Another useless ethics investigation
Stephen Harper has told the Ethics Commissioner that his interest in the case of David Emerson crossing the floor is misplaced, and frankly inappropriate:
There's a possibility Stephen Harper's first act as prime minister may have breached the parliamentary ethical code for MPs, the federal ethics commissioner indicated Friday.
But Bernard Shapiro's decision to launch a "preliminary inquiry" into Harper's controversial appointment of former Liberal David Emerson to the Conservative cabinet met with a furious rebuttal from the Prime Minister's Office.
"The prime minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned and who has been found in contempt of the House," Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, said late Friday.
In a release, the PMO added, "this Liberal appointee's actions have strengthened the prime minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."
The Ethics Commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, has repeatedly been ridiculed for his work.
In this case, the Ethics Commissioner is investigating the fact that David Emerson crossed the floor, which is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, but refused to investigate the case of Liberal MP Tony Valeri's extremely profitable land-swap deal, citing the fact that Parliament was not sitting at the time.
Of course, Parliament is not sitting now, but apparently that rule is flexible.
The fact is, Bernard Shapiro is essentially useless. The rules under which he works were written up by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. The Liberals are hardly the poster boys for ethical behaviour. But more than that, I've been shocked at his sloppy work.
With his "investigation" into the Abotech affair, Shapiro only questioned the two people in the story, David Smith and Frank Brazeau, who had reasons to lie in order to save each other. He did not ask questions of David Smith's wife, for example. He allowed the two men to define the nature of their relationship, and they conveniently ignored to mention that they were first cousins. Did Bernard Shapiro challenge them on this? Of course not. Did he know about the familial relationship? Well, I told him via email at least twice.
But Shapiro wanted the Smith investigation to go away, and it did.
On the other hand, sticking it to Stephen Harper seems to be in his game plan, and suddenly the comments of ordinary citizens matter:
But the ethics czar said "numerous requests from the public" helped convince him to investigate Emerson's behaviour as well.
I'm willing to bet, though, that Shapiro will clear Emerson. The fact is, Shapiro seems to have real problems finding unethical behaviour anywhere he looks. In the Abotech case, Smith continued to sign contracts even after leaving Abotech, a clear ethical violation. But Smith told Shapiro that the signatures were "inadvertant", and so he got a pass. As noted, Shapiro never asked Smith's wife, who was supposed to be running the company, why she did not react to signatures appearing inadvertantly on contracts that would have had her name on them.
If Shapiro couldn't spot unethical behaviour that appeared written on a piece of paper, what chance is he going to have of finding something unethical where, frankly, nothing unethical happened?
But then again, who knows what's going on inside his head?
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
Steve, could you re-post Shapiro's e-mail,
some of us would also like to contact him.
My message will be.....
...............You're Fired...........
Ps... Mr. Shapiro, you sound and act like the liberal thieves we just turfed, I would suggest you watch your back, I sense criminal charges may be following you.
Posted by: William Wylie Ajax,Ont at March 4, 2006 11:01 AM
Unbelievable! This Shapiro guy needs a hard slap to his head.
Posted by: Shmoo Report at March 4, 2006 11:51 AM
Now let's see. . .
The NDP got its rent-a-mobs to parade around Emerson's riding to keep the story going. Two NDP MPs pushed Shapiro to get the investigation going. The Liberals are promising that they'll fight to bring Harper down, almost certainly by tarring him with the "politics as usual" and the "Bloc-supported" brushes. Bloc says it will work to keep Parliament going, but so far Liberals haven't said that. And Martin is still Leader of the Liberal Party,
Parliament meets. First move after the Throne Speech the Liberals and NDP make is a vote of confidence on the refusal of Harper to co-operate with the Ethics Commissioner. Bloc abstains. Graham goes to Governor General and says he has a working majority with the NDP. She says: try to form a government and get a vote of confidence. Martin is elected Leader of the Opposition by the Liberal caucus. Smilin' Jack gets a Cabinet seat.
Posted by: Patrick B at March 4, 2006 11:59 AM
I wouldn't bet that Shapiro will clear Emerson no matter how innocent it may be.
Because Emerson already said that he will resign if guilt is found if Sharpiro went ahead and said that it was "unethical" so therefore he/they are guilty it would then create a major sh*tstorm in parliament. I have no problem seeing Shapiro and the liberals doing this for political sport, it's in their nature.
