The Commons: There but for the grace of God go us

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 7:45 PM - 160 Comments

Stephen Harper stood this afternoon before a room of past and present cabinet ministers, current and former members of parliament, power-brokers, diplomats, hangers-on and swells—the size of the crowd woefully overwhelming Parliament’s air conditioning system on a truly sweltering day in the capital—and toasted the career of Jean Chrétien, the man who once seemed to epitomize everything Mr. Harper campaigned to change, everything that was wrong with this place, everything that brought Mr. Harper to office four and a half years ago.

Mr. Harper spoke of a “great Parliamentarian” and a “great leader” and his “long and successful service to Canada.” “For this passion and dedication, Jean Chrétien deserves our admiration and our thanks,” Mr. Harper said. “And he deserves to look back on his record of service to our country with pride and satisfaction.”

And then Mr. Harper said this. “Partisan differences are a healthy and necessary part of our political culture and process. But on an occasion such as this, we remember that they are transcended by a deep, enduring consensus, a shared understanding that our freedom rests also on the limitations imposed on those partisan differences by our constitutional traditions and the rule of law.”

Perhaps it was just the heat, but these words seemed heavy. Continue…

For those about to flout

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 8:45 AM - 99 Comments

The government’s attempt to improvise a new limit on the Westminster system will have its first test this morning when the Prime Minister’s director of communications is scheduled to testify at the ethics committee. Once again, as in the matter of Parliament’s demand to see documents related to Afghan detainees, there is the small matter of the actual laws of this land.

If you should be so curious, the power of Parliament to “send for persons” is explained in chapter 20 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. A committee of Parliament can issue a summons to any individual, ordering their attendance at a specific time and place. Only the Queen, the Governor-General, provincial lieutenant-governors, members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures and individuals not residing in Canada are, in practice, granted immunity from such a summons.

Those who are rightfully summoned, but fail to appear can be disciplined by the House—Parliament’s powers in this regard explained in chapter 3 of second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Chapter 3 includes a subsection entitled “taking individuals into custody and imprisonment,” which reads, rather seriously, as follows. Continue…

If only we could do away with Parliament entirely

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM - 161 Comments

The government is once more displeased with this democracy it must function within.

The Conservative cabinet has decided to ban its political staffers from appearing as witnesses before committees, setting up a new standoff between the government and opposition MPs just days after resolving the dispute over Afghan detainee documents … “Ministers are the ones who are accountable and answer to Parliament,” said Mr. Soudas, adding that a “government-wide” policy on the issue will be laid out on Tuesday.

As Kady O’Malley notes, this can only mean the Prime Minister will be showing up Tuesday to testify at the ethics committee in Mr. Soudas’ place. And once there, he might be asked when precisely between May 2004 and today did he decide it was not necessary for Parliament to hear from all requested witnesses, and whether senior ministers such as Jason Kenney and Peter MacKay agree with him now.

Gavel, gavel, who gets the gavel? – Liveblogging the Ethics committee

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 8:45 AM - 5 Comments

That’s right, it’s time for one of ITQ’s very favourite rituals: election of committee chairs — that time-honoured tradition that is currently underway in meeting rooms across the precinct, which means she has to be a wee bit selective in deciding which ones to cover.

So, why did Ethics make the cut? Well, because there’s a rumour afoot of a plot to oust the incumbent chair, Paul Szabo, which means that this morning’s get-together could involve more than the usual pro forma vote to re-elect. Oh, and what with the latest controversy over ministerial fundraising by certain Toronto crown corporations, it might be fun to find out what will be on the committee agenda this fall. Anyway, check back at 9am for full coverage.

Yay! Committees are back! This is totally more fun than having an election.
8:55:13 AM
Greetings, fans of seemingly routine business with the potential to careen wildly off the rails! In mere minutes, the (re)inaugural meeting of one of ITQ’s perennial favourite committees will get underway, which is why she’s staked out a front row seat in the Railway Room. Not that there was much competition, mind you — so few of her gallery colleagues appreciate the subtle intrigue of a good old-fashioned chair wrangling.

