Harper to be investigated by ethics commissioner

Montgomery Burns · March 5, 2006

Let's take a look at previous behaviour by Shapiro the "Ethics" Commissioner:

Tuesday, May 10, 2005
OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch called the first investigation by federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro biased and flawed. The investigation into the actions of former Cabinet minister Judy Sgro and others was undertaken in response to allegations that Sgro violated federal Cabinet ethics rules (which are set out in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders).

Democracy Watch called for a new, fair, impartial inquiry into the Sgro situation.

"Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro hired a Liberal Party-connected law firm to investigate a Liberal Cabinet minister, and that makes his ruling on minister Judy Sgro's actions biased and invalid," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition. "If the Ethics Commissioner has any integrity he will declare the Sgro investigation biased and flawed and call on the government to establish a fair, impartial inquiry."

To conduct the investigation into Sgro's and others' actions, the Ethics Commissioner hired (without a contract bidding competition) law firm Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG). BLG donated $165,000 to the federal Liberals between 2000 and 2003 (2004 donation figures are not yet publicly available); donated more than $25,000 to Paul Martin's campaign for the Liberal Party leadership; has three partners representing Liberals before the Gomery Commission inquiry (David W. Scott and Peter K. Doody representing Jean Chrétien, and Guy J. Pratte representing Jean Pelletier), and; in February 2005 hired Gar Knutson, former Cabinet colleague of Sgro.

As a result of these many, deep ties between BLG and the Liberal Party, BLG was in a conflict of interest and should never have been involved in any investigation of any Liberal.

Good on the Harper administration for essentially telling this Liberal lackey to go pee up a rope.

BubberMiley · March 5, 2006

Emerson came on board after the election - Vancouver needed representation or would the people of Vancouver perfer not to have anyone represent them?

You don't need to have a government member to have representation, especially in a minority parliament. And if they wanted a CPC member, they would have voted for one the week before. Ultimately, we won't know if they want a member of the government representing them until a by-election is called.

Argus · March 5, 2006

What a differencen a few weeks make. Now that the Conservatives are the Government, all is fair in politics it seems. At least according to the Conservative supporters!!!

Can you point me to where Harper ever said it should be made illegal to cross the floor? Can you point me to any citation where he ever said it was unethical to cross the floor?

Now appointing a completely unqualified person to the cabinet in order to induce them to cross the floor because you need their vote to keep yourself in power - that's unethical. But apparently, the "ethics commisioner" wasn't concerned about that.

geoffrey · March 5, 2006

What a differencen a few weeks make. Now that the Conservatives are the Government, all is fair in politics it seems. At least according to the Conservative supporters!!!

Can you point me to where Harper ever said it should be made illegal to cross the floor? Can you point me to any citation where he ever said it was unethical to cross the floor?

Now appointing a completely unqualified person to the cabinet in order to induce them to cross the floor because you need their vote to keep yourself in power - that's unethical. But apparently, the "ethics commisioner" wasn't concerned about that.

Harper was completely open and honest during the campaign saying he's got no problem with floor crossing.

Argus · March 5, 2006

Emerson came on board after the election - Vancouver needed representation or would the people of Vancouver perfer not to have anyone represent them?

You don't need to have a government member to have representation, especially in a minority parliament. And if they wanted a CPC member, they would have voted for one the week before. Ultimately, we won't know if they want a member of the government representing them until a by-election is called.

I tend to agree. if Vancouverites want to be represented by a backbench opposition MP without influence then I'm all for it. Same goes for Montrealers and Torontonions. I didn't have a problem with them having no representation.

Nonetheless, getting Emerson across was not unethical from the Tory standpoint. Whether it was unethical for Emmerson really depends on what was in his heart at the time.

mcqueen625 · March 5, 2006

Harper to be investigated by ethics commissioner
Updated Fri. Mar. 3 2006 3:00 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro is launching a preliminary inquiry into conflict-of-interest allegations against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CTV News has learned.

