Angry in the Great White North

Here is a review of the headlines now that the Sgro Report has been released.

From the Globe and Mail: "Ethics watchdog gives Sgro qualified thumbs-up"

From the Toronto Star: "Lukewarm vindication for Sgro"

From the National Post: "Report fails to quell Sgro controversy"

From Sun Media: "Report backs Sgro"

From CTV: "Ethics watchdog stops short of absolving Sgro"

From the CBC: "Staff errors were inadvertent, says Sgro"

From the Canadian Press: "Ethics commissioner's $170,000 report fails to still Sgro controversy"

She's absolved mostly, or not absolved, barely. But whatever you might think, the fact is that the report has made things worse, not better. You have to wonder just what part of the mandate has been achieved by this report:

The mandate of the Ethics Commissioner in relation to public office holders is
(a) to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders;
(b) to provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister with respect to those ethical principles, rules or obligations and ethical issues in general; and
(c) to provide confidential advice to a public office holder with respect to the application to him or her of those ethical principles, rules or obligations.

Well, apparently people are more confused, not less. This does not bode well for the future ethical conduct of members of this government or the next.

From the Sgro Report itself (page 14):

On balance a great deal of uncertainty remains.

Well, he got that right.