Up for the government today, we have most of the usual suspects from the last iteration of this particular committee: Bob Dechert, Pierre Poilievre, Greg Rickford and Patricia Davidson. On the other side of the table, Paul Szabo — who doesn’t get to take his usual seat until and unless reelected — as well as Borys W., and Sukh Dhaliwal; Carole Freeman and Luc Desnoyers on Team Bloc Quebecois, and Bill Siksay as the lone representative for the NDP.

It’s all smiles at the moment — lots of intracaucus fraternizing going on – although the aura around the Liberal contingent has a distinctly glummer hue.

Does anyone else remember Murder at Midnight — one of those characteristically grisly game that was a staple of the now-known-as-tween year sleepover? That’s how I imagine the Liberal caucus right now — suspicious and stuck in the dark.
Continue…

Watching them watching you: Liveblogging Google at the ATI, Ethics and Privacy Committee

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM - 10 Comments

It’s going to be tough, but  ITQ will do her best to restrain her giddy fangirlishness when representatives from Google — well, Google Canada, but still –  take the witness stand during this afternoon’s hearing on privacy implications of camera surveillance. Also appearing: Canpages, Inc, which relies on traffic cams to provide directions and traffic reports.

3:21:09 PM
Good afternoon, Googlephiles/phobes! We’re running a bit late this afternoon – well, the MPs are, at least, due to a trio of votes that will probably take at least a half hour to get through; ITQ was, of course, here at the crack of 3:15pm. It turns out I’m not the only one drawn like a bug to a zapper to this particular hearing — there are at least three TV crews here, and the one witness – Olivier Vincent from CanPages – already present is willingly submitting to the scrum — he already has not one but two flatscreens hooked up to his laptops and was doing his best to explain how his company is *not* being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner — the two are simply “in discussions” over the company’s use of realtime street-level shots.

3:33:22 PM
The Googlers are here! The Googlers are here! They look so — normal. How disappointing. Only one of the three is actually slated to testify, according to the notice — Jonathan Lister. He, oddly, doesn’t seem to have a laptop, although he is armed with a bright red binder.

3:39:29 PM
Man, I’d forgotten how long it’s been since I’ve covered Ethics — I nearly didn’t recognize Pierre Poilievre when he scampered over to present himself — or allow himself to be presented to — the witnesses.
The vote is over, apparently, so the MPs should start trickling in soon; the NDP’s Bill Siksay is already here, as is the Bloc’s Richard Nadeau.

Continue…

UPDATED: Ethics to Oliphant Commission: Past committee testimony? Sorry, that's privileged.

By kadyomalley - Friday, March 13, 2009 at 9:21 AM - 2 Comments

From the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (March 12, 2009):

[...]Given the principle of parliamentary privilege is enshrined in Section 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, Section 18 of the Constitution Act 1867, and Section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act;

Given that witnesses who appeared before the Committee were given assurances that any proceedings would be protected by parliamentary privilege, thereby prohibiting the use of testimony in any proceeding outside of the House of Commons;

And given that the Senior Counsel, Nancy Brooks, on behalf of the Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney has requested, by a letter dated March 6th, 2009, leave of the House of Commons to refer in Commission proceedings to testimony that was given before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as reported on by the Committee in its report of April, 2008;

The House moves that the privileges, powers and immunities of the House of Commons, as provided by section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, include freedom of speech and debate as set out, among other places, in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689, which provides “that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”;

That the privileges, immunities and proceedings and all evidence, submissions and testimony by all persons participating in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics continue to be protected by all the privileges and immunities of this House, as mentioned in the Fourteenth Report (38th Parliament, 1st Session) of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted by the House of Commons on November 18, 2004.

That this privilege prohibits, in a court of law or other proceeding, the tendering or receipt of evidence by way of direct evidence, cross-examination or submissions, of questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made in a parliamentary proceeding;

And that the House of Commons’ privilege of freedom of speech and debate precludes receipt of such transcripts by any other proceeding, including a commission of inquiry, for such purposes [...].

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the committee really had a choice in this situation — not if they wanted to ensure that parliamentary privilege would be preserved for future inquiries  — like, say, the In and Out investigation, which should be back underway within the next few months.  (I guess in theory, the House could reject the report, but I don’t see that happening.)

