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
Hey, check out the pics of Bardot & Harper at Bourque http://www.bourque.com
HILARIOUS !!!!!
Dr. D, I agree that the NDP asking only recently for an investigation into the Stronach crossing muddied the waters; not just for the Emerson/Harper investigation but for the NDP. IMHO they now look even more opportunistic (my belief is that they didn’t re Stronach because they didn’t stand to win a seat with a byelection; they would likely pick up the seat in V-K). As well, Ian Waddell, the NDP candidate that lost to Emerson was sitting in cabinet in the provincial NDP gov’t when they accepted a floor crosser into cabinet, so he has looked opportunistic (to me) from day one. It looks even worse when it turns out the Liberal activist organizing events etc doesn’t even live in the riding. Yikes!
I appreciate what you’re trying to say about cutting Shapiro some slack, but that’s hard to do when the whole event (requests from MPs) was a PR exercise in the first place.
As someone earlier in the thread said, maybe now we can turn the page? (probably not)
As for automatic byelections on floorcrossing, I disagree. I would prefer a 3 or 6-month mandatory move to “independent” status before joining another party. That would eliminate cabinet posts for crossing (although if the guy got a post on day 91 or 181, people would probably still scream). Alternatively, I don’t understand why Emerson had to switch sides to join cabinet, particularly in a minority gov’t. The PM should get to hire the right guy for the job, regardless of political stripe. I don’t know the resume of every CPC MP, but I haven’t heard the media squawking that “so & so is equally qualified” either.
With all of the rhetoric flying over the Emerson matter, the following scenario I lay out may be moot, however I’ll express it anyway.
What if Harper had actually asked Emerson to sit in his cabinet WITHOUT having to change party affiliations? In other words, he joins the Cab as a Liberal (in which case I’m sure the Libs would have thrown him out of the party).. Or, perhaps a more likely scenario, that he invited Emerson to sit in cab, and left it completely up to Emerson as to whether he maintained any party affiliation whatever?
I have no idea if the preceding scenarios ever occurred. However, if either are in fact true, I doubt that it would have had any difference to the Lib-Left that are setting their collective hair on fire. But THEIR complaint is focused on the party shift…they would have had to find ANOTHER reason to get all lathered up if especially my first scenario was what happened.
Have any of you noticed the panic with which the libs and dippers are trying to get anti-crossing legislation going?
You dont suppose they see a mass exodus coming do you?
I think you are right, Bruce. The party shift offends some people. Once in cabinet, though, it doesn’t matter which card he carries, he must vote with the gov’t by definition on matters of confidence. He is, in effect, the gov’t and cannot vote against himself. On other matters, he could vote his conscience, I suppose. At this point, it’s really less of an issue if your objective is to bring down the gov’t.
Vancouver elected the rep they wanted, expecting a cabinet minister and that’s what they got.
Hey Zach that asshole at bourque should get zero hits from anyone. So folks make sure you dont feed the scum any.
Hey DR.Dawg
“Give the man his due. Incompetent, yes, but where is the evidence of partisanship?”
“Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro hired former Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien’s lawyer from a law firm with many connections to the Liberal Party to investigate Liberal Cabinet minister Judy Sgro, and even worse he excused many of her and others activities even though they clearly did not uphold the highest ethical standards as required by federal ethics rules,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition. “If the Ethics Commissioner has any integrity he will declare his investigation into the Sgro affair biased and flawed and resign.”
To conduct the investigation into Sgro’s and others’ actions, the Ethics Commissioner hired (without a contract bidding competition) David W. Scott and his law firm Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG). BLG donated $165,000 to the federal Liberals between 2000 and 2003 (2004 donation figures are not yet publicly available); donated more than $25,000 to Paul Martin’s campaign for the Liberal Party leadership; has three partners representing Liberals before the Gomery Commission inquiry (David W. Scott and Peter K. Doody representing Jean Chr�tien, and Guy J. Pratte representing Jean Pelletier), and; in February 2005 hired Gar Knutson, former Cabinet colleague of Sgro.
As a result of these many, deep ties between BLG and the Liberal Party, BLG was in a conflict of interest and should never have been involved in any investigation of any Liberal.
