Deconstructing the Canadian Federation of Students divorce

Tell me what’s good about the CFS, not what’s bad about its opponents


Can you feel it, boys and girls?Signs

I do detect growing angst of prominent campus voices, and it’s getting chilly. Someone must have printed another article.

This time, it was the Ryerson Free Press with Manufacturing Crisis: Divide-and-conquer politics against the Canadian Federation of Students. The article, written by James Clark, breaks down the September McGill Daily story about 13 campus petitions circulating to defederate from the CFS.

Now, before I go on, I should admit that I’m not a die-hard follower of the CFS debate. I haven’t sorted through hours of meeting minutes and I can’t name the last three CFS lawsuits off the top of my head. So why am I blogging about it? Because I’m a student, and therefore, (willingly or not) connected to the CFS. As any member of a democratic society knows, citizens have the right to question the actions and behaviours of their higher-ups; I can be critical of the CFS.

The Ryerson Free Press article deconstructs the McGill Daily article, pointing out its alleged flaws. I think it’s only fair to deconstruct the deconstruction. Here are my (sometimes sarcastic) Cliff Notes, deconstructed, of the Ryerson Free Press article:

1. Clark says the McGill Daily article makes vague claims, attributing discontent with the CFS to “many students” or “other organizers.”

  • Fair enough; I hate when vague claims are made.

2. Erin Hale, the McGill Daily story author, doesn’t do her research. She lets one person speak for many. (James Murphy at Trent University.)

  • How dare she? In an article about people petitioning to leave the CFS, why would she interview the guy circulating the petition? Makes no sense to me.

3. Hale uses an anonymous source. Thus, no one can “challenge his claims, investigate his political affiliations, or hold him accountable for his comments.”

  • Ss-ssecret police…? Is that you? I’m scared.

4. Hale misspells a source’s name.

  • I’ll give you that one. It really does undermine credibility.

5. Campus defederation movements might be the product of orders from up top: the Progressive Conservative Party.

  • I’m glad you made the earlier point about the misleading nature of unsupported claims.

6. Those individuals pushing for defederation on campuses do poorly in campus elections.

  • Because lack of support in elections must mean lack of support for this specific cause.

7. They are mostly “conservative dissidents.”

  • Yeah. And all they do is slander the CFS. Don’t you hate smear campaigns that only try to stifle debate?

8. The anti-CFS campaigners are hypocritical. They argue that students from outside CFS campuses should not participate in local campus debates. But former editor-in-chief of The Concordian, Andrew Haig, “was recently photographed at Carleton while petitioning students to leave the CFS.”

  • He…he…was photographed? They are watching, aren’t they? Still scared.

9. The movement to leave the CFS is a “generally unpopular cause.”

  • I hate when vague claims are made.

10. Students should unite to tackle “more pressing issues” that affect everyone.

  • Do all students agree on all CFS campaigns?

I apologize if I missed something important. Those were the main points that I took from the article, anyway. But beyond that, here’s what I think is principally wrong with this latest CFS defense: it’s hardly a defense at all.

To deal with students like myself, who genuinely would like some answers (who knows, maybe I’ll change my mind?) I think the best pro-CFS response is a constructive one. I’d like to see an article that addresses the reasons behind the 13 petitions, including the alleged “frivolous” spending, lack of transparency, intimidation tactics, lawsuits etc.

Yes, I’m no better in “deconstructing the deconstruction.” My attempt was to illustrate just how silly the whole thing is. If my intent escaped you, I’m sorry.

So attack me personally, if you’d like. Call me one-sided, closed-minded, ill-informed or petty. But a more effective strategy would be to tell me why I’m wrong in being wary of an organization that’s obviously roused some discontent. (Sorry, is “some” too vague of a term?) Tell me what’s right with the CFS, not what’s wrong with the dissenters. After all, a constructive voice is always better received.

photo by Steveleenow


Deconstructing the Canadian Federation of Students divorce

  1. You really don’t have to go very far to find evidence of the rampant corruption in the CFS. Just google it, or look on their wikipedia page.

    I ran a story in the SFU paper, The Peak, that was quite similar to the one the McGill Daily ran. In doing my research I contacted a few campus reps to confirm what the McGill paper had already reported. The reps from UVic went as far to say that in their first week they had already beaten projections and were inches away from getting the required numbers.