UPDATE: At the risk of sending certain colleagues into a paroxysm of rage, here’s a post from the ITQ archives that looks at why the committee’s decision to affirm privilege  may be welcomed by some witnesses, who will now not face the prospect of being confronted by past testimony when appearing before the Oliphant Commission.

Federal Accountability Act, this is your life! – Liveblogging the Conflict of Interest and Lobbying Commissioners at Ethics

By kadyomalley - Monday, March 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM - 3 Comments

Hearken back for a moment to those idealistic days of yore when a steely-eyed leader of the opposition promised that, if elected, his government would “undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government” and “introduc[e] sweeping reforms to make Ottawa accountable’. He also issued a stark warning to party supporters seeking to use politics as a “stepping stone” to a career in lobbying:

“Make no mistake. If there are MPs in the room who want to use public office for their own benefit, if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich trying to lobby a future Conservative government, if that’s true of any of you, you had better make different plans.  Or leave.”

So, how’d all that work out? To find out, tune into ITQ’s coverage of the Ethics committee this afternoon, where Conflict of Interest Commissioner Mary Dawson and (interim) Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd will deliver back to back briefings on how well those sweeping reforms made the leap from campaign rhetoric to regulatory reality.

3:13:57 PM
Hurray! After last week’s unceremonious exile to the wilds of West Block, we’re back in Centr Block this afternoon; I’m not sure if that means the scheduling gnomes at committee headquarters have an inkling that this meeting might attract more media attention or if it’s just randomized room selection, but ITQ is certainly not complaining.

3:27:42 PM
While we wait for the tap of the gavel, a quick roll call. On the government side, we have Brad Trost, Russ Hiebert, Maurice Vellacott, Earl Dreeshan and Bob Dechert. Meanwhile, on Team Opposition, it’s Borys W., Michelle Simson, Eve Marie Thi Lac, Louis Plamandon and Bill Siksay.

Wait, there’s Pierre Poilievre! Now it’s a party!

3:32:35 PM
Yes, it’s distinctly possible that I am way too happy to see Poilievre take a seat at the table.

Continue…

Breaking News: It's back! Ethics committee to resume investigation into In and Out

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 5:32 PM - 24 Comments

As passed by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics earlier today (full liveblog available here):

“That the Committee resume the study it began during the Second Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament regarding the Conservative Party’s election campaign expenses during the 2005-2006 election campaign; that it deem the hearings held during that Parliament to have been held during the Second Session of the Fortieth Parliament; that the Committee issue btices to appear of all witnesses who did not appear during the study; and that it report its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.”

Is this the end of the New New New Spirit of Nonpartisan Cooperation?

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM - 17 Comments

Well, I guess it depends on whether or not Bloc Quebecois MP Carole Freeman goes ahead with her plan to introduce a motion to relaunch the investigation into the In and Out Affair, doesn’t it?  Even if she does, she’ll need the support of all six opposition MPs – including the chair, who would have to break the tie – to outvote the government.

3:11:23 PM
Okay, I just wanted to note that I believe this may be the earliest that ITQ has ever turned up at committee, but after the near-riot at Natural Resources yesterday afternoon, I decided to take no chances, which is why I am currently watching rather bemused Commons staffers fill water glasses and arrange the various nameplates. We’re in a different room today, as it turns out – the NDP caucus room, to be precise, which is why there are framed vintage campaign posters and portraits of former leaders lining the walls. People before profits, y’all!

3:23:40 PM
Wow, Nina Grewal is apparently subbing for the Conservatives. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her at Ethics before, although in fairness, I’ve also missed the last few meetings. Maybe we’ve just been missing each other.

3:28:59 PM
Hmm – everyone seems to be here but Bill Siksay. Odd. Not that it will matter until later in the meeting, since I have a feeling there may just be one or two MPs who want to speak to the motion before it goes to a vote.

