Apolitical Staples

Brison is toast. But the point is Harper is PM and Brison is not. The Harper story is way more important.

The point is that Shapiro is a Liberal hack who will unfortunately remain in his position because of political concerns, despite the fact that he has apparently either never read, or has read but has failed to comprehend the Conflict of Interest Code. Under the Code, he has the power to immediately dismiss frivolous and vexatious requests for inquiries. Furthermore, section 3(3) of the Code states, in part:

For the purpose of this Code, a Member is not considered to further his or her own private interests or the interests of another person if the matter in question…

(c) concerns the remuneration or benefits of the Member as provided under an Act of Parliament.

Shapiro is a hack, but unfortunately, he’s a hack that Harper may have to live with because of the wording of An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer), which states:

72.02 (1) The Ethics Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a term of five years and may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council on address of the House of Commons. He or she may be reappointed for one or more terms of up to five years each.

Anybody know of a judicial interpretation of the phrase “on address of Parliament”? I assume it means parliamentary approval is required, but I’m not sure.

Harper should just cooperate with the idiot’s partisan “inquiry” and be done with it.

The law as written is clearly not on Shapiro’s side.

Is anyone really serious about this? Everyone agreed Shapiro was a hack before.

Also, Wayne Easter is taking the lead on this? He’s the agriculture critic for pete’s sake. Is that the best the Liberals can do? Get this guy out to hold Harper in contempt of Parliament? Get serious.

Occam’s Razor is confusing apples with oranges.

Shapiro is required, BY STATUTE, to conduct an investigation into any complaint he get’s from a Member of Parliament (and in this case, he got at least three, from three members, representing two parties). In fact, not only is he required to investigate (BY LAW), but he is also required to REPORT on his investigation. And even if it’s really true that the Ethics Commissioner is not OBLIGED to investigate a member’s complaint (and I think I read the statute differently than Occam here) there is CERTAINLY no provision in the act for the Prime Minister to refuse to cooperate with the Ethics Commisssioner, once he has decided to hold an investigation. The Ethics Commisssioner doesn’t work for the PM anymore, he works for parliament, largely because the Tories INSISTED that Chretien’s old PM-appointed commissioner was a paer tiger, and that having an Ethics Commissioner at all was meaningless if he reported to the PM. Well, guess what? Having an Ethics Commissioner is also meaningless if the PM can simply ignore him.

Now, Occam correctly points out that, if what we know of Emerson’s crossing is all there is, then according to the rules, there was probably no violation of the code of ethics, and Shapiro’s legally mandated investigation would almost certainly show that, and rather quickly too, I’d imagine. But saying that we know how the investigation is going to turn out, and refusing to cooperate with the investigation in the first place are two entirely different things. Even if everyone were 100% CERTAIN that this investigation was unnecessary, and frivolous, that’s not the point. It is not within the Prime Minister’s power to simply refuse to cooperate with an Ethics Commissioner appointed by parliament. And it is not within the PM’s power to remove a House-appointed Ethics Commissioner. Not without a vote in the House (which, ironically, Harper probably could have gotten if he had cooperated with the investigation… but no one is going to set the precedent of removing an Ethics Commissioner while a sitting Prime Minister is refusing to cooperate in one of his investigations). That’s the whole point of having the Ethics Commissioner be accountable to Parliament, and not the PMO!

Presumably, the government (and PM) will almost ALWAYS think they have acted ethically, even if they haven’t. And “we didn’t do anything wrong, look into this, and the evidence will clearly show that” is one thing. But “we didn’t do anything wrong, so you CAN’T look into this”, well, that’s something else entirely. If we’re meant to simply take the PM’s word (or the word of any MP) then we don’t need a Commissioner at all. The Tories can just shelve the Federal Accountability Act and move right on to priority two.

The investigatiuon would have exonerated Emerson and Harper, that’s virtually certain. Harper’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation (again…) is an unrelated issue. And THAT is a problem.

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.

It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one, but Parliamentarians never agreed that Shapiro was a partisan hack. They agreed that he was an incompetent hack. And as they never held a vote to remove and replace him, either criticism is neither here nor there.

Like it or not (and you’re right that most parliamentarians DON’T like it) Shapiro IS the Ethics Commissioner. And if independence means anything, MPs can’t simply refuse to cooperate with him, for ANY reason. Not even the PM. If an ethics commissioner acted unethically his or her self, the Parliament, and only Parliament can remove him or her. And frankly, this investigation might (probably?) have even led to that. But no parliament is ever going to remove a sitting Ethics Commissioner while he is investigating the Prime Minister, AND the Prime Minister is publicly and vociferously refusing to cooperate. Not if they want the next Ethics Commissioner to have any power at all. If they ever did, the next poor shlub would be instantly branded “the PM’s man”, and the “Ethics Commissioner the government likes”. And governments aren’t supposed to like Ethics Commissioners. That’s the whole point.

The point is that Shapiro is a Liberal hack

Yawn. The media is filled with liberal hacks. Our civil servants is filled with liberal hacks. The judiciary is filled with liberal hacks. Everyone a conservative doesn’t like is a liberal hack. Blah de blah.

Ooooh Belinda’s gotten into trouble! Anybody read the Toronto Star? Check my blog to read more hehe

So, regardless of,

the fact that there was bi-partisan consensus that Shapiro’s own ethics was so questionable that he should no longer hold the post,

that there is pretty much a consensus that this “inquiry” smacks of political opportunism/partisan hackery,

he can’t be gotten rid of?

We should simply put up with precisely the kind of conduct that the public repudiated in voting out the Liberals (abusing government positions for partisan party politics)?

Ummmmmm, I don’t think so.

It is funny though, watching the presses contortions of calling for Shapiro’s ouster, while at the same time trying to attack Harper for now bowing to Shapiro’s (abused) powers.

People who wish to do what their common sense tells them is wrong will insist that they are confined by “the rules” to doing so.

The Liberals and NDP are using Shapiro to fight the next election, and Shapiro missed his chance to simply decline the investigation as frivolous. Ho hum.

The real scandal here is the fact that the opposition parties are misusing the Commissioner - something the Conservatives managed to refrain from doing when Stronach crossed - but don’t expect that to raise any objections soon.

“even if it’s really true that the Ethics Commissioner is not OBLIGED to investigate a member’s complaint (and I think I read the statute differently than Occam here)”

Like how? Upside down?

“(6) If the Ethics Commissioner is of the opinion that a request for an inquiry is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith, or that there are no or insufficient grounds to warrant an inquiry or the continuation of an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall so state in dismissing the request. The Ethics Commissioner shall report the dismissal in accordance with section 28 and may recommend that further action be considered against the Member who made the request.”

How is it the NDP didn’t think to include BS in the papers they filed with the EC in the first place? Maybe they had forgotten about the Belinda episode? Seems about right with how in touch the NDP Party is with the pulse of the nation.

Link should be http://plattytalk.blogspot.com