Monday, February 04, 2008

Does integrity matter to the Ethics Committee?

Should Pablo Rodriguez be questioned by the Ethics Committee about alleged lies concerning questions that he asked during the recent Mulroney-Schreiber House Ethics Committee probe?

CBC has pretty much contradicted his story, and Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro wants the truth to come out. He has introduced a motion to call Mr. Rodriguez as a witness in order for him to "admit that he lied." (Hill Times via National Newswatch)

The opposition will likely vote down this motion as CTV's Graham Richardson noted last week (concerning Del Mastro's desire to have Mike Duffy appear as a witness regarding Jay Epworth's alleged conversation confirming that "yes, they did receive questions from CBC and those were the questions that Pablo Rodriguez did, in fact, ask" - H.T.)


The Hill Times article quotes NDP MP Pat Martin as not considering this to be a relevant issue:

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) told The Hill Times last week that "there´s no appetite from anybody other than a few other Conservatives so we won´t be dealing with that issue if I have anything to do with it."


So one would assume that the opposition feels that it is not necessary to question the integrity of of those involved in the Ethics Committee probe. Mr. Martin does however have some concerns about Roger Thibeault having dinner with Schreiber, citing it as an issue of bad optics.

He said although Mr. Thibault is "free to have dinner with whoever he wants," the public perception is not good. He said he doesn´t return Mr. Schreiber´s calls for this reason. "I think we have to remain objective and deal with testimony as presented in an unbiased way," Mr. Martin said.

So it would seem that the issue for Pat Martin is the appearance of ethics and integrity, rather than the real thing.


What a sham. No wonder Canadians are cynical about politicians.

16 comments:

Alberta Girl said...

Once again - all together now!!

If the conservatives had been the ones to attempt to derail this committee we would be having an "ethics" committee hearing of the "ethics" committee hearing by now!

Hypocrasy from the Liberals, the NDP and the MSM at it's best!

I guess the definition of "ethics" is different if you are on the left side of the political spectrum?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really believe that the Ethics Committee is about Ethics, or that its reasonable to expect ethical behaviour from the opposition? The primary purpose of the Ethics Committee is to find ways to paint the government as evil without the "limited" controls of parliament, and without the risk of libel/slander actions.

Swift said...

Perhaps Del Mastro should add a few more names to his motion, some from the CBC who investigated the allegations, Krista Erikson herself, and also the second MP that was involved in the scheme. The committee may not have to look very far to find the second MP,if the blackrod.blogspot.com is correct.

wilson said...

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics,
unless I am blind (as my kids often insist) Lib MP Rodriguez is not on the list of members, nor associate members.

Why was a non-member allowed to be substituted for a member?
The list of assoc members is VERY long.

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=392&JNT=0&SELID=e7_&COM=0#13184

fh said...

this Ethics committee is a travesty

it should be shut down and the public inquiry should look into these concerns

as a Canadian I feel that the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney has been investigated many times and found Not Guilty

every objection by the Government party is voted down by the oppoisition parties at this so called Ethics Committee every suggestion for calling a witness by the Government party is voted down by the opposition

this is a linch Mob

the sooner it is shut down the better

the Government asked for committees to form together and have witnesses called to work out the best direction for the most important mission that Canada has undertaken in the war against Terror a mission sanctioned by the UN and lead by NATO
The Opposition refused

Why?

they are too busy investigating the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney

The Liberal Party sanctioned Canada's role in this mission it is they that will have egg on their faces if it fails

Anonymous said...

The ethics committee in its current form is playing out to be nothing by a place where the bias of the opposition can be flaunted.

There's nothing factual or fact-finding about what we've seen so far.

Rather than appear before the ethics committee, haul his sorry ass before the courts.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Harper will take care of the whole mess when he decides what shape the "inquiry" will take.

I do believe that perhaps a review of all media and interference would do the trick.

maryT said...

The hearings start again tomorrow and unhappy Pat Martin was again giving his opinion on cbc. But, he made a strange stmt-something like, perhaps the money Norman is talking about was money legitimately raised by conservatives to augment PM Brian's salary.
He did not use his usually angry tone that implicates someone is lying.
What was that all about. He also said that Brian has the right to appear at the end of Feb to rebut any testimony against him.
No decision yet on whether the committee would issue a warrant to make him appear.

Anonymous said...

Pat Martin a very different person when he doesn't have parliamentary immunity.

liberal supporter said...

Pat Martin a very different person when he doesn't have parliamentary immunity.
As are you, "anonymous"!

Möbius said...

As are you, "anonymous"!

Signing with a name is a convenience and a courtesy to all, so we know which "Anonymous" is which.

It doesn't make you any more identifiable or responsible for your remarks.

liberal supporter said...

Signing with a name is a convenience and a courtesy to all, so we know which "Anonymous" is which.

It doesn't make you any more identifiable or responsible for your remarks.

Of course not, but it sure was funny watching an "anonymous" moaning about a public figure exercising the right to the same kind of ability to speak freely that they were using.

And yes, it is discourteous when someone can't be bothered linking their remarks to their past remarks. Sometimes it means people simply look at who you commented as, and react to that instead of what you said, but that kind of prejudice is nothing new.

OMMAG said...

Pat Martin eh?
What a piece of work .... as a Winnipegger let me say that I am mortified at having him represent our city in parliament even if he is not from my riding he is an embarrassment.

And Oh gee whizz another lecture from the supporter of thieves and incompetents too! Isn't that precious?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I find it embarrassing to have Karen Redman representing our city so we're even. When I have to watch her during QP... *Sigh*

Anonymous said...

Do you people not pay attention? Del Mastro is an idiot. It's obviously a diversion tactic. He should be careful as to what he's doing becuase ALL the media can name names of Conservative MP's who do the same thing.

He'd be better off to let this one go.

This Del Mastro is such an embarrassment.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow. Talk about shooting the messenger!