Law & Order: House of Commons - Macleans.ca
 

Law & Order: House of Commons


 

Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez has been charged after something to do with a breathalyzer.

Meanwhile, the RCMP is now investigating the mortgage fraud allegations that involve, at least peripherally, Conservative MP Devinder Shory.


 

Law & Order: House of Commons

  1. Hard to believe a Liberal finds the "job" far to difficult to "blow". It's in their DNA!

  2. Making sure you get Conservative shot in along with Pablo's lack-of-breath charge huh Aaron?

    • Aaron NEVER leaves a smear unused on the table!

      • Hello – the news of the day yesterday was Pablo (late breaking news) and the RCMP – and, the agreement on the detainee issue.

        Now, do you want Aaron to just pretend the RCMP news didn't happen?

        …oh the paranoia……..

        • You people REALLY are'nt this dense are you?__My issue is with this whole yellow journalism stuff. Liberal does bad, so we MUST include a reference to a Conservative who MAY have done bad. __NEVER does he frame a Conservative bad act with a Liberal bad act, or for that matter even discuss them. __Case in point, this story is a MONTH old! Counter this ommision with the media finding the Jaffer story in days!__WAKE UP MEDIA!!__I guess Liberals are just oh so squeeky clean and all that!__This post should bring a minus 8 rating by all the cackling cheerleaders that frequent, but offer little to the discussion like all good Liberals!

          • How were the media supposed to "find" this story?

          • The same way they find the story each and every time an MP, MLA, or city alderman gets arrested and it promptly gets reported in the media instead of buried for weeks then released on a Friday.

            Hey, partisanship is fun and all Gayle but this is serious stuff, you should be alarmed instead of playing dumb. Really, you're stumped as to how the media might "find" this story? No you're not. You're an intelligent woman, far too intelligent to not understand this was deliberately kept under cover for weeks.

            Why would they do that, you ask? Why not, since they can count on people like you to run interference for them? They can pretty much take your vote for granted since you vote exclusively on gender matters and nothing else, judging by your commentary. Oh, and Rodriguez's claim that he didn't know how to blow into a breathalyzer? Yeah, that's a direct insult to your intelligence too.

          • Prove they knew about it and said nothing.

            They can only find this out if someone tells them about it. It is not like they have some super duper secret device that beeps every time an MP is investigated.

            Try to get a grip and bring some actual facts into the discussion.

          • The thing speaks for itself, counselor. The very fact it did not get reported is in itself evidence of collusion given that every other high profile and not so high profile Canadian who gets arrested for DUI has it reported promptly. Arrests are public record and Montreal has dozens of media outlets tasked to report on crime, it is literally impossible for it to have escaped their attention.

            Bob Fife admitted this week that he sat on the "getaway driver" story for weeks so we have evidence just this week of journalists sitting on stories harmful to Liberals.

            A fact that was open public record was not reported by the media that typically report such events and that is proof of collusion.

            By your logic, if the media did not report a private member's bill banning abortion which successfully passed third reading until weeks after the event, that would not be collusion. Well of course it would. They get paid to cover politics, just like the Montreal Gazette and dozens of other media outlets in Montreal pays reporters to cover crime, especially when famous people commit it, since it sells newspapers.

            So what is it exactly that you find sexy about drunk driving, Gayle? Making excuses for someone getting liquored up and endangering everyone around him, hmmm, seems kinda creepy to me, but whatever floats your boat.

          • Remember when I asked you to try using some facts to support your argument?

            All you have done here is present your paranoid conspiracy theory.

            Facts, OK? Just try one little tiny fact and see if that helps.

          • Prove they didn't know about it Gayle.

            Fife admitted to knowing about the LPC pres Apps being the 'driver of the getaway car' and said nothing for 2 weeks.

          • Ah yes – the old "prove a negative" argument. A true sign that you know your argument does not hold water…

            Try again wilson – this time with facts.

  3. Just curious… is the charge for refusing a breathalyzer (i.e. refusing to obey a police officer) as serious as the penalty for driving under the influence? Otherwise, isn't this a bit of a loophole?

    • In Ontario, anyway, the penalty is the same as for an impaired conviciton. And a quick check suggests to me that insurance companies treat it the same too.

      • Sean is right, and it's the same under the Criminal Code (i.e., across the country). Refusing to blow is a criminal offence, and treated as tantamount to impaired driving and driving over 0.08. Think about it, if it weren't, there'd be a very high motivation to refuse to blow.

