Monday, March 20, 2006

Once More into the Ethics Mess

And that is that [CBC, No rules broken in Emerson affair: ethics watchdog]:
Neither Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor International Trade Minister David Emerson broke any rules when Harper persuaded Emerson to cross the floor just after the recent federal election, the country's ethics commissioner said Monday.
This result just proves why the Prime Minister should not have done this:
"The Prime Minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned, moreover who has been found in contempt of the House," said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications.

"This Liberal appointee's actions have strengthened the Prime Minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."
What are we to conclude by these statements since the Ethics Commissioner ruled in favour of the Conservative Party?

There is nothing wrong with playing the game by the rules that are in place now, even if you do not like them. If we must change them, change them in due course.

I'm glad to have seen that Mr. Harper did indeed consult with Mr. Shapiro on the matter, as noted in the CBC article.

And now, for the fourth time, I'm done with this Emerson thing.

Tags: , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

Harper and Emerson might have been exonerated under the code of ethics as no inducement was proven.

However, both men were guilty of an appalling political misjudgment, and of past and continuing arrogance towards the voters of Vancouver Kingsway.

The timing of Emerson's defection, and the mind boggling statements by both men to justify both their decision to subvert the obvious intentions of the voters in that riding, and to denigrate those protesting the theft of their votes, are beneath contempt.

Harper and Emerson are still politically in the wrong. Emerson will get his comeuppance should he run again in any constituency in Canada. Harper will get his during the next session of Parliament and the next election, when he tries to ride the high horse of ethics to victory one more time.

Both are soiled.

And the voters of Vancouver Kingsway are still being deprived of their rightful representation in Parliament. It is now up to them to pursue their Charter rights in the courts, as the toothless ethics code did not right the wrong done to them by these two opportunistic politicans.

One way or another, justice will be done.

Ranting Blue Tory said...

sower grapes by Lefties

Anonymous said...

Curiosity - check out the meaning of the word loath - I read it on another blog this morning - very intresting - I never knew there were two words where just one letter changes the meaning



Check it out - you might be surprised - as usual a number of days stories were created around nothing.

Anonymous said...

It is not an Either-Or situation.

This is not a case of the Conservatives being right and Liberals being wrong, or vice versa.

Harper and Emerson breached a very important part of the social contract between citizens of this country and their elected representatives. They huddled together and decided to unilaterally override the wishes of the voters in Vancouver Kingsway. In effect, they stole the votes of the majority in that riding, and abrogated the citizens' choice to themselves.

This is what is immoral about that decision.

The fact that the ethics code is toothless and does not address this issue, does not make the act of these highwaymen moral.

When Martin huddled with Stronach to cut a deal to have her join his minority government a short while before a vote of confidence, these two also unilaterally overrode the wishes of the voters in her riding, and stole the votes of the majority in that riding. Martin did what the Liberals had become so used to do: be awfully smart in playing the game of politics, rather than actually governing honourably, by force of ideas and policies, not tricks and sleight of hand.

Stronach faced her voters, and persuaded enough of them that her departure from the New Tories was based on differences of principle, in addition to differences of personality. They considered her argument, and enough agreed with her to re-elect her. The voters judged her, and sided with her, forgiving the wrong done when she and Martin huddled.

What most commentators do not understand is that the voters decided in a very clear, very unmistakable way, that Martin was not to be forgiven for this and other acts. His crass move to save his faltering government by agreeing with a member of another party joining his Liberals, failed to pass the smell test for many voters.

And so the voters passed judgment on Martin and he lost his minority government, the leadership of the country, and the leadership of his party.

Just as the voters will pass judgment on Emerson and Harper for their action in Vancouver Kingsway.

It is the right of voters to hold politicians to account.

That is the right I am supporting, not with a snivel, but emphatically.

The politicians work for us, the voters. Not the other way round. We are the kings and queens; not them.

And every now and then we have to make them understand that.