Harper may open can of worms

[Jersay]

OTTAWA (CP) - A defiant federal ethics commissioner vowed to stay on the job Tuesday even as Stephen Harper admitted he tried to replace him immediately after he became prime minister.

Bernard Shapiro's decision to investigate Harper's recruitment of former Liberal cabinet minister David Emerson has now escalated into a full-blown face-off between the ethics commissioner and the prime minister. Harper attempted to recast the confrontation as a constitutional issue rather than an ethical question during a news conference Tuesday. The prime minister said Shapiro has no authority to dictate his cabinet choices.

"The power to make cabinet appointments is a power that resides in the office of the prime minister as the highest democratically elected official in the country," Harper said after a cabinet meeting.

"This prime minister has no intention of ceding that jurisdiction in any way, shape or form to any government official.

"I've conveyed that view to the ethics commissioner."

Harper said he offered the job to former NDP leader Ed Broadbent - who declined because he is busy caring for his ailing wife.

The Tories, who have promised to appoint the next ethics commissioner after a vote in Parliament, are casting Shapiro as a Liberal partisan appointment.

Harper all but invited Shapiro to resign immediately.

"He's aware of our position. The ball is in his court now," Harper said of the former head of Montreal's McGill University.

The Tories are fuming at the decision to investigate Emerson's nomination - but not examine the floor-crossing of Belinda Stronach to the Liberals.

Emerson himself said he was bewildered by the whole affair.

"I am . . . mildly puzzled by why he's choosing to conduct this inquiry . . . but is not doing the same thing for (Stronach)," he said.

Emerson said he contacted the ethics commissioner's office to declare there was no inducement for him to cross the floor.

But then in the next breath Emerson admitted he was induced to cross the floor by a cabinet appointment.

"He asked me if I would serve, I agreed to serve, and I think it was the right thing to do," Emerson told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

Emerson's appointment as industry minister has been the most controversial decision, by far, of the young Conservative government.


The Tories have tried to mute the controversy by keeping Emerson under wraps.

He was made to wait in the cabinet room for more than half an hour after most of his colleagues had left Tuesday's meeting and emerged while most reporters were covering Harper's remarks.

The Prime Minister's Office hinted last week that Shapiro will likely be dismissed. But the prime minister cast that Tuesday as "a question for another day."

Harper would almost certainly rather see Shapiro quit. Firing him could open up a can of worms - both political and legal ones.

The commissioner was appointed to a five-year term in 2004 and could presumably seek legal compensation if he's fired without cause.

The opposition would be sure to paint Shapiro's dismissal as an attempt by the prime minister to stifle an investigation.

Shapiro could spare the prime minister several headaches by quitting now. But he wasn't doing Harper any such favours Tuesday.

When asked whether Shapiro might resign, his spokesman indicated the ethics boss will dig in his heels.

"The inquiry process is proceeding," Jonathan Choquette said.

"You can draw your own conclusions from that."

He said Shapiro answers to the House of Commons, not Harper, and will take his direction only from the House.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n030787A.xml

 

[Hank C]

Shapiro is a Liberal partisan appointment.........hope to see him replaced asap.

 

[Jersay]

Yeah and when the guy that Harper appoints turns out not to get involve in this issue that is a breach of Section 8 he or she will be a Harper lackey.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, even as recently as January of this year, praised Bernard Shapiro, the Ethics Commissioner of Canada, for his conduct — in terms of those comments, this is quite the about-face.

The members of the Conservative Party of Canada sitting on the House of Commons Committee that questioned Mr. Shapiro after his nomination didn't seem to have a problem with his credentials, or have any concerns with impartiality — the fact that he is suddenly seen as a "partisan appointee" is suspect, in my opinion, in terms of the ethics of the current Government of Canada.

 

[Jersay]

It is because the Harper government is just as unethical as the Liberal government, and until they prove me wrong they want to stack the ethics department with people who will make it look like they are not bad guys or crooks.

They are sneaks.

 

[sanch]

It is because the Harper government is just as unethical as the Liberal government, and until they prove me wrong they want to stack the ethics department with people who will make it look like they are not bad guys or crooks.

They are sneaks.

Power is intoxicating. Power corrupts. That’s why it is important to have an accountability act with statutory provisions. Giving politicians and civil servants the latitude to break or bend the rules when it’s convenient is idiotic.

