Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Don't forget the "in and out" campaign financing scandal, in which the Conservatives told witnesses not to show up to testify at the parliamentary committee investigating the alleged corruption.
http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...KGY6pc2lEzjLzA
Funny we didn't see a thread on CP about that scandal; you can be damn sure that if it had been the Liberals who had refused to cooperate with an investigating committee, this board would be seething with outrage. |
Dude, are you even aware of this hole sham the oppisition is doing regarding the "in and out" so called scheme?
Lets start with how the media was tipped off by elections Canada about the time and place that a search warrant was conducted. It so happened that only liberal news agencies were tipped off of this event.
Are you aware that all the opposition parties do it? It just so happened that the conservatives had a LOT more money than the other parties last election and the amount is higher than the other parties. All receipts were submitted to elections Canada indicating what the party had done. There was no cover up. The conservative party was expecting all the receipts to be paid out because it was something that had been done by all parties in the past. It just so happened that there was a new Chief Electoral officer who disagreed with the interpretation of the legislation.
Now, as far as this circus of an ethics committee. DO you know why the conservative witnesses didn't show up to the hearing? It was because they were protesting the fact that the conservatives were not allowed to have any of their witnesses called to the hearing. The witnesses that would testify that this process was done in the past by all parties. The conservatives have less members on the committee thus all the opposition members voted against the conservative witnesses.
Tell me, why would a ethics committee not allow witnesses to testify unless those people would prove that the conservatives had done nothing wrong?
One witness that was called came a day early to give his testimony because he was unable to attend the day of his scheduled date. There was a free spot in the witness line up as someone could not make it that day. The opposition members refused to allow him to testify and had him removed from the property by the security.
When the Chief electoral officer was at the hearing the opposition members voted to change the rules of the hearing so that only the questions that the opposition wanted to asked were ask and none of the questions that the conservative members wanted to ask could be asked. Especially conserning the issue about all the parties doing this so called "scheme". Once it was clear to the opposition that these questions were going to be asked by the conservatives they changed the rules in mid session.
Sounds very ethical to me.