According to a CKNW “news flash” the Ethics Commissioner has stated that no rules were broken in the floor-crossing. I’ll see if I can find some links.
What a surprise.
I wonder how Jack & his buddies feel about the Ethics Commissioner now?
UPDATE: CTV has details
crossposted
Nothing to see here…..move along now….. 🙂
Looks like the nayasyers are going to have too find new foder.
I fully expect that we should be hearing about Belinda’s crossing within the hour??
Pat Martin talking on behalf of NDP, you can read between the lines, good grief, now we are suppose to be mind reads on what Shaprio was “thinking”… Give me a break. If there was something there, trust me Shaprio would have exposed it in a minute.
MY oh my! What will the whiners of Van/King say about this? Is there really any excuse left for them to continue their stupid partisan witch hunt?
I fully support Harper’s selection of Emerson; he was selecting an individual for their expertise – an expertise which was/is not bound by political partisanship.
But, notice that Shapiro’s statement also exonerates what I consider WAS a reprehensible action – that of Belinda Stronach’s crossover. Stronach’s cross saved the Liberal party from defeat by adding her single vote. Since Ms Stronach has no expertise in anything, then, Martin’s adding her to his cabinet seems unjustified and one can only conclude that it was done to save himself.
However, notice that Shapiro’s variables to justify cross-over are: a) constitutional rights (?) for an individual to switch parties; (b) the individual feels he/she could best service his constituents in cabinet rather than on the opposition bench; and (c) it is the prerogative of the PM to choose his cabinet.
Under these variables – Stronach, who should not be exonerated – is free to be the next Liberal leader..
Exactly, no rules were broken. I knew this three weeks ago. I heard Ed Broadbent, who had just completed an ethics report and proposal, say as much. So the question is why did Harper blow this up saying he wouldn’t cooperate? He must have been told by his advisors there was absolutely nothing to worry about. No, he had to go and put a blotch on his ethics record. Why? It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t like Shapiro. He owed it to himself and his party to have all appearances of proper ethical behaviour.
He should have said, “We have broken no ethics rules and I am confident that Mr. Shapiro will agree once he has looked at the facts of the matter. We will of course cooperate fully with his inquiry. It is important to us that there not be a hint of unethical behaviour in government. The Canadian people want to know that their government is now above board and honest with absolutely nothing to hide”.
Wouldn’t that paragraph or something like it been better reading than what took place when this story first broke?
Interesting – so maybe this was really about Stronach and not Emerson all along? ;^) Just kiddin’, but that *is* awfully conveeeeeenient.
The complete report can be found here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/media/inquiry_reports/reports/Harper_Emerson/Harper_Inquiry.asp
A couple of points. When Shapiro first announced it he called it a PRELIMINARY hearing. If we take that at face value PMSH was under no obligation to talk to him at that time. Second reread the report. the ethics office says that PMSH did give an interview to the commission.
steve, perhaps PMSH wanted the full light of day on Mr. Shapiro and his record? The Accountability Act calls for significant changes to the role & it’s responsibilities; I doubt he wants Shapiro in the new, improved role. Besides, it gave the chattering classes much to chatter about while he was busy making travel plans.
Who knows? But I disagree that your suggested response would have been appropriate; he’d have been called a hypocrite as his views on Shapiro are well known by all.
~tongue in cheek~
How could Shapiroa have cleared Harper, Shapiro is a liberal partisan hack, so obviously this is a liberal ploy of some kind 😉
~/tongue in cheek~
How on earth will Bill Good,Michael Smyth & the rest of the CKNW keep this rubbish on the front burner? They might have to talk about how the Libs can’t find a leader.
Oh, that’s it.
There’s always the Cannucks to bitch about.
I noted in a few places in the past few weeks that I was unable to find a concrete statement anywhere that PM Harper said that he would NOT cooperate, just that he was loathe to do it.
Some may have not liked the optics of this but I believe that PM Harper wanted to be very clear about how he felt about Shapiro and the whole investigation itself, one that should never have happened in the first place. I think that was the main point of his statement and he was shocked that a legal act, one done many times in the past, would even now be considered.
