The Emerson and Stronach defections only go to prove the two main parties are interchangeable. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum. It is a simple thing apparently to move from one to another even a matter of a few days after an election. The message seems to be you can vote for whomever you want but in the end nothing really changes. Politics is a joke. That is why businesses will give equal amounts to both main parties secure in the knowledge that whichever party was elected their interests would be served.

Posted by: steve d at March 4, 2006 11:39 PM

---

That's the official 'left' position, steve d?

Why are the 'left' so depressing? Doom and gloom, all men are corrupt; society is spinning into decay.

The future is bright, steve d, if you could just shake off the shackles of socialism.

Posted by: Mac at March 4, 2006 11:58 PM

---

Emerson crossed the floor for reasons that have been mentioned many times. I agree no legitimate vote should be overturned by any court. The voters of his riding will get their opportunity to judge in due course. It is the NDP who are in a lather because they see it as an opportunity lost. Emerson won by 43% of the vote regardless of which party he represents. People voted for the man otherwise this traditional NDP riding would have been won by the NDP. The NDP should get off their high horses and put their efforts into making this parliament work.

Posted by: Mervin Hollingsworth at March 5, 2006 12:11 AM

---

Ho hum. I wish Harper had saved his capital for some other purpose, but he must have seen something uniquely useful in Emerson for this role and decided it was worth burning some credibility. And make no mistake, it has cost him in the eyes of voters. Only time will tell whether it will pay off.

But meanwhile, who are these fanatical converts to political puritanism and why are they pretending there is a new standard of behaviour to which politicians need to be held? Give it up, everyone can see right through you.

Posted by: Halfwise halfwit at March 5, 2006 12:34 AM

---

Yet another chance to get under teh thin skin of the lib-left.

Stronach, at the time of her floor cross, was offered a cabinet seat in return for her vote on a non-confidence measure while she was sitting as an opposition member.

Emerson, at the time of his decision, was a sitting cabinet minister right until the moment Martin submitted his resignation as PM, and parliament was not even in sesson nor was there any pending vote.

See the diff? Stronach got a cabinet seat for her vote, Emerson got moved to a new portfolio in exchange for switching to the incoming government caucus.

Posted by: gimbol at March 5, 2006 01:41 AM

---

Mac,

You raise an interesting point. It was in the past that the "left" believed in the perfectability of humanity (man in the old parlance) since he/she was inately good. This was the justification for collective action, through governments.

If only one could equalize the starting conditions then all "men" would have a fair chance. With all men equal living up to their potential and inate good natures we could build the "New Jerusalem", the shining city on the hill.

Well time has passed and all the positions seem to have been mixed up, or as the say on British train platforms "All Change".

The right has adopted the mantlepiece of humanity's perfectability, but with a twist. That all our responsible for actions, regardless of starting conditions. As long as man made barriers (prejudice) are removed, equal opportunity, and competence and intelligence demonstrated then all have opportunity.

The left has morphed into attaching millstones to individuals or by extending the startline from which all conditions must be equal. Looks like the startline conditions must be extended all the way to death, certainly to old age. Why? because some will take advantage, because man's animal spirit will lead to bad results and "inhumanity".

This is a reversal of the assumptions from traditional positions. "Conservatives" believed that position, status, breeding and education were proof of better natures and that all others needed restrint until they demonstarted those qualities of civilization. Without "betters" to provide examples of behaviour then it would all be chaos.

Not sure when this flipped.....I somehow think it did in the 80's when it finally became clear that a liberal, democratic capitalistic system led to wealth and triumph. Then the left changes from promoting its positves, our system leads to better results, to slgging the faults of the others, life isnt as good as you think and you need to look for an alternative system.

Just my thoughts on this sunny Sunday morning and very off topic from Emerson. Although to link them, it is a mix. The left position on Emerson is fuelled by a profound distrust of the entire system, despite the fact that DE is a Blue Grit...at one time Paul Martin was considered a conservative Liberal (before he revealed he only believed in power)....Notice Mckenna and Emmerson use the same language, I did this because of Paul Martin not the Liberal party.

Once again the left wants to move the start line further out to generate a reslut that they feel more comfortable with. SIGH

Posted by: Stephen at March 5, 2006 07:29 AM

---

The Emerson embroglio is like a pink-dye stain that keeps leaching through no matter how many coats of whitewash you apply to it.