        This is why the standard — and emphatic — advice that you get from a criminal lawyer is: don't refuse to blow. Because that's like an automatic trip to guiltyville. There's really no defence to the charge. But if you go ahead and blow, there are a number of potential defences that open up (witness Rahim Jaffer's case).

        • Clearly we don't know enough about this particular case at this point, but I wonder if officers have the option to demand a blood test if the driver cannot properly provide a breath sample? You'd have to think it happens, from time to time.

          • Perhaps the pouff was so under the influence he could not blow properly. However, isn't it interesting how the media was handling the story. Tonda McCharles on Power Play today was asking MPs don't you feel sorry for your colleague. Its so sad.

            Of course he is a Liberal and Liberals never do anything wrong in the eyes of the lame street media. If that had been a Conservative the headlines would be blaring and of course a parliamentary committee would be called. Guergis got no sympathy. Zip, nadah, none.

            Trust me this will not be covered other than oh by the way. Perhaps he will get a haircut before his court appearance.

          • Are we allowed to refer to certain cabinet ministers as pouffs? And I'm getting bored with Palin's 'lame stream media' tag. Couldn't you come up with something on your own?

          • Last I looked there was still free speech in this country much to the chagrin of Liberals who want to shut up any feedback from the other side. He does look like a pouff. He needs a haircut bad.

            Obviously you are watching Fox News. Actually it was Bernie Goldberg who said it and I thought it aptly applied to the Canadian media. They are not only lame but morally bankrupt. Who in their right minds ever heard of a news organization surveying themselves to see if they are biased. If they are its because they know they are biased.

          • Last I looked there wasn't free speech in Canada….free expression by the boatload, but free speech? Not so much.

            (of course I'm arguing with a man who thinks questioning a person's sexual orientation is screamingly hilarious…so maybe I should lower my expectations a smidge)

  4. "Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez has been charged after something to do with a breathalyzer."

    BC pig farmer charged after something to do with making sausages.

    Refusing a breathalyzer is, to regular everyday folks, the exact same as blowing over .08, the crown isn't allowed to plea bargain it, and it carries the exact same penalties and insurance premium hikes as a DUI. It is very, very different from and far more serious in terms of minimum penalty than refusing to obey a police officer, which is what Rodriguez appears to have scored. This is an astonishing miscarriage of justice.

    This country really sucks. Yet another famous Canadian gets off with a pat on a wrist for a crime every other Canadian would pay a very high price.

    • classy

  5. He couldn't blow hard enough…LOL!!!!!

    And Iffy knew about this the entire time he was raging in the House about Jaffer.
    Did Pablo get strip searched and refused access to his lawyer?

    Any bets this will be Wherry's one and only token post on the windless Pablo?

  6. Pablo charged with a federal offence,
    Iffy keeps in caucus with same duties, no problem,
    but Iffy thinks Harper should fire Shory for being named in a civil suit……no media will make note of the hypocracy, it's a Liberal after all.

    • It's now a criminal investigation.

      • Shory is not part of the criminal investigation, so far.

        • Be sure and update us when he is, eh wilson? Cant rely on msm etc.

        • How could he not be part of the invesrigation?

          • Sounds like they are looking into his NEGLIGENCE in reference to the fraud, just like the BANK is NEGLIGENT as well, as THEY ultimately approved the loans!
            But hey, just throw a bit of spaghetti on the wall and some of it will stick!

          • The negligence charge is from the civil suit. The police are investigating fraud. Shory's best hope is that he is so dumb he had no idea what was going on around him. Just what we want in our MP's.

          • A provincial Liberal MPP is also charged, don't hear much about that eh.

          • Why are you shouting? You don't know all the details so you really can't comment.

          • Not shouting.
            I highlight the points I want to make in caps, so it's EASIER for the dim wits on the left to follow………..oh, wait, I lost you it seems!
            I may not know all the details, but that never stopped anyone here before, so why the restraint for me? Oh yeah, I'm a Conservative!

          • Gary, if you go back a few days on wherry's blog you'll discover the "why". The post is titled "fight the real enemy". Remember that since the universe as we know ir didn't end on Friday and all parties reached a compromise which was remarkably similar to the PM's original offer, one is forced to conclude that people who aren't lefties are the real enemy in this neighborhood.

