Ethics Commissioner Biased

[Leafless]

PMO Communication Director Sandra Bullock said concerning Bernard Shapiro .."He's actually a Liberal appointee who has a certain pattern of attacking Conservative MP's. We find it very troubling which is why we think we should have a non-partisan ethics commissioner who reports to parliament."

Shall we say 'Goodbye Mr. Shapiro' it's been not been to nice knowing you!

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

[Leafless]

That link does not appear to be working...

See story at http://www.ctv.ca

[geoffrey]

Goodbye Shapiro...

Too bad it looks horrible to dump an ethics 'watchdog,' even if he was proven to be completely incompetent and a strong Liberal partisan.

[Wilber]

Good riddance. She is right, if we are to have an ethics commissioner it should be one chosen by a bipartisan Parliamentary committee, not a PM's lap dog.

[Bryan]

That his first choice was former NDP leader ED Broadbent is sufficient evidence that Harper's motives on this move are to end the appearance of conflicting ethics. Unfortunately, since Ed cannot accept at this time due to his wife's health, the NDP will likely try to paint this as an UNethical move by Harper.

[politika]

Yep, I agree its time for this bias piece of garbage to go. He stood back well sponsership was on and now he decides to attack Harper on his ethics with Emerson.

Good riddence

[geoffrey]

To bad old Eddie can't step up, I'd respect him in that role.

There aren't many politicans after serving as many years as he has, that can walk away with so much public respect, from all sides of the house, to be named an ethics commissioner.

He's been in politics since 1968, with some breaks of course, but none the less has maintained his status on the proper side of ethics. Maybe if the wife's health improves, we'll see a truly ethical man in the ethics commissioner spot.

[no1important]

Opposition questions Harper's ethics

Opposition MPs blasted Stephen Harper on Thursday for his refusal to co-operate with the federal ethics commissioner, with one MP threatening to hold the prime minister in contempt.

"Let's not mince words. The prime minister is being an absolute hypocrite over this whole issue," NDP MP Pat Martin said on Thursday in Ottawa.

"If he won't comply with the ethics commissioner's inquiry, I'd be prepared to table a motion to see the prime minister in contempt.

Do you think a "Contempt" vote would pass? If it did pass, what would happen to Harper then? Would the RCMP be involved? Could he get charged?

Read the rest here

'A dangerous precedent'

Opposition MPs are joining forces to block PM Stephen Harper from dumping the federal ethics commissioner and could move to hold the PM in contempt of Parliament.

Liberal Wayne Easter, an ex-cabinet minister, said Harper is violating the laws governing MPs by refusing to comply with Bernard Shapiro's investigation into the appointment of David Emerson to cabinet. Calling it a "dangerous precedent," Easter insisted Harper can't fire the ethics commissioner because the job is independent from the PM's office.

While Easter is still "holding out hope" Harper will cooperate with the probe, he suggested MPs could take action when Parliament resumes next month.

Slamming Harper as "an absolute hypocrite," NDP MP Pat Martin said he's prepared to move a motion to hold Harper in contempt of Parliament.

"This is the prime minister's first test, isn't it? And it looks pretty dismal. It shows disrespect for Parliament and a 180-degree contradiction to his own election platform which clearly says they would put in place an office of the ethics commissioner that would be free of interference from the prime minister," he said.

I would not be surprised come the end of the day, if the government does not end up falling over this. It is terrible to have a scandal with only a minority government.

Read the rest here

[Argus]

I would not be surprised come the end of the day, if the government does not end up falling over this. It is terrible to have a scandal with only a minority government.

You need to learn to tell the difference between political posturing and actual threats. Everything from the opposition on the Emerson case, including the initial complaints is political posturing, political theatre. All air and no substance. No one means anything they say.

Except the tories, who intend to fire Shapiro.

[Bryan]

Despite the poor optics of the situation, Harper has no choice but to fire Shapiro. It's the right thing to do.

I'm left wondering if anyone in Canada is so stupid as to believe a word of the political posturing coming from the opposition. It's the hieght of hypocrisy, and anyone with a brain can see it. The NDP and the LIbs are only making htemselves look worse by whining about nothing.

[uOttawaMan]

Everyone is biased, ergo we shouldn't have to deal with such a thing as 'ethics'.

That sentence makes as much sense and dirt in a sterile envrionment.

[mcqueen625]

Everyone is biased, ergo we shouldn't have to deal with such a thing as 'ethics'.

That sentence makes as much sense and dirt in a sterile envrionment.

Shapiro and Ethics are a bit of an oxymoron. Shapiro is nothing except of Liberal Party hack who got himself appointed to a 5 year term as a high profile civil servant. Had he been appointed by an all-party committee instead of Paul Martin, and had he investigated the exact same complait regarding Belinda Stronach then he would have some credibility, but since he chose not to properly investigate any complaints regarding Liberal dirty deeds, he really has no credibility to investigate anything. It is time for him to go!

