Article content continued

Then on Thursday, it got weirder. While Mr. Pacetti made clear he would not be seeking re-election, Mr. Andrews, a day earlier, had issued a statement seemingly indicating he would not be leaving quietly. But when he got in front of the press less than 24 hours later, Mr. Andrews said he had finally seen the report and was satisfied with the findings.

Continue reading…

[/np_storybar]

There was from the beginning an undeniable imbalance between accusers and accused.

The names of the accusers were kept private — at least formally. On the Hill, I was told, most journalists knew who they were as well as most MPs, but without formal charges — meaning criminal or public — they were more or less left anonymous, and their names were shielded by Mr. Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

The accused, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Pacetti, were named almost from the first minute. They were not shielded. Their reputations and standing — as MPs, it is important to underline; as representatives of the people, not employees of some private business — were blistered, more or less irrevocably.

The Liberal party, post-naming and banishment of the MPs from caucus, promised an “independent” inquiry, selected the person to conduct it, and this week received it, but chose quite emphatically not to make it public. It’s as if this were a private affair for the Liberal party to adjudicate, for the Liberal party only to hold the facts, make the judgments and seal the file.