As far as Belinda I think she should and will be cleared too. Even though her motive was different and I was upset (same with Emerson) she did not violate any HoC ethics or laws. Seriously, is it really a bad thing now that she can go full out and capture the leadership of the liberal party? Isn’t this a good thing? 😉
steved – I think that your solution is viable only if the current Ethics Commissioner position was valid. It isn’t; it’s a makeshift position drummed up by Martin to try to show that he was attempting to follow ethical standards. So, for Harper to have followed your suggestion would mean that he accepted that validity of the current position. As Candace points out, the accountability act sets up a different procedure.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHHaaHaHaHaHa… Uh, sorry… Ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah… oh, I think I hurt a rib.
Hate to say it, but I think I did mention this was a non-starter and what happens, Shapiro caved.
Can you say “Liberal party says “fuck Easter, you dumbass, don’t stir up shit you can win”.
Next up, Stronach gets censured, and Shapiro announces resignation by the end of the month.
$5 bucks… anyone? Jose? BigCityLib? Cerberus? heh…
Aux Armes, Citroens!
But, first send money $$$$$$$$$ . Boycott Bourque! +
Is There a Legal Case Against David Emerson?
Contributed by: PatriotPete
…
Finally, let me say, if the citizens of Canada aspire to improve the low-level democracy of Canada, to clean up the corruption, to curtail the elitist King-like privileges of the PMO, the Premiers and to make MP’s more accountable, in a sense to expand the ‘bundle of democracy rights’ attached to our citizenship…we must, each of us, Stand Up for Democracy. We must be willing to put our energy, minds, hearts, and money in defending our democratic rights. We must be prepared to go to the courts to spend our money for our legal defence in the hope that the courts of this land will protect us from the excesses of government.
We must in the end, likely organize ourselves, as I have said before, into a ‘constitutional constituent assembly’ to rewrite the rules under which we wish ourselves to be governed. Indeed, it is because citizens have ‘fundamental justice and ‘political liberty rights’ ‘that ‘sovereignty’ itself is embedded within the citizens of this country and not the Crown, the Ministers, the party hacks, the corrupt politicians who utilize the existing rules to serve their narrow interests and that of Capital. Citizens, in my view need not only to vent their anger, write their articles, and continue to put the ‘heat’ on, they must be prepared to assert the defence of their rights in the courts of this land.
They must, in a sense overcome the �internalized oppression� of apathy, individuality, fear, self-cherishing, and alienation which prevents the possibility of them rising as �new men & women� of confidence, courage, commitment, concern, indeed love for one another, and willingness to act in solidarity with others to create and defend a �participative democracy� that embodies new rules that curtail privilege, entitlement, corruption and is capable of wresting control of this �sovereign� country away from Capital and continentalists who seeks its integration with the United States.
Personally, I am willing, with others, to advance this matter in the courts. What I require are electorate from Vancouver-Kingsway willing to step forward as ‘Plaintiffs”. What is required is a ‘team’ of very able persons who will carry out specific job responsibilities with high integrity and competency, with no expectation of �reward� to themselves. What are also required, are monies to do the job properly. I can be contacted via this site by email. My law office number is 604-684-4446. Who else will Stand with me? Perhaps it is you, and you, and you, and together in solidarity we can overcome this burden that casts a dark shadow over this land. Indeed, acting in solidarity we can reinvigorate and expand citizen democratic rights, the very democracy upon which our lives and future generations will depend. That will then be a wonderful legacy to our children.
Peter Dimitrov, bcpolitics.ca
[Proofreader’s note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 14, 2006] +
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060213103726459
There’s nothing in relation to Belinda Stronach in the findings of the enquiry… or lack of enquiry as the case may be.
Is Shapiro actually investigating Stronach, I know Pat Martin asked him to, but I see no reference to it inside the Commission.
He’d better. Whats good for the Goose and all that…
Does that mean we can move on now? Please?
steve d said: “So the question is why did Harper blow this up saying he wouldn’t cooperate?”
There is a great difference between PMSH’s *spokesman* saying that he was “loathe to”, and PMSH NOT going, before the Commissioner.