As far as it "must be based on the evidence" I think it is clear that Shapiro sees or ignores whatever he wants to and makes the rules up as he goes. Why would he behave any differently now?
Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at March 4, 2006 12:14 PM
First, nothing is going on in his head. Like all Liberals is brains are in his arse. Second, Harper has been elected head of Canada,him and no one else, so fire the bastard now. No severance, no entitlements only what the scumbag Libs are willing to give him. He is a liberal hack paid and bought for by The Cretin and Martin. You remember him, he has so many ethics his shipping line is registered outside Canada and hires slave labour.
Posted by: pissedoff at March 4, 2006 12:23 PM
Investigate the ethics commissioner!
Has he ever found anyone guilty of unethical behaviour?
Has he ever come out and said that a ministers actions come close to unethical behaviour
Has he ever indicated that he has had to make a difficult decision, giving the public some reassurance that he is not rubber stamping a decision
His credo appears to be that if it is not illegal it is ethical.
Posted by: ian at March 4, 2006 01:10 PM
I think Shapiro made noises about Grewal being unethical by playing spy and secretly recording his conversations with Dosanjh who was very ethically trying to coax Grewal to cross the floor.
No doubt Shapiro has a lovely contract written in language which makes it very very expensive to send him packing. After all, he's entitled to his entitlements, right?
You know who it'd be nice to see sitting as an ethics commissioner? Fast Eddy Broadbent!
Posted by: Mac at March 4, 2006 01:26 PM
I always had difficulty with the Grewal decision.
I thought Dosanjh was the guy in the wrong?
If he was not in the wrong how can PMSH be in the wrong?
Also the stakes were much higher when Stronach "got religion"
Posted by: ian at March 4, 2006 01:40 PM
Shapiro looks like product of SSM.
Posted by: george at March 4, 2006 01:54 PM
Take a look at Shapiro's bio. He's a typical academic, someone who likes writing articles, doing research and likes to ponder "over the development of logical thinking in young people", and has also been appointed to every one of his positions during his public service career. He's just another typical career civil servant who likes his entitlements and isn't willing to speak up against the very system that put him in this position. What a useless position. What a useless department.
Posted by: JM at March 4, 2006 02:55 PM
Shapiro's title is more appropriately the "Lack of Ethics Commissioner". What a waste of taxpayers money this deadbeat is!
Posted by: duh at March 4, 2006 03:29 PM
TO JM
And your definition of a typical cicil sernant is??
Posted by: Guardsman at March 4, 2006 03:46 PM
TO JM
And your definition of a typical civil sernant is??
Posted by: Guardsman at March 4, 2006 03:47 PM
Bernie, Bernie Bernie.....what a waste of money and oxygen you appear to be. You cannot bring yourself to find anyone with a Liberal party card guilty of anything, you cant investigate Belinda and you refuse to look at Tim Murphy but this....oh my goodness, could it be any more transparent that you have been bought and paid for....
Sad day. The PM PM scenario is truely ugly and uite possibly plausible.
Posted by: Stephen at March 4, 2006 04:07 PM
In the US system of checks and balances, such a position would be selected by Congress (in Canada, Parliament as a whole, following recommendation of cross-party Parliamentary Committee) not an autocratic political PM arbitrary appointment with all this entails.
Hence, such a broadly appointed (and hence democratically representative) 'ethics commissioner' would have some credibility and cross-partisan stripes.
Because Canada is not a genuine democracy, but a PM-run system where the PM runs everything without checks in place, this new case is another case in point: Only genuine and far-reaching democratic reform can 'save Canada' and re-establish public trust in our institution. Under the present system, everything, including the judiciary, is a PM patronage appointment, and so of course there is little legitimacy to gomery or this 'ethics commissioner'. That's not their fault. It's the fault of an inherently undemocratic barely post-colonial system created before the telephone was invented.
Posted by: brock at March 4, 2006 04:19 PM
Steve
If Harper has not broken any ethics code then why would he want to appear as if he has something to hide by not cooperating with Shapiro? Doesn't he realize what non cooperation might look like to the average observer? What is he gaining by stone-walling the first time someone, even Shapiro, wants to investigate? You would think Harper would be eager to ensure that not even a ting of scandal would stick to him and would bend over backwards to ensure his minority government has no hint of odour about it. Whether he is innocent or guilty may not matter if non cooperation leaves the voter in a questioning mode.
