Adding more absurdity to the mix are the folks who (pundits, bloggers, MSM, Broadlybented types) make the contradictory claim that Shapiro should be terminated based on his dreadful performance but Harper should submit to his further ineptness.

The Star said as much a few days ago by chiding Harper in an editorial but also claiming there's nothing to investigate.

This is simply silly politics on behalf of the opposition. They now are circling the wagons around a doofus ethics commissioner in an attempt to score cheap political points.

Having said that, no party is above this kind of ploy. It's a freebie.

But is anybody really watching? Does anybody care? No. The election is over and everbody's gone back to sleep except for polictical junkies.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at March 10, 2006 10:33 AM

---

I think Harper should create a whole host of new ethics positions to oversee parliament. He can appoint partisan Conservatives and then if the Liberals win the next election they can harass them by launching ethics investigations into everything they do.

It is blatently absurd that the Liberals are suggesting that Harper is above the law because he refuses to listen to a man that ALL opposition parties agreed last year was a partisan hack. Shapiro is nothing more than a tool of the Liberal Party.

Posted by: ferrethouse at March 10, 2006 10:39 AM

---

Sigh.

Non-cooperation will only hurt the PM.

It doesn't matter whether the Ethics Commissioner is a boob or not. The point is, the office is specifically constituted to be a watchdog for MPs -- including ministers and the PM. It's the office, not the man, that matters in this affair.

It's not like Shapiro's going to sit the PM in a star chamber and grill him under the lights. Cooperation can simply take the form of a simple written letter outlining the PM's position.

The office can be reworked / reformed / terminated later, when Parliament is in session. But for now, the PM needs to deal with the office as it's currently constituted. Better to cooperate and take the short-term hit now, then to act like a mule and pay for it later.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at March 10, 2006 10:47 AM

---

There wasn't a day during the last campaign that Harper wasn't pitching accountability. Do you all remember?

The minute he has to be accountable he stonewalls.

Prime Minister Steven Harper is a hypocrite. In fact he is not only a hypocrite, he's attempting to be an invisible one as well.

Don't give me the Shapiro's a Liberal crap either, Harper said the EC should be independant from the PMO and that's what Shapiro is!

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 10, 2006 10:51 AM

---

Silly partisan crap that John Q. Public could care less about!!!

Shapiro has been a joke since Day One and will soon be history...

Let the Left play their silly games...
Mr. Harper is too busy working and governing to be bothered!!!

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at March 10, 2006 10:55 AM

---

Howcome nobody ever mentions that Shapiro was approved by ALL parties when he was appointed to his post? Where were the screams of 'partisan hack!!!' back then?

Oh that's right, the Conservatives were still ethical, I mean in opposition, back then...

Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2006 10:58 AM

---

That parliament that Bernie is accountable to found him in contempt prior to the last election.

How come he didn't do the ethical thing and resign then?

Parliament and particularily the government of the day was obligated to censure the man. Sounds like Harper is cutting him some slack by just ignoring him.
Unless you missed it, it was part of the basis for the nonconfidence vote that killed the last session of parliament. Bucky Dithers refused to respond to the will of parliament.
Thats what responsible government means.

Posted by: gimbol at March 10, 2006 11:07 AM

---

Gimbol

So Harper should resign when Parliament holds him in contempt for not cooperating with the Ethics investigation? According to you, that would be the 'ethical thing' to do?

Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2006 11:11 AM

---

Ron:

Mr Harper is more than happy to be held to account. He is accountable to the Canadian people, Parliament, and the Conservative Party -- Please note, that Liberal Hatchet men are not on the list...

It would be smarter politics, if they gave Mr Hatchet, a 1/2 hour interview, let him submit a report. Then have parliament vote in a replacement.

Posted by: Curtis at March 10, 2006 11:19 AM

---

Curtis:

What about Liberal hatchet men that were approved by ALL parties?

Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2006 11:25 AM

---

Ethics Comm./Office is not a Federal Ombudsman.

When an election is called, the electorate performs the duty of "Federal Ombudsman". The bubbles from the left/Libs/NDP are airy lead balloons. Ignore the bubbles & they burst without a whimper. +

Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Mandate, Role and Responsibilities

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence (Chapter 7 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004), and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons determine the parameters of the mandate of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner.

Contrary to some public perception, the Ethics Commissioner is not a federal Ombudsman. +

http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/office_ethics_commissioner/mandate_role_responsibilities/

Posted by: maz2 at March 10, 2006 11:30 AM

---

Two points:

1. PM Harper DID respond to Shapiro. On tuesday he reported that he sent a letter outlining his position to Shapiro and the "ball was now in the ethics commissioner's court" . Emerson also confirmed that he had responded to Shapiro.
So both men have cooperated - they gave their positions to Shapiro, albeit grudgingly. It is bogus to say otherwise.