Just because one may not like to, does not mean they would not, or that he did not.
The media was playing games with this in saying PM Harper was not going to meet with him.
And as it goes, Shapiro did get his interview, or for sure he would have whined about that in his ruling today.
CKNW has been silly in this whole thing and for a media with their clout, it made them look and sound foolish….especially now.
For those of you that can’t understand why Harper let this thing go like it did, here’s the reason.
Bernie already exhonerated Tim Murphy and the beer and popcorn gang for trying to bribe Grewell. If Bernie couldn’t find anything wrong with that he couldn’t dump on Harper either, Stephen knows that. Now the question falls to Bernies judgement as an “independant” voice.
His time is up and its time for him to consider his future in other lines of work.
did someone put a spike up shapiro’s backside. compared to other decisions he’s had to make in the last couple of years this one was like light speed. maybe someone woke him up.
If Harper wanted to highlight Shapiro’s poor record he succeeded. I personally had no idea. Broadbent stated in his interview that MOST members are not happy with his work. However, he was elected by Parliament and as a Parliamentary Appointment the Prime Minister would have to get the assent of Parliament to release Shapiro from his five year appointment.
If Harper could find someone outstanding, with Parliamentary experience, he may be able to get his wish.
Broadbent said Shapiro’s main problem was that he knew nothing of the workings of Parliament. They wanted an impartial outsider but it was a mistake to appoint someone with no Parliamentary experience.
I sent an email to Duffy about this a week ago. I pointed out to him that the Prime Minister never said he wouldnt cooperate, and neither did anyone else in his office. I asked him to please quote accurately, and he should insist that those on his show do too.
Looks like some of you commenters might want to try the same thing.
I noted in a few places in the past few weeks that I was unable to find a concrete statement anywhere that PM Harper said that he would NOT cooperate, just that he was loathe to do it.
Just the leftist media putting their own spin on what was actually said.
Either that, or the MSM doesn’t know what “loathe” means.
Statement by the Prime Minister on the Ethics Commissioner’s report
March 20, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today responded to the release of the Ethics Commissioner�s report.
�This was never an ethics issue. Today, the Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that there was not even a basis for an investigation � this comes as no surprise.
The attacks on David Emerson have, since his appointment, been nothing more than a partisan effort to demean his fine record of public service.�
Zorph:”~tongue in cheek~
How could Shapiroa have cleared Harper, Shapiro is a liberal partisan hack, so obviously this is a liberal ploy of some kind 😉
~/tongue in cheek~”
Shapiro likes his comfy job & is hoping this will buy him some time, is my guess.
“I wonder how Jack & his buddies feel about the Ethics Commissioner now?”
More to the point, how will the right half of the blogosphere respond? Oh, yes:
“Shapiro likes his comfy job & is hoping this will buy him some time, is my guess.”
Bravo. Couldn’t be that the man actually a) investigates when he is asked to, and b) interprets the facts according to the current Code of Ethics, and does so fairly?
I’d expect this sort of nonsense from some of the less-bright Left (yeah, we have one or two, but we’re working on it). Just goes to show you that conservatives can explain anything away if it suits their agenda, including the character assassination of Shapiro before the investigation.
Really… perhaps you could explain his without question lopsided reports regarding Grewal and Dosaj, or his lack of announcement concerning Belinda, when the reasons he cites for clearing Emerson and Harper are clearly the exact reasons he should have been announcing an enquiry into Stronach and Martin… or maybe you could explain his censure by an all-parties committee?
Dawg, quit dragging your butt across the floor… your leaving your brains behind.
Does this part of the commish report apply to Belinduh?
“”Clearly, if the Prime Minister were to approach a member with an offer of a Cabinet position with the sole intent and specific purpose of acquiring that member�s vote directly linked to a parliamentary proceeding existing at that time, such conduct would be inappropriate and unacceptable. Conversely, if a member of the House were to approach the Prime Minister indicating that, in exchange for a Cabinet position, his or her vote could be acquired for the sole intent and specific purpose that is directly linked to a parliamentary proceeding existing at that time, that too, would be inappropriate
I think you are right, Wilson. He also highlights in his rebuttal of the Grewal affair the “AT THIS TIME” caveat.