    Of course the CFSBC office knew nothing of this, and the National Office mouthpiece wouldn’t return my calls.

  2. Thanks for that! When I read the Ryerson article, I first thought that it ‘might’ be a piece of independent research but then I checked the ABOUT page for the Ryerson Free Press and started cracking up. Nora Loreto is the editor of the RFP! Former Ryerson CFS-backed President, CFS-O treasurer and generally accepted CFS Hack.
    The article just stank to the ceiling of CFS hacks in fear by marking it a ‘conservative’ campaign… I think they haven’t realized that it is a campaign by conservative, liberal, green, bloc and NDP students who have enough of taking sides on political issues. After all, Palestinian human right events are also funded by Jewish students who pay CFS fees, banning of pro-life events affects membership paying pro-life members, but tuition, funding and equality for all are issues that affect all students.

    Having nice reports that simply point out the problem is clearly not what a 6 million dollar national organization should be doing. Our locals can find some Masters students to research the issues that arise from high tuition fees within the working poor and put together this reports for free.

    What we need our national student organization to do is put forward realistic ideas that work with the current government. We can’t just always go to Jack, cause Jack’s not really in power. Steven is. Let’s go to him and let’s not start by telling him how much his government sucks but rather compliment him on making scholarships tax free, and other things and then deal with him professionally. Yes, that might even mean that KGB might have to wear a suit like our brothers and sisters over at CASA but heck, my parents taught me to respect anybody, even if they are idiots. It’s just basic human courtesy and that’s my biggest problem with CFS, the idea that the ‘big man in Ottawa’ needs to be fought and picketed.

    Anyhow that’s my opinion and it might only be shared by about 80% (about the voting range of conservative, liberal,green and bloc)of Canadians 18-25 (i.e. the CFS membership).

    Thanks again for debunking that pile of RFP manure!

  3. What really got me about that Ryerson Free Press article is that Nora Loreto, the Editor-in-chief of the that ‘newspaper’, happens to simultaneously be the Communications Coordinator of the Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario (or she’s the Treasurer, it’s not too clear from the CFS-O website). Loreto is also a very very well known CFS partisan. Even better, when you enter “James Clark” with variants of CFS into the Googling apparatus, lo and behold, the combos pop up all over. Hmmm…

    I too am dying for a reasoned response from the CFS and its supporters. I’ve heard quite enough dismissive conspiracy theories from the Loretos, and CFS Free Press types. There are just way too many people from across the political spectrum, and way too many campus papers that are vocally criticizing the CFS.

    Alarmingly, so many across the country are not calling, but literally screaming foul about the CFS’ ham-fisted tactics to stop the present wave of discontent instead of simply addressing it (anti-petition petitions to prevent the calling of a vote… wtf CFS?!).

    What kind of organization is this that I’m forced to pay so much money to? I’m sure the CFS does not represent me or my colleagues: we simply aren’t so closed minded and downright hostile to criticism, and we certainly wouldn’t be so inarticulate in our own defence.

    I used to think our union’s Executives were totally paranoid when they would come back from CFS meetings swearing they were followed around by CFS staffers after having spoken critically about the organization, but I guess it’s true: the organization has indeed metamorphosed into something Orwellian – snapping pictures of petitioners and denouncing them in newspapers?! Again, WTF CFS?!

    Enough is enough. I want out of this organization. At the very least, I hope the CFS lets us go to the polls instead of slamming shut the doors to democracy and free speech with the strong arm of a Bay Street lawyer.

    And to those on the front lines petitioning for our democratic rights: don’t let the CFS monster stop you – just cross that finish line. Ballots will get us the rest of the way!

    (BTW The Services division of the CFS corporations is named CFS-Services. In so many of their legal threat letters, CFS attorneys refer to it as “CFSS”… I kid you not!)

  4. Say what you want about the other schools, but we have photo evidence of our success: http://martlet.ca/article/20112-petition-questions-future-of-uvic-s

    More coverage of the UVic attempt here:



    On another side note, we denied funding to our pro-life club too:


    Busy time for the UVSS!

    On a side note: The group of people collecting petitions at UVic come from ALL over the political spectrum. The driving issue is accountability and concerns of corruption more than anything else.

