'My sense is that they're taking it very seriously' - Macleans.ca

‘My sense is that they’re taking it very seriously’


The RCMP has conducted at least one interview towards some kind of investigation of the G8 Legacy Fund.

The RCMP is looking into allegations that the Harper government misappropriated funds in order to lavish $50 million on a cabinet minister’s riding prior to last year’s G8 summit. The probe comes on the heels of an auditor general’s report earlier this month, which concluded the government “did not clearly or transparently” explain how the money was going to be spent when it sought Parliament’s approval for a G8 legacy fund for Tony Clement’s riding.

The Mounties’ involvement was prompted by a complaint from former Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. She was interviewed for an hour last week by three RCMP officers. “My sense is that they’re taking it very seriously,” Jennings said in an interview Tuesday. “My sense is that they’re looking at this to see if there are any elements of proof that there may have been wilful intention to mislead Parliament.”


‘My sense is that they’re taking it very seriously’

  1. Aren’t the RCMP required to interview the complainant, if they’re processing a complaint?  I very strongly doubt that Marlene Jennings’ RCMP stunt is going to go anywhere.

    • How do we know they haven’t interviewed Clement?  We only know Jennings was interviewed because she said so.

      • I think it’s highly unlikely that the RCMP will waste time interviewing anyone other than Ms. Jennings, who filed the complaint. 

        • Of course you do. 

    • Huh? 

      Bryden writes:

      “The Mounties’ involvement was prompted by a complaint from former Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. She was interviewed for an hour last week by three RCMP officers.”

      Stunt or not, Jennings is the complainant. is she not? The complaint was originally lodged mid-campaign. The RCMP followed up after the final report was tabled.

      • Yeah, that’s what I was pointing out.  The RCMP interviewed Jennings because she was the complainant.  They probably view the complaint as frivolous, so I doubt they’ll pursue it any further than that.

        • Did you miss the AG’s report?

        • Ah, yes. It was read another way. Whoops. Interestingly enough, though, Wherry’s follow-up post lays out the actual basis of the complaint more explicitly. And depending on how one reads the clauses in the Act, it would appear there may actually be something there. That said, it’s equally valid to   ascribe Ms. Jennings’ motives to something other than a sincere desire to see justice fully done.

      • As opposed to getting the word out to the NDP, when they were investing the Liberals during an election.

  2. Of course they have to take it seriously, a complaint has been made.

    • They have to follow procedure and determine whether there’s something to actually investigate. (Hint: they won’t. This is a political stunt from a loser who was desperately grasping at straws as she was floundering, mid-campaign. Your dreams of revenge will be crushed, as usual.)

      • Stop reading things into comments that aren’t there.

        A complaint has been made to the RCMP….of course it has to be investigated.

        The rest you just made up.

      • You Cons are so certain there won’t be an investigation,  it’s as if you know something the rest of us don’t – care to share it? 

  3. The government did a 180. It made a mistake and is fixing it (in theory). No need to spin it folks.