3:32:42 PM

Continue…

Everyone has something to hide: Liveblogging the Privacy Commissioner at the Ethics committee

By kadyomalley - Monday, February 23, 2009 at 3:02 PM - 9 Comments

ITQ POSTMEETING MICRO RECAP:

Thanks to the miracle of liveblogging technology, you can pinpoint the exact second when the penny dropped for ITQ on what was actually going on during yesterday’s Ethics meeting:

5:15:54 PM
OMG, YOU GUYS – I AM AN IDIOT. I assumed – and yes, I don’t need to hear the joke – that the [Carole] Freeman motion had something to do with Access to Information, because that’s what she moved last time the committee met, but it doesn’t – not at all. She wants the committee to pick up where it left off with Camp In and Out last summer, and she has the support of the Liberals and maybe the NDP, which is why the government members are dragging this meeting out to the bitter end — so she can’t table the motion until the next meeting.

Read on for the full report.

Continue…

Things just won't be the same without David Tilson: Liveblogging the Ethics committee

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM - 20 Comments

Come for the chair election, stay for the routine motions!

3:21:19 PM
Calling all Ethics committee aficianados: It’s back! We’re back, in fact – back in the same third floor West Block committee room where, as I just this moment realized, ITQ spent the very last official moments of the 39th Parliament during last June’s filibustered – and eventually filibusted – hearings on the proposal to hold what would eventually become known as Camp In and Out (ITQ liveblogs passim and exhaustem).

We’ve lost a few members – not only the Cranky One, but Voice of Sanity Carole Lavallee, who is now on Canadian Heritage, the always unpredictable and never boring Pat Martin – gone to Government Operations – and more. At least we’ve still got Russ Hiebert and Pierre Poilievre. Otherwise, it wouldn’t feel like Ethics at all.

Oh, and Paul Szabo as chair, of course. I thought that was understood.

Continue…

Patrick Muttart speaks!

By kadyomalley - Friday, August 15, 2008 at 8:45 AM - 0 Comments

Well, not directly, but still. Sadly for the Sparrow – and more sadly still, I’m sure, for Patrick Muttart and the Conservative Party – as of this morning, not a word of this statement appears to have found its way into the post-hearing coverage, which really isn’t all that surprising, considering how late it went out:

From: “Ryan Sparrow”
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:41:57 -0400
To: undisclosed-recipients

Subject: Statement from the Conservative Party


Media reports today suggest that Patrick Muttart organized and administered regional media buys for the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 federal election. This is false.
Continue…

Liveblogging the Ethics committee – Day Four, Part Two: Have the Goldsteins stopped screaming, Clarice?

By kadyomalley - Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM - 0 Comments

3:32:28 PM
You know, it’s amazing how a former candidate holding a screem in the middle of a committee room can reenergize a hearing. Spirits are high – at least, in every part of the room except Conservative Corner.

Dean del Mastro unwisely takes a shot at Pat Martin before the meeting gets underway: “Are you going to attack that witness too?” He asks, pointing at poor. Francois Bernier. “Are there any lunatics left in the room?” Martin shoots back, which cracks up the audience.

Sam Goldstein’s webmaster, by the way, might be somewhat surprised by the sudden upswing in hits this afternoon, as opposition staffers have been merrily passing out printouts of the site. Our working theory now: He resolves stress for his clients by absorbing it all himself, and releasing it, all at once, at parliamentary committees. It’s like the Arc of the Covenant, but with demands for payment upfront.

Continue…

Liveblogging the post-Ethics committee ad hoc screaming scrum of one Sam Goldstein

By kadyomalley - Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 2:17 PM - 0 Comments

Yeah, so normally, this would be the time in which the ITQ liveblogger takes a few well-deserved minutes to rest her fingers and partake of sandwich-like substenance, but thanks to Sam Goldstein, that’s going to have to wait, because nothing – nothing – could compete with what happened after the gavel dropped on the morning session.

A brief recap, for those who missed the morning festivities: Goldstein, formerly the Conservative candidate in York South Weston Trinity Spadina, who was one of the no-show witnesses from Tuesday’s session, turned up this morning in true Doug Finleyian fashion, demanding to be heard, despite the fact that he wasn’t on the schedule. Literally demanding – as in, yelling from his seat in the audience, after unsuccessfully attempting to buttonhole the chair during the opening moments of the meeting. Instead, the committee voted to hear him after the committee had finished with the witnesses who were on the schedule – the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the Chief Electoral Officer. It quickly became apparent, however, was not what he – or the government – had in mind. They had visions of him being hauled out by security – again, in instant classic Finley style – to a waiting scrum, which would have nicely stomped on any coverage of the hearing itself, and would – in the minds of whoever came up with this stunt, that is – underscore the Conservative claim that the committee is a farce, a debacle and a partisan witchhunt, all wrapped up in jackboots with a kangaroo fur hat.

