12

Small world


 

The polling firm implicated in the campaign against Irwin Cotler did work for at least 39 Conservative candidates in the last election, including Andrew Scheer.

A Citizen analysis of Elections Canada records shows that Campaign Research was involved in at least 39 candidate campaigns during the spring election, and was paid nearly $400,000 for the work.  Not all Conservative candidate returns have been filed so the figure could be slightly higher still.

As @kady notes, one of the campaigns that used Campaign Research was that of the same Andrew Scheer who found no breach of privilege. His campaign paid more than $8,000 for their services in aid of his run for the roses in Regina – Qu’Appelle, before he was elected Speaker. Scheer does not appear to have mentioned this in his ruling or, uh, anywhere else.


 

Small world

  1. Must be a slow news day…..

    • …because the Speaker of the House of Commons ruling on an issue in which he has a potential conflict of interest couldn’t possibly be newsworthy.

      • My initial reacton to this story was: oh no, let’s not go there, everyone in the conservative party has some sort of connection to this firm, possibly mps from other parties too. But the speaker is unique
        .Really! Shouldn’t he have mentioned this, if only for the sake of full disclosure?

      • What conflict?  He used the same firm eight months ago during an election campaign as did others.  His ruling disses the conservatives as well they should be and this has actually helped Cotler as with all the media attention people are feeling sorry for him. 

        So it is the media that is trying to whip up a big story and give it legs.

        • …because the Speaker of the House of Commons not revealing his obviously relevant relationship with the polling firm at the heart of his ruling couldn’t possibly raise any questions about his impartiality.

    • Every day for the next 3.5 years is sadly, going to be a slow news day. :-(

  2. Oh.  Ouch.  I actually agreed with Scheer’s ruling, sad as I find that statement to be, but this fact should have been divulged.  Even if it was the proper ruling based on the precedents available to him, it now smells.

  3. Not much relevance, I don’t think. It wasn’t the polling firm that was being taken to task, it was the Conservative Party. If you accept that Scheer can be objective about his own party, then it’s not much of a stretch to think he can be objective about a firm with which he had a brief commercial arrangement. That’s presuming that he even entered that commercial relationship by his own choice. Conservative candidates are not known for running their local campaigns autonomously, after all.  

    • No, but it does bring to mind the fact that in my riding, certain people were called and told their polling station had moved, when in fact it had not moved at all.

  4. No no no no no no. Just this once let us assume the BEST possible intentions here and not the worst. We must assume the Speaker’s relationship with the firm played absolutely no role in his judgement. He will be innocent until proven otherwise.

    I just cannot imagine, and don’t want to imagine, any other outcome.

    • I don’t see how it is a conflict. It would be if they had been paying him, but this is simply a provider of services, which he almost certainly didn’t pick himself.  And no one has alleged the polling company did anything illegal, simply what it was asked to do by the party.  I suppose it might be an apparent conflict that the Speaker is a member of the political party in question, but everyone knew that when he was elected.  The same concern would apply to anyone who wasn’t elected to parliament as an independent.

  5. a lot of pieces of shit on the government benches as well as the speaker’s chair…

Sign in to comment.