The same NDP MP Pat Martin, who initially pushed for the Ethics Committee to look into the matter, who said all other matters would be pushed aside, this issue would rocket to the top of the agenda, who tabled a motion to investigate, is now saying we should leave it the RCMP and the unproven Director of Public Prosecutions. Martin puts his faith in the RCMP, but then offers this contradictory assessment of their potential investigation:
Suggesting the RCMP often wears kid gloves in cases involving elected officials, he still believes the matter is best left to police -- and possibly the new office of public prosecutions....
"It is a straightforward matter -- it either happened or it didn't, and it's an extremely serious criminal offence that is best investigated by the RCMP or even better, the new director of public prosecutions," Martin told Sun Media.
"There is a lingering perception that the RCMP tread gently when investigating wrongdoing of elected officials, especially prime ministers."
Martin concludes the RCMP tread lightly, a perception that they may be apprehensive, and yet he puts his faith in them, choosing to dispose of another tool available. As it relates to the Director of Public Prosecutions, this person is beholden to the RCMP:
The PPSC is not an investigative agency. It prosecutes when a charge has been laid pursuant to an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or some other police force or investigative agency of a violation of federal law. The PPSC provides advice and assistance to investigators at the investigative stage and works closely with them, particularly in terrorism, criminal organization, proceeds of crime, money laundering, market fraud, and mega cases.
In essence, the Director seems irrelevant, unless the RCMP provides the latitude to move. The NDP elevates the new Director as some savior here, when in fact, the person is just an extension of pre-existing legal channels. If we take Martin at his word, he is content to let this entire matter rest in the hands of an entity that doesn't have his full confidence. Strange, to say the least.
It is for that reason, that I suspect the motivations are purely political, rather than the neat package presented. I tend to believe this rationale:
Some Liberals were surprised by the move and suggested that the New Democrats may be afraid that the Liberals would receive too much publicity if the committee were to look into the matter.
The NDP suffers from chronic "Liberal on the brain". We say the preamble as early as Thursday, when out of nowhere, the NDP seemed more interested in when the Liberals knew of Cadman, rather than the elephant in the room, as it related to the Conservatives. I found that kneejerk query odd, given the gravity of what was unfolding. In other words, why does it seem the always immediate calculation revolves around the Liberal Party, and does it seem like much of a stretch to believe that this weekend's about face on Cadman isn't an extension of the pre-occupation?
If the real focus is getting to the truth, then the NDP should be fighting to use all organs available, there should be a united opposition front. It is curious, that on a day when the opposition parties could first confront Harper over the tape, Layton chooses to ask a question about Obama instead. The nature of a leader's question is a calculation, a decision on a particular angle, the omission of Cadman is quite striking, left to surrogates to make the case.
Where it all seems to meet, the NDP has decided that they aren't particularly interested in a public spectacle, they prefer the subtle, and that begs the question, why? Could it have something to do with the Liberals?