Many BC prominent people feel that they were slighted by Harper's lack of connection here, causing him to feel that the barrel here is so empty, he had to go over to scoop into the Liberal barrel to find some West Coast talent.

This is not true. Emerson could have been equally-effectively used in some other appointment to the PMO. As the echo-effects of this bad move keep resounding to prove it was a bad move, let's nevertheless drop this and move on.

Posted by: brock at March 5, 2006 07:53 AM

---

Even if Harper's actions are deemed unethical, to conclude that this government is the same as the previous one after only a few weeks in office is patently absurd.

Perhaps it was bad move for Harper, but it is good move for Canada. Harper has put the country ahead of his own personal popularity. Isn't that what we've been asking of our leaders since time immemorial?

Belinda became a turncoat at the height of battle, an action which had a direct effect on the outcome of the battle. Emerson defected when the war was already over and his general, the man on whose behalf he enlisted, resigned. There's no comparison, here. That this is still an issue, even though there's no argument that Emerson is a net benefit to Canada, betrays a deep seated sickness in the mindset of the Left.

Posted by: potato at March 5, 2006 09:22 AM

---

In response to this news, Warren Kinsella has some thoughts, and they seem to align reasonably well with mine:

Oh, gosh, Steve, what a surprise.

You're better than this. You really, truly are.

On the topic, never mind the fact that Shapiro was formally requested to investigate this piece of electoral fraudulent conversion: by all means, suggest that he took it upon himself, moved by some ulterior motive not unconnected with the party that appointed him.

Let the people decide. Isn't that what conservatives in opposition were always yelling when the Libs did something particularly objectionable? Now you get a fresh, juicy Cabinet minister without a fight, and all you had to give up were your principles. Looks like you got a bargain, come to think of it.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 09:43 AM

---

Is it that Emmerson crossed, or crossed so soon....I really dont know which one the opposition is reacting to.

As to why the story stays alive...Harper has provided nothing else for people to speak about.

SO the race is on to solve softwood before Bernie the Bonehead fulfills his Liberal programming. Just wonder who Bernie met with to wind this one up.

When you are this far into it, just fire him and set the process up for a truely independent ethics counsellor. Rather than the political charade that Bernie the Bonehead is. I have yet to witness anyone with less competence in a job. Wilson could at least have the excuse that he was a creature of the PMO, appointed by and reports to...Bernie reports to Parliament, has been declared in contempt of Parliament and just keeps goign no matter what his contradition. An ethical view of his position would mean his resignation....sauce for the goose....

Posted by: Stephen at March 5, 2006 09:51 AM

---

Hey Dawg, Shapiro was asked to investigate the Valeri land flip. He said he couldn't because parliment was'nt sitting. Note, he was asked, just as he was asked to investigate Emerson. His decision to say that he would investigate Emerson and not Valeri is what ranks him right up there with Dingwall and all of the other partisan hacks appointed by the Liberal governments of the past. If he had the guts to investigate Valeri, then he would have a little credibility. Also, if the BS crossing was investigated he would have even more credibility. That neither was investigated proves to most that the impending Emerson investigation is politically motivated and therefore worthy of scorn and that PM Harper is right in ignoring this Liberal flunky.

As to the floor crossing, yup, CPC supporters howled at BS, and some have howled over Emerson. At least many are consistent (not all mind you). I remember the glee the Liberals, and even some NDPers, showed when BS crossed and the outrage they show now. Most Liberal supporters lavished praise on PM and observed that in the game of politics the Liberals trounced the CPC again. What I don't see is the same admiration mentioned by Liberals saying that Harper pulled a good one on them, you know, pulled a good political move. I guess being consistent is not a strong point in the Liberal red book.

Posted by: Dwayne at March 5, 2006 10:45 AM

---

Belinda..... Well when she was running for the CP leadership, I wanted to check this "lady" out. On her cross country run she stopped in Kelowna. Off I went, I even had some friends meet me there. I thought well just maybe this is what we might need. Boy, I have never been so wrong in my life. This is a person that went around telling us what a good job she would do for the CP's. Blah, Blah, Blah! IF this is who the Lib's think can save their party, man are they wrong! Belinda is just too opportunistic, (her money would help the party out) Her Daddy would be in the back ground, regardless of what anyone says. If this is the best the Lib's have, that party is in BIG trouble. I hope that for our country's sake that smarter heads prevail. This is a woman that no one should trust, watch your back Scottie!
It sure has been nice having a PM that can work with out the media's approval. IF PMSH keeeps it together all of Belinda's horse's and all of Belinda's men won't be able to put the Liberal party back together again.