In this case both the Stronach and Emerson appointments should be reviewed. Why would he review one appointment and not the other? Did they not ask the ethics commissioner to review the Stronach appointment? Given that Shapiro did not act on the Stronach case Harper has justification to be wary. It does look very partisan. And Harper’s first choice was not someone from his own party but Ed Broadbent who has a long distinguished history with the NDP. Why would that be sneaky?

 

[FiveParadox]

You make some valid arguments, Sanch.

However, I would argue that the crossing of the Honourable Belinda Stronach was less suspect than that of the Honourable David Emerson. The Transport Critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had crossed in order to prevent the defeat of a Government that had the confidence of her constituency of Newmarket—Aurora, while the Minister of International Trade had crossed where less than one-third of voters had supported the Government of Canada.

Nevertheless, I am not sure if the Ethics Commissioner has the authority to pursue issues that had occurred in a previous Parliament — does anyone know whether or not the Commissioner has any such authority or prerogative?

 

[Finder]

It is because the Harper government is just as unethical as the Liberal government, and until they prove me wrong they want to stack the ethics department with people who will make it look like they are not bad guys or crooks.

They are sneaks.

Power is intoxicating. Power corrupts. That’s why it is important to have an accountability act with statutory provisions. Giving politicians and civil servants the latitude to break or bend the rules when it’s convenient is idiotic.

In this case both the Stronach and Emerson appointments should be reviewed. Why would he review one appointment and not the other? Did they not ask the ethics commissioner to review the Stronach appointment? Given that Shapiro did not act on the Stronach case Harper has justification to be wary. It does look very partisan. And Harper’s first choice was not someone from his own party but Ed Broadbent who has a long distinguished history with the NDP. Why would that be sneaky?

Because everyone knows Ed Broadbent for over a year now has been saying he didn't want much to do with Ottawa because he wanted to spend more time with his wife. Harper could have offered Ed the PM position and I think he still would not have taken it. So don't bring Ed into this because Harper knows very well that he can't. Though I think it was more of a nod of respect on the part of Harper, then anything else.

 

[iamcanadian]

This whole ethics commission is bullcrap.

The Government needs ethics management of the non-elected administrators and not the elected branches of government.

People with life long public jobs tends to get corrupted over time. The elected are always walking on pins and neadles as it is. They are scared shitless of non-elected officials who can screw up their prospects for re-election.

We have this whole ethics thing backwards.

 

[FiveParadox]

iamcanadian, the post of Ethics Commissioner is a five-year term only; certainly not a life-long appointment. Moreover, more often than not, the elected representatives have far more power than their unelected counterparts; the Right Honourable Prime Minister could, if he so deemed appropriate, dismiss Bernard Shapiro.

 

[iamcanadian]

You missed my point. Elected are always on the edge of the knife of public opinion.

People that have life long employment in government are the ones that an Ethics Commissioner should be appointed to oversee. The position of a Ethics Commissioner to over see the elected representatives of the People, is like giving the people in real power to more power to undermine the democracy of our country.

Our democracy is weak because our government administrators are too powerful. This Ethics Commissioner is one more nail in the taxpayers coffin under the hammer held by our Public Servants.

 

[FiveParadox]

I would respectfully disagree, iamcanadian; I think that we require the post of the Ethics Commissioner, as should be quite evident from not only the current Government of Canada, but the Government of the former Thirty-eighth Parliament as well; the "culture of entitlement" seems to be a Government thing, not a Grid thing.

 

[iamcanadian]

You have too much faith in people with public jobs having more integrity than elected officials.

I believe it mustt be the otherway around because the umployed publci officials have no accountability whatsoever.

Justice John Gomery said Tuesday that some bureaucrats who “disregard the law” through mismanagement don’t appear to suffer any consequences such as losing their jobs.

Gomery told a Treasury Board official at the sponsorship inquiry he couldn’t find any evidence in the Financial Administration Act allowing managers to weed out bad seeds in the bureaucracy.

“Sometimes you get people who just, more or less deliberately, disregard the law,” the judge told Stephen Wallace, a top official at the Treasury Board secretariat.

“There have been, it seems to me, well-documented instances of mismanagement . . . and I didn’t see that they had any consequences on the employment of anybody.