  5. By attacking Loretto’s motives, we’re really just engaging in the same flawed response as the CFS: avoid commenting on the ideas by criticizing the messenger. I think Loretto’s involvement is worthy of note, but let’s not allow it to distract from what the purpose of UrBack’s column was: to discuss the actual allegations.

    Urback and commenter Kelsey both imply that there is no homogeneous student body, of the same political stripe, pushing for the same solutions to common problems. In my mind, this is the most relevant argument to this whole conflict. Many of the issues that have gotten the CFS in trouble with its members–lawsuits, Orwellian tactics, being anti-democratic–seem to contradict with the ideals the organization claims to subscribe to. Yet, in every argument in support of the CFS (I’m including the Ryerson Free Press article in this) there is mention of this sentiment: “Students should unite to tackle ‘more pressing issues’ that affect everyone.”

    The only way that the CFS could justify their actions to themselves is if they believed that the end is more important than the means. They must truly believe that the cause they are fighting for–lowering tuition is its cornerstone–is so noble that it justifies all the “little bad things” they have to do to achieve it.

    I don’t think I have to point out the inherent arrogance in that sentiment. But I do want to point out that this logic doesn’t work unless they believe there is a homogeneous set of objectives all students surely would benefit from and that all students would agree on the solutions to get us these objectives, if only students weren’t so ignorant.

    I don’t think this homogeneous study body exists. As Kelsey noted, there are people of all political backgrounds involved in the opposition at UVic. That suggests that there are a wide spectrum of students with different ideas about what university is all about who are not feeling represented by the CFS. Surely it’s simplistic to maintain that all students are NDP-voters married to the public system.

    I also think it’s relevant to mention that there is no agreement on the tuition issue. I think it’s fair to say that the CFS’ central campaign is to lower or eliminate tuition (which is what I’m assuming is one of the “more pressing issues” the RFP refers to). But not all students agree that lowering tuition is the answer to improving university access. There has been loads of research that suggests that PSE access is only improved by targeted aid funding, not lowering tuition.

    And now in the argument is when some CFS hack should jump in and criticize Alex Usher… yes?

  6. Thanks for taking up my defense in your article. While it’s true that I made a spelling mistake (!) for my CFS source, I’d like to clarify a few other things. The following is a rough outline of a response I will be sending to the Ryerson Free press (which won’t be published for another month, if they publish my letter at all.)

    James Clark made no attempt to contact me or the Daily to ask about my sources or discuss the story before writing his critique, which I think is unfortunate. In Clark’s three paragraph introduction, he first muses about how student journalists (implicitly, it reads, unlike himself) often fail to conceal their bias as an “expert opinion” or fall prey to “agenda positioning” – a critique, I assume, is directed at me. The only “expert” I rely on in my story is former CUP President Erin Millar, who I contacted because I felt that her experience working at a wire service would have made her familiar with CFS-related stories published around the country, as well as the plight of student journalists, and thus a reliable source to comment on them.

    As for my story having an “agenda” – which Clark suggests is to create some sort of anti-CFS hysteria – well, in some sense, he’s got me there. At the Daily, we believe that as all events and issues are inherently political, all journalism is guilty of some sort of bias, including our own paper. However, we’re open about the “slant” we put on our stories, as defined by our Statement of Principles (SoP). One of its major tenets is to examine power relations as well as give a voice to otherwise marginalized communities. While Clark is alarmed that too few students – and conservatives at that! – Are petitioning at some universities to be worthy of mention in a news story, just because these students are on the “fringe” doesn’t mean they aren’t worth reporting on. They’re critical of a multi-million dollar lobby group, and trying to do something about it. That’s a news story the Daily is going to publish.

    Clark is also extremely critical of my sources, primarily the fact that I don’t mention all of them. He focuses on my source at Trent, but fails to mention that I had several other sources in the stories. While I talked to around 15-16 people, I unfortunately had to prioritize what issues to mention in a 1200 word article – but the Daily’s coordinating editor, the Daily’s lawyer, and CUP President Rob Fishbook did not find that problematic when they read drafts of my story, provided I could contact them in the event of a lawsuit (which would have been possible.) Furthermore, many of my sources asked to remain anonymous, out of concern they would be sued by the CFS – hence the vague language “many students” and “other organizers.” The one point I might concede to Clark is that I could have used a second or third pro-CFS voice. The CFS Treasurer Dave Molenhuis. He was the highest ranking national executive I could contact, so I felt he was the most qualified to comment on some of the criticisms – but in hindsight I might have called one of the provincial chapters.