Posted by: MaryM at March 5, 2006 10:48 AM

---

Dwayne:

There was no formal request to investigate the ethics of BS' floor-crossing. There was indeed such a request in the case of Emerson. The Office of the Ethics Commissioner can't simply wave that request away, can it?

You raise an interesting point about Valeri. Kenney's letter of complaint to Shapiro was dated January 17, well after Parliament had been dissolved. Valeri ceased to be an MP with the dissolution of Parliament. He never regained his status.

On the other hand, when the recent election results were officially announced, Emerson became an MP. He will continue to be one--and a Cabinet minister to boot--when Parliament resumes sitting.

I see a pretty clear distinction. Don't you?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 11:40 AM

---

Dawg you are a lying wanker:
"You raise an interesting point about Valeri. Kenney's letter of complaint to Shapiro was dated January 17, well after Parliament had been dissolved. Valeri ceased to be an MP with the dissolution of Parliament."

If at the dissolution, Valeri stopped being an MP why were we always assailed by Martin as still the Canadian PM. Get you bloody facts right and stop ignoring the truth to fit you misguided stupidity. I didnt realise over that period Canada didnt have a government or I could have just ignored every bleeding law you idiots produced and let all the convicts go. And why were Canadians paying these idiot if they were out of a job.

Posted by: pissedoff at March 5, 2006 12:02 PM

---

Maybe it's me, but why all the attention towards a floor crossing and not the mess that went on in Edmonton Centre with false addresses, semi-ballot stuffing and so on? Or in Ward 10 in Calgary with proven ballot stuffing and miscarriage of justice giving only a $4000 fine?

So a guy crosses a floor. Maybe good, maybe bad, all done within protocol. But illegal and immoral screwing with our democratic freedom has no price, err, whoops, only costs $4,000, or banished to lecture circuits.

What about all those 'practice votes' kids in high school were doing? Whatever happened to them? Ok a bit of a stretch, but obviously care wasn't taken prior to the big expose' to show things were handlede properly.

Ah, floor crossing - bad, screwing with democracy and tax dollars - good. Glad to see Canadian values at it's best.

Posted by: tomax at March 5, 2006 12:06 PM

---

This thread seems to have attracted at least one moron.

For the edification of "pissedoff": Cabinet (and the PM) continue to govern while Parliament is dissolved. But there is no such thing as the "House" during that period. There are no MPs as such. That's what the word "dissolved" means (as opposed to "prorogued).

Laws remain intact, however, and are as enforceable as ever. Parliament does not enforce laws. Good grief.

Take a poli sci 100 course before engaging with the grownups.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 01:04 PM

---

You know, people on this thread can rationalize / spin this ethics investigation all they like but at the end of the day, the Canadian public will see that crossers TO the Liberals (Stronach et al) were not investigated, while a crosser To the CPC are being investigated. This inconsistency will just not fly and no amount of spinning will get around these basic facts.

Posted by: WildRose at March 5, 2006 01:41 PM

---

What spinning? The OEC hadn't even been created when Brison did his thing, and in the case of Stronach, despite all the huffing and puffing, no formal complaint was made.

Could we have a little attention to the facts here, please?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 01:49 PM

---

Why pay attention to facts, Dr. Dawg, when spin is so much more fun? Are you gonna try to say you're here relating truth without spin? Hilarious!!

Really, you're just here blowing smoke. NO, I don't want to go to your blog to read your rambling nonsense, so don't bother posting in links. How about just offering your wisdom here on a few pointed questions?

Mr. Shapiro was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying the Sponsorship program was a “triumph of entrepreneurship� and characterizes the scandal as a struggle between Liberals trying to do “good things� and the private sector “smelling blood.� Shapiro conveniently ignored the fact those evil entrepreneurs were Liberals who kicked back funds into Liberal Party coffers.

Does this sound like the words of a nonpartisan and unbiased Ethics Commissioner to you, Dr. Dawg?

As a Cabinet Minister, Tony Valeri was still an MP after the dissolution of the 38th parliament. If he wasn't an MP, why was he still collecting a Cabinet Minister's salary? Valeri was an MP when his sweetheart land deal happened. The fact his tenure as an MP has ended is irrelevant since the incident took place during his tenure.