I think this is a clear inditement of BS for seeling her vote at a clear crossroads in parliament
“The Committee finds that the Ethics Commissioner was in contempt of the House of Commons.”
Mr. Deepak Obhrai, MP, is suing Mr. Shapiro for $5,000,000.00. +
Parliament of Canada Code of Arms Crest
HOUSE OF COMMONS
CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES
OTTAWA, CANADA
K1A 0A6
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its
FIFTY-FIRST REPORT
1. Pursuant to the order of reference from the House of Commons on October 6, 2005, the Committee is pleased to report as follows.
2. On September 26, 2005, Mr. Deepak Obhrai, MP, rose in the House of Commons on a question of privilege. He argued that the Ethics Commissioner, Dr. Bernard Shapiro, had not followed the proper processes for conducting an inquiry under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that is appended to the Standing Orders, and, thus, he maintained that Dr. Shapiro was in contempt of the House.
3. Specifically, Mr. Obhrai had two complaints. First, Dr. Shapiro gave an interview to Mr. Jack Aubry, a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen, and was quoted in a newspaper article that appeared on September 15, 2005 in newspapers across the country. Mr. Obhrai suggested that further comments attributed to Dr. Shapiro in a National Post article on September 16, 2005 compounded the problem. Mr. Obhrai noted that section 27(7) of the Conflict of Interest Code requires the Ethics Commissioner �to conduct an inquiry in private and with due dispatch.� Mr. Obhrai argued that the Ethics Commissioner�s comments to the media had damaged his reputation and unfairly prejudiced the investigation.
4. Mr. Obhrai�s second complaint was that he was not given the required written notice of the investigation and the charges against him, contrary to section 27(4) of the Code. Mr. Joe Volpe, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, had forwarded affidavits to the Ethics Commissioner and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on May 9, 2005. Mr. Obhrai indicated, however, that it was not until August 4, 2005, and August 23, 2005 that he received letters from Dr. Shapiro informing him that an investigation had been commenced and advising him of the grounds for the investigation. Section 27(4) of the Conflict of Interest Code calls for a Member to be given reasonable written notice before an inquiry is conducted on the Ethic Commissioner�s own initiative. In addition, section 27(7) says that at all appropriate stages throughout the inquiry, the Member shall have reasonable opportunity to be present and to make representations.
5. Mr. Obhrai concluded by saying that he had lost all confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. He argued that by not following the rules, Dr. Shapiro should be found in contempt of the House.
…
36. At this point, however, the Committee wishes to confine itself to the more narrow question that was referred to us; that is, whether the Ethics Commissioner has committed a contempt of the House.
37. After careful review of all of the testimony and evidence, and the issues involved in this case, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the Ethics Commissioner did not comply with the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Thus, he was in contempt of the House of Commons. The Committee, however, is prepared to accept that these instances of non-compliance were not deliberate or intentional.
The Committee finds that the Ethics Commissioner was in contempt of the House of Commons. In the circumstances, however, it does not recommend any sanctions or penalty.
38. The Committee wishes to place on the record its concern that the procedures and processes under the Code need to be much more carefully developed and scrupulously followed to ensure this kind of experience is not repeated. The risks to Members, and the very integrity of the Code, demand nothing less. +
candace…
i agree with your assumption on a liberal ploy. if shapiro does investigate belinda he has no choice but to exonerate her also. that clears the way for the leadership bid.
Well, if Mr. Shapiro is clearly indicating an indictment of Ms. Stronach, why has he not pursued it? Where is the hubris he showed with Emerson and Harper?
I don’t see any “clear” indictment at all, although I’d like to. By his litmus test of standards in relation to Emerson and Harper, Ms. Stronach is guilty of accepting a bribe, and Mr. Martin is guilty of having provided one…
Yet throughout the house, not a creature was stirring, not even an ethics commissioner that looks just like a mouse.
“Bravo. Couldn’t be that the man actually a) investigates when he is asked to, and b) interprets the facts according to the current Code of Ethics, and does so fairly?”