    From there, though, Clark’s piece devolves into a critique of anti-CFS campaigners, which seems out of place. Is he trying to suggest that I too was involved in such behavior? I’m not quite sure. Clark concludes his piece recommending that student journalists focus on other more important student issues like the possibility of CEGEP tuition in Quebec – if he read a recent issue of the Daily he have seen that we already covered it.

  7. What’s really funny about your argument Erin, is this:

    “By attacking Loretto’s motives, we’re really just engaging in the same flawed response as the CFS: avoid commenting on the ideas by criticizing the messenger. I think Loretto’s involvement is worthy of note, but let’s not allow it to distract from what the purpose of UrBack’s column was: to discuss the actual allegations.”

    I’m sorry, isn’t this the news? Isn’t questioning motives part of the reporter’s job description? Aren’t good reporters supposed to question their sources? Here we have a case where there is someone who is clearly biased and comes from a background that is just spewing biased opinions, and you have a problem with questioning that person about their sources? Let’s see, someone who is clearly worried about their paycheque is commenting with completely fabricated and unsupported statements that’s self-contradicting, and you don’t want to question that source? Really? I’m gonna give you 3 seconds to consider this point





    Why even entertain the allegations if that person is clearly biased, has a clear history as a COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR (duh, media spin anyone?) with an organization that has been compared to coal companies and criminal organziations, that routinely threatens student media and student unions, and you want to let that all slide to “concentrate on the issue?” How about evaluating whether this person is actually reporting an issue, or, I don’t know…COMPLETELY FABRICATING THE ISSUE? Urback, could just be spewing what his boss is telling him to do and you don’t want to investigate the sources? Are you serious with that statement?

    CFS routinely sues any opposition in the media or individual student unions, buys up advertising in school newspapers, floods campuses with CFS supporters flown in across the country, effectively outspends any student group by 10-1 (with student money of course) in defederation referendums, and only exists because students have been bullied or coerced into a “nice picture” of a common democratic framework by paying non-negotiable union dues. From this perspective, how can you believe any of their unsourced or biased opinions? How can you accept any of their statements without fact checking the motives or people behind the statements? The reason the CFS doesn’t like sourced talk or informed debate is because they lose out every time to logic and reason (simple fact checking) which they can only counter by getting pro-CFS networks working overtime to spread propaganda about how great the CFS is. This is not my sentiments, but the sentiments of dozens of excellent articles printed over the years about the CFS.

    Check out Simon Fraser’s news archives or Kwantlen’s archives. These schools have been heavily involved in defederation campaigns and would make excellent source material. Here you can actually hear from non-CFS supporters and pro-CFs mouthpieces side by side and start to realize why the CFS is so hated by these student organizations.

    Why entertain baseless allegations that are put forward by biased individuals with absolutely no source material to go on, other than allegations themselves? If this material was sourced and came from a non biased organization, then it would be completely acceptable to use their information in a constructive argument. But you can’t make a valid argument with premises that are completely untrue.

  8. I made a typo, I put in “Urback” when I meant “James Clark.” My apologies to this board and to the author.

  9. What is really troubling is the counter-petitions. First of all, you only need 10% of support to initiate a referendum to leave the CFS – it doesn’t matter if the 90% want a referendum or not.

    However, this time the counter-petition is attempting to get people to “cancel” their signature on the earlier petition. Presumably, they’ll keep circulating the counter-petition even as the initial petition with 10% of the names was sent to the CFS. (And during the three months delay that the CFS imposes between receiving the petition and scheduling the referendum.)

    You can imagine the potential mess it will create, with the counter-petition attempting to invalidate the initial petition after it was sent. This will probably generate serious legal issues, but hey, the CFS loves legal battles as long as it delays defederation attempts.

  10. True. If the CFS was really such a representative and ideal DEMOCRATIC student body it wouldn’t try to illegally counter a justified democratic petition drive would it? I think there’s enough info just on that for a good story!

  11. I’ve taken the time to read all three of the opinion pieces realted to this lastest blog entry.

    First, I enjoyed the satirical approach taken by Robyn Urback in the blog entry: Deconstructing the CFS. I have to admit I’m fairly new to this whole CFS issue, but have tried to learn as much as I could in the short time that I have been looking at this issue on my campus. With all due honesty, the approach taken by Robyn was spot on.