Does the need for ethical behaviour by MPs end when the parliament dissolves, Dr. Dawg? If not, how does the Ethics Commissioner justify his position on refusing to investigate Valeri?

Earlier, you assert the Ethics Commissioner can't "simply wave away" formal complaints, where is the investigation into Valeri? Smoke & mirrors, Dr.D?

Moving forward!!

People can draw comparisons between Stronach and Emerson until the cows come home. The basic fact is both MPs crossed the floor and there is nothing illegal, unethical or immoral in that action.

It's a facet of the parliamentary system. If we don't like it, we should tell our elected officials to change it. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it changed so someone who wishes to break ranks must stand as an independent rather than joining another party until next election.

Harper knows all of this- that's why he never requested an ethic investigation into Stronach... or Brison... or Keith Martin... (funny how those guys usually slip under the radar) and Harper knows what kind of result he'd get from Shapiro so why waste his time making the request?

Yes, floor crossing upsets voters and party officials but it doesn't "prove" anything, least of all that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are two faces of the same party. Anyone who says so either doesn't understand party politics or is engaging in an exercise of mud slinging, hoping some will stick on the Conservatives.

Posted by: Mac at March 5, 2006 03:12 PM

---

Mac:

I've stumbled through the smoke that most of your post consists of, and have found one or two more substantial points to reply to. Here are my responses.

1) Have I ever claimed that Shapiro is or was unbiased? No, I have not. I have confined my remarks to the false equivalence between the Valeri non-investigation and the current investigation.

2) Valeri remained, as you say, a Cabinet minister upon dissolution of Parliament. But--and I know this point is hard for some to grasp--he did not remain an MP.

3) Once Valeri ceased to be an MP, he was beyond the jurisdiction of the OEC.

You can get as pissed off at me as you want, but them's the facts, Bub.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 03:26 PM

---

Getting lost in the details of an undemocracy should not defer us from trying to advocate the need to create a genuine modern democracy such as all other western democratic states enjoy today.

All this faddle comes from the PM dominated autocracy ruling Canada, regardless of who is PM.

Posted by: brock at March 5, 2006 04:32 PM

---

Bernard Shapiro, using the words of Ed Broadbent, has "extraordinarily serious credibility problems", and on that note, the prediction is that this one has no legs. Unlike Mr. Shapiro, who will be using his to run to the nearest exit when PMSH shows it to him.

Posted by: Platty at March 5, 2006 04:36 PM

---

I don't think Shapiro's investigation is likely to reveal much. My money is on the court case.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 04:38 PM

---

I'm not pissed off at you; I'm amused by you. I know this point is hard for some to grasp.

You carefully avoided answering my questions, spewed even more smoke while hiding behind a mirror or three while accusing me of obfuscation.

Anyone else having a problem understanding me? If so, please advise!! Okay if I don't hold my breath waiting?

Unlike you, I will directly address your "points" since my facts are straightforward.

1) Valeri was a sitting MP when he worked his sweetheart land deal. That makes his actions relevent to the Ethics Commissioner. Shapiro failed to do his duty and made a patently bizarre excuse to avoid doing his job since he continues to draw a salary whether parliament is sitting or not.

2) The 38th Parliament was dissolved and Valeri remained a Cabinet Minister but until he was removed from office by the electorate, he was the incumbent Member of Parliament for Stoney Creek. At least, that's what his cheques said. As per Section 69 of the Parliament of Canada Act...

"For the purposes of the allowances payable under sections 55 and 63, a person who, immediately before a dissolution of the House of Commons, was a member thereof shall be deemed to continue to be a member of the House until the date of the next following general election."

3) The OEC doesn't not have jurisdiction whatsoever since the Ethics Commissioner does not have the power or right to exercise authority. Evidently, you misunderstand or misused the term "jurisdiction" but that's your problem.

Shapiro was and is the Ethics Commissioner during the time when Valeri conducted his sweetheart deal. A formal request was made for Shapiro to investigate the ethics of Valeri's actions. Shapiro did not do so. Seems pretty simple to me.

How's them for facts, Doc?

Posted by: Mac at March 5, 2006 04:55 PM

---

" lawyer Peter Dimitrov claims not to be actively "organizing" a class-action lawsuit against David Emerson. And that, as yet, no voters have volunteered to be plaintiffs in any suit against Emerson."