Posted by: steve d at March 4, 2006 05:52 PM
I'm glad Shapiro is investigating Emerson, the more dirth we have on him the faster he resigns. Harper can then put the blame on Shapiro for cleaning up this fiasco and he can get on with governing this Country. Here is the bright side of all this: Shapiro will clear Harper, after Shapiro cleans Harper's mess, Harper will fire him and appoint one of his "transparent" clone. It's a win win situation and an easy way to sack both Shapiro and Emerson at the same time. Boy I love democracy!
Posted by: marcel at March 4, 2006 05:54 PM
If your quote is accurate, then Shapiro can't even follow his own guidelines: guidelines which he set out for himself just last year.
From the website for the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, we can find a report ("Issues and Challenges 2005") which clearly states, "Given the problems raised ... it would be preferable ... to simply encourage citizens who wish that the Ethics Commissioner examine a minister ... to present such requests through a member of the House of Commons or a senator."
It continues, "Policy Approach 1 ... Through its recently relaunched website and other means, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner will inform Canadians that any requests to examine the ethical conduct of a minister ... should be made through a member of the House of Commons or a senator ..."
And now he's decided that members of the public can request action directly? What a joke!
Posted by: Paul O at March 4, 2006 07:44 PM
Oops. I messed up that first link, to the OEC Website. Contact information is available at that website, but it might be worth reminding everyone to be respectful.
Posted by: Paul O at March 4, 2006 07:51 PM
Steve d,
"as if he has something to hide by not cooperating with Shapiro?"
Why should Harper co-operate with a crook?
Mr. Shapiro has been helping liberals cover-up their corruption, he is corrupt, and doesn't deserve the time of day from Harper.
Shapiro will have his day in court along with quite a few of his liberal brothers, you see,
Real Criminal charges are comming, and there comming from a Real Ethics Commissioner.!
Posted by: William Wylie Ajax,Ont at March 4, 2006 08:08 PM
Cooperate with an "ethics commissioner" who proved his incompetence and partisan bias several times?
Scenario:
The playground is being ruled by a pair of bullies. Let's call them Jean and Paulie. They learned all their dirty tricks from a bully who left years ago, Pierre but that's another story.
When it looked like the adults might do something about the bullies, Jean and Paulie nominate the class nerd (let's call him Bernie) as playground monitor and tell him what to see and what not to see or else.
The adults don't hear the nerd's "special" instructions so they see the new monitor as progress and decide let things run the course. A few times, kids bring problems to Bernie but he doesn't do anything about it and usually finds a way to blame everyone else except the bullies.
Suddenly, Jean goes away and the other bully, Paul, can't run the playground alone. Stephen, a new kid on the block arrives and says "No more bullying!" and the rest of the kids cheer, albeit mutedly since they don't wanna upset Paulie who is still nasty. At first, the adults don't know what to think about Stephen but after a while, they decide he's not so bad.
Along comes Bernie, who says "I'm going see if you're a bully 'cause you're being friendly with David who used to hang around with Paulie!! Both of you show me what you have in your pockets!"
Now, do you expect Stephen & David to dump their pockets for the nerd or tell him to stuff it?
Posted by: Mac at March 4, 2006 08:50 PM
William Wylie
Like it or not, good or bad, Shapiro is still THE ethics commissioner. If he is so corrupt and bad why didnt Harper or Parliament or whomever fire him? If he is still the ethics commissioner then he has all the authority of the office. Harper should suck it up and cooperate. Has there ever been anyone who has benefitted from stonewalling an investigation??? Nixon? Clinton? Cretien? These people stonewalled. Does he want to be lumped with them? To me this is a no brainer, cooperate already or have this simmer for a year or two. The Liberals would LOVE to have this drag on and on and on. So go ahead Harper stonewall play into Liberal hands.
Posted by: steve d at March 4, 2006 10:45 PM
If he is so corrupt and bad why didnt Harper or Parliament or whomever fire him?
Martin and the Liberals had no reason to fire Shapiro since he's their nerd. Parliament isn't in session so Harper and/or Parliament can't fire him yet.
Shapiro will be going away soon (not soon enough) but he's made a good tactical move on behalf of his political masters, the Fiberals. Shapiro made an amply supply of political hay available to his bullies and there's not much Harper can do about it.
Posted by: Mac at March 4, 2006 11:37 PM
Shapiro knows he's not long in the job. So contrives this ethics investigation. Pretty selective considering what has gone on since he was installed in the job.
He is not a ethics commisioner. That's just his title. He is there to sanctify the Liberal government.