  7. How many Liberals would really miss this guy? He's a Codere wannabee.

    • He's got great hair.

      • He sure does. He looks like a pouff.

  8. pouff seems to be the CPC talking point of the evening

    • Thanks for that bit of wisdom John!
      You Liberals are such cards!
      Looks like the occupiers of the cheap seats like you, as you got a +5!
      You are so awesome!

  9. The mainstream media will never report on this story that I just read in the mainstream media

    • On a Friday afternoon, the traditional day to bury bad news, and you're reading about it weeks after the arrest. How is it possible for an MP to get arrested and for it not to get reported until weeks later? Jaffer was a FORMER MP and it was in the news right away.

      • Same with Apps being the get away driver, Bob Fife said he knew for 2 weeks before it went public…..

        • Still trying to flog that dead horse, eh wilson? I particularly like the way you use his "getaway driver" analogy – almost as if you not only want people to talk about this non-issue, but you also want them to talk about facts that are not in existance.

          • Heh, glad you like my style Gayle!
            snowdy said he had documented proof that Apps was working for Gillani until 2008,
            has an email showing that Apps referred a client to Gillani,
            the committee has asked for him to table the docs, he said he will comply.
            It ain't over yet my dear.

          • Who cares?

            A. No one.

            Dead. Horse.

          • As for your "style", I give you credit for at least admitting you are trying to get people to draw a false conclusion.

  10. After all the hyperventilating about Bonnie and Clyde of late,

    it's a current sitting LIBERAL MP who's charged with a criminal offence.

    Not "peripheral" in some civil dispute, not a relative of an MP, no base smearing or insinuations.

    a current sitting LIBERAL MP. charged. criminally.

    Will this occupy headline after headline for weeks on end? My guess it will recieve barely a mention, then be promptly buried.

    • The ALLCAPS are out

    • Well I guess that depends – was he also busted for speeding with a baggie of coke on him?

      • Was Gordon Campbell busted fro speeding with a baggie of coke on him?
        No, but he was certainly put thru the wringer for his DUI.

        Our national media protects the LPC to such a degree, IF there was a code of ethics for journalism they would all be booted out…
        Our national media compromises their integrity just to 'get Harper'.

          • She doesn't actually believe it. Her purpose here is not to whine on her own behalf. Her purpose is to encourage others to believe something that is not true. Just look at the kinds of things she posts. She will refer to the same lie, over and over again, also not because she believes it to be true, but because she wants others to believe it to be true.

            Of course, the fact is this particular media website is permitting her to spread her propoganda on their site, so it is kind of hard to argue they are biased against her political vioews. That kind of logic does not compute with the paranoid conspiracy theorists to whom wilson is attempting to appeal.

          • Notice the complete lack of on topic commentary. I think this individual is incapable of grasping abstract ideas like politics – seems like a sound conclusion based on her aversion to on topic commentary and predilection for insults and borderline cyberstalking.

            Gayle is, in my estimation, by far the most egregious commenter (note I did not say troll) at this site and its time those of us who wish for civilized debate to join together in solidarity to demand this individual be banned. Enough's enough.

          • Hmmm

            Did I strike a nerve?

          • She used to stalk Garth's blog!
            Nuff said!

          • Her purpose is to encourage others to believe something that is not true.

            Right. Just as yours is to show up whenever some Liberal is in trouble and deny/defend/divert. I imagine Ted Betts will be along shortly as well? Or does the war room give him weekends off?

          • Sure. Maybe you can link to some of my comments where I have denied/defended and diverted. I would be interested in seeing them.

          • It's nasty weather here, so I took a boo over at other sites. Would you believe Wilson is making the same, old, tired nonsense on all of them?

            Wilson must spend 24/7 look up notes to post on every site possible.

            The problem with that – overexposure. After a while no one listens.

            It's really very sad.

            I wonder, does she get paid for this by the Cons?

          • You're (proper grammer) retarded!

          • You are correct – should be you're. My apologies.

            The message is the same though – You're sick.

          • Yes, I am sick…………sick of little s#+*s like you!

          • Pay attention there Mr. Angry – my comment was directed at Wilson.

            Good grief – you think that saying "you're sick of little s#+*s like you" bothers me in the least?

            Na, not at all.

        • Zero on topic commentary, more childish attacks: your typical Gayle comment.