Dawg…Well,actually,you answer your own question…a)Conservatives do NOT trust a partisan appointee that does NOT investigate when asked(Stronach).b)Shapiro has a tarnished reputation with Cons,NDP’ers et le Bloc based on claims of incompetence,partisanship and lack of understanding of the workings of parliament.
Seems to me you are the one rearranging the facts to justify your beliefs.Nonetheless,you managed to express your point without namecalling,I hope the righties here will give you the same courtesy.
What’s happening? The libs cave on the afgan mission, and now Emerson and Harper are cleared. Then the leadership date is set for nine months away. Will the msm give this clearance the same headlines they gave Emersons crossing. Has common sense set in on the opposition and they realize their antics could cause an election and they would be wiped out. Only place for the libs to get votes is from the ndp, or vice versa. No new leader is going to want to go to the people for a while after Dec 3rd. If the libs want any credibility they have to elect someone who has never served or worked with or for martin or chretain. Wounds are still raw and this could be a fight between the two camps. Also, many of the potential candidates are sitting mps. Will they be out campaigning or in the house to vote. Everyone says this person must speak good french. How about making that good english also. That eliminates Dion.
The unethical Ethics Commissioner’s report also found that there are more grounds for the Stronach floor crossing being unethical than there was for the Emerson crossing. For Stronach there was a direct monetary gain to be had in crossing the floor, she went from a back bencher’s salary to a Cab Min’s salary, an increase of $65,000 + a car and driver. For Emerson this was not a factor, he already had this. Also Stronach crossed the floor to directly affect a confidence vote. Far more unethical behaviour, the NDP had better show the same level of false partisan outrage toward the Stronach complaint now, although I doubt it.
After Shapiro’s piss poor record as Ethics Commisioner, maybe he can now be dismissed without as much of a cloud over his time served.
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJun2105.html
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJun2905.html
This will not die, not yet ….
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.
‘Curiosity killed the Cat’… you are quite the little Lefty aren’t you!!! Jake
“Charter rights in the courts”
Have you ever noticed more and more people feel that there most be something in the Charter that will change reality for them? Legal issues and the political process are of no consequence to these people: they’re convinced the Charter exists to make them feel better when they lose.
The voters of Vancouver Kingsway are being manipulated by members of vieled Liberal groups, and left wing political activists. Almost none of the protest in that riding is genuine, its has been entirely concucted and promoted for partisan interests. The fact that these same organizations and political groups did not show up to “fight for democracy” in Newmarket Aurora shows just where their alegences lie. Its time for the voters of Vancouver Kingsway to stand up and say “I don’t like what Emerson did, but I don’t even know who these people are and I don’t want to be associated with their agenda”
ROTFLMAO….what a joke. And you people actually give credence to anything this so called democracy has to say? LOL
It is just another example of the left endlessly fighting old, lost battles. Keep it up my friends on the left, soon enough the rest of us just get annoyed.
Yawn.
enough
Dawg – “I’d expect this sort of nonsense from some of the less-bright Left (yeah, we have one or two, but we’re working on it)”
Work at it a bit more and you will see that you already have thousands of ill-informed, less bright on the left. Don’t underestimate yourself.
enough
Zee next hurdle for Arper: BB (not BS )… BB (not PP) … (no, not Bruno)… BB.+
Loyola cleared Arper. +
Tories won’t meet with Actress Brigitte Bardot over Seal Hunt
Both Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn have refused to meet with Bardot on her visit to Ottawa Wednesday.”I think giving people like that attention and publicity just furthers their cause,” Hearn told CBC News. +
via nealenews
BB here:
http://img.stern.de/_content/53/03/530349/Brigitte_alt_250.jpg
Dr. Dawg: “Bravo. Couldn’t be that the man actually a) investigates when he is asked to, and b) interprets the facts according to the current Code of Ethics, and does so fairly?”
The issue is why he didn’t do this previously & fairly, i.e. Sgro etc.? Had he moved as quickly & as thoroughly with other investigations, no one would be calling for his resignation.
‘Curiosity killed the Cat’
Funny,I didn’t hear any”phony indignation”from the left when Stronach and others before her robbed their constituents of their votes.Ah,but they are on your side now,aren’t they?Can’t say anything bad about them,only conservatives.(Rule #1,right?)
