Hiding behind the Ethics Commissioner
Now that the Ethics Commissioner is involved, David Smith and the dealings of his former company Abotech are off limits in the House of Commons.
Looks like Liberal MP David Smith, representing the riding of Pontiac, might get a reprieve from his troubles. From Hansard:
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail is reporting today that KPMG had found irregularities in the activities of the firm run by the family of the MP for Pontiac.
Does the Minister of Public Works-
The Speaker: An answer has already been provided by the Leader of the Government on the House of Commons, saying that the member for Pontiac had referred the matter to the ethics commissioner. I suggest that the hon. member refer to subsection 27(5) of Appendix 1 to the Standing Orders.
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.
The hon. member may ask another question, but not on the same matter.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is more generally pertaining to Liberal fat and Liberal corruption, then. KPMG did an additional audit on approximately $16 million worth of additional contracts that were handed out and it found serious irregularities in that amount of money.
We already know that some of this money went directly to Liberal friends and Liberal cronies, some of whom sit in the House of Commons now. How much went to Liberal friends and Liberal-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I think we will move on to the next question.
The hon. member for Wellington-Halton Hills.
So it looks like mum's the word. Of course, the rules don't apply to you and me, and we can continue to explore what David Smith and Abotech were really all about.
(Hat tip to reader slider)
Check out other entries from the Abotech category
Results will open in a new window.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
David Smith Abotech
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Shapiro's (unbiased?) report will probably take at least six months, by which time those LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, THIEVES will hopefully be looking at more than just election loss, but will finally be having to face charges!!!!!
Posted by: Bruce Randall at October 20, 2005 12:21 PM
Wait a second -- there's a standing parliamentary order that forbids MPs from discussing cases that are before the ethics commissioner? Who the hell came up with that idea? Never mind, I know the answer to that.. What a great way for the government to dodge controversies, just refer it to their lapdog of an ethics commissioner and make a rule that MPs can't talk about it until he reports! Six months later the news cycle on the story is long over, the commissioner issues a bland report, Liberals pat themselves on the back, Canadians go back to sleep and life goes on.
God, every day I think this country can't get any more broken, I find out I'm mistaken.
Posted by: Ian in NS at October 20, 2005 01:03 PM
Slow down guys.
You and your MP's had every opportunity to review the act before it was passed.
Posted by: steve at October 20, 2005 01:16 PM
Ian:
The Speaker pointed out that the MP's question is already being looked into by a commission.
The reason he disallowed the question goes to parliamentary privilege--the one that presumes that all members of Parliament are regarded as honorable, and therefore accusations of improper behaviour are out of order.
It's why members don't refer to themselves in the Commons by their proper names. It's also why members don't accuse other members of lying in the House.
When an MP accuses a minister like Joe Volpe of corruption, he's referring to Volpe's actions as a minister, not Volpe's activities as a Member of the House.
David Smith doesn't have a cabinet position, so any statements of impropriety in the Commons will have to do with his activity as a Member. Since Question Period is meant to hold the Government accountable, and Smith is only a backbencher, the Speaker would have no problem considering the question as out of order.
You'll note that, in looking over how Hansard records statements on l'affaire Grewal during QP, the ministers had to be indirect in their criticisms of Grewal's behaviour.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at October 20, 2005 01:36 PM
Weren't the Hansard comments mentioned in the comments section of the AboGate update #2 post? Why no hat tip Angry?
Posted by: ANON at October 20, 2005 03:42 PM
Hat tip was added! Cool!
Posted by: ANON at October 20, 2005 08:43 PM
Missing the hat tip was a dumb oversight. Sorry. Thanks for catching it.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at October 20, 2005 08:51 PM
 
|
|