          Gayle has been trolling up the comment section here for months and I would like to see her banned. She adds nothing but insults to the conversation and doesn't appear to have a substantive understanding of Canadian politics beyond hurling insults.

          Watch for it, she does it every thread. Everybody, give her the thumbs down and report her, we want Maclean's to be a place where men and women can discuss politics in a civil manner and she's ruining it for everybody.

          • Heh. And making stuff up about media bias is totally on topic, right?
            Good luck with your little campaign.

          • well it certainly would appear you've found yourself the target of enmity from some of our dimmest bulbs…congrats!

            (all we need is for "biff" to show up and complete this rogue's gallery of ineptitude ;)

          • biff and I go way back.

          • She adds nothing but insults to the conversation and doesn't appear to have a substantive understanding of Canadian politics beyond hurling insults.

            Sounds like pretty solid credentials for Leader of the LPC :)

        • Ya, I bet when they were kids they always told mummy – the teacher doesn't like me and everyone's picking on me.

        • How is Gordon Campbell relevant?

      • And we need a healty dose of busty hookers!
        Yeah, that's the meal ticket!
        SHEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH!

    • Doing conveyancing in a multi-million dollar mortgage fraud, now under criminal investigation is 'peripheral'? If not representing someone is called 'driving the get-away car' , by Conservatives, I wonder what we could call this?

      • I think, in fairness, that Shory is being accused of negligence, which is different from outright fraud. If proven it could mean he was not a very good lawyer, but that would not make him a criminal.

        • You're correct — within that civil fraud lawsuit, Shory is not accused of perpetrating the fraud or anything like that. He is being accused of civil negligence, and specifically that he "ought to have known" that certain documentation was not up to snuff or was suspicious in nature.

          And by the way, if that is truly all there is to Shory's role in this thing, as I lawyer I would guess that there is zero chance that he would end up being charged as a result of any criminal investigation.

  11. i just found the Pablo story on Page 14 of the Toronto star…….I look forward to the continued excellent investigative journalism from that rag.

    • This is third-world/democracy jeopardizing stuff. The media is openly colluding with Liberal politicians to bury stories of wrongdoing by Liberal MPs. It's the weeks of collective, co-ordinated covering up that alarms me.

      We tried a free press, it has been judged in the balance and found wanting. The media might have gone a bridge too far with this one. Weather's nice, good protesting/general strike weather…

      • You might want to do a quick google news search before you shut down the presses. And a general strike – go for it!

      • "The media is openly colluding with Liberal politicians to bury stories of wrongdoing by Liberal MPs. It's the weeks of collective, co-ordinated covering up that alarms me."

        Do you have any proof of this allegation?

        Your rather skewed perspective does not count. I suggest you start following the reporters around and try to listen in on their top secret meetings with the liberals where they all agree on how the media are going to help the LPC.

        Though I have to say if this is true, the media are doing an awful job of it. I think the LPC should fire them and find someone else to champion their cause.

        • "I think the LPC should fire them and find someone else to champion their cause. "

          Hey, that was a joke! From a feminist! And it was kind of funny! Somebody call Ripley's.

          An enjoyable respite from your usual barrage of insults, well done!

          • And yet, you have failed to provide any proof of your allegation. It is almost as if you are making it up, and then changing the subject when called on it. It is almost as if you actually failed to note that your little conspiracy theory about the media and LPC plot is disproved simply on the basis that the media is clearly not helping the LPC.

            And finally, it is almost as if you thought no one would notice that it is you who is stooping to personal attacks rather than address the issue.

            Funny that.

          • As stated above, the thing is in itself evidence. You've got a drunk driving Liberal MP giving lame excuses that would make a three year old laugh and a corrupt media; your problem should be with them, if you care about this country, not me.

          • I asked for facts. I specifically said your skewed perspective was not sufficient.

            But thanks for proving you do not have any facts – as if there was ever any question.

          • Fact: he was arrested for drunk driving and, unlike virtually every other similar case, the media sat on the story for weeks then let him report it himself at a news conference on a Friday afternoon, despite his arrest being a matter of public record for weeks.

            That is sufficient evidence of collusion, it's not my problem if you are clearly far, far too dense to understand that, the people will and the Liberals will lose Quebec for an eighth consecutive election.

            Next you'll say you believe his story that he didn't have enough sense to understand how to blow into a breathalyzer correctly, an excuse that is hostile to the intellect of Canadians.

          • Prove that the media knew.

