The Commons: Let he who is without shame

The point seems to be that whatever’s going on with Rahim Jaffer, it’s not as bad as what the Liberals did

The Scene. Liberal Dominic LeBlanc rose to report on the latest stash of documents to be released in regards to the Gaffer Affair and to wonder aloud, with seven departments now said to have been contacted by Rahim Jaffer, how many more ministers and parliamentary secretaries were still to disclose their communications with the husband of the deposed Helena Guergis.

And so John Baird stood to pronounce on the heroism of his government. ”Mr. Speaker, let me very clear,” Mr. Baird clarified, “we would not be having this debate about documents if it were not for the government which made all these documents public.”

Alas, the Liberals did not congratulate the minister so much as laugh derisively.

Mr. LeBlanc stood again and took direct aim at Mr. Baird with the allegation that the Transport Minister had put his parliamentary secretary between he and Mr. Jaffer and that such a move might constitute some violation of the vaunted Accountability Act. And here Mr. Baird did what he had the day before—he invoked the ghosts of Liberal scandals past.

“Let us be very clear,” he again attempted to clarify. “Let us contrast the actions of our government with the previous Liberal government. Mr. Jaffer got no grants, got no money as a result of any of his meetings. Compare this to the previous Liberal government when millions of dollars went missing and the Liberal Party found itself in a position where it had to return some of the kickbacks it had received from taxpayers. Shame on the Liberal Party. We have $1 million back from the Liberal Party. We want the extra $39 million.”

For awhile, the government seemed quite intent on seeming serious and solemn in regards to this saga. But yesterday, perhaps with some knowledge that a stash of e-mails detailing the friendly treatment Mr. Jaffer received from various officials of this government were about to become public, the government turned quite angry and accusatory. Suddenly it was 2005 again and the Conservatives were pursuing the sponsorship scandal.

The point now seems to be that, well, whatever’s going on here, it’s not quite as bad as what the Liberals did. So there. Apparently when the Conservatives said “Stand Up For Canada” in 2006, what they meant was “Surely We Won’t Be As Shameful As Chretien.”

The Liberals pressed on, pursuing various angles old and new. Mr. Baird accused them of “fishing,” then persisted in alluding to the aforementioned Adscam. The minister pumped his fist and chopped his hand and bobbed his head. He shrugged his shoulders and scrunched his face and attempted metaphor. ”I say to my friend in the Liberal Party,” he said to his Liberal friend Alexandra Mendes, “tomorrow is the day when Canadians have to pay up for their tax bills. Tomorrow should also be the day that the Liberal Party pays up for their $39 million of missing money.”

If this keeps up, expect the Liberals to be moaning on about the Pacific Scandal by next week.

What this moment obviously required was someone untouched by the corrupting influence of power, someone beyond and above the fray to comment from a position of unquestioned righteousness. What we needed was some kind of saint.

Here, then, came the NDP’s excitable Pat Martin, standing at the far end of the room and putting one foot out into the aisle to stare down the government side directly. ”Mr. Speaker, it seems that if one has good Conservative credentials and knows the secret handshake, doors open, officials jump and illegal is just a sick bird. What red tape, they say. Rahim wants an answer by Friday, or at least before tee time,” Martin mused, waving his arms and then wagging his finger.

“We all know that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport is just a patsy in all this,” he ventured. “He is an expendable fall guy and we expect that he will take the fall. I want to know when the Prime Minister is going to take responsibility for his ministers running roughshod over the Federal Accountability Act, the very centrepiece legislation of the government’s agenda.”

Mr. Baird appeared deeply hurt. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “I deeply resent the comments that the member of the New Democratic Party has made about the hard-working member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.”

“Ahhh!” the Liberals mocked.

Mr. Martin returned undaunted. “Mr. Speaker, it took 13 years for the Liberals to get this corrupt and arrogant, but the virus seems to have mutated. The Conservatives have succumbed in less than four,” he sang.

The Conservatives loudly appealed for decency.

“Rahim Jaffer lied to Parliament, but a lie by omission by the government is just as offensive,” Mr. Martin continued. “Why did it let Rahim Jaffer skulk around the corridors of power for a year and a half without telling anybody that he was lobbying them illegally? Why did it keep taking meetings with him and giving him privileged access and services without telling him to stop? Does anybody over there even know the difference between right and wrong, or has the virus consumed that too?”

Well then.

“It is quite colourful language he is using,” Mr. Baird observed.

And if we have come to point at which only Mr. Martin can speak with some authority, we are in a colourful place indeed.

The Stats. Helena Guergis, 13 questions. Government appointments and Afghanistan, five questions each. Prisons, four questions. Environment and maternal health, three questions each. Forestry, two questions. Infrastructure, taxation, food, democracy, veterans and workplace safety, one question each.

John Baird, 17 answers. Vic Toews, four answers. Peter MacKay, three answers. Christian Paradis, Denis Lebel, Lawrence Cannon, Mark Warawa and Chuck Strahl, two answers each. Josee Verner, Jim Abbott, Jim Flaherty, Rona Ambrose, Steven Fletcher, Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Lisa Raitt, answer each.