[wellandboy]

From Wednesday's National Post regarding Bernard Shapiro:

[...] Nearly every important file he has taken up has been mishandled:

- For the investigation into allegations that former immigration minister Judy Sgro had given preferential treatment to certain immigration applicants, he hired a Liberal-friendly firm to do his legwork, then issued a letter to Ms. Sgro that allowed her to proclaim her innocence in the House of Commons before he had released his final conclusions. And when he did issue a report (the absurdly titled Shades of Grey), he twisted himself in knots to avoid actually passing judgment.

- For the Gurmant Grewal affair, he refused to investigate Tim Murphy—the former chief of staff to Paul Martin, who was central to the controversy surrounding attempts to win the Conservative MP’s support in a confidence vote.

- Last September, in an interview with CanWest News Service, he inexplicably began making excuses for the sponsorship scandal—the biggest ethical debacle in modern Canadian history—on the basis that the federal government had been exploited by private business as Ottawa responded to the “near-death experience” of the 1995 Quebec referendum.

- And, most egregiously, he went public last fall with an investigation into unsubstantiated allegations that Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai had taken money to fast-track immigration applications—an act for which Mr. Shapiro was ultimately found in contempt of Parliament.

To this point, Mr. Shapiro’s transgressions seemed to have had more to do with incompetence than partisanship. But in the wake of his decision to investigate Mr. Emerson’s switch of party loyalties, it is hard to be sure. Even the staunchest critics of the Tories’ recruitment of the former Liberal Cabinet minister would be hard-pressed to make a serious case that it broke ethics rules—certainly no more so than last year’s crossing from the Tories to the Liberals by Belinda Stronach (which notably was not investigated).

[...] It is not only the Conservatives who recognize that it is time for Mr. Shapiro to go. Before his retirement from Parliament, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent—among the country’s most respected parliamentarians—called on Mr. Shapiro to resign. [...]

This piece makes no mention of Shapiro's turning a blind eye to Tony Valeri's highly questionable land deal in Stoney Creek. If those opposition members had a modicum of integrity, they'd be screaming for Shapiro's resignation or a suspension of his duties until this can be resolved in Parliament. Oops, that won't happen because the ethically challenged Liberals are incapable of making those distinctions.

I've stated earlier that PM Harper should have a perfunctory meeting with this man out of respect for the office, not for the man. To say that this will bring down the government is nonsense.

[Mimas]

That his first choice was former NDP leader ED Broadbent is sufficient evidence that Harper's motives on this move are to end the appearance of conflicting ethics. Unfortunately, since Ed cannot accept at this time due to his wife's health, the NDP will likely try to paint this as an UNethical move by Harper.

Harper asked Ed first precisely because Harper knew that Ed would decline the offer and for the optics of it of course. No credible person has accused Shapiro of being biased so far, although his qualifications have been questioned in the past. Only hypocritic cons would claim that Shapiro is a liberal lap-dog and only because he wants to do his job which includes investingating complaints about unethical actions by MPs, which includes his majesty Harper. If he wanted to investigate anyone outside the Con party, they would be cheering.

[geoffrey]

That his first choice was former NDP leader ED Broadbent is sufficient evidence that Harper's motives on this move are to end the appearance of conflicting ethics. Unfortunately, since Ed cannot accept at this time due to his wife's health, the NDP will likely try to paint this as an UNethical move by Harper.

Harper asked Ed first precisely because Harper knew that Ed would decline the offer and for the optics of it of course. No credible person has accused Shapiro of being biased so far, although his qualifications have been questioned in the past. Only hypocritic cons would claim that Shapiro is a liberal lap-dog and only because he wants to do his job which includes investingating complaints about unethical actions by MPs, which includes his majesty Harper. If he wanted to investigate anyone outside the Con party, they would be cheering.

Actually all parties were talking of scrapping him less than a year ago. All the parties see him as a biased failure.

[Mimas]

That his first choice was former NDP leader ED Broadbent is sufficient evidence that Harper's motives on this move are to end the appearance of conflicting ethics. Unfortunately, since Ed cannot accept at this time due to his wife's health, the NDP will likely try to paint this as an UNethical move by Harper.

Harper asked Ed first precisely because Harper knew that Ed would decline the offer and for the optics of it of course. No credible person has accused Shapiro of being biased so far, although his qualifications have been questioned in the past. Only hypocritic cons would claim that Shapiro is a liberal lap-dog and only because he wants to do his job which includes investingating complaints about unethical actions by MPs, which includes his majesty Harper. If he wanted to investigate anyone outside the Con party, they would be cheering.

Actually all parties were talking of scrapping him less than a year ago. All the parties see him as a biased failure.