    The opinion piece run by the Ryerson Free Press was quite indicative of the accusations and misdirection that happen on campuses locally when students are divided about this issue. It was claimed that the Conservatives had everything to do with evaluating our student association’s affiliation with the CFS, when in fact the suggestion was put forward by a card carrying Liberal.

    Not only that but during the last round of student elections, a candidate who publicly spoke against the CFS during the election was subject to personal attacks for also having spoke out in favour of the pro life movement.

    For some unknown reason Mr. Clark would rather use the CFS’ tactic of misdirection here by bringing into question the legitimacy of Erin Hale’s sources by saying that James Murphy finished third in a presidential race last time around.

    Mr Clark: WTF Does that have to do with anything!

    Whether or not Mr. Murphy speaks students at Trent he may have taken the initiative to start the petition in the first place which is perfectly in line with CFS Bylaws. If he happens to have a few thousand signatures on his petition, then he at least speaks for these few thousand, and according to the rules, that’s all he need to speak for.

    I’ll give you the fact that the Hale may have misspelled Molenhuis’ name, and in fact I may have just done the same, but frankly if this is all you have to pick on, give me a break.

    I really think that the tag line of this blog says it all:

    Tell me what’s good about the CFS, not what’s bad about its opponents

    I haven’t been dealing with the CFS issue all that long but I’m constantly reading press releases by the CFS and student news paper articles from across the country, both current and archived issues, and frankly the more I read the more I become disenfranchised by this organization.

    I think that the CFS really needs to re-examine itself, and the other 13 or more student associations across Canada seem to think the same thing.

  12. Hey, everyone!

    I was one of Erin’s sources. She contacted some people here and they thought that i would be the best to speak to. I talked to her. Sue me CFS for telling Erin the truth.

    Way to go James Clark for contradicting your own criticisms in your article. I thought it was rather funny that Clark is also continuing the CFS trend of saying one thing and promoting it while doing the exact opposite.

    “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” – that is why it is impossible to defederate – OR EVEN HOLD A VOTE TO SEE WHAT THE STUDENTS WANT!!!. The truth of corruption and the truth of the students voice gets squashed by the CFS and its agents.

  13. Whoa Frank. I think you’re totally off-base here.

    Of course I think it’s important to be critical of the intentions of sources. I’m a journalist after all and I do that every day. I say right in the quote you’ve referred to that Loretto’s involvement is worth noting.

    But at the same time, noting that the article came from an allegedly biased source means we should not consider their points. If you think that the student newspaper reports (or any media, including me) are unbiased, then you’re being incredibly naive. While we all strive to be as balanced as possible, no journalist ever is unbiased. The goal of a good reader should be to consider the bias and perspective of the source of information and then consider how seriously you will take the points they present. That’s what I was suggesting we should do with the RFP piece.

    I do think that we spend too much time bickering about the inside ballgame politics and don’t spend enough time talking about the issues. Robyn was deconstructing the issues in this piece. I would like to see a discussion here of those issues.

    But you don’t have to convince me of the efforts the CFS does to control the debate. I think a simple google search of my name and CFS will show you that I have been following the media coverage for years, since I was in student press, and that I would be one of the first journalists the CFS would accuse of being biased. (And they’d be correct.)

  14. I think that some of the latest news out of Quebec shows just how far the CFS will go to silence dissenters.

    CFS Canada has just severed ties with CFS Quebec for trying to change the organization from the inside, as many pro-CFS’ers insist.

    So, if students shouldn’t shouldn’t resort to a referendum, and if you try to change the system from the inside you’re booted out, then how exactly do we get our voices heard? Or should we just shut up and keep sending in our cheques?

    This is unreal.

  15. I think the tone Urback uses in this piece is pretty snarky and unprofessional. And you’re not deconstructing Clark’s argument at all, just disagreeing with pieces of it.

    The strongest point Clark made was that Erin Hale implies there are groundswells of anger against the CFS at the grassroots level across Canada, and she doesn’t prove this to be true. By only quoting anonymous sources, and one presumably sore loser, we don’t get a full picture of student bodies in revolt, annoyed that they’re paying $8 a term to the CFS. That’s not to say discontent doesn’t exist in some places, but she doesn’t really do a good job of proving it.