2. Shapiro was the only candidate the Liberals offered for the position and the committee was then asked to "ratify" his appointment with a vote. The NDP. Liberals and Bloc voted in favour (they had really no choices) and the Conservatives abstained from the vote.
PM Harper has vowed to give more autonomy to an Ethics Commissioner who is appointed ethically.
Shaprio was not appointed ethically and since his appointment has proven himself to be in conflict of interest, inept, corruptable and was, in fact, found in contempt of the house.

The issue is a red herring - Liberal dirty hands reaching from the grave to try to keep their own stoolie in place.

Posted by: john at March 10, 2006 11:31 AM

---

The NDP reason for not including Stronach in their request for an investigation along with David Emerson?

Right Here

-----

Posted by: Platty at March 10, 2006 12:01 PM

---

I think that Paul Wells has it right. The whole position of Ethics Commissioner is fraught with problems.

Parliament should recognize this and go back to the situation where the Canadian public has the final say through the democratic process - as in let the voters decide. Political questions need to be dealt with through the political process; not by self-important officials.

As for illegal activity, that's why we have the RCMP. Let them do their job.

In the meantime, it's not a good idea to have politicians playing around with accusations of unethical behaviour. It will always deteriorate into political mud-slinging. It is as inevitable as snow falling in winter.

Posted by: Two Cents at March 10, 2006 12:11 PM

---

This situation has not been well handled by PMO. I wonder what Brodie does, especially when he is not talking to reporters writing puff pieces about him.

Harper needs to get back on track. Buckler needs to go to a writing class.

Posted by: anon at March 10, 2006 12:11 PM

---

Who checks up on the ethics of the Ethics Commissioner ? What person, entity , or government ministry look after the pureness of the soul of this ethics (non) commissioner? This continuing saga is nothing but a clear partisan political attack. PM Harper is well within his right, like any person who holds this office , to select and appoint parliamentarians of any political stripe to be part of his cabinet. Why do we need to expend taxpayers' money on such a proven inept officer of parliament anyway?

Maybe it a good idea to create the office of the Counterbalance to the Ethics Ministry ... Let's hire more political hacks , this time fill up those positions with Conservatives to hound the Liberal appointed officers of parliament.. Yup this is exactly what Canadian democracy need... On sober second thought, OF COURSE NOT !!! If people want to have an ethical parliament, they should elect ETHICAL PARLIAMENTARIANS and abolish this absurd position of Ethics Commission... People like Shapiro only proves the uselessness of this government bureaucracy !!!

Posted by: Ron at March 10, 2006 12:16 PM

---

I've posted this elsewhere, but I am really curious to find an answer to this...

Does Shapiro's investigation of Emerson crossing the floor fall under the tort of "abuse of public office"? From what I have gathered in my own research, if a member of public office performs an act that he/she has no legal right to perform, or the member acts with malice in such a way that they could damage or inflict harm on somebody, than that person can be found to be abusing public office and can be sued (Francoueur v. Canada 1994).

In this case, since Shapiro had stated to the Conservatives that his office could not investigate Tony Valeri's land deal when Parliament was not sitting, for him to launch an investigation into the Emerson crossing under the same set of circumstances would constitute an illegal act under that heading. And under such circumstances, either Emerson or Harper would have the right to sue Shapiro for "abuse of public office". This of course could be backed up by the fact that Shapiro did not investigate Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin when Stronach crossed the floor. It is obvious that he is acting with malice towards a specific party if his office has willfully ignored investigating the same set of circumstances and is specifically targetting a particular government/member.

The fact that his office is specifically targetting Harper's government with an investigation that runs contrary to the precedence of actions of his office, wouldn't that fall under the legal parameters of an "abuse of public office" to unlawfully target individuals with predatory actions of said public office?

Specifically, in the UK case of Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England it was stated that:

"If the plaintiff can establish the official's subjective intention to exercise the power of his office in order to cause him injury, he does not need to establish that the official exceeded the terms of the powers conferred upon him. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff can establish that the official appreciated that he was acting in excess of the powers conferred upon him and that his conduct would cause injury to the plaintiff, the inference that he acted dishonestly or for an improper purpose will be exceedingly difficult and usually impossible to rebut."

I think that the term "subjective intention" is notably true in this case considering both that Shapiro refused to investigate Valeri between sessions and is investigating Emerson, and the fact that Shapiro did not investigate Stronach and is now investigating Emerson. While this of course was a UK case, I believe that UK cases are often cited in Canadian cases in the creation of judicial process (if somebody can clarify this, I would love to hear it). And this of course would fall under the same category as Conrad Black's lawsuit against Chretien for abuse of power. If so, I don't think I've seen a more clear cut case of misfeasance by a government official in my life and this would be the perfect case for a lawsuit to be launched against Shapiro.

