Liveblogging the Ethics committee, Day Three, Part Two, Subsection B: Patrick Muttart. He'll tell us what's what! (Oh, and maybe Doug Finley, too!)

Heather,

Busy here making a halo for Szabo.

St. Szabo for sure. There should be a rule that if you lose control of your own committee you can’t be on anyone else’s. As for del Mastro, does he still thank his mom publicly for not aborting him?

Jared, it’s a blog, not a news report.

Kady, I love you “all to hell” but you need to pick up a dictionary. There is a huge difference between a “subpoena” and a “summons”.

You should clarify that point for your readers. As far as I know the committee has no power to issue a “summons”.

And therefore the reason why they are being ignored.

It’s a minor point but important.

Jared writes: “True, it’s a blog, and I offered my comment.”

Actually Jared, you were calling into question Kady’s objectivity as a journalist according to your standards: “Whatever happened to members of the media at least trying not to show their bias?”

It was an attack, and not a comment on the topic under discussion.

Jarid – some of us on this site watched it – Kady’s telling the truth and for that we can tell Del Mastro that Kady is indeed going to heaven.

Kady, I love you “all to hell” but you need to pick up a dictionary. There is a huge difference between a “subpoena” and a “summons”.

I don’t think this mistake was so bad….I get a little concerned about Wallace being on the Commmittee when he thought he was reading an affidavit……when in fact he was reading a letter…not enough sucking on his earpiece I guess.

Del Mastro – partisan shot each time he speaks – he refers to the “jury” – hey, Dean, you are not in court here – do you know the difference?

Apologies to everyone for not responding to comments until now – I find that by the time the committee winds down, I’m pretty much spent for the rest of the day.

Anyway, I just wanted to note that there is, in fact, a difference between a summons and a subpoena, and I don’t *believe* I’ve referred to the latter when I meant the former – not yet, at least. I will have to crack open my M&M later, but I’d suggest that it is incorrect to suggest that a summons can be ignored at will; committees do exercise the full authority of parliament as far as the production of documents *and* witnesses, so it is not something one can shrug off with abandon.

Also, as far as the antics of the Liberals during Public Accounts – which I also covered, incidentally – I do not believe there were any instances wherein a party official refused a request to appear. If you have an example, please do provide it. Most of the witnesses invited were whistleblowers who *wanted* to testify — Allan Cutler, Miriam Bedard — so there was no issue as far as compelling attendance, but I don’t actually recall any hostile — or reluctant — witnesses outright refusing to appear.

One more day!

The adscam and these hearings are a bit tough to compare vis a vis the actions of the minority government members and witnesses appearing, or not.

But in this instance, perhaps if the Cons had been allowed to call any witnesses, their tone would be a tad less obstructionist.

I second Mud Puppy’s motion (point of “Order”?) re: an Order of Canada for Kady. And I feel remiss in not having nominated Kady for accelerated sainthood along with our supernaturally even-tempered committee chair. So Mr. del Mastro, could you add Kady to the fast-track list please?

“Miracles” have been amply demonstrated in that neither our heroic liveblogger nor our long-suffering-and-soon-to-be-sainted chair have snapped and started hurling furniture, blackberries or epithets across the room in the face of extreme provocation.

Kady, you and your thumbs deserve the thanks of the nation. Hope you’re relaxing with a long cool one on the patio at Hy’s.

Court prothonotary Mireille Tabib set a schedule for the court case, (The Conservatives are suing chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand over his decision to reject $1.2 million in campaign advertising claims made by Tory candidates), that will extend into the fall. She said the case has already been subject to “inordinate delay” and gave the Tories until Aug. 29 to file their final written arguments. Elections Canada must file its response by Oct. 10. The main event – oral arguments before a judge – has yet to be scheduled.

Jared: You say that as if Mr. Goodyear, current chair of the Procedure and House Affairs committee, has not plainly stated that he will not call that committee to order unless any investigation of the in-and-out matter is removed from the agenda.

You say that as if Mr. Goodyear wasn’t already the reason for one committee of our parliament simply not working for several months. The conservatives are being deliberately, purposefully obstructionist, because all the evidence is showing that they’ve broken the law to which the penalty is time in jail.

There’s a reason, after all, that some people shorten the Conservative Party of Canada to the Cons.. because that’s what a good number of them will be soon.

comment by Jarrid on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 10:05 pm:

“…but we’re back with a vengeance tomorrow.”

Yawn.

Jarrid…If you are so bored (*Yawn*) then it makes no sense why you are here with nothing constructive to say.
If I’m bored with something I don’t hang around. I go do something interesting.

You have added nothing interesting, or informative, to the discourse here. Discussion is important to everyone. Differing viewpoints can be done in such a way as to help others get an insight into how others think & perceive & can be enlightening to all around.

But inane & silly remarks, like yours, do not give a good impression of what a Conservative thinks/believes but only reinforces the image, which is a negative one, that has been displayed over & over again by this Con party. Passive, as well as belligerent, offensive attacks seem to be the only way the Cons know how to present themselves to the world. Just one of many other negative traits that are so apparent.

Intelligent discussion is what makes people listen & think. Something you seem to be incapable of doing. That is very sad.