Sorry man,that was a piss poor attempt at riling conservatives.You can’t honestly believe anyone(right or left)will take you seriously if you don’t control your dripping partisan rhetoric better than that.Just a friendly tip.
Let’s face it, the only one that wants Harper’s job is Harper. Liberals out in left field for years to come. Leadership run amounts to token candidate offerings. Individuals have nothing to lose. The show must go on that’s all.
Two parties are clones focusing only on the war agenda. New sources of taxation. Canadian military contractors and most likely Canada Steamship Lines docked in tax free havens are prepared for profiteering in big way.
They are all going to self-implode and Canadians must be prepared to take it to courts as Maz 2 outlines. There’s something fishy in Denmark and Canada and that’s an understatement.
“And the voters of Vancouver Kingsway are still being deprived of their rightful representation in Parliament.”
???
Instead of an opposition back bencher they are represented by a government cabinet minister.
You certainly are a curiosity. I’ll grant you that you that much.
I don’t know if you’re a dead cat but something’s not right under the hood.
Dawg…Well,actually,you answer your own question…a)Conservatives do NOT trust a partisan appointee that does NOT investigate when asked(Stronach).b)Shapiro has a tarnished reputation with Cons,NDP’ers et le Bloc based on claims of incompetence,partisanship and lack of understanding of the workings of parliament. (Canadian Sentinel)
The issue is why he didn’t do this previously & fairly, i.e. Sgro etc.? Had he moved as quickly & as thoroughly with other investigations, no one would be calling for his resignation. (Candace)
Shapiro was not asked to investigate Stronach at the time she crossed the floor. I’ve been asking this question over the past few days–why not?–but no one seems to know. The NDP has just asked for an investigation, somewhat late in the game, you’ll agree, and (in my view) they’ve muddied the waters. We’ll see what happens. [I think there is a disticntion to be drawn between crossing the floor after some time in Parliament and corssing it beforte you even set foot on it, but that’s just me. Personally, I think there should be an automatic by-election in ALL floor-crossing cases, so don’t make assumptions about my partisanship on this.]
Shapiro has, I think, demonstrated that he was not up to the job–you’ll get no argument from me on that score. But I happen to believe that incompetence, not partisanship, was the cause of his miserable performance. What I was reacting to was all the second-guessing–he’d go after Harper, find against Emerson, etc., because he’s a partisan appointment. (Actually, he’s not–he was confirmed in his position by Parliament–but this piece of conservative mythology is proving hard to dislodge.)
Well, what do you know. Shapiro said that no rules were broken in the Emerson case. Within the Ethics Code that he administers, he’s absolutely right. (That the electors of VK might have a legitimate Charter challenge is another story, but that has nothing to do with Shapiro.) Shapiro did, in other words, the Right Thing.
So how does the Right half of the blogosphere behave? They claim lousy motives on his part for doing the Right Thing. To be blunt, I think that sucks. Give the man his due. Incompetent, yes, but where is the evidence of partisanship?
Don’t bring up Valeri and Sgro. Valeri isn’t an MP and wasn’t when the complaint was made (January 17). Shapiro has no jurisdiction outside the House. Emerson was technically an MP as soon as the election results were officially announced. As for the Sgro case, he handled that one abysmally, but, once again, not in a partisan fashion. (Had he been acting out of partisanship, he would have made far fewer gaffes on that occasion.)
I’d just like to see a little fair-mindedness here. Both of you know I hold the Liberals in contempt, and had Shapiro behaved like Wilson, I’d have been saying many of the same things you are. But I just see a man above his level of competence. Why not leave it at that, and congratulate him lukewarmly for getting it right this time?
W. Macdonell, I think we will see a report on BS. The investigation request came after, so the report can be expected later. Shapiro makes clear in 2 places that altering an important vote, such as a non-confidence motion, is a significant variable.
Ryan, I don’t believe the money had an effect. Emerson would have become an opposition backbencher. It was about changing thie outcome of an impending vote. Very clear who is targetted.