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJun2105.html
good enough?
Part of the problem is the media has been cleverly changing the meaning of what the PM actually said. he did NOT say “loathe to cooperate” he said “loath to cooperate”…
Loathe: to dislike greatly, abhor, detest, hate.
Loath: Reluctant
This entire thing may rest on a poor choice of words. “Reluctant” would have been readily understood. One letter makes a big difference.(P.S. Until I looked it up I didn’t know the difference either.)
Personally, I think Shapiro’s opinion that there is something wrong with this (but not against the Ethics Code) wasn’t enough to launch an investigation.
The Ethics Code itself says that an inducement has to be something OTHER than renumeration as a result of an Act of Parliament… i.e., cabinet salary, etc. It’s very clear on this.
So there was no basis for an investigation and Shapiro at least (with the gentle nudging of pros in his department probably) put a stop to it quickly.
Should this be debated? Many intelligent people like Andrew Coyne think so and perhaps they are right. I don’t have a problem with MPs crossing the floor myself (it bugs me when they’re not doing what I want — voting the right way, making statements I support, or crossing the floor — my recourse is called elections and if they choose not to run again, punishing any political party that has raised my ire).
The biggest problem is that there shouldn’t be an Ethics Commissioner — the public should decide what is ethical and political parties should hold each other’s feet to the fire.
Even Supreme Court Justices, of which Canada has nine, aren’t in theory supposed to decide the morality of everything, but rather, to enforce Canada’s laws after Canada’s elected representatives in the Parliament have debated and decided the morality/ people’s will of various issues.
It is ridiculous to expect one man, from any political party, to decide what is “ethical” for all Members of Parliament and Senators of their own and other political parties.
Let the system stay adversarial with government and opposition competing for the public’s approval.
Thank goodness.
I don’t like what Emerson did and he should have to face the voters, but Harper is a manly man who won’t compromise his morals.
Dr. Dawg wrote > “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.”
Not sure why the NDP didn’t ask. Someone above suggested there was nothing in it for them (seat-wise).
But it seems reasonable to assume that Harper and the Conservatives didn’t call for an investigation because they didn’t see it as an issue for the Ethics Commisssioner to investigate. Same reason they told him to butt out of the Emerson affair – it’s none of Shapiro’s business. Shapiro should have told the Lib and NDP complainers this from the beginning.
Shapiro: “Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote – the cornerstone of our democratic system – was devalued, if not betrayed.”
OK, granted. Where the hell were you when the fair Belinda crossed the floor. If the “Ethics Commisioner” were to investigate the initial trangression, wouldn’t that serve as a warning for later governments to respect the “cornerstone of our democratic system.”
My father worked under Bernie when he was working for the Liberal govenment of Ontario under David Peterson. He was parachuted in from the hallowed halls of academia. My father reports that he was a Peter principal case study back then. And then he was promoted, to high profile position in the Federal government of the PMPM. Must of had a killer C.V.
DrDawg opines “Shapiro was not asked to investigate Stronach at the time she crossed the floor.
Shapiro doesn’t have to be asked to begin an investigation.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/standingorders/appa1-e.htm
27(4) The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative, and on giving the Member concerned reasonable written notice, conduct an inquiry to determine whether the Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code.
Regarding Shappiro digging into the Stronach defection. He should realy exonerate her, so that she can get whupped in a leadership race. (I dont think even the Liberals could put up with her} What would our heroine do then. She wouldn’t be allowed back to the CCP, the bloc wouldn’t have enough glamour for her, so that would lead to the NDP. I f they had a leadership planned for the next few years, can you imagine a Layton -Belinda fight. The leftist against the “I’ll take what’s leftist”.
Didn’t read through all 64 comments. Not gunna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. I got the drift. But the thing is…Harper does not matter, and what his take is doesn’t matter. So much.
Ditto Emerson. Ditto Shapiro. Move on now?
Good luck.
There is the small matter of the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway. Again, if you feel like victory in this matter is Emerson remaining in the cabinet for his full term, great. You likely have victory.