Throughout the morning session, which dragged on for nearly four hours, Goldstein sat petulantly, accompanied by an elderly woman who may, or may not have been his mother, occasionally hurling insults at the committee from his seat in the audience, but generally being – well, comparatively well-behaved. Compared, that is, to what he did afterwards.

When the committee began debating whether to bring Mayrand back after the lunch break, however, it apparently pushed him over the brink: He began screaming at the chair, accusing him of making allowances for other witnesses – witnesses who were there, it’s worth noting, on the day that they had been invited to appear. Surrounded by cameras, he went off on a tirade about the committee – or “circus maximus”. In response to questions from stunned reporters, he informed the room that he wouldn’t be back this afternoon – he has a plane to catch, apparently – and demanded that the committee pay his travel expenses before striding purposefully, still yelling, out the back door.

Continue…

Liveblogging the Ethics committee – Day Four, Part One: Camp In and Out packs up the tents … for now. (But not for long.)

By kadyomalley - Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM - 0 Comments

9:54:41 AM
Oyez, oyez, the Court Of Star-Studded Kangaroo Stormtroopers is now in session, and the Head Inquisitor himself is already. scrumming, while an envious Dean Del Mastro looks on.

The session hasn’t actually started yet, but there is already much buzzing and burbling amongst the inmates – that would be us – over what today might bring. Team. Public Prosecution Service are already in place at the table, and Marc Mayrand – of the entirely reasonable accommodation that bears his name – will soon be here, we assume. And all without a single summonses!

Continue…

ITQ Committee Lookahead: Search warrants and Speaker’s warrants

By kadyomalley - Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 8:17 AM - 0 Comments

A quick rundown of the witnesses for the fourth (but not, by any stretch of the imagination, final) hearing on the Conservative in-and-out financing scheme, not one of whom required the chair to issue a summons in order to appear:

Morning session – 10am to 5pm

Public Prosecution Service of Canada Acting Deputy Director Chantal Proulx and senior counsel Don Beardall, who will discuss the role that the office has played thus far during ongoing investigation by Elections Commissioner William Corbett, and outline how an eventual prosecution might proceed, should charges be laid against party officials.

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand and Elections Canada legal services director Francois Bernier are back for a second round  to answer questions on any issues that may have come up since their appearance last month. It might be a very short session – it’s not clear whether there are, in fact, all that many new questions, although the Conservative members will likely hammer the Chief Electoral Officer over the so-called “Mayrand Accommodation”.

Afterwards, it’s time for committee business – selection of future witnesses, scheduling for future meetings. If Pat Martin gets his way, however, it could also lead to discussion over what steps should be taken against those witnesses who failed to show up this week, despite being issued – and in many cases, served – with summonses compelling their appearance. If that happens, expect endless peevish points of order from the government side — possibly even a theatrical walk-out midway through, cleverly timed to capture maximum media attention.

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!)

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM - 0 Comments

3:37:15 PM
I can’t believe Patrick Muttart isn’t here. I just don’t know what to believe in anymore. Oh wait, I can believe that Gary Goodyear has a point of order. That will be my rock.

Continue…

Liveblogging the Ethics committee: Day Three, Part Two, Subsection A: Newfoundland is cranky.

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM - 0 Comments

1:53:02 PM
Ooh! Excitement already, and the meeting hasn’t even begun: Steve Halicki are here, despite ITQ’s grim prognosticatons – which means this is going to be even more exciting than we expected, because last time he spoke out about the in-and-out scheme (which is Perfectly Legal), he defended it vigorously, and sniped at cheapskate local candidates for their parasitic ways.

Continue…

Liveblogging the Ethics committee, Day 3 Part 1 – And now, a word from our sponsors. Or their ad agencies, at least.

