"I don't think he means that," said Williams. "I think that we really have to dig in, as the opposition, to fight this Liberal domination that's hardened in the public accounts committee. They have now decided that we'll just whitewash this thing and get off to an election. It cannot be. Democracy has to be protected by parliamentarians."
The comments came as the committee prepared for another round of hearings that will include some high-profile witnesses. David Dingwall, a former public works minister who is now president of the Royal Canadian Mint, is to testify Monday.
Although his term in cabinet preceded the full-fledged sponsorship program that saw millions of federal dollars flow to Liberal-friendly advertising firms, some previous witnesses have suggested the rules were bent even before the program was officially launched.
The committee is to hear Wednesday from Marc LeFrancois, who was fired by Martin in the wake of a report by Auditor General Sheila Fraser that questioned Via's role in several sponsorship deals.
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1564649
Note:
http://www.mytelus.com...
Stumble It!
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
I have a hard time figuring out if all members of this new conservative party are all far right conservatives as we see Harper, Harris or Mulroney. Or is there some of them who are still true tories.
Kevin
Williams is a lousy chairperson. He contradicts himself by allowing one person one thing yet preventing someone else from doing the same thing. I am looking at this from a, let these people answer the questions to the best of their ability and then make a judgement, point of view. But, Jason Kenny keeps treating the witnesses as though he has them in the supreme court of Canada and he's SUPERLAWYERMAN. He yells at them when in fact they don't even have to be there. He tried to force Mr. Pelltier to have an opinion on something that he clearly had no opinion on. He insisted he answer with his opinion and Pelltier just refused. Williams then tried to make him answer, but finally realized that was not possible to do in this inquiry or any court of law. I would have refused too. There ARE some things we do NOT have opinions on.
Peter Mackay is SMARMYMAN making the most smarmy comment to Mr. Pelltier who stated he knew someone unprofessionally. Mackay stooped so low as to insinuate that Mr.Pelltier had an "unprofessional" relationship with someone that Mr. Pelltier meant to say he knew socially rather than he knew this person professionally. He tried scoring points against an ESLer. Grand scale SMARM!
The whole committee is starting to look like a black comedy. The Conservatives are so into making this into a political "win" that they refuse to believe or listen to the testimony unless it's what they want to hear. "We're bad, we stole the money, the PM knew, ya, we're bad."
This whole thing should never of had a public hearing anyway. They should have gone straight into an independent inquiry. This will prove to be a waste of time and money.
You make allot of really interesting points about this committe. I must say I agree with you about the conservative twist in the committee.
Kevin