            Funny how I have asked you this several times and you keep ignoring it – almost as if you know you cannot answer it – almost as if you realize there is no way the media could have known unless someone told them…

          • I just did prove it, they didn't report it for a month, that's collusion. I don't mean to be rude, but you're being deliberately and not so deliberately obtuse, and the stalking is a little bit creepy.

            Now, for a second time, I'm going to ask you to stop cyber-stalking me, thanks.

          • Ha ha ha

            Apparently in Bonko's world, simply saying something makes it magically come true.

            How was the arrest a matter of public record? Please tell me how that occured. Tell me where the media would have gone to find this out.

            I said prove it – as in, bring some facts into the discussion that establishes the media knew about these charges and sat on it.

          • Sweetie, you're coming off as mentally deranged. Now, I'm happy to see you use the word please for once, but short of using hand puppets I think at this point its fair to say you're too dense to get it, especially when you ask how a charge under the criminal code of Canada is a matter of public record, and ask how media organizations with crime and political reporters are supposed to report on crime and politics.

            That's clear evidence of someone with a limited understanding of law and public administration who, in my opinion, should not be harassing adults trying to have a good faith discussion on public affairs. Sorry if that sounds mean, but I have proved collusion beyond a reasonable doubt and I have no training for educating individuals with special needs such as yourself on the matter.

          • So, no facts then? Just a personal attack?

            Thanks for proving my point – or rather, proving that you do not have one.

          • I see you're doing the same thing in another thread, asking for proof of lobbying for a guy who advertised himself as a "lobbyist" for over three years at one of the largest law firms in Canada. That's intentionally obtuse, also very funny.

            Blurting out "you have no facts" after you have just had the facts explained to you very patiently is pretty weak troll-fu. The media sat on the story for weeks and that is fact, one that your play stupid routine cannot change.

            Now, GET LOST, Liberal troll. Men and women are discussing politics and one thing we do have ample proof of at this point is that you are a MENTALLY DERANGED LIBERAL STALKER who TROLLS threads. Scram, vamoose, we don't need the drama, sweetie.

          • Still clinging to that "if I say it is true it magically becomes so" theory?

            Do you even know what a fact is?

          • You know what? I am going to help you out here, because you seem to be lacking some basic knowledge, and that is causing you to draw some illogical conclusions.

            First, the fact that criminal charges are a matter of public record means only that the public may come and watch any trial it wants to watch. It does not mean that every time someone is charged the police send a fax to each and every reporter in the country telling them about it.

            When you go into a courthouse, you can read the dockets which contain the name of every person who is scheduled to appear in court that day and the charges he or she is facing.

            For the media to have found out about these charges, several things will have had to happen. First, his first court appearance must have already taken place. There is no reason to believe it has.

            Second, a reporter would have had to read the docket and recognize the name. While there are some local media agencies that send reporters to the court houses to read dockets, this does not happen every day and the national media do not waste their time sending reporters to each and every courthouse every single day in order to read the dockets. So, there would have had to have been a local reporter in court that day, who saw and recognized the name, and who reported it, and THEN the national media would have picked up on it.

            I suggest it is far more likely Rodriguez has not had his first court appearance yet, and the reason he came forward was because he knew that once he did, the media might find out about this.

    • So who did the Canadian media get a quote from at MADD to vent their outrage over another politician getting a free pass on an impaired driving related charge? For Rahim Jaffer they trotted out Gillian Phillips from the Edmonton chapter of MADD.

      Which Canadian reporter is going to lead the charge in demanding the Quebec police investigate and explain how Rodriguez was allowed to get away with this lesser charge? Who is going to investigate the political allegiance of the officer that let him off? After all, if it's fair game for David Akin to smear a judge when a (former) Conservative is involved, surely we're not going to let the sensibilities of a mere police officer stop us from getting to the bottom of this?

      Never mind, it was a trick question. I am about as certain as one can be that since a Liberal is involved, no one from the Canadian media contacted MADD for a quote, and they wouldn't run it even if they had one. And no one will demand any such explanation from the Quebec police, the way they did in the Jaffer "outrage".

      After all, when it's a Liberal, there is never any public outrage is there?

      • Here you go boys.

        • Nicely constructed rebuttal!
          Did you go to University for that?

      • What lesser charge – it's an equal charge.

  12. Now the media is reporting that he did in fact refuse to take a breathalyzer. Geez, you'd think over the weeks that they sat on this they'd get their story straight.