Is this the same "court case" you are talking about Dawg?

Posted by: Platty at March 5, 2006 05:06 PM

---

Mac:

Do a little research. You're embarrassing yourself.

1) Start by checking out the OEC's mandate: to administer two separate Codes of Ethics for Members of Parliament. Not "former Members." Not Privy Councillors when Parliament has been dissolved.

2) A little bit of reading incomprehension here, Bub? for the purposes of the allowances payable.... Valeri still ceased to be an MP when Parliament was dissolved.

3) Your point here is unclear, but in any case Shapiro is entitled, as the Ethics Commissioner, to inquire into possible breaches of two Codes of Conduct, the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons and the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders. Personally, as I said, I don't think much will come of this investigation, partly because, as you note, he doesn't have a lot of power--he can't even compel witnesses, as far as I know.

Platty:

Thanks for the update. I see nothing in it, however, that indicates that the matter has been dropped. I have already suggested that I think the case is a strong one. I hope it goes forward.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 05:38 PM

---

And one clarification to the above, just in case, once again, you punce prematurely: under my point (1), obviously Shapiro can investigate conflicts of interest that may arise when a former MP or other public office holder does certain things after leaving office. But what he can't do is to investigate conflicts of interest that might have occurred when he or she was a sitting MP.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 05:42 PM

---

I find myself unembarrassed. I guess your condescension isn't as effective as you'd like, Dr. Dawg.

1) As usual, you provide only partial information with a spin, complete with smoke & mirrors. The EC's mandate is wider than you've represented and no such restriction is included.

Even it were, Valeri was a sitting member at the time of his sweetheart deal of the 38th parliament. The EC did nothing. The election was called some four months after the deal was signed.

2) Although it is irrelevant to the original discussion, to what reference are you referring when you say an incumbent MP is stripped of his position when Parliament is dissolved... or did you want me to do YOUR research? Good luck, by the way. I know the answer.

My reference states clearly an MP is deemed to be an MP until the date of the election for the purpose of his/her entitlements. Liberals are big on those entitlements. I'm surprised you're protesting against my reference.

3) Sigh... my point, oh spinning one, is the EC does not have jurisdiction. He counsels; he does not have authority to enforce. Look up the word "jurisdiction" and your self-imposed fog might lift although I doubt it. There are none so blind.

On your next point, I'm not going to "punce" anything. I'll let the ignorance of your own words speak for themselves.

I'm still waiting for anyone else who has difficulty understanding me to speak up... I'm turning blue over here...

Posted by: Mac at March 5, 2006 06:32 PM

---

Mac:

You should do your own homework.

1) The complaint against Valeri was launched by Jason Kenney on January 17--when Valeri wasn't an MP. It doesn't matter that he was an MP when the offence was alleged to have occurred. I wish you would visit the OEC site, follow the links, and read the Codes. While I have enjoyed instructing you, there is such a thing as diminishing returns.

2) Your reference says absolutely no such thing. It is a reference to allowances. That straw will not save you from drowning. When Parliament is dissolved, there are no longer MPs. This is part of the Westminster parliamentary system. The references are numerous--go look for them yourself, or provide one for your silly assertion to the contrary.

3) If, as you say, Shapiro has no power to enforce, then what are you fussing about? Harper has already let it be known that he won't cooperate. Where did I say Shapiro did have the power to enforce? Or is this just another one of your red herrings? Try to focus, boy.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 06:58 PM

---

Oh, hell, I'll take pity on the young'un.

After dissolution, and the issue of writs for a general election, there are legally no Members of the House of Commons.

There is no clear authority for the preceding statement; however, the Parliament of Canada Act provides in section 69:

For the purposes of the allowances payable under sections 55 and 63, a person who, immediately before a dissolution of the House of Commons, was a member thereof shall be deemed to continue to be a member of the House until the date of the next following general election.

The above “deeming provision� in the Parliament of Canada Act is solely for the purposes of salaries, some additional allowances and benefits, and certain other services. It does not imply that a former Member retains that status until the date of the next general election.

Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0543-e.htm#ParliamentA1

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 07:02 PM

---

If that's your idea of instruction, I can see why our schools are turning out such poor graduates.

1) The timing of the complaint is irrelevant. The incident took place during Valeri's tenure as an MP.

