With the continuing controversy over The Harp/Shapiro/Emerson dealio, Ed Broadbent has put his 2 cents worth into the fiasco. Now Ed was, and still is, for removing Shapiro from office as the Ethics Commissioner, but due to The Harp's sheer incompetence in handling this, Shapiro's job is all but secure. Now, I am on the fence about Shapiro and I am trying to hear both sides before making my decision in regards to whether or not he should still be the Ethics Commissioner but with The Harp making his trademark "I'm an idiot" responses to the allegations, it just makes Shapiro look more and more like a martyr.
This has gotten worse for The Harp and it didn't have to be. Before Shapiro was just going to investigate the deal with Emerson and most likely would have gotten off due to the technicality of Parliament not being in session. Now, The Harp has committed an ethical conflict of interest because he has refused to co-operate. There is no denying this one, it is against the rules to refuse to take part in an Ethics Commission investigation. With The Harp actively looking for a new Ethics Commissioner, it has made him look even worse as he is trying to replace one person for another person who is more likely to see things by his point of view.
I dusted off the Cons blue book and here is their stance on the Ethics Commission:
The plan
A Conservative government will:
• Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators.
• Prevent the Prime Minister from overruling the Ethics Commissioner on whether the Prime Minister, a minister, or an official is in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code.
• Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.
• Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests.
• End “venetian blind” trusts that allow ministers to remain informed about their business interests, and require all ministerial assets to be placed in truly blind trusts.
• Allow members of the public – not just politicians – to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner.
• Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code.
(source: The Conservative Party of Canada 2006 election platform)
Now, the second point on this one was the funniest. The Cons will prevent the Prime Minister from overruling the Ethics Commissioner on whether the Prime Minister and a cabinet minister is in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code. Now, what Shapiro should do is fine The Harp, 1 years salary for violating that rule. Unfortunately those mandates aren't in place, and will likely never be in place as it would be dangerous for the Cons political future.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Even Ed is Pissed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Oops. Caught by his own commitments. This is the most stellar beginning I have ever seen to a government. Funny thing is, just like the king of Alberta, alot of folks will vote for him simply because of what they think he stands for (despite only standing for power it seems), and what people tell them the opposition stands for.
I think you are partly right on this one. The Cons hardcore supporters will always be there because of one issue that the Cons stand for, the removal of the gay and lesbian community off the face of the earth. I know what you are thinking, that does sound like you are in complete agreement with Dave, well he pluralized the the word stand meaning the Cons are supported by more than one issue, which unfortunetly, they are not.
The problem is not just that Shapiro is investigating him; the concern is that Shapiro will find Harper and Emerson to be at fault despite the evidence, facts or authority of his office. This guy has vindicated the Liberals and implicated the Conservatives at every available opportunity.
If it were a simple matter of letting him perform a fair investigation, fine, go for it. But Shapiro will not run a fair investigation. My advice to Harper would be to replace Shapiro with an unbiased ethics commissioner (Broadbent would've been perfect) then allow him to investigate floor crossing MPs.
Problem is, who can he appoint whom everyone will admit is unbiased?
Draft Frechette for Leadership
Does Anyone running for leadership have as many qualifications as this woman?
Louise Fréchette is the first Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. A national of Canada, she assumed her duties on 2 March 1998, after having been appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.The post of Deputy Secretary-General was established by the General Assembly at the end of 1997 as part of the reform of the United Nations, to help manage Secretariat operations and to ensure coherence of activities and programmes. The purpose was also to elevate the Organization’s profile and leadership in the economic and social spheres. The Deputy Secretary-General assists the Secretary-General in the full range of his responsibilities and also may represent the United Nations at conferences and official functions. She chairs the Steering Committee on Reform and Management Policy and the Advisory Board of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP), which handles relations with the foundation set up by Ted Turner in support of the United Nations.
