Cadman is slightly different, but I would argue the entire issue needs to be before the committee.

The actual wording in the letter is “no evidence to support a charge”. That does not mean “no evidence at all”; indeed, we all know there is SOME evidence because of what Dona Cadman, her daughter and her son in law have said. That is evidence. Harper’s own words on the tape is also “some evidence”.

Certainly there is insufficient evidence to support a charge. That is likely because most of this evidence is hearsay and likely inadmissible. Even if it were admissible it would be contradicted by Cadman’s own public statements.

The biggest problem with an RCMP investigation is that the RCMP cannot force people like Doug Findley to talk. If this were before the ethics committee Findley could be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath.

I agree with hejhog’s statement:

“But,if we’re going to hold MPs to a higher standard in their private lives, as has been advocated in some other post, then surely a higher standard applies to this situation given the ambiguity (to be generous) of the evidence that does exist.
It would be dishonest to argue that the RCMP has vindicated the PM/conservatives.
It ought not be necessary to prove impropriety beyond a reasonable doubt to hold elected officials accountable.”

I suspect Mary that should the tables be turned and the liberals stand accused of bribing Cadman, based on hearsay statements from his family, you would be advocating for an inquiry or committee investigation. This is a very serious issue that goes to the core of the ethical standards we expect from our elected officials. If there is even a hint they are buying votes, that needs to be investigated.

I can’t digest the pissing match of this comments thread, but that quote appears to capture the real issue of the Cadman affair, no? The liberals accused the PM/conservatives of something they can’t prove. The RCMP says there is insufficient evidence to support charges.
But,if we’re going to hold MPs to a higher standard in their private lives, as has been advocated in some other post, then surely a higher standard applies to this situation given the ambiguity (to be generous) of the evidence that does exist.
It would be dishonest to argue that the RCMP has vindicated the PM/conservatives.
It ought not be necessary to prove impropriety beyond a reasonable doubt to hold elected officials accountable.
Often the supporters of a party can forgive its officials. We expect humans to err, and those we support, we can forgive (those we don’t support must be strung up by their toenails, obviously). I suspect conservative supporters fear not that Prime Minister Harper and/or the conservative party actually did something unethical, but that the chances of retaining power would suffer if it was revealed.
Some people don’t require that Official impropriety be prosecuted by the courts. Rather, the appearance of impropriety, inadequately answered, is sufficient.

I could care less about your two bit insults of the liberals.

Interesting how you trimmed the first part of my sentence off. Does that mean you can’t stand to even quote something uncomplimentary to the Liberals?

Evidently, you’re confusing “can’t prove” with “don’t care enough to be bothered” and you’re dishonouring the spirit of my insincere apology! How mean-spirited of you!

The corollary to that point is that an honourable and honest person will always admit when they are wrong.