If, on the other hand, you are concerned with the growth of Harper’s government and its chances to introduce policy and for folks to believe he and his government really ARE different…well, I don’t know what you have. But it’s not victory.
Here’s a prediction. This “folder” is far from closed.
John Daily, sounds like he’s related to that fool on the daily show?!? Go figure…..
I wish we could have an election right now, then we could watch as the liberanos go flush and take the rest of the crooked and corrupt commies (oops socialists)with them. Lets hope this is the beginning of the end of this type of communist crap. Its time for another McCarthy kinda leader to clean up this mess.
We need to give this issue a good amount of thought people. There will be a vote on this in parliament before long.
We are going to need to provide some input as to how this legislation might look.
i have some problems with some of what is being proposed:
Some say if a person wants to leave the party they belonged to when elected,they should sit as an independent for some specified period of time.
yet, i have heard the V-K constituents say they elected a liberal, and they want a liberal in the house. so what is solved by this measure? I would assume an independent is not considered a liberal.
If you follow this arguement to its logical conclusion, why even have elected reps? just vote the party and take what you get. The election could consist of the party platform published in a book, which the population would vote on.
Look at the money we would save.
I have yet to hear anyone explain how a back bencher is preferable to a cabinet minister as your representative. This measure of course would deprive the country of the services of a very capable minister.
Once elected, i would suppose that it would be objectionable for an mp to vote other than the party line. If not, why not? If the vote is for the party, why would you allow an MP to vote anything other than the party line? I wonder how many by-elections we would be having under the new legislation.
The only legislation that makes sense is to make it illegal to cross the floor. Period.
I wonder what our world would look like if we and the British had that law years ago.
On the flip side, i guess we would have had a Conservative government a year ago.
Whatever the proposed legislation turns out to be, i hope it gets soundly defeated.
We have got to turn our attention to what is best for the country, and forget all the bullshit.
I support Mr Harper AND Mr Emerson 100%, and wish them godspeed in trying to make some sense out of the serious issues facing them.
Lee, you said:
“yet, i have heard the V-K constituents say they elected a liberal, and they want a liberal in the house”
You have heard a very vocal ‘sour grapes’ bunch from V-K expressing their displeasure which is their right in our country. Do they represent a majority? We don’t know that. My experience in Canada is that it is often the minority that yells the loudest. If there were a by-election held tomorrow in V-K I bet Emmerson would win it again. In the end the people in the riding may well decide that as Emmerson did, that their needs are best served from within Cabinet. If they really feel that they want to vote him out, he has promised that they will get that opportunity next election.
I wonder where were their outcries and outrage when Belinduh crossed. Were not the people in her riding “disenfranchised”? It is hypocritical at best to cheer Belinduh and Boo Minister Emmerson. I am thinking that there are many people who voted for Minister Emmerson because he was a cabinet minister. Most people who voted Liberal in the last election did so while plugging their noses and closing their eyes and ears. Minister Emmerson will be re-elected when he faces his constituents next time. They will be singing a new tune when a new softwood lumber deal is inked. Let us get on with changing this country and not let the opposition or the media set the agenda!
Daniel
Emerson and Harper clean.
Well of course, otherwise Shapiro would have to show why Churchill was not flung into the dungeon.
Shapiro dirty!…very dirty!
Didn’t notice any smelly ethics under Chretien or Paulie?? Miraculous!
Maybe he was away on 800 days of business in deluxe Cancun resort?
Saw an expose of some major corporate scam artist on TV today. Where did he squirrel away cash and a oluxury estate home?
Why Turks and Cacaos of course. Liberal retreat of choice. TG
My last word on this.
Shapiro doesn’t have to be asked to begin an investigation.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/standingorders/appa1-e.htm
27(4) The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative, and on giving the Member concerned reasonable written notice, conduct an inquiry to determine whether the Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code.
Let’s try reading the section as a whole, shall we, instead of cherry-picking pieces of it out of context?
****************************
27.(1) A Member who has reasonable grounds to believe that another Member has not complied with his or her obligations under this Code may request that the Ethics Commissioner conduct an inquiry into the matter.
(2) The request shall be in writing and shall identify the alleged non-compliance with this Code and set out the reasonable grounds for the belief that it has not been complied with.