    • Maybe you should practice what you preach.

      Or maybe you, like wilson, are not concerned with the facts, but rather what kind of perception you can create by willfully repeating something you know not to be true.

      • Please stop stalking me, stalker. Stay on topic. Thank you.

        • Con.ca must have staffing problems on the weekends if this is the best they can come up. Where did they find you, Bonko?

          • And you Liberals must all be on weekend day passes from the federal penetentiary! What's your point?

      • And you can stop stalking me too Gayle,
        it's getting really creepy.

        • Yes, well wilson, I know it is probably terribly inconvenient for you when someone comes along and points out you are lying, but life just kind of sucks that way.

          Here is a way to rid yourself of this trouble – stop lying. And when called on it, maybe try proving your assertion instead of attacking the person pointing out it is wrong.

          Good luck.

  13. Good grief – the Con trolls are hyperventilating.

    People do that when they panic.

    Settle down kiddies

    • Con trolls? Is this a Liberal blog?
      Mr Wherry, is this an exclusive Liberal blog?

      Cons in Panic mode ?
      Because a Liberal MP got busted for refusing to blow for the police after he had a car accident? LOL

      • No we're shivering in our boots over the election that's happening because of the confidence vote on being in contempt….oh, say what. That didn't happen? Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps others checked the polls and their bank accounts and decided that playing chicken was likely to make them look like chumps…now they're calling Rae the future again. Let's get Kinsella involved, he's an excellent flak magnet.

        • Perhaps you missed it, but it was Harper who caved here. He simply finally agreed to do what the opposition have been suggesting he do since December.

          Of course it took him to wait until he was on the brink of being cited in contempt before he finally conceded he was wrong, but at least he did so.

          Baby steps…

          • No Gayle, you missed whatever needed hearing: that the opposition parties had not agreed on any collective approach to the viewing of detainee transfer files. Only now are they agreeing on a plan to do this.

            The opposition parties never took the issue of detainee transfers seriously enough. Now, after prodding from the Speaker to come to terms with this, have they done so. The Conservatives likewise. Therefore cooperation was possible.

          • Ha ha ha

            Way to totally ignore reality.

            Remember when Harper was absolutely refusing to negotiate any compromise that would see the opposition having access to the documents? Remember when the opposition made suggestions about how this could be accomplished and preserve national security interests? Remember how Milliken referenced at least one of these suggestions in his ruling? Remember how the CPC refused to even consider this option until forced to by the Speaker?

            Good times. Good times…

          • Harper never absolutely refused to negotiate. Harper always held and still holds the detainee transfer issue to be a complex one , to be a sensitive one on many fronts.

            Yes, Harper was unbending in such belief and could not believe that the opposition parties played so carelessly with the subject at hand. Now that the opposition parties are going to be partially responsible for what comes out of the detainee transfer paperwork, they are starting to experience the seriousness of it all. Because at the bottom of it all, there remains the question which Harper has understood throughout: What to do with the information unravelled?

            The opposition parties will now come to understand that reading into the paperwork is the least of their worries. What follows is the real juggernaut to overcome. If all the party leaders are mature enough, the juggernaut can be overcome. And if the public at large is capable of dealing with this in an adult manner also, so much the better.

          • Yes, he refused to negotiate. Though I find it interesting how you have to resort to historical revision in order to maintain your support for the man.

            Harper lost. Deal with it.

          • Gayle, some days I wish I could be like you: to be simpleminded, to be utterly single focused

            Your reasoning starts with an ending in sight and the ending is always the same: get rid of Harper.

            Gayle, our current state of democracy isn't being undermined by the likes of Harper but is being undermined by the likes of you.
            For your information: Harper is not a fundamental religious freak, but is a person who is able to understand religion as being a possible guide for coming to reasonable behaviour.

            On the other hand, you and so many others like you, are no longer capable of holding reason as being inherently within. You are capable of placing reason outside of the self, as an independent entity. And such loss is not entirely yours, but is ours collectively to carry as a burden. Very tiresome indeed.

          • And yet, your facts are still wrong. Instead of dealing with that, you turn this into a personal attack.

            Which is telling…

  14. Re the msm running interference for the Libs … let's not forget the Derek Lee "lobbying" for his law firm story, which was broken by Stephen Taylor on Blogging Tories on Apr 22nd.