    I think her story had a bit of hyperbole. Anyone can start collecting signatures tomorrow, and it doesn’t represent a real movement. I am willing to believe that in any given year, an organization with 85+ student unions as members will have some discontented ones though.

    Of course the CFS wants to minimize the breadth and scope of any desire to defederate, and of course the petitioners want their campaign to seem as large as possible; it seems to be the job of a news reporter to navigate these desires, and seek out what the real sentiments of students are. A good thing might have been to call up the VP Externals at each of the respective student unions and see what they thought. DOes the student society at Trent or Guelph or UVic want to go?

    Moreover, if a bunch of student unions do defederate, is that good for students across Canada? I agree students are not entirely homogenous, but most of us value a well-funded and affordable PSE system, with generous student financial aid; is ripping apart the biggest, oldest and most influential student lobby group in North America going to achieve that? If not, what do these petitioners hope to contribute to the Canadian student movement?

  16. So of all the schools leaving, here are the major “battleground” schools:

    Concordia (the biggest)





    UVic and Kwantlen are in for a tough fight because CFS-BC could possibly fold if those two successfully leave. Concordia while get a little pressure relieved from having four schools in Montreal trying to leave. Carleton, being traditionally so staunchly pro-CFS, is also another close battle. Guelph is of similar size to the others and I suspect will be a tough nut to crack too, but I don’t know their situation well enough.

    More UVic articles:

    http://martlet.ca/article/20221-uvss-board-directed-to-stay – UVSS is neutral.

    http://martlet.ca/article/20220-new-petition-fights-cfs-referendum – More details out about the counterpetition.


    http://martlet.ca/article/20225-uvss-agm-huge-waste (attacking the CFS-BC Chair for his non-partial role in our AGM)

  17. Actually Kelsey, I think we’ve got it easy at Concordia: most of the hardcore CFS guys have run away to Ottawa in the last few months, I think they’ve realized that Con U is a lost cause. I think the really “battleground” school in Montreal will be Dawson College — their executive seems pretty pro-CFS, they have Margo Dunnet (I kid you not) managing their office, and I’ve seen Noah Stewart (National Deputy Chairperson) there twice in the last two weeks! Once I saw him waiting to do a private in camera “presentation” to the executive council, and the other time he was…I kid you not…tabling for ISIC cards.

    That’s right. You are paying your National Deputy Chairperson 44,000$+ a year to hand out “free” ISIC cards.

  18. Hey Amr,

    The VP externals do not speak for this movement. I know at Guelph, the VP external is a CFS hack so of course she’ll talk about how great things are at Guelph.

    It’s not up to the VP external to choose how their students feel when the students haven’t had a chance to represent their views through their votes in the referendum. That’s what the democratically organized referendum is for. Are you supportive of shutting down discussion before students have had the chance to have a discussion?

    I particularly like this quote of yours:

    “Moreover, if a bunch of student unions do defederate, is that good for students across Canada? I agree students are not entirely homogenous, but most of us value a well-funded and affordable PSE system, with generous student financial aid; is ripping apart the biggest, oldest and most influential student lobby group in North America going to achieve that? If not, what do these petitioners hope to contribute to the Canadian student movement?”

    If it means students have elected to do so in a democratic society using democratic means and now have the freedom to CHOOSE who they want to represent them…and have gotten rid of a corrupt, cronyism run, anti-democratic, self-perpetuating, and most importantly of all a FAILED CORPORATION…then that is the greatest contribution that this movement can bring and great for ALL students across Canada. How is allowing students to exercise their democratic rights detrimental to anything?

    By the way, the CFS has been lobbying for almost 30 years and according to Statistics Canada, tuition has at least tripled since that time. The CFS has failed. I repeat the CFS HAS FAILED.

    How have they contributed anything for student financial aid? They opposed the Millennium Scholarship program, the Canadian Research Chair program (before they retracted that stupid assault), and are now taking credit for the Student Loans program which will dish out less money than the Millennium Scholarship ever did! Congratulations “influential” CFS, you have contributed a hell of a lot!

    Congrats Amr, your dream world sounds fantastic!

  19. Pingback: Straw men, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP’s and the CFS « The Blog of Liam Mooney

Sign in to comment.