“What happens if you find somebody who’s just a bad apple?”

Wallace said managers in fact have the power to suspend, demote or fire employees who break internal rules.

But he acknowledged that power isn’t always exercised.

“Consistent understanding and ability to use these tools is not evident across the system.”

Wallace added police and the courts, not internal rules, are best-equipped to deal with bureaucrats who cross the line and break the law.

But Gomery didn’t appear satisfied. “It takes a major scandal to get the police involved,” he said. “It is not in the nature of the public service to call in the police.”

When will the people of Canada start to acknowledge where the real problems lie? How many scams must the public pay for before the people that need Ethics Supervision get supervised?

 

[FiveParadox]

When are we going to realize that these public people who need supervision, according to you, are more often than not appointed by our elected representatives, or their proxies?

 

[sanch]

Because everyone knows Ed Broadbent for over a year now has been saying he didn't want much to do with Ottawa because he wanted to spend more time with his wife. Harper could have offered Ed the PM position and I think he still would not have taken it. So don't bring Ed into this because Harper knows very well that he can't. Though I think it was more of a nod of respect on the part of Harper, then anything else.

Harper said he asked Ed Broadbent to be Ethics Commissioner. I just commented that in contrast to the liberals where a fellow party member had been named Ethics Commissioner Harper was asking someone from the NDP. By having made this announcement Harper will probably be forced to name someone of similar stature to Broadbent who also does not have any ties to the conservative party. The announcement boxes him in.

I think the Emerson debacle was an act of lunacy on the part of Harper and should be investigated.

Still I can’t see Harper sitting around and weighing the facts and his priorities as you describe them.

Harper to staff member: ‘I really like Ed Broadbent and want to express my respect by offering him the post of ethics commissioner. Everybody will know I’m not serious because it’s common knowledge that he doesn’t want the job or any job. Then when he refuses I am going to publicly announce that he didn’t take the job.”

Aide to Harper: “What is this going to accomplish?”

Harper: “Nothing but it’s amusing. I’m going to see if George W. wants to be PM next. In fact this is going to be my game plan for the next two years. I am just going to keep offering jobs to people who I know won’t take them.”

 

[Jay]

These are some of the weakest arguments I've seen from liberals in awhile. They better be able to find a strong leader or they will be in even worse trouble then they are already in....not that I think that's a bad thing or anything.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Harper may open can of worms

You have too much faith in people with public jobs having more integrity than elected officials.

I believe it mustt be the otherway around because the umployed publci officials have no accountability whatsoever.

Justice John Gomery said Tuesday that some bureaucrats who “disregard the law” through mismanagement don’t appear to suffer any consequences such as losing their jobs.

Gomery told a Treasury Board official at the sponsorship inquiry he couldn’t find any evidence in the Financial Administration Act allowing managers to weed out bad seeds in the bureaucracy.

“Sometimes you get people who just, more or less deliberately, disregard the law,” the judge told Stephen Wallace, a top official at the Treasury Board secretariat.

“There have been, it seems to me, well-documented instances of mismanagement . . . and I didn’t see that they had any consequences on the employment of anybody.

“What happens if you find somebody who’s just a bad apple?”

Wallace said managers in fact have the power to suspend, demote or fire employees who break internal rules.

But he acknowledged that power isn’t always exercised.

“Consistent understanding and ability to use these tools is not evident across the system.”

Wallace added police and the courts, not internal rules, are best-equipped to deal with bureaucrats who cross the line and break the law.

But Gomery didn’t appear satisfied. “It takes a major scandal to get the police involved,” he said. “It is not in the nature of the public service to call in the police.”

When will the people of Canada start to acknowledge where the real problems lie? How many scams must the public pay for before the people that need Ethics Supervision get supervised?

Your answer:

When are we going to realize that these public people who need supervision, according to you, are more often than not appointed by our elected representatives, or their proxies?

The problem is that out of the +3 Million public servants in Canada who hold public employment and work their way up by attrition rather than merit or integrity, the tops get populated by those with the worst integrity and ethics. Most of them having move up by stabbing others in the back or undermining better people around them and not by being appointed by elected officials.

Once at the top they are in defacto control of government decisions. Elected have to act on their reports and recomendations. Yet there is no supervision of any kind over their ethics.