I did say that his qualifications for the job were questioned. But if all parties wanted to get rid of him, "all parties" includes the Libs. Wouldn't that contradict the claim that he is a liberal lap-dog.

[JustSayNo]

Regardless of whether Shapiro is biased, or thought of as biased, it is really irrelevant to the situation Harper and Emerson have created for themselves in the eyes of the public. First of all, Harper set for himself and the CPC a higher standard of behaviour than other political parties. Immediately upon election, he is seen to have abandoned this standard by choosing Emerson and Fortier.

Emerson defects to the CPC barely hours after his election. How does that look? It looks like patronage, regardless of anything else, that's what it LOOKS like.

Now the ethics commissioner - empowered by parliament - announces an investigation and Harper declares he will not cooperate. How does that look? It looks like a petulant prime minister with something to hide; a prime minister who has abandoned his "higher standards" of conduct and become just another sleezy politician.

It really doesn't matter what happens to Shapiro or what anyone thinks of him, Harper's arrogant response to the situation as a whole has damaged himself and the CPC.

[geoffrey]

Why isn't Brison being investigated for his leak of the information on the income trusts? This is a potentially criminal activity, that has been denounced as unethical... remember in business preceived conflict of interest is equally suspect as the real deal.

Anyways, he changed his position on the e-mail today and said yup, he sent an e-mail saying:

"I think you will be happier very soon ... this week probably," after the bank employee complained to him about the state of the stock market.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...usts060307.html

Remember, this is a banker that specialises in income trusts.

But now he says he knows better, so all should be forgiven. Too bad I say, I am hoping for criminal charges and a full investigation by Shapiro. Oh wait!! Brison is a Liberal? Well, might as well cancel that investigation, no?

[Argus]

Why isn't Brison being investigated for his leak of the information on the income trusts? This is a potentially criminal activity, that has been denounced as unethical... remember in business preceived conflict of interest is equally suspect as the real deal.

For the same reason Tony Valeri isn't being investigated for his curious land flip that made him half a million bucks from a campaign contributer who does business with his government. Because he's a Liberal, and the only time Shapiro launches investigations of Liberals is to whitewash their actions.

[Hicksey]

This whole thing is all about Shapiro trying to save his job for a little while longer. Its all about politics.

If this guy is so trustworthy, where was he on AdScam?

[geoffrey]

This whole thing is all about Shapiro trying to save his job for a little while longer. Its all about politics.

If this guy is so trustworthy, where was he on AdScam?

Or on any of the other possibly criminal adventures of the Liberals?

Why hasn't anyone been charged with all that fraud thats been happening in government? Has anyone served a day behind bars yet?

[scribblet]

This whole thing is a witch hunt on the part of the Liberals, who happily did the same thing. There's a good artile here about the whole thing which sums it up nicely.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...11/1483566.html

snip

While many Canadians understandably question Harper's judgment in elevating Emerson to cabinet, in the end it is the prime minister's decision. A cabinet may include good and bad choices, but ultimately, the members are there at the pleasure of the prime minister. Harper is right to resist any attempt by Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro to question his cabinet choices.

snip

With all that political mess before him, why wouldn't Harper do the political thing and throw Emerson to the wolves (i.e., Shapiro)? It would be a painless, guilt-free way of disposing of him before Parliament resumes.

Well maybe, just maybe, Harper is not guided by quick political fixes. Maybe he actually believes that in a parliamentary system, it is up to the PM, not a government appointee, to name his cabinet. After all, the "inducement" that is supposedly under investigation is the cabinet position.

A sound review of parliamentary practice should remind us while we may not like his choices, the prime minister alone has the prerogative to form a cabinet. His judgment will ultimately be tested by the people.

Do we really want a government where cabinet choices are reviewed by an unelected officer of Parliament?

While Emerson's hide looks very attractive to the Opposition in the short term, in the long term, the Shapiro precedent is a kick in the teeth to parliamentary democracy. No parliamentarian worth their salt should abandon that primacy to a political appointee.

What if an ethics commissioner decided that in a minority parliament, it was up to all the parties to form a cabinet, to avoid the appearance of "inducements" by one political party? The notion is absurd.

The other troubling aspect of this whole investigation is Shapiro's apparent double standard. Compare the Emerson crossover to that of Belinda Stronach, when she openly negotiated her cabinet position at a dinner with former prime minister Paul Martin at 24 Sussex. At a subsequent press conference, journalists rightfully guffawed at Martin's claim he did not know whether or not her move would ensure the government's survival in an immediate confidence vote.

Using Shapiro's twisted logic, keeping the Martin government alive provided an "inducement" of extended salary, perks, etc. to every MP. Yet the ethics commissioner never investigated the Stronach case.

In that case, he was right. In both cases, the decision to offer a cabinet post belongs to the prime minister and the prime minister alone.