The Commons: Let he who is without shame

  1. ah remember those heady days of April 9th when this was all SO serious that Guergis had to be booted out of the party AND that no other Conservatives, MPs, or federal employees were involved….as Harper assured us.

    Oh what a difference a few weeks make…..we STILL don't know what was so serious that Guergis got booted out the party…..and it seems that Harper may have lied a little about nobody being involved…….

  2. Yeah, but the Liberals stole 100 million dollars and didn't get it back? Rahim Jaffer is an idiot who is no longer is supported in any form by the Conservative Party.

    Apparently when the Conservatives said “Stand Up For Canada” in 2006, what they meant was “Surely We Won't Be As Shameful As Chretien.”

    Mr Wherry and Ottawa Media, "I hope you (Canadians) didn't think we care that the Liberals stole that money!?! (or Afghan Detainees or DUIs ) mlaaalalahaha, it's called news cycle stoopid!"

  3. Rahim most certainly was supported by his con colleagues, right to the very moment he got caught — and I don't mean got caught drinking and driving, speeding and possessing cocaine; I mean got caught lobbying senior government representatives.

  4. You mean Harper lied? Say it aint so!

  5. To be generous: If he didn't know, then he didn't lie.

    • Well, if one were to assume that he did not know….then he STILL lied becuase he really hadn't investigated as he claimed to know one way or another

  6. Dear Rahim. It's only taken the Conservatives two years to look like the Gliberals, who took fifty years to be thrown out. His wife has had a meltdown, and every time a little sympathy is stirred in his direction more of his crummy emails get published! Seven volumes? Rahim, just be quiet. Be very, very quiet.

  7. Rather than "Stand up for Canada", the CPC slogan should have been "Stand up for Obfuscation".

    Yes, we all know the Liberals were bad little boys and girls back in the early part of the decade but that shouldn't be the Conservatives' excuse to act badly now.

    Like our mothers used to say, "Just because your friends jump off a bridge, doesn't mean that you have to as well". Maybe all MPs need to have an open discussion with their mothers.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

  8. Mr. Wherry, I always enjoy your writing.

  9. Pat Martin has no respect in Ottawa.

    His rude manner is much better suited shouting out instructions to the converted at the union halls in Winnipeg.

  10. Where were all the leaders? Plotting election strategy?

    • Leaders? We have those in Canadian (esp. federal) political parties?

  11. The party of God knows no fault that is there's alone. As HE taught the chosen ones, "It's the Liberals fault".

  12. I think Baird should ask his party to pay back the $42 million it has stolen from the taxpayer and used for politicized economic stimulus advertising.

  13. Oh, by the way, given the passion Conservatives have for collecting outstanding debts,( "…We want the extra $39 million.” ) perhaps they could explain the whereabouts of the 5 billion softwood tax dollars the USA owes Canada.

  14. "Hey let's do this for Rahim and he'll promise to kick-back some into the Conservative kitty,"

    That would have been fraud and bribery and a violation of the Criminal Code and results in criminal sanction.

    Lobbying without being a registered lobbist is a violation of the Federal Accountability Act and the lobbyist legislation and results, or should, in criminal sanction.

    Participating and helping such lobbying, even if it doesn't produce results, is I believe also a violation of hte FAA and other legislation.

  15. Ignorance is no excuse, and Harper is very ignorant. No excuse for that.

  16. Alright already. So the Liberals Adscam was dastardly. Can we forget it now .. it was years ago. Harper was going to be virtuous and better. All we hear now is, "well they did it first," "we're not as bad as them," and so on ad nauseum. I thought they were ushering a new era of transparency and accountability. Well, let's bloody well see it!

  17. Another homily that applies here is “Never assume malice when stupidity will do.”

  18. Gosh, that's quite a set-up you have on that-there 'Yoo-Toob'. Not quite as popular as that Lady Gaga feller. But still, we do like our voices to be heard. Hey, 'Broadcast Yourself'.

  19. I think the Conservatives, to demonstrate how free they are of corruption, should return to Canadian Pacific Railway the $360,000 bribe Sir Hugh Allan paid to the Tories in 1872 in exchange for the railway contract.

    Adjusted for inflation, that would be approximately $6.4 million today.

  20. You might be confused the advertising contracts that broke every rule regarding Quebec were by the Liberals.

    Do you have any evidence of the Government following in the tradition of the previous government?

  21. Your standards are too high. Witchunts make good press.

  22. Lately Wherry is giving Lawrence Martin a run for his money for the biggest Liberal Party toady/shill in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Which is really pathetic, because Lawrence Martin is a bad joke.

  23. Nothing wrong with being partisan, the only problem, is trying to pass yourself as neutral, unbiased, news.
    Personal opinion columns are fine. Everyone needs to pay the rent.

  24. If Rahim used any taxpayer funds when he used Helena`s office. Blackberry. or her office supplies then he should be made to pay it back.

    But then again, I think those idiots who scaled the Parliament buildings last year should be made to pay back the rescuers that had to retreive them.

    And I think Frank Mahavolich and Ken Dryden should be paid in old hockey pucks. ( and Demers too )

    And I would like my portion of that 39 million……..$1.15 plus interest.

  25. Lawrence Martin pretends to offer political "analysis". His columns in the Globe these days are basically Liberal Party of Canada talking points masquerading as journalism. His stuