Um....Belinda?

'Liberal MP Wayne Easter, a former cabinet minister, said Harper's fight with ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro cuts at the heart of government accountability and has become a more serious matter than Emerson's stunning defection.'

Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda....
'If he was ever to get away with dumping Mr. Shapiro and appointing another ethics commissioner, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future parliaments and future prime ministers in terms of all officers of the House of Commons.'

Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda....
' "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," New Democrat MP Pat Martin said Thursday.'

Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, Belinda...

um... Belinda... Stronach?

Ok I'm assuming that you get the point by now.

***NOTE TO REGULAR READERS (I KNOW YOU DO EXIST) ******
You may have noticed a slight change in the writting lately. I know you're asking yourself one question.

Have I gone insane?

The short awnser is: I don't know

Don't worry. If I am it's a good type of insane. It's all thanks to one special person that I am very thankful for.

5 comments:

  1. "Why is the commissioner's office looking into Emerson, they ask, when it didn't do the same with Belinda Stronach, the former Conservative MP who crossed to the Liberal side, and became a Cabinet minister, in the runnup to that crucial vote in the spring of 2005?

    The situations are obviously similar. (Why does the politician cross the floor?) But the simple answer here is that the Ethics Commissioner wasn't asked to investigate Stronach by any MPs back then. Today, three, from different parties, have sought the probe into Emerson.

    What's more, the 2004 amendments to Parliament of Canada Act that sets out Shapiro's powers and duties, requires him to investigate anytime he has had a formal request from a member of the Commons or Senate. The act allows him to discontinue an examination if he finds no merit to the allegations. But even if he discontinues it he still is obliged to provide the prime minister and Parliament with a report setting out the facts in question and his own conclusions.
    "
    (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/20060308sheppard.html)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But the simple answer here is that the Ethics Commissioner wasn't asked to investigate Stronach by any MPs back then. Today, three, from different parties, have sought the probe into Emerson."

    The Ethics commissioner was requested to look into defections before - but during an election campaign. His excuse that he couldn't comment on cases in between sessions of parliament seemed sheepish to me.

    At a certain point the opposition no doubt got frustrated, and figured there was no point in filing a complaint. It's the same reason why many Conservative MP's never want to involve the RCMP in anything... Deep distrust is contageous apparently.

    "...requires him to investigate anytime he has had a formal request from a member of the Commons or Senate."

    No doubt. But it's amazing that Shapiro seems to find reasons not investigate when he wants to and when to investigate when he wants to.

    "Buckler said Shapiro used that logic as a reason not to investigate a controversial land deal involving a Liberal minister during the election campaign.
    ...
    "She also said that by Shapiro's own logic there could be no investigations from the time Parliament was dissolved -- on November 30, leading to the election -- until there is a new Parliament. The new Parliament will not convene until April."


    http://www.dose.ca/toronto/news/story.html?s_id=poYe8on%2Bvp2bLubv5Wfbp%2FkbsRTf5DlzdgZqz5nBgeOcsXcLSzFY%2FA%3D%3D

    In other words by Shapiro's own "I can't investigate a case in between sessions of parliament" logic, means that Emerson's move is outside his control...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is not insanity if I understand you. Hmmm. Let me rethink that. Maybe it just means I am as crazy as you. Anyway, interesting post :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. CuriosityKilledTheCat5:59 PM

    I understand the dilemma many Tories face and emphasize. However, it is nonsense to swear My party, right or wrong, when that party does things which are wrong.

    The gloss placed by many Tories on Harper’s actions is factually incorrect, and the view of many Tories equally wrong, for these reasons:

    • The Ethics Commissioner is a officer of Parliament with powers granted him, and an obligation placed upon him, to investigate any complaint lodged by a Member of Parliament. Investitation of a complaint is not the same as finding that a breach of ethical principles has taken place.

    • Therefore, Harper’s refusal to cooperate with the Commissioner is legally incorrect for a Prime Minister, and politically inept.

    • Harper’s statement that it is his right to appoint members of his Cabinet is correct, but misleading. This is not the issue. The issue is whether Harper and/or Emerson breached the ethical standards applicable. If they did, the Commissioner has to decide on a remedy.

    • Harper’s defence of his position means he has placed himself above the law. This is not the position a Prime Minister should take in a democracy founded on the rule of law. Harper is not a king; the divine right died out ages ago. Nor is he an infallible pope. He is an MP and subject to the laws like every other citizen of Canada.

    • Harper campaigned vigorously on a platform of reform, and rode the corruption issue into power with his narrow majority. The onus is on him to govern in accordance with his platform, which was heavily weighted towards good, clean government. His actions in flouting the law re the Commissioner do not meet this test.

    • Harper is obliged to introduce legislation as soon as possible in order to bring in an appropriate accountability law, without loopholes. Once such a law is in place, it will apply in future, and replace any existing laws which are amended by the new law. Hopefully, given his campaign promises, the new law will address the issue of MPs who cross the floor.

    • It is in the interests of all Canadians that government be carried on in an ethical fashion. Harper’s response to the Ethics Commissioner falls short of this standard, and should not be countnanced by specious arguments such as yours. The citizens of Canada deserve better, and every citizen – including all Tories - have a right to call Harper and others on their actions, and demand the highest ethical behaviour from them.

    Perhaps the only good that will come from this sorry debacle is that we have adquate legislation passed to uphold high ethical standards for our elected representatives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Ethics Commissioner is a officer of Parliament with powers granted him, and an obligation placed upon him, to investigate any complaint lodged by a Member of Parliament."

    Again... Belinda.

    "Therefore, Harper’s refusal to cooperate with the Commissioner is legally incorrect for a Prime Minister, and politically inept."

    Don't know about the legalities here, but I sure as crap don't like the morality. What Harper did was wrong to appoint Emerson. I've said that before. Whether or not it's politically inept for him to refuse to cooperate depends on whether it works or not I would think no?

    Either way I don't blame him for not co-operating... Why? um... Belinda?

    "The issue is whether Harper and/or Emerson breached the ethical standards applicable. If they did, the Commissioner has to decide on a remedy."

    So when Liberals do the same thing somehow the commisionner can find excuses?... But when the Tories do it, it's a whole other ball game I guess.

    "Harper’s defence of his position means he has placed himself above the law. This is not the position a Prime Minister should take in a democracy founded on the rule of law. Harper is not a king; the divine right died out ages ago. Nor is he an infallible pope. He is an MP and subject to the laws like every other citizen of Canada."

    No doubt Harper shouldn't be acting like "king" who is "above the law."

    But what do you do when the judge at your hearing is ready and itching to hang you because of his bias?... You can't tell someone then that they are acting like a "King" who is "above the law" because they refuse to cooperate when they're being abused.

    "Harper campaigned vigorously on a platform of reform, and rode the corruption issue into power with his narrow majority. The onus is on him to govern in accordance with his platform, which was heavily weighted towards good, clean government. His actions in flouting the law re the Commissioner do not meet this test."

    Actually it's party policy to make the commissioner more independent and accountable to parliament:

    "Ensure that all Officers [Including the Ethics Commiss] of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and confirmed through a secret ballot of all Members of Parliament, not just named by thePrime Minister."

    I've always just assumed that would mean Shapiro would have to be fired. People can't tell me they didn't expect the Tories to replace Liberal appointments...

    "Harper is obliged to introduce legislation as soon as possible in order to bring in an appropriate accountability law, without loopholes. Once such a law is in place, it will apply in future, and replace any existing laws which are amended by the new law. Hopefully, given his campaign promises, the new law will address the issue of MPs who cross the floor."

    Agreed.

    "It is in the interests of all Canadians that government be carried on in an ethical fashion. Harper’s response to the Ethics Commissioner falls short of this standard, and should not be countnanced by specious arguments such as yours. The citizens of Canada deserve better, and every citizen – including all Tories - have a right to call Harper and others on their actions, and demand the highest ethical behaviour from them."

    Agreed, except for the "specious arguments part."

    Belinda will remain the thorn in the side of those opposite in this debate. That's why the NDP has launched a request for the Commish to investigate Belinda's stupidity as well. It's such a transparent move to try to quell what they see is a clear weakness in their front.

    It makes no difference. It's still shows the ethical and moral waywardness of Shapiro and the other parties involved. The awnser "Um.... Belinda?" is still the biggest counterpoint to this type of offensive from the opposition.

    Better to have a by-election already in Emerson's riding. And hopefully enough Tories in that riding can mobilize to deny him the nomination... That's assuming Harper hasn't guaranteed the nomination to him already!

    ReplyDelete