Shapiro says he will look into what influence may have been wielded in the decision by former Liberal David Emerson to cross the Commons floor and join Harper's Conservative government cabinet.

"The ethics commissioner is apparently investigating ... whether Mr. Harper induced Mr. Emerson to come over with the offer of a cabinet post," CTV's Robert Fife told Newsnet Friday.

"It's a very serious thing when an ethics commissioner is investigating a prime minister and a cabinet minister over party switching."

link

What are you talking about? Using the name Shapiro and ethics in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Where was this clown when Belinda Stronach did exactly the same thing? Oh, I get it, if the Liberals do it, it's somehow okay, because this clown was appointed by Martin to answer only to Martin, and whenever Martin and the Liberal's did something wrong he would turn a blind eye and give the standard response, that he found no wrong doing.

Give me a break! Harper should just fire his ass and hire someone who has no political allegiance, and who also reports to the House as opposed to just the PM. Only hen can we truly call this person an Ethics Commissioner.

newbie · March 5, 2006

One has to wonder though what Emerson's motives were. This is what he had to say during the campaign:

During the recent election campaign, Emerson directed this strong attack on the Conservative leader's agenda for Canada:

"It's now not just, 'Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?' It's people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?'

"And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I've been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn't come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election."

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060206.html

Seems pretty clear to me Emerson jumped ship to further his own ambitions, violating Section 8 of the Member's code.

mcqueen625 · March 5, 2006

One has to wonder though what Emerson's motives were. This is what he had to say during the campaign:
During the recent election campaign, Emerson directed this strong attack on the Conservative leader's agenda for Canada:

"It's now not just, 'Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?' It's people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?'

"And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I've been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn't come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election."

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060206.html

Seems pretty clear to me Emerson jumped ship to further his own ambitions, violating Section 8 of the Member's code.

And Belinda didn't do exactly the same thing, crossing the floor for prestege, power, and a Cabinet Post? If it is wrong for Emerson, it was equally as wrong for Belinda, and Martin's lap-dog Shirpiro should have investigated her actions.

newbie · March 5, 2006

One has to wonder though what Emerson's motives were. This is what he had to say during the campaign:

During the recent election campaign, Emerson directed this strong attack on the Conservative leader's agenda for Canada:

"It's now not just, 'Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?' It's people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?'

"And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I've been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn't come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election."

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060206.html

Seems pretty clear to me Emerson jumped ship to further his own ambitions, violating Section 8 of the Member's code.

And Belinda didn't do exactly the same thing, crossing the floor for prestege, power, and a Cabinet Post? If it is wrong for Emerson, it was equally as wrong for Belinda, and Martin's lap-dog Shirpiro should have investigated her actions.

I agree 100%.

betsy · March 5, 2006

Harper to be investigated by ethics commissioner
Updated Fri. Mar. 3 2006 3:00 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro is launching a preliminary inquiry into conflict-of-interest allegations against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CTV News has learned.

Shapiro says he will look into what influence may have been wielded in the decision by former Liberal David Emerson to cross the Commons floor and join Harper's Conservative government cabinet.

"The ethics commissioner is apparently investigating ... whether Mr. Harper induced Mr. Emerson to come over with the offer of a cabinet post," CTV's Robert Fife told Newsnet Friday.

"It's a very serious thing when an ethics commissioner is investigating a prime minister and a cabinet minister over party switching."

link

Wasn't Shapiro Liberal-appointed...who failed to find anything wrong with Chretien?

betsy · March 5, 2006

Harper did nothing wrong.

Until there is the official change that Senate will be elected....Harper can still appoint, just like the previous PMs before him.

If there will be "investigations" on crossing floors, investigations should also include Belinda Stronach.

scribblet · March 5, 2006

What a differencen a few weeks make. Now that the Conservatives are the Government, all is fair in politics it seems. At least according to the Conservative supporters!!! What a crock. Only effective when dishing it out it seems. As we all thought, just a new group at the trough who behave no more ethically than the gang that preceded. Makes one feel good all over. Stephen never did take criticism well however. A major sulk will be in order methinks.

Actually, the real problem is with the left wing double standards. While I don't like what happened, it is no less ethical then buying off B. Stronach's or Scott Brison earlier. I'll get upset about it when liberals get upset over the major breach of ethis there, and ask for a similar inquiry into Belinda. Its too late for Scott Brison, but not for B.S. If Shapiro refuses to do this, then he should be replaced.

Also, you might try debating in a more polite manner methinks.

Argus · March 5, 2006

One has to wonder though what Emerson's motives were. This is what he had to say during the campaign:

During the recent election campaign, Emerson directed this strong attack on the Conservative leader's agenda for Canada:

"It's now not just, 'Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?' It's people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?'

"And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I've been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn't come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election."

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060206.html

Seems pretty clear to me Emerson jumped ship to further his own ambitions, violating Section 8 of the Member's code.

And Belinda didn't do exactly the same thing, crossing the floor for prestege, power, and a Cabinet Post? If it is wrong for Emerson, it was equally as wrong for Belinda, and Martin's lap-dog Shirpiro should have investigated her actions.

And Scott Brison

yorkman · March 5, 2006

I don't agree with what Belinda did either. If long time PCers jumped ship I do understand based on the 'unethical' way Mackay handled the merger. If Emerson changed his tune that quickly I think he owed it to his constituents to resign. Then he could have been appointed to the Senate like Mr. Fortier. Anyway you look at it, Harper does not come out of this with high marks for ethical behaviour or for consistency in rhetoric. Hypcocritical is the word that best defines his 'clever' behaviour. If he had not portrayed himself as the Mr. Clean and Mr. Ethical of politics, the reaction may have been more muted. Of course, the problem was really that of his Communications person!!! So much for taking responsibility for your actions. Ah well, he still has time to demonstrate his "new way" of doing politics.

scribblet · March 6, 2006

There is no way Belinda would have crossed the floor without a cabinet position, Harper should not co-operate until this one is investigated too.

How about when parliament convenes, Harper introduces recall legislation, how can the liberals vote against it now, with all their fuss.

Spike22 · March 6, 2006

Harper is great - a smile to your face, BS polititian. Excrement. He has already learned to play "the game" and has thick skin and does not give a crap about what people say about him. He also does not seem to care about public perceptions about his appointments. Starting to sound like the old Liberal hacks? :huh:

sharkman · March 6, 2006

Harper is great - a smile to your face, BS polititian. Excrement. He has already learned to play "the game" and has thick skin and does not give a crap about what people say about him. He also does not seem to care about public perceptions about his appointments. Starting to sound like the old Liberal hacks?

Uh, no. He needs to rack up 10's of billions of dollars in waste and mismanagement first, as well as have a MAJOR scandal in Quebec which may send them over the top towards separating from Canada. For starters.

Argus · March 7, 2006

Harper is great - a smile to your face, BS polititian. Excrement. He has already learned to play "the game" and has thick skin and does not give a crap about what people say about him. He also does not seem to care about public perceptions about his appointments. Starting to sound like the old Liberal hacks?

The only people who care about Emerson and Fortier are the media - who hate him, and the opposition - who want his job.

geoffrey · March 7, 2006

Harper is great - a smile to your face, BS polititian. Excrement. He has already learned to play "the game" and has thick skin and does not give a crap about what people say about him. He also does not seem to care about public perceptions about his appointments. Starting to sound like the old Liberal hacks?

The only people who care about Emerson and Fortier are the media - who hate him, and the opposition - who want his job.

It's true. Personally, I'm disappointed but there are worse things out there. We all got mad at Harper for a few weeks, lets move on to progress now.

newbie · March 9, 2006

Harper also admitted he tried to replace Shapiro immediately after he was elected. Why is that not a big surprise. And you all thought Martin was arrogant?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0309?hub=Canada

And Geoffrey, this is an important precedent Harper may be setting and needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug as you suggest.

Argus · March 9, 2006

Harper also admitted he tried to replace Shapiro immediately after he was elected. Why is that not a big surprise. And you all thought Martin was arrogant?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0309?hub=Canada

And Geoffrey, this is an important precedent Harper may be setting and needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug as you suggest.

Anyone with the slightest insight into Ottawa knew Shapiro was dead meat on election night. The only reason he hasn't already resigned is he wants to milk us for a fat severence package just like all Liberals. The posturing by the opposition is pathetic. With the exception of the Liberals, they didn't like him either.

His removal will be among the first acts of the new parliament. And rightly so.

newbie · March 9, 2006

Harper also admitted he tried to replace Shapiro immediately after he was elected. Why is that not a big surprise. And you all thought Martin was arrogant?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0309?hub=Canada

And Geoffrey, this is an important precedent Harper may be setting and needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug as you suggest.

Anyone with the slightest insight into Ottawa knew Shapiro was dead meat on election night. The only reason he hasn't already resigned is he wants to milk us for a fat severence package just like all Liberals. The posturing by the opposition is pathetic. With the exception of the Liberals, they didn't like him either.

His removal will be among the first acts of the new parliament. And rightly so.

So Liberal appointees bad; Con appointees good. Aah, good ole partisan politics at work.

Argus · March 9, 2006

Harper also admitted he tried to replace Shapiro immediately after he was elected. Why is that not a big surprise. And you all thought Martin was arrogant?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0309?hub=Canada

And Geoffrey, this is an important precedent Harper may be setting and needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug as you suggest.

Anyone with the slightest insight into Ottawa knew Shapiro was dead meat on election night. The only reason he hasn't already resigned is he wants to milk us for a fat severence package just like all Liberals. The posturing by the opposition is pathetic. With the exception of the Liberals, they didn't like him either.

His removal will be among the first acts of the new parliament. And rightly so.

So Liberal appointees bad; Con appointees good. Aah, good ole partisan politics at work.

It has nothing to do with partisanship towards appointees and everything to do with the partisanship OF the appointee. He's been denounced as incompetent, biased or both by virtually everyone outside the Liberal Party.

wellandboy · March 9, 2006

Harper also admitted he tried to replace Shapiro immediately after he was elected. Why is that not a big surprise. And you all thought Martin was arrogant?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0309?hub=Canada

And Geoffrey, this is an important precedent Harper may be setting and needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug as you suggest.

Anyone with the slightest insight into Ottawa knew Shapiro was dead meat on election night. The only reason he hasn't already resigned is he wants to milk us for a fat severence package just like all Liberals. The posturing by the opposition is pathetic. With the exception of the Liberals, they didn't like him either.

His removal will be among the first acts of the new parliament. And rightly so.

So Liberal appointees bad; Con appointees good. Aah, good ole partisan politics at work.

Shapiro was a bad appointment period. He needs to removed with cause April 3.

fixer1 · March 9, 2006

Sapiro has pretty much been a failure ever since he took the post of Ethics Commissioner. He has not made any decisions or investigations into the ethics of anyone, that has stuck with any value. He could not find any ethoics breaches during the scandlelus year of the Liberals, and we all know that should have been like shooting fish in a barrel. He now in looking into the ethics of Harper in inviting Emmerson to cross the floor, when it has already been said by both sides in all of this that it is not an ethics issue. Yes he thinks that he can give himself job security by starting this investigation and drag it out, as it will look bad to be fired while it is still running. But since we can all prove him to be incompetent in his job firing would be the best thing to do, and I would not give any to end of Contract severance, as his inability to do the job is more then grounds for firing without special compensation. The contract is null and void if the person is unable to do the work it was set out to be done.