    The msm, so far as I can tell, ignored Taylor's scoop. It wasn't until John Baird railed about Derek Lee's "lobbying" in QP on May 6th, that the msm took up the story.

    • Proof he was actually lobbying please.

      All you have to do is ask the government to produce it – what with the fact that if he were actually lobbying, he would be lobbying THEM, so they would certainly have that proof, if it actually exists.

      • And you believe, Gayle, that Derek Lee not once looked at the website he was mentioned on as being a lobbyist? You seriously believe everything Derek Lee states? Please, don't pretend to be able to be that naive.

        And then suddenly, that webpage in which Derek Lee is featured, is taken down. Why? If he did nothing wrong, then why take away that which is said to be perfectly ok. Strange reality some people create for themselves. It certainly isn't a reality which can be commonly shared. That would be impossible for obvious reasons.

        • That would be impossible for obvious reasons.

          OK, I'll ask…..what are these obvious reasons?

          • For a while I thought people just played it dumb. Now I'm certain some people don't know any better. And why debate with people who just don't know any better. What's the point other than wasting time.

            This whole Macleans blogging site doesn't amount to much any longer. It's become a cliched site without debating anything.

            If you want to believe that Derek Lee's portrayal of reality is good to go, then by all means, go for it. As far as I'm concerned, people like Derek Lee don't care for looking back and certainly aren't capable of thinking ahead in any meaningful way. And if you can't see that, don't worry about it: there are milliions more like you.

          • Your problem is that you are fabricating my argument/beliefs for me, and then calling me stupid for believing something that you just made up.

            The issue here is not the website – it is whether or not Lee was actually lobbying. That you continue to refer to the website and completely ignore the fact there is no evidence he was actually lobbying tells me you are more interested in attacking the man than you are in the truth.

          • From your post that I queried: It certainly isn't a reality which can be commonly shared.

            And then from your "current" post: And if you can't see that, don't worry about it: there are milliions more like you.

            So I'm not sure if the reality that others have created, the one that you don't agree with, isn't commonly shared or is commonly shared.

            Furthermore, I actually haven't made up my mind about Derek Lee and the webpage that indicated that he was involved in lobbying, mostly because there is some information that I am missing. I'll give you the questions if you are interested in answering.

        • Why is it the government has not produced one little teensy weensy shred of evidence Lee was lobbying them?

          You do understand that if he were a lobbiest, he would have to be lobbying the government – right? You get that is what lobbiests do? You understand that if he were lobbying this government, they would have actual evidence he was doing so, right?

          By the way, has anyone from the government alleged he is a lobbiest outside the safety of Parliamentary priviledge yet?

  15. Good grief Gayle. His law firm used the word "lobbying". I know, I know, that's not good enough "proof" for you. But we will all know more when Lee appears before the Parliamentary Committee.

    • So? Where is the proof he was actually lobbying?

      Do you think it only matters that the website says what is said? That it does not matter whether or not he actually IS a lobbiest?

      • I see. So we should always assume that any information that a law firm posts on its website is false. Got it.

        • Of course, that is not at all what I said.

          And you have avoided the question. If he was lobbying the government, why doesn't the government provide proof of same.

          I think we both know that is because no such proof exists.

          Nice try though.

  16. Hey, just for fun, try and replace the name Chretien, with Harper, ponder the Shawanigan Lake affair, and try to imagine what the media would have done with that one.

    To put matters in perspective, there were headlines about whether Harper ate a communion wafer.

  17. Poor Canada, Corruption,fraud,weekly government scandals,money in brown paper envelopes,RCMP tasering(5 times)and murdering someone and lying about it, biker chick in Quebec left with sensitive government files, adscam(money laundering),treasonous bloc heads all over parliament,the banning of the English language in Quebec(bills 22, 178,101…expensive phony bilingualism outside Quebec,taxes, debt and government growth out of control in all levels of government…with no end in sight.Look to Greece and Quebec, this is exactly where Canada is headed unless we have a new party,people with common sense in power.Liberals have spent 4 decades destroying our proud BNA,UEL history,and our economy with out on control spending,government growth and debt,and the Conservatives have done nothing about this.They haven't repealed the disastrous and expensive bilingual,multicultural acts.They have allowed spending,salaries and government growth to continue skyrocketing.Liberal,Tory same old story.

    • Hey, a new version! I like it. ;-)

      Btw, what is UEL?