(3) The House may, by way of resolution, direct the Ethics Commissioner to conduct an inquiry to determine whether a Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code.
(4) The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative, and on giving the Member concerned reasonable written notice, conduct an inquiry to determine whether the Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code.
(5) Once a request for an inquiry has been made to the Ethics Commissioner, Members should respect the process established by this Code and permit it to take place without commenting further on the matter.
(6) If the Ethics Commissioner is of the opinion that a request for an inquiry is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith, or that there are no or insufficient grounds to warrant an inquiry or the continuation of an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall so state in dismissing the request. The Ethics Commissioner shall report the dismissal in accordance with section 28 and may recommend that further action be considered against the Member who made the request.
(7) The Ethics Commissioner is to conduct an inquiry in private and with due dispatch, provided that at all appropriate stages throughout the inquiry the Ethics Commissioner shall give the Member reasonable opportunity to be present and to make representations to the Ethics Commissioner in writing or in person by counsel or by any other representative.
(8) Members shall cooperate with the Ethics Commissioner with respect to any inquiry.
***********************
Once a Member has laid a complaint, there are three ways that it can be acted upon. First, the House may direct the Commissioner to investigate. Secondly, the Commissioner may investigate the complaint on his own initiative. Thirdly, the Commissioner may determine that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious, and refuse to launch an investigation.
The Section as a whole makes it clear that the entire process is complaint-driven. Nowhere in this Section, nor elsewhere in the Code, do the Commissioner’s powers extend to poking around when he feels like it.
Dr.Dawg:
Read Section (4) of your post.lol
Lee:
Read my entire post. LOL
In the can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees department we have the comment about “sour grapes in V-K”. This is sour grapes? You vote for a liberal candidate and you get a conservative cabinet minister?
Your most basic civil right is removed and you protest and this is “sour grapes”. Like I said, we have not heard the end of the protest in V-K.
John Daly – Like I said, we have not heard the end of the protest in V-K.
You know what – I believe you – I saw one of the “professional” protestors on TV this morning. I guess out in Granola land where it is pretty easy to “hire” protestors this issue will be kept alive by the Dippers who feel slighted that they didn’t get the riding vote and are going to call on their “professional” protestors to keep this story alive – the only thing is that it is starting to look like what it is – sour grapes – get on with life people – oh, right – I forgot – protesting is your life.
John Daly,
“You vote for a liberal candidate and you get a conservative cabinet minister?”
Isn’t politics wonderful and as the saying goes “makes for some pretty strange bedfellows (and bedfellowesses).
It will remain sour grapes until we go to the poles next. The ethics commissioner has ruled…let it die. We have far more important things to do. Give your head a shake…Perhaps there are many that voted for Minister Emmerson and got Minister Emmerson. He would win again! Stop the whining.
Daniel
More “democratic fecifit” … there oughta be a law against it
… & Harper is ample girff tooo, so let Paul Who respomd to that & Jeancula, too
jesus chriss is a canadian
http://www.lecornichon.qc.ca/journal/journal.html
voyez jeanchretien as passion chriss
you tink arpere is harassed, eh
what you say, Jean?
Tories Will Allow free Vote on Bill to Prevent MPs from Switching Parties
The Conservative government is willing to allow a free vote on any potential law to block floor-crossing by parliamentarians, says a Tory MP. +
via nealenews
Help!!!! Shapiro, get a report out ASAP on the
ethics of saying: No, No, No, No, No, No,… No.
At last, a government that will say: No. No more taxes. Down with taxes: yes.
Strahl is a hero; a pol with guts to say No to taxes. +
No new farm aid: Strahl
Angela Hall, Leader-Post
Published: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
There aren’t any current plans to dole out more emergency farm aid to producers for spring seeding, federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said Monday at the close of his first meeting with his provincial counterparts.
“There are no plans for another ad hoc program from the federal perspective,” Strahl said from Harrison Hot Springs, B.C.