2) When you said "numerous references" you're speaking in"Fiberal" which I translate to "I can't prove it, so I'll throw it back at you."

As your last post correctly indicates, there is NO CLEAR AUTHORITY for removal of status as MP. A change of status is assumed in commonlaw rather than specified in statute.

3) I will take this last statement as an admission that my position is correct. You brought up jurisdiction, not I. Once your smoke show clears up and the mirrors are revealed, you're wrong and now you're trying to change the subject.

Folks, I'm not engaging in this "debate" with the condescending quack to score a "win" here. It's not possible to win debates with the left since their goal is the debate itself. They're all about talk and no principle to back it up.

These incidents are pretty simple, both in fact and in law. Despite the best hopes and wishes of the left, Harper and Emerson haven't done anything wrong. Valeri and Shapiro have. C'est tout!!

Posted by: Mac at March 5, 2006 08:59 PM

---

Everyone can make comparisons to Belinda all they want. This is apples and oranges.

The real problem is that Emmerson betrayed his constituents. There can't be a recall, recount or by-election...it's just not part of the process.

The bottom line is that PMSH kicked off his tenure with a betrayal and a plum. Time will tell what the outcome is of these decisions.

The funniest thing of this post is the paranoia and blame game right-wingers are exhibiting here against lefties. If it's bad the Libs are to blame if it's good...wait a minute...I haven't read anything good except...Oh that's right Emmerson's blueness is good for the country and PMSH is the one person to recognize it.

Mac...You can debate with a Liberal and win...Belittling and berating is no way though; take the high ground, you'll be surprised at how good it feels.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 6, 2006 09:52 AM

---

Well, Harper never complained to the EC, because even though it worked against him when Stronach crossed and he didn't like it, he knew that there was nothing illegal or unethical about it. He even said as much during the campaign.

The Liberals were all cameras, flashbulbs, and smiles when Stronach came across, but now that the shoe is on ther other foot, they are sucking lemons. But of COURSE the Liberals are going to complain when the exact same thing happens to them. Thats what hypocrits do.

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 10:25 AM

---

"Everyone can make comparisons to Belinda all they want. This is apples and oranges."
-----------
Maybe not fruit from the same tree, but fruit all the same.

"The real problem is that Emerson betrayed his constituents. There can't be a recall, recount or by-election...it's just not part of the process".
----------
And no one felt betrayed by Stronach? I guess they shouldn't because she did it for "principles". Rigggggghhhht. See, Stronach never ran in a recall, recount or by-election either. She got her seat back in another election. And Emerson shouldn't be given the same opportunity she did? Please.

"The bottom line is that PMSH kicked off his tenure with a betrayal and a plum. Time will tell what the outcome is of these decisions."
------------
A betrayl and plum when the Conservatives do it, but a party and champagne when its the Liberals? Yep, no hypocricy there.

And what SHOULD it tell? That the Conservatives should be worried to lose a seat that they never held there anyway? Nope, don't think so. This non-iisue will be forgotten before the next slection, where they know due to past experience that they will not win that riding. Yes indeed, we quake in our boots "for time will tell".

"The funniest thing of this post is the paranoia and blame game right-wingers are exhibiting here against lefties. If it's bad the Libs are to blame if it's good...wait a minute...I haven't read anything good except...Oh that's right Emmerson's blueness is good for the country and PMSH is the one person to recognize it."
---------------
The funniest thing of THAT post is the paranoia and blame game left-wingers are exhibiting here against righties. If it's bad the Cons are to blame if it's good...wait a minute...I haven't read anything good except...Oh that's right Stronach's redness is good for the country and PMPM was the one person to recognize it.

Clearly, the shoe is on the other foot and the Liberals don't like it. Well choke it down Liberal ladies and gents, because now your getting a taste of your medicine.

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 10:41 AM

---

Dennis...I'm a Liberal and not complaining at all. There's nothing wrong with crossing the floor. As long the crosser does mind looking like they have no sense of loyalty and don't mind betraying their constituents. Makes the PM look bad too by accepting into the party a person with those kinds of standards.

Please don't lump all us Libs into the same slime bucket. To do so is naive/child-like while diminsihing your own sense of observation and good judgement.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 6, 2006 10:42 AM

---

"The funniest thing of this post is the paranoia and blame game right-wingers are exhibiting here against lefties. If it's bad the Libs are to blame if it's good...wait a minute.."

