Not Harper's call
It would be an irony, to say the least, if Bernard Shapiro were to lose his job over the one file, in his error-strewn career as ethics commissioner, he has got right. But then it would be worse than ironic if Mr. Shapiro's comic history of missteps were to excuse the government for such an abuse of power.
We are talking, of course, about Mr. Shapiro's decision to launch an inquiry into the appointment of David Emerson to Cabinet in exchange for crossing the floor to the Conservatives -- the "one-day story" that, a month later, continues to haunt Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister, through a spokeswoman, has already let it be known that he will not co-operate with "this Liberal appointee" in his inquiries; now it is reported that efforts are underway to replace him.
In other words, under shadow of an investigation by an officer of Parliament, the prime minister stonewalls, and seeks to have him dismissed. It is not clear that he can be dismissed in such fashion -- Mr. Shapiro can be fired only for cause, and then only on the recommendation of Parliament -- but that does nothing to obscure the sheer effrontery of it, the arrogant contempt it displays not only for the office of the ethics commissioner, but for basic norms of democratic accountability. Perhaps the Prime Minister's people think this will be a one-day story, too.
At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Harper attempted to turn this into a constitutional question, as if the right of the PM to appoint his own Cabinet were at issue. But it is not the choice of Mr. Emerson that made his appointment so controversial -- no one doubts his qualifications -- but the terms.
It is entirely possible, even probable, that Mr. Emerson crossed the floor for reasons of principle. If in the process he betrayed his constituents, who had elected him as a Liberal, that is a matter between him and them: one that could be easily resolved, even now, by resigning and seeking their consent in a byelection. But it is equally possible that Mr. Emerson was induced to cross by the offer of a Cabinet post, and the pay and perks that go with it.
Voters should not be left wondering whether elected representatives are acting on behalf of the public interest or private gain, and a responsible public officeholder should not put them in the position of having to wonder. Even if his motives are above reproach, he has a duty not to leave even the appearance of impropriety. And where he does, or seems to, it is entirely appropriate for the ethics commissioner to investigate.
Or at any rate, it is at least arguable that he should. Alas, this is Mr. Shapiro we are dealing with, a man who turns everything he touches to a steaming wreck. If Mr. Emerson's appointment is a fit matter for inquiry, the Tories are entitled to ask, why wasn't Belinda Stronach's? If anything, there is a clearer appearance of an exchange of favours in the latter case: Ms. Stronach's qualifications for the job to which she was appointed were as obscure as the government's need for her vote was obvious.
Now, you could argue that offering someone a Cabinet post to vote with the governing party, as in the Emerson and Stronach cases, is a different matter than offering them a diplomatic or Senate appointment, as was allegedly offered to Gurmant Grewal. It is expected of any member of Cabinet that they support the party in power, so in that sense they are all trading their votes for office. That's how our system works.
If that's the case, then neither the Emerson nor Stronach cases should be investigated -- though clearly the Grewal matter should have been. Mr. Shapiro's inconsistencies multiply: Not only did he refuse to look into the part played by Tim Murphy, the former PM's chief of staff, in the negotiations with Mr. Grewal, but he was strangely indulgent of the behaviour of Ujjal Dosanjh, the former health minister.
Add that to his previous follies: his handling of the Judy Sgro affair, notably in hiring a well-known Liberal law firm to aid his inquiries; his indiscrete remarks about Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai, which earned him the censure of a Commons committee; his refusal to look into Tony Valeri's land dealings, on the excuse that Parliament was not in session -- an objection that for some reason does not apply now.
These all speak poorly of his judgment. But they do not mean that he is wrong in this matter. And whether he is right or wrong, whether he is such a complete ninny as to require his dismissal, is for Parliament to decide -- not the prime minister he is investigating.
We are talking, of course, about Mr. Shapiro's decision to launch an inquiry into the appointment of David Emerson to Cabinet in exchange for crossing the floor to the Conservatives -- the "one-day story" that, a month later, continues to haunt Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister, through a spokeswoman, has already let it be known that he will not co-operate with "this Liberal appointee" in his inquiries; now it is reported that efforts are underway to replace him.
In other words, under shadow of an investigation by an officer of Parliament, the prime minister stonewalls, and seeks to have him dismissed. It is not clear that he can be dismissed in such fashion -- Mr. Shapiro can be fired only for cause, and then only on the recommendation of Parliament -- but that does nothing to obscure the sheer effrontery of it, the arrogant contempt it displays not only for the office of the ethics commissioner, but for basic norms of democratic accountability. Perhaps the Prime Minister's people think this will be a one-day story, too.
At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Harper attempted to turn this into a constitutional question, as if the right of the PM to appoint his own Cabinet were at issue. But it is not the choice of Mr. Emerson that made his appointment so controversial -- no one doubts his qualifications -- but the terms.
It is entirely possible, even probable, that Mr. Emerson crossed the floor for reasons of principle. If in the process he betrayed his constituents, who had elected him as a Liberal, that is a matter between him and them: one that could be easily resolved, even now, by resigning and seeking their consent in a byelection. But it is equally possible that Mr. Emerson was induced to cross by the offer of a Cabinet post, and the pay and perks that go with it.
Voters should not be left wondering whether elected representatives are acting on behalf of the public interest or private gain, and a responsible public officeholder should not put them in the position of having to wonder. Even if his motives are above reproach, he has a duty not to leave even the appearance of impropriety. And where he does, or seems to, it is entirely appropriate for the ethics commissioner to investigate.
Or at any rate, it is at least arguable that he should. Alas, this is Mr. Shapiro we are dealing with, a man who turns everything he touches to a steaming wreck. If Mr. Emerson's appointment is a fit matter for inquiry, the Tories are entitled to ask, why wasn't Belinda Stronach's? If anything, there is a clearer appearance of an exchange of favours in the latter case: Ms. Stronach's qualifications for the job to which she was appointed were as obscure as the government's need for her vote was obvious.
Now, you could argue that offering someone a Cabinet post to vote with the governing party, as in the Emerson and Stronach cases, is a different matter than offering them a diplomatic or Senate appointment, as was allegedly offered to Gurmant Grewal. It is expected of any member of Cabinet that they support the party in power, so in that sense they are all trading their votes for office. That's how our system works.
If that's the case, then neither the Emerson nor Stronach cases should be investigated -- though clearly the Grewal matter should have been. Mr. Shapiro's inconsistencies multiply: Not only did he refuse to look into the part played by Tim Murphy, the former PM's chief of staff, in the negotiations with Mr. Grewal, but he was strangely indulgent of the behaviour of Ujjal Dosanjh, the former health minister.
Add that to his previous follies: his handling of the Judy Sgro affair, notably in hiring a well-known Liberal law firm to aid his inquiries; his indiscrete remarks about Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai, which earned him the censure of a Commons committee; his refusal to look into Tony Valeri's land dealings, on the excuse that Parliament was not in session -- an objection that for some reason does not apply now.
These all speak poorly of his judgment. But they do not mean that he is wrong in this matter. And whether he is right or wrong, whether he is such a complete ninny as to require his dismissal, is for Parliament to decide -- not the prime minister he is investigating.
3/08/2006