“There are ideas being tossed about, about how we can help and help soon … but I have no authority nor was there broad discussion about the desirability of another broad, ad hoc program,” said Strahl, who pointed to the fact the Tories have yet to unveil and pass a budget. “I’m sure if the feds just want to trot out a bunch of money, that provinces won’t mind but that’s just not in the cards.” +
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=61d2deac-ef06-4951-9099-00aef9c52c7b&k=15599
Maz2
Thanks for the post. I always enjoy your insights and sources…even though sometimes I have a hard time following them!
Did the Tory MP clear this announcement through the PMO? Just kidding!!
I think that floor crossing should continue to be allowed as much as it stinks at the time in many cases. For example:
Suppose that one, two or several MP’s from a party cannot any longer condone the actions of their leader or party because of corrupt or deceitful practices… the Liberals became a case in point. If that M.P. or those M.P’s feel that they need to cross because of conscience sake or to better represent the voice of their constituents, then they should have the freedom to do so. It is the strongest message that they have the ability to send their (former) party. The option would be, I suppose that they sit as independents until their constituents get a chance to vote but I favor allowing them to cross if they feel they need to.
Daniel
DrDawg isn’t the cleverest dawg in the kennel, he further opines;
Once a Member has laid a complaint, there are three ways that it can be acted upon…Secondly, the Commissioner may investigate the complaint on his own initiative.
If a complaint were the first step in an inquiry it couldn’t be said that the Ethics Commish could conduct an inquiry upon his own initiative.
To take the initiative is to take the first step.
Daniel: Yes, the system of Party Whips in the Canadian Parliament, both Commons & Senate, has gone too far. MP’s must have freedom of conscience.
Abolish Party Whips; the word “whips” is odious in itself & bespeaks of contempt for the Member.
Of course, the Executive, known as the Cabinet, has the privilege of maintaining their discipline. Harper knows this as evidenced by his laying down the law to the Cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister; number one,numero uno, headman, the honcho, the “Man”.
In addition, MP’s should be free to cross their Party & suffer the consequences given to them by the electorate as a result of an election.
Lost in the mist is the fact that when an MP is elected, the MP becomes a member of the Parliament of Canada; the whole of Canada; all of Canada; the interest(s) of Canada is their concern; the interest of their local riding is secondary. G. Turner’s choice is for his own ego-flatulence.
By all means, allow the MP to walk/cross the floor/ & etc. No laws about this, please. However, the Commons can decide this in a free vote as suggested.
Notice that the Bloc speaks for Quebec only; the voters of Quebec opt for this; others across Canada must accept this fact.
Harper, in his appeal to Quebec voters, will outflank the Bloc; the West is now “in”.
Ontario is squeezed; TO is now the land of the Liberal Party; the Liberal Party is now the Party of Toronto; so be it.
Look westward, the land is bright.
As seen from Ontario.
Maz2
it seems to me that on election night there were many surprises. The biggest surprise to some (including me) was how competative we were in Quebec. I have been thinking since the election that cracks may appear in the “Bloc” and wonder if constituent pressure may help some of the “softer-separatists” to cross to the Conservatives in order to give Quebec a louder voice in the “expanding tent” of the Tory party. Have you any insights into this or heard anything along these lines. It seems that if there are any more “crossers” from any party, we may find out the first day Parliament begins. Any thoughts?
Daniel
If a complaint were the first step in an inquiry it couldn’t be said that the Ethics Commish could conduct an inquiry upon his own initiative.
To take the initiative is to take the first step.
It appears that you do not know how to read legislation.
Section 27 is one section. It begins by setting out the procedure for laying a complaint. It goes on to specify how this may be acted upon. If the Commissioner had extraordinary powers to poke about in the absence of a complaint, this would have required another Section.
You simply can’t cherry-pick in this fashion. You have to read the section in its entirety. 27(5), for example, continues the theme of the complaints-driven process. Surely you wouldn’t want to read into 27(5) that Members can obstruct the Commissioner at will if he acts on his own initiative absent a complaint, something that you claim he can do under 27(4)? Well, Hoss, maybe you would, at that.
DeputyDawg excitedly yaps;
Section 27 is one section. It begins by setting out the procedure for laying a complaint.
No, section 27 begins with subsection 1 and 2, which sets the procedure for laying a complaint.