Then........

"Please don't lump all us Libs into the same slime bucket. To do so is naive/child-like while diminsihing your own sense of observation and good judgement".

-------------
Yeah waht Ron, I'll try to keep that in mind (sarcasm); as long as we know you are not doing the same.

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 10:49 AM

---

Well, Harper never complained to the EC, because even though it worked against him when Stronach crossed and he didn't like it, he knew that there was nothing illegal or unethical about it. He even said as much during the campaign.

I find this odd. If there was any indication that Stronach had been offered material inducements to cross the floor, and there were many such indications, wouldn't that create conflict of interest, and hence fall well within Shapiro's jurisdiction? Yet no formal complaint was ever made.

That being said, Stronach did remain in the Conservative caucus until the so-cons finally drove her nuts. Emerson, on the other hand, didn't even get to the floor before he crossed it. What this is telling me is that there is no fundamental difference btween Conservatives and Liberals.

Clearly, the shoe is on the other foot and the Liberals don't like it. Well choke it down Liberal ladies and gents, because now your getting a taste of your medicine.

Or, put a different way, to follow my point above--there's no difference between Liberal and Conservative ethics, never mind the campaign. Politics, in Canada, tends to trump surface ideology.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 6, 2006 11:12 AM

---

What I find very interseting is that CPC supporters have discovered sarcasm and arrogance while PMSH hasn't.

Maybe you should try taking the same high road your leader has chosen to take. It would be refreshing to see that history doesn't repeat itself.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 6, 2006 11:16 AM

---

Dawg...My theory on Belinda's crossing is that the conservatives were glad to see her go. That's why no complaints to the EC.

She was their worst nightmare...a woman with average intelligence, questionable motives and a boatload money that could not be put in her place.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 6, 2006 11:23 AM

---

Liberal Ron, I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on one thing- and good luck with Stronach; I don't miss her. If nothing else, I'm sure she'll help refill the Liberal coffers with help from Daddy.

When we're discussing political philosophy, there is no "win" since each of our philosophies are as individual as we are. For those of us who actually think about politics, choosing a party is a matter of finding the closest fit. For you, it's Liberal. For me, it's Libertarian but as there's no viable Libertarian Party in Canada, the next best choice is Conservative.

Dr. Dawg, I'm sure you like to think there is no difference between left & right. It must make putting your shoes on difficult.

Posted by: Mac at March 6, 2006 12:57 PM

---

There's plenty of difference between left and right. But not much between Liberals and Conservatives, it seems, except superficially.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 6, 2006 01:22 PM

---

"If there was any indication that Stronach had been offered material inducements to cross the floor, and there were many such indications, wouldn't that create conflict of interest, and hence fall well within Shapiro's jurisdiction? Yet no formal complaint was ever made".
--------------
Interesting question. Notwithstanding the CPC's choice not to pursue it, why don't we carry it one step further? If it does fall within Shapriro's jurtisdiction, than why doesn't he take the initiative and investigate? Does he not have the authority to start an investigation when he knows there is a conflict? If so, why Emerson and not Stronach?

"That being said, Stronach did remain in the Conservative caucus until the so-cons finally drove her nuts."
-------------
What a joke. I guess she was able to put up with it long enough......at least right up until before a tight confidence vote. Both received the same thing. Yet one is investigated while the other is not. Abject hypocricy.

"Emerson, on the other hand, didn't even get to the floor before he crossed it".
------------
Thats right, right after Paul Martin (the guy who recruited him) left. His loyalty was obviously to Paul Martin, not the Liberal Party. He is certainly no Conservative in the sense of the word; we both now that. Can the same be said of Stronach?

I find it curious that Stronach can be so solid of a party person in one party that she runs for the leadership, yet she can switch her colours and seriously consider doing the same thing for another. If the NDP ever formed the Government, I daresay that orange would become her brand new favorite colour.

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 04:42 PM

---

"My theory on Belinda's crossing is that the conservatives were glad to see her go. That's why no complaints to the EC."
-----------
Interseting "theory". And while we are talking about theories, mine is that the investigation is taking place because the Liberals are miffed because they got the raw end of that trade. So they sent out their Liberal appointed chihuahua hack to start its shrill barking. But, take it for what its worth, its only a "theory" right?