In the mean time back at the ranch. A new sheriff is in town. The old deputy sees his job going away so he makes the desparate move to accuse the new sheriff of wrong doing thinking like the Liberal hack that he is that the Sheriff Harper won't have the balls to risk bad PR.
I'm thinking Prime Minister Harper is not cut from the same cowardly cloth as your average Liberal.
He's not going to stand for this bullshit.
Posted by: Jeff Cosford at March 5, 2006 12:54 AM
But the ethics czar said "numerous requests from the public" helped convince him to investigate Emerson's behaviour as well.
Perhaps we conservatives need to play a bit of this game too, how about an investigation into Jack Layton and Olivia Chow - if enough people ask, then he will look into it, right?
http://hespeler.blogspot.com/2006/03/week-that-was.html
Posted by: Brian Gardiner at March 5, 2006 01:54 PM
Jack Chow is having sex with Olivia? Since when?
Posted by: Chazz at March 5, 2006 06:21 PM
Jack Chow is having sex with Olivia? Since when?
It's just a rumour at this stage, but that's one of the things the ethics investigation would need to find out.
Posted by: Brian Gardiner at March 5, 2006 06:54 PM
Fear and Loathing in the PMO,
PMSH you can loathe all you want but that shouldn't be the reason for not co-operaring.
I wouldn't co-operate either, it's none of their business and there's no obligation... period.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 6, 2006 12:18 PM
Well well well... Typical MSM reporting; they had to find a way to try to make Harper look bad.
-Mac
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060306/harper_ethics_commissioner_060306/20060306?hub=Canada
PM preparing to dump ethics commissioner: CTV
Updated Mon. Mar. 6 2006 11:22 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is preparing to dump the ethics commissioner and is actively recruiting replacement candidates, CTV News has learned.
Former NDP Leader Ed Broadbent was among the government's top choices.
"The issue has been discussed with me," Broadbent told CTV. But with his wife fighting cancer, Broadbent turned down the job.
"Although I think it's a terrific job and an important job, it is certainly not one for me at this point in my life," he said.
The news of a possible shake-up comes just days after ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro announced he would look into conflict-of-interest allegations against Harper.
Shapiro said he would investigate whether Harper breached the parliamentary ethical code for MPs by appointing David Emerson to his cabinet two weeks after Emerson won his B.C. riding as Liberal.
Shapiro said he will issue one report on the conduct of both Harper and Emerson, who is now international trade minister.
The parliamentary conflict-of-interest code prohibits inducing an MP to change his or her vote for personal benefit.
Emerson has said he would co-operate with an inquiry. However, the Prime Minister's Office has not been as open.
At the time, Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler said the prime minister is "loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned and who has been found in contempt of the House."
Buckler was referring to the fact that Shapiro was found in contempt of the House of Commons last year when a parliamentary committee ruled that he made inappropriate comments during an interview. At the time, parliamentarians said Shapiro revealed information about an inquiry into Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai.
The PMO also accused Shapiro, a Liberal appointee, of bias.
"He's actually a Liberal appointee who has a certain pattern of attacking Conservative MPs. We find it very troubling which is why we think we should have a non-partisan ethics commissioner who reports to Parliament," Buckler told CTV.
The Tories have complained that Shapiro turned down their request to investigate Liberal Tony Valeri's landholdings during the election campaign. Shapiro said as commissioner, he couldn't act between sittings of Parliament.
Peter Julian, the B.C. New Democrat who asked the commissioner to look into the matter, said he was saddened by the response from the PMO.
"I certainly hope that he'll reconsider his position, that the reaction on the weekend was just a very strong reaction based on partisan motives," Julian told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.
He later added that Harper's decision could be seen as the wrong move.
"For him to then try in a self-serving way to say I shouldn't be investigated because I want to change the ethics commissioner's office, I think would be a political mistake and he's made enough of those in the first few weeks," he said.
Julian said he's hoping that the PMO will call a byelection in Emerson's riding.
"It's what Canadians should expect and it's what Canadians deserve."
He said that the NDP has tried to get an anti-floor crossing bill passed in parliament that would subject any member of parliament to a by-election if they considered changing parties.
"Voters across Canada voted for change on Jan. 23 and they want things to be done differently than they were done under the Liberal regime."
As for Emerson, he has apologized to his constituents, and has promised to run as a Conservative in the next election.
Posted by: Mac at March 6, 2006 11:59 PM
 
|
|