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 9:37 AM - 0 Comments

9:48:19 AM
Welcome to Camp In and Out, as it has now been christened by one of my colleagues, where we are currently grumpily assembling in our now established spots in media row. There’s a sense of excitement, since there’s a very good chance that the witnesses scheduled for this morning will actually show up. In fact, I hope it’s not a spoiler to say that they appear to have done just that: a bevy of solemn-suited executives is settling in at the table, and the show is, apparently, going to go on.

Continue…

ITQ Committee Lookahead: But how will all those senior Conservative party officials fit around the table? Oh. Right.

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM - 0 Comments

A quick rundown of the witnesses who may or may not appear during the third day of hearings on the Conservative in-and-out financing, depending on whether or not the party has managed to send out its talking points on time, as, sadly, was not the case with yesterday’s inadvertent star witness, Doug Lowry:

Morning session – 10am to noon

The following witnesses are expected to appear, despite the fact that they did not have to be formally summonsed:

Continue…

(Agent of) Karma MacGregor

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 7:04 AM - 0 Comments

The official agent for a Conservative candidate in Toronto told The Canadian Press yesterday that he and other potential witnesses were told by an organizer for the federal party as late as Monday that they didn’t have to testify at the inquiry if they didn’t want to.

Douglas Lowry said the organizer, whom he named as Carmen McGregor, gave the advice after he and others received summonses from the Commons ethics committee.

“We’ve all been told,” Mr. Lowry said.

[...]

He said he and the other Conservatives were given the advice Monday, adding that Ms. McGregor said it in her capacity as a party official.

“She said it, but she’s from the party. She would contact whoever the executive director is.”

Conservative MP Dean Del Maestro confirmed the party has a Toronto regional organizer named McGregor, but said he believes her first name is Carma not Carmen. Party spokesman Ryan Sparrow did not respond to an e-mail asking for a comment or response from Ms. McGregor. {Tim Naumetz, Canadian Press]

Perhaps The Sparrow was thrown off by the fact that her name is actually Karma MacGregor – not “Carmen” or “Carma” (and many thanks to the reader who alerted ITQ to the name confusion).

Otherwise, he would certainly have had something to say about Lowry’s allegation that a Conservative organizer known as  “Finley’s GSA axe-woman”, according to a local Blogging Tory, was apparently offering somewhat dubious advice to at least one former candidate and future witness as recently as Monday (and whose more recent involvement in a hotly contested Mississauga nomination battle is chronicled here).

Continue…

Liveblogging the Ethics committee – Day 2, Part 2: Now with 200% more witnesses! (Maybe.)

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 1:46 PM - 0 Comments

Background reading:

• Yesterday’s highlights are here and here.
• First part of today’s hearing is here.
• Overview of potential witnesses here

1:57:09 PM
We have witnesses! I repeat, we have witnesses: three of them, in fact: Doug Lowry, David Marler and Geoffrey Webber. Coincidentally, all three are what we like to call Hostiles: two official agents and one former candidate, all of whom have spoken out about the program in the past, and one of whom has filed an affidavit in support of Elections Canada’s contention that the money was spent by the national campaign, not the locals.

Continue…

Liveblogging the Ethics committee Day 2, Part 1: That is, if anyone bothers to show up

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 8:31 AM - 0 Comments

Read yesterday’s highlights here and here

Overview of potential witnesses here.

9:45:29 AM
Welcome to Witness Watch 2008, everyone! As mentioned in the ITQ preview, today’s agenda is somewhat unsettled, to put it nicely, since nobody knows whether any of the scheduled witnesses will actually show up. There’s also the small matter of that letter from the clerk – you know, the one in which he said that one person on the witness list told his staff that the Conservative Party had instructed them not to show up, which the Tories have categorically denied

Continue…

ITQ Committee Lookahead: It’s Schrodinger’s witness list at this point

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 6:47 AM - 0 Comments

A quick rundown of the witnesses who may or may not appear during the second day of hearings on the Conservative in-and-out financing, depending on whether or not they have been told to decline the “invitation”, as has allegedly been the case for at least one potential witness, according to the committee clerk (ITQ will be there, even if the witnesses aren’t):

Continue…