"She was their worst nightmare...a woman with average intelligence, questionable motives and a boatload money that could not be put in her place".
-----------
Hardly a nightmare. Rather, a spoiled little daddy's girl who because she was unsatisfied with her bauble, left it the sandbox in search of another. The question is, what happens when she gets bored with THIS one?

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 05:00 PM

---

" If nothing else, I'm sure she'll help refill the Liberal coffers with help from Daddy".
------------
That she will. However one has to I wonder how the favour will be returned.......

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 05:07 PM

---

" If nothing else, I'm sure she'll help refill the Liberal coffers with help from Daddy".
------------
That she will. However one has to wonder how the favour will be returned.......

Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2006 05:07 PM

---

Can Shapiro initiate his own investigations, as Dennis suggests? I would suggest the answer is no:

Associated with the provision of both these Codes, I can also provide confidential advice to Members of the House of Commons and Public Office Holders subject to either Code; conduct inquiries when questions of appropriate compliance are raised by parliamentarians; and undertake educational activities and initiatives for Members of the House and the general public regarding my role and the Codes I administer.

Note the phrase "when questions of appropriate compliance are raised by parliamentarians."

Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 6, 2006 06:20 PM

---

If Shaprio is investigating Emerson, the CPC better complain and get him to do the same for Brison.

Posted by: Dennis at March 7, 2006 11:30 AM

---

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.

Now this new Parliament hasn't even sat yet and he's investigating Emerson. I guess Shaprio only comes calling when his Liberal masters snap their fingers. Can't he make up his mind? Or is he going to change his mind again when the CPC calls for an investigation into Brison. I'm glad I got the news today that Shapiro is soon to be history. His Liberal partisanship is so blatantly obvious.

Posted by: Dennis at March 7, 2006 11:34 AM

---

Now this new Parliament hasn't even sat yet and he's investigating Emerson.

C'mon, Dennis, read the whole thread.

Emerson became an MP with the offical reporting of the election results. Valeri was not an MP when the complaint was launched on January 17, and is not an MP to this day. Given the OEC's limited mandate, that is an important distinction.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 7, 2006 05:58 PM

---

Now YOU come on Dawg.

Valeri was not an MP at the time, but he was STILL a Cabinet Minister; remaining so until a new Government is sworn in (e.g., Pettigrew remained Foreign Affairs Minister for weeks, despite losing his seat in January, until the day McKay was sworn in as MFA). If Valeri was a Cabinet Minister AFTER the election campaign until the new one was sworn in, then he certainly was one DURING the election campaign. And Cabinet Ministers are subject to ethics investigations just as readily as MPs.

Unless of course, its a LIBERAL Cabinet Minister. So of course Shapiro would be see that differently, wouldn't he? Hypocrits tend to be like that.

Posted by: Dennis at March 7, 2006 10:58 PM

---

Can Shapiro initiate his own investigations, as Dennis suggests? I would suggest the answer is no:
----------------
Section 27(4) of the conflict if interest code:

"Ethics Commissioner may, ON HIS OR HER OWN INITIATIVE (EMPHASIS ADDED), and on giving the Member concerned reasonable written notice, conduct an inquiry to determine whether the Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code."
----------------
Every "Dawg" has his day, as the saying goes, but today is definetly NOT yours.

Posted by: Dennis at March 8, 2006 12:01 AM

---

Dennis:

We've been through all that. Whether Valeri is a Cabinet Minister or not is irrelevant. Since you've read the Codes so thoroughly, you must know that Shapiro has the authority only to look at the conduct of Members of Parliament. Since I went through that issue exhaustively earlier, I see no need to repeat myself.

Nice catch on the question of self-initiated examinations, though. Shapiro certainly doesn't see things that way, but the point is yours.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 8, 2006 07:18 AM

---

Nope, I take that back. I should have had my coffee first.

Read that sub-section of yours in context. It comes immediately after this sub-section:

(3)The House may, by way of resolution, direct the Ethics Commissioner to conduct an inquiry to determine whether a Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code.

And all this is within this further context:

(1)A Member who has reasonable grounds to believe that another Member has not complied with his or her obligations under this Code may request that the Ethics Commissioner conduct an inquiry into the matter.

In other words, the Commissioner does not have to wait for direction to inquire into a complaint. But complaint there must be.

Not "nice catch" after all. But nice try.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 8, 2006 07:27 AM

---

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Cory at May 8, 2006 12:54 AM

---