Anybody with legal knowledge care to illuminate this?

Posted by: Surecure at March 10, 2006 12:57 PM

---

Apples oranges and sour grapes.

Proud KW Conservative said, "Mr. Harper is too busy working and governing to be bothered!!!"

Just precisely what is PMSH busy at anyways? Seems to me he's busy hiding and keeping the lowest profile possible.

I call him 'The Invisble Prime Minister'. This mole should come out of his hole and show us what he's really made of.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 10, 2006 01:32 PM

---

Maybe he's holing up somewhere, getting himself armed with the perfect weapon: a complete roll-out of all the corrupt things the Liberals have done in the past ten years and providing the final smoking gun that connects Paul Martin to Adscam.

As they say Ron, be careful what you wish for... you may get it.

Posted by: Surecure at March 10, 2006 02:03 PM

---

Surecure...I welcome the prosecution of Liebranos and a cleansing of the party.

However, what is more important at this point is the future. Living in the past will get you nowhere fast. What we need is thoughtful decisive leadership to deal with gravely important matters.

If PMSH is dealing with furure concerns that's great. What I see though is way too much focus on issues that have been rehashed to death.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 10, 2006 02:28 PM

---

There was a terrific interview with Ed Broadbent on this topic on CBC's The Current.
He said no one was really very happy with Shapiro's work. He said they erred in not getting someone with parliamentary experience for the job.
Having said that he said he was fairly elected by all members of Parliament to a five year term.
Harper should have cooperated. He is a creature of parliament and Harper should respect that.
He said he didn't think under the present rules Harper is guilty of any ethical misconduct. He does think the rules should be changed to prevent this kind of floor crossing to occur. If you disagree with your party become an independent member.
Broadbent said Harper asked him if he was interested in the job of ethics commissioner.
Broadbent said no. So he said Harper didn't actually offer him the job he just asked if he would be interested.
The NDP are upset about the Emerson affair because only 20% of the voters in his riding voted Conservative. So 80% vote other than Conservative but still get a Conservative. If you think about how you would feel if that happened in your riding it doesn't take too much imagination to see why they are upset. All this happens after you have barely had enough time to take down the election signs. A little much to take knowing your party(NDP) would have taken the riding if Emerson, the Liberal Cabinet minister had not been your opponent.

Posted by: steve d at March 10, 2006 02:46 PM

---

Harper and the Conservatives ran a campaign that promised to clean up Ottawa and the first thing he does is bring all that into question by acquiring Emerson. I agree it is impossible to grade the ethical reasons behind his choice to cross the floor. But the bigger issue here is the act of crossing the floor itself flies in the face of democracy and must be stopped!!! That is why 'political junkies' and others have made this issue a big deal. Simply saying sorry to the people of Vancouver-Kingsway does not make things okay. Emerson has put the democratic rights of his constituents in jeopardy and again demonstrated to us all that politicians can not be trusted. The hypocrisy of our democracy will continue unless we keep politicians accountable (ethics probe) so Canadians can have some guarantees that justice has been and will be served.

Posted by: aaron Lamb at March 10, 2006 03:17 PM

---

Mr. Shapiro deserves much of the criticism now being lvelled at him, but the claim by Tory MP Deppak Obhrai that he is somehow responsible for the unfortunate outcome of a family matter is over the top.
Sandra Buckler, Harper's communication director's comments on this matter proves that the Conservatives are a quick study. Her response is what we could have expected if the Liberals were still in power.
The new and improved Conservative version of politics is now into it's second month and like his's precedessor, Mr. Harper has shown that it's politics as usual, whether it's from a red or blue book.

Posted by: Guardsman at March 10, 2006 03:35 PM

---

But you see Ron, he is focusing on future concerns. Since it is obvsious that the Liberals will refuse the Conservatives child-care initiative -- and thus grind Parliament to a halt -- it will be necessary for the Conservatives to ensure a majority government in the future. And in conjunction with enacting the Accountability Act, the best way to do that is to expose the Liberals (who hold the balance of power) for what they really are.

Then, when Harper is finished mopping the floor, he'll have a majority government and can finally put to rest the pathetic shinanigans of the partisan hacks who would rather debate Afghanistan all over again or put into place a ridiculous Liberal child-care plan that provides no gaurantess that child care spaces are even going to be created.

Posted by: Surecure at March 10, 2006 03:56 PM

---

People like "Liberal Ron" just can't understand that these are NOT Liberals in government anymore!So,just because Harper isn't in your face all the time blubbering about nothing (like Martin),doesn't mean nothing is being done. He doesn't have to run it by the MSM to see if the polls change,depending on what he says.He's working and if you can't see that,you're waaay too liberal smacked!

Posted by: Marilyn at March 10, 2006 10:52 PM

---