Subsection 3 addresses yet another procedure, a House resolution.
Surely you wouldn’t want to read into 27(5) that Members can obstruct the Commissioner at will if he acts on his own initiative absent a complaint…
That’s addressed in subsection 8.
Ol Hoss, i think your right. Heres how i sewe it:\
a) a member can………….
b) The house can…………
c) The commissioner can………….
Sry about the spelling. Is it happy hour yet?
Daniel: Have you read this by Larry Zolf? Paul Who is sliced/diced. Will have more later, either here or on another appropriate thread, if one comes out. +
LARRY ZOLF:
Martin’s painful legacy
CBC News Viewpoint | March 21, 2006 |
…
It’s not just Afghanistan: all of the problems that the Liberal Party of Canada faces today stem from the inept decisions made by Martin and his private retinue of pollsters and advisers.
Look at Quebec, where Chr�tien’s francophone machine long ran the Bloc Qu�b�cois a close second at the polls. Martin destroyed that Liberal machine. The federal Liberal party now ranks third in the province.
Martin’s main weakness as a Liberal leader was his profound ignorance of Quebec. Had he left his predecessor alone, Chr�tien could have handled the sponsorship scandal easily. Chr�tien would have simply called in the Mounties, who would have roped in the few Liberals who were ripping off the Liberal party.
But Martin instead went for the Gomery inquiry, which made it look as though the Liberals had tried to buy Quebec off with its own money. The Gomery inquiry infuriated people in the province and left the Liberals without a francophone base there.
Martin’s choice of Jean Lapierre as Quebec lieutenant was particularly disastrous. Chr�tien at least knew Quebec. Martin, on the other hand, is an Anglophone shipping tycoon and Lapierre is a radio jock with no real understanding of Quebec and its needs.
Given the Gomery revelations, there was no way Martin and Lapierre could build a brand new Quebec Liberal party. It was Martin’s folly to believe he could do just that.
Martin also blew the national unity file when he argued that it was strictly a two-way fight between he and Bloc Qu�b�cois Leader Gilles Duceppe.
This so angered Liberal Premier Jean Charest that he loaned his powerful Quebec machine to Harper, who went on to win 10 Quebec seats and a minority government.
Harper now has a base in Quebec to make the province as solidly Tory as it once was Liberal.
Meanwhile, that lack of a Quebec base leaves the Liberals unable to recover and win a parliamentary majority in Parliament. It also makes the party’s Ontario base vulnerable.
But there’s more. >>> +
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20060321.html
via nealenews.com
Yeah, Like I said elsewhere.. Buzz off Jack, and keep your NDP agents away from the front of Emerson*s office. TG
A small point to concede to Ol’ Hoss: Section 8 would certainly take care of obstruction of the Commissioner’s alleged power to initiate a complaint on his own.
But the Commissioner has no such power. The process, I repeat, is complaints-driven. You have to read the Section as a whole, as I said, and not read into it powers that are not there.
You can lead a Hoss to water, but you cannot make him think.
That’s “initiate an inquiry on his own.”
Hey Dawg,
“…a request for an inquiry can be made by a Member of the House of Commons who has reasonable grounds to believe that another Member has not complied with his or her obligations under the Members� Code…AS WELL, Subsection 27 (4) of the Members� Code allows the Ethics Commissioner, on HIS OWN INITIATIVE, and on giving the Member concerned reasonable written notice, to conduct an inquiry to determine whether the Member has complied with his or her obligations under the Members� Code.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/media/inquiry_reports/reports/Harper_Emerson/Harper_Inquiry.asp
Daniel
Extra! Extra! Dog Eats Crow!
You people seem to be in the right on this one. I had already sent an enquiry to the OEC to ask for their interpretation. No point waiting for that now: Daniel’s reference settles the matter.
Mea culpa. Even the best of canines can’t always find the damned bone. Which is too bad, because this here bird tastes kind of stale.
Hey Dawg,
Strip all them black feathers off first…they just give one more reason to choke. The crow will go down easier that way!
Have a great Day… You too Ol’ Hoss
Daniel
You people seem to be in the right on this one.
What a surprise, the right is right;)
usually is hoss.