids the real problem areas in the CHRC, such as its corruption.

I fired off some brief e-mails to the Hill. "Were you ambushed by Lynch?" I wrote to one, assuming my friend would know what I was talking about.

"No," came the quick BlackBerry reply.

"So you think it's OK for her to pre-empt Parliament's own inquiry?" I wrote back.

"What?" came the response.

Later today I spoke by telephone with some of the same people. They indeed were ambushed by Lynch's ham-fisted PR stunt. But they told me that, in their view, it was nothing but an attempted distraction. They genuinely don't care; they'll ignore it.

That confirms my instincts not to give too much credence to this sham review -- and not to spend too much time debunking it. As I mentioned, I'm going to indeed send over some of my most challenging questions to Richard Moon, the professor who is writing a paper about the future of the CHRC. But that's a win-win situation: if Moon does address the corruption the CHRC, it will be the first time anyone does so. If he doesn't address them -- and I suspect he will simply and honestly say that Lynch's narrow instructions to him forbid him from asking any such questions -- then it will prove the whole exercise to be just that: an academic exercise, not a true attempt to clean up that corrupt organization, and rein in its abuses of our freedoms.

But other than sending over some such questions, I'm really not going to spend a lot of time on it. It's an attempt by Lynch and her beseiged CHRC to create a diversion, to distract or delay their day of judgment.

Parliament's not buying it, and neither will I.

I don't think that the folks in the bunker at the CHRC understand the Conservative government at all, and the Prime Minister in particular. I think that of all the political chess moves they could have made, this stunt was perhaps the most foolish and counter-productive they could have chosen.

Until now, they simply stonewalled, brazening it out, denying any wrongdoing whatsoever, even denying the bald facts as revealed in various hearings, under oath. That's not particularly unusual for decaying bureaucracies.

But Lynch's move was different: it was insubordination. It was meddling with politics -- meddling with MPs' turf. In particular, the thought that a third-tier government appointee like Lynch would presume to review her own political mandate, and presume to commission a report on what her job should be -- instead of doing the job she was given -- is exactly the thing that irritates the PMO.

I am reminded of a story from the first few weeks of Stephen Harper's tenure as Prime Minister. There had been an election in Belarus, and it was rigged. Harper wanted to issue a critical statement, and he ordered that it be done. The bureaucrats from the Department of Foreign Affairs nodded, but sent back a mealy-mouthed press release about "monitoring the situation". Harper was frustrated that he was being ignored, so he asked again for a critical release to be drafted. Again, the crats came back with pablum. Enough was enough: Harper literally hand-wrote a scorching press release, and ordered it sent out. "I am shocked that a dictatorial and abusive regime, such as this one, can continue to exist in today's Europe," he wrote.

You can read amazing story here (quick, free registration required).

What's the point? The point is that Harper probably didn't care a lot about Belarus. He just wanted a critical release to be issued. But the DFAIT bureaucrats wanted to "Yes, Minister" him. All of a sudden, he cared very much about Belarus. Sure, it was about democracy in an Eastern European country. But it was also about democracy in Canada: who was running the government -- him or unelected civil servants? It was their own belligerence that made Harper up the ante.

Lynch's self-appointed "review" is her Belarus press release. It is her telling Harper: I'm more clever than you; I'm going to make things more difficult for you; I'm going to cut you off at the pass; I'm going to publish my own whitewash before you can get your own review going. I'm smarter than you, or at least trickier than you. And I'm going to surprise and ambush you, rather than work for you.

In other words, it's a staring contest.

The CHRC's antics have already bothered Harper quite a bit. They've been a hassle for him -- in the press, in caucus, and with the party's base. But instead of working with Harper -- or just shutting up -- Lynch called in a pre-emptive strike, a PR stunt that caught Harper off guard.

Dear friends, how do you think that will end?

I've known Harper since I was a teenager. I've been his friend and I've sparred with him and then been his friend again. He can be a deal-maker; he can be a compromiser -- just look at him and Jean Charest. But if he senses insubordination or subterfuge, he can be tough as steel, upping the ante again and again to show that he's the boss.

Lynch could have met him and worked with him. Instead, she chose to sandbag him in public. I'm so glad that she did.