Now it is Stephen Harper's turn, as Wayne Easter said, "Mr. Ethics himself is now under investigation by the ethics commissioner."
Harper's response was to state that an Ethics Commissioner appointed by a Liberal government had no business investigating him.
Nonsense.
If for no other reason than, if not the Ethics Commissioner, who then can theoretically investigate Stephen Harper?
The RCMP - with a Chief who was appointed by a Liberal government?
Evidently not, as Peter McKay noted during the election, the RCMP were, in his view, heavily politicized.
Perhaps a member of the Supreme Court? Likely not, as they were all Liberal appointees, or drawn from a list of Liberal candidates.
So the next attack was the jurisdiction of Shapiro to investigate. The alleged incident took place before the new Parliament was sworn in. Harper argues that therefore Shapiro has no jurisdiction.
Note that there is no denial of an ethical lapse here, but rather a timing issue.
Harper's next response was to state this had redoubled his resolve to create an ethics commissioner who reports to Parliament.
So what's stopping him? Nothing. It is a machinery change, easily amended in the opening of Parliament.
In the past, Harper has not had a problem with other investigations targetted at Liberals.
In the Grewal Scandal, he did not raise any issue of legitimacy. Harper did not have time to meet with Shapiro, a fact he hid during the election campaign.
Nor did he state that he so opposed the system that he would refuse to cooperate before the current incident.
So the issue of who makes the appointment and jurisdiction appears to be one of convenience, not priniciple.
The Ethics system for Parliamentarians is far from perfect. But it is all that currently exists. Refusing to cooperate with that system without replacing it is not just an ethical lapse, it is a lapse in leadership.
More do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do from Harper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
He'd rather just chalk the investigation up to "partisan" attacks.
If he does cooperate, then he runs the risk of the public perceiving that a wrong was done.
This whole non-issue is so hypocritical and partisan that its making my head hurt.
Shapiro was asked to investigate the Valeri land deal. He said he couldn't because parliment wasn't 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, yes, CPC supporters complained about BS, and some have complained over Emerson. I remember the glee the Liberals demonstrated when BS crossed and contrast that with 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 Land.
I am not sure the hypocrisy lies on the Liberal side here.
Harper has had a few years to indicate his opposition to Shapiro and to indicate that it was so profound that he would not cooperate in an investigation.
He could have said this during the election about the Grewal scandal, but made another excuse about his schedule.
This isn't about Liberals, this is about Harpers decision and actions.
The Liberals have nothing to do with it, and attempt at smoke and mirrors is the same as your leader's.
I am just pointing that out.
Let's not forget 1 very important point. When Mr. Shapiro was asked to investigate Tony Valari, he sent a letter to Jason Kenny (Con. MP) that he no longer had the mandate to investigate because parliament was not sitting. Well, guess what . . . parliament isn't sitting now. How come he changed his mind? Where's the fairness in that. How can the Ethics Commissioner be so blatantly biased and still expect to be taken seriously?
Look, you liberals just don't get it; Mr. Clean has a seal of approval from .... God ...(can you hear the choir?) and besides, he's very busy drafting acountability legislation and stuff so lighten up a little will ya? And anyway, when Mr Clean talks about accountability, corruption and ethics he doesn't mean ALL OF PARLIAMENT.
Anonymous has a point there; if there is a double standard, then it is a problem with the investigation. He should wait until April 3rd, and investigate both issues.
Also, If everyone insists on comparing the BS crossing to the DE crossing, then why doesn't he resign and run again? BS won in her riding; don't you think DE will? Hmmm?
Belinda Stronach did not go to the people for re-election until an election was called. David Emerson will go back to the people when another election is called. I'm sick of people saying that the Emerson crossing is different than the Stronach crossing because of the time factor. Emerson did it immediately after and Stronach did it a few months after. Listen, I don't like floor crossers at the best of times but it's a reality so deal with it. When some commits a crime, are they more guilty within the first few weeks or after a few months?
Belinda Stronach did not go to the people for re-election until an election was called. David Emerson will go back to the people when another election is called. I'm sick of people saying that the Emerson crossing is different than the Stronach crossing because of the time factor. Emerson did it immediately after and Stronach did it a few months after. Listen, I don't like floor crossers at the best of times but it's a reality so deal with it. When some commits a crime, are they more guilty within the first few weeks or after a few months?
Dear Anonymous,
I guess I really hit a nerve.
But Valeri issue is an interesting one.
Perhaps Shapiro will return with exactly that point, the results of his preliminary investigation will provide exactly that judgement.
Note, however, that Valeri cooperated with the Ethics Commissioner, and that the information came to light when Valeri complied with the code by making his obligatory disclosures.
Note also that your party had enough faith in Mr Shapiro's legitimacy to engage in the Ethics process when suited their own aims.
When it didn't turn out with the desired effect, that was the moment to say, "we've lost faith, and we won't cooperate with further investigations."
But that's not what your leader and your party did.
They made an excuse around scheduling issues on the Conservative Grewal Scandal, and only got upset when the tables were turned.
That's called "principles of convenience"
And that's the problem.
Why wouldn't Valari cooperate with the Ethics Commissioner? Why wouldn't any Liberal cooperate? because they know which way Shapiro is going to judge. He hasn't found a single Liberal guilty of anything.
Try this web address and let me know how anybody could have cleared Smith.
http://www.canada.com/findit/search/site/index.html?q=abotech
Shapiro found that Mr. Smith complied with the ethics code.
The text of the decision is here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/media/inquiry_reports/reports/Smith_Inquiry.asp#faits
But none of this answers the question you have now avoided for 5 posts.
How is that Harpers only decided that he could not cooperate with Shapiro now?
The Smith incident occured two years ago, another missed opportunity for your party and your leader to come clean.
But they didn't.
Principles of Convenience.
"Principles of Convenience."
-------------
The hypocricy of such a statement is laughable, coming from someone who supports the most scandal plagued government in Canadian history.
The 6th time Anonymous has decided to avoid the issue of the Conservatives' Principles of Convenience.
Note to Anonymous:
This ain't about the Liberals
actions.
We lost.
You won.
You're in government.
That means you have to answer the questions on your record now, not the Liberals.
Correct me if I am wrong but Mr. Shapiro only decided to launch this investigation after a request from some Liberal and NDP MPs.
After the Stronach defection all of the opposition parties howled but did any of them make a formal request for an investigation?
If not, that could explain the apparent double standard on that issue.
With regard to Mr. Valeri he is no longer a Member of Parliament so Mr. Shapiro has no jurisdiction. If the Conservatives truly believe that he was involved in some wrongdoing they should contact the OPP. Otherwise, give it a rest.
Just noticed that CTV claims Harper is preparing to “dump” the Ethics Commissioner.
Oh yippee! Our very own Saturday Night Massacre ...
Brought to us by Harper’s New Tories. His first import from Bushland. What’s next? Stars wars systems? Troops in Iraq? Bloated budgets and deficits?
Can’t wait to see.
Post a Comment