Before joining the United Nations, Ms. Fréchette was the Deputy Minister of National Defence of Canada from 1995 to 1998. Prior to that, she was Associate Deputy Minister in her country’s Department of Finance. She served as Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations from 1992 to 1995. Ms. Fréchette began her career in 1971 in Canada’s Department of External Affairs. She was part of her country’s delegation to the General Assembly in 1972, and then served as Second Secretary at the Canadian Embassy in Athens until 1975. From 1975 to 1977, Ms. Fréchette worked in the European Affairs Division in Canada’s Department of External Affairs.
Returning to Europe, she served as First Secretary at the Canadian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva from 1978 to 1982. During that period, she participated in a session of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Madrid from November 1980 to July 1981.After serving as Deputy Director of the Trade Policy Division in the Department of External Affairs from 1982 to 1983, Ms. Fréchette became Director of the European Summit Division from 1983 to 1985. She received her first ambassadorship in 1985, serving as Canada’s ambassador to Argentina with concurrent accreditation to Uruguay and Paraguay.Ms. Fréchette was named Assistant Deputy Minister for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Department of External Affairs and international trade in October 1988. In that capacity, she directed a review of Canada’s relations with the region, which led to Canada’s entry into the Organization of American States (OAS). In January 1991 she became Assistant Deputy Minister for Economic Policy and Trade Competitiveness.
Ms. Fréchette received a Bachelor of Arts degree from College Basile Moreau. She earned a degree in history from the University of Montreal in 1970 and a post-graduate diploma in economic studies at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium in 1978. She has received honorary doctorate degrees from Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Kyung Hee University in Seoul, University of Ottawa, University of Toronto, and Laval University, Québec. In 1998, she was appointed Officer of the Order of Canada.Born in Montreal on 16 July 1946, Ms. Fréchette is single. She speaks French, English and Spanish.
* *** * [Updated 24 August 2000]
posted by s.b. at 12:25 PM
Luke, first off, the Cons aren't up in arms for just that reason. They are pissed because they are being investigated. They don't want to be seen as the corrupt bastards that they are. Shapiro was elected into this position by parliament and the fact of the mater is, he is the Ethics Commissioner and it is his job to investigate breaches of conflict of interest. If the Cons are unsure about his biases, then they could just appoint a member from each party to form a commitee to work with Shapiro to make sure that he is unbiased during the invsetagation. At the very least, The Harp could get a commitee to check into the investigations to make sure that Shapiro's judgements were unbiased.
S.B., Yes Frechette is a good candidate but not the best one. I am still in a firm belief that I am the best choice for leader of the Liberal Party. My views are more centralized then most and I do keep an open mind on discussions until I get all the facts. Also, I am man-pretty which will help bring in the vain people.
The Real Story behind Harper, Emerson, Stronach and the Ethics Commissioner:
Funny how most people just do not get it. There are cries from the New Tories and their supporters that Harper should move on to other business, that the business of the new Parliament in April will be delayed by a sideshow, that the real work of governing needs to be attended to ...
Wrong, folks.
The 2006 election was about ethics in government. The New Tories under Harper made that a cornerstone of their campaign, and belaboured the Liberal government every chance they had on this issue.
The election results showed that the voters wanted a new system of ethics in Parliament, and were punishing the Liberals for their sense of entitlement, their indifference to voter's concerns, their tardiness in responding to ethical issues immediately they arose.
All the rest was peripheral.
The name of the game was ethics on the Hill, and Harper was sent to run the Hill and clean up Parliament. That was what the voters gave him a limited mandate to do, and what they expect him to do.
Now Harper has to deliver on his promises to clean up Parliament and party behaviour. And to behave ethically in doing so.
And Harper is failing in this task; failing with two rash appointments, failing with his refusal to obey the law with respect to the Ethics Commissioner. All the rest does not count. Hear me? All the rest does not count.
If Mr Clean does not clean up Ottawa, then the voters will send him packing as soon as they get the chance. It is as simple as that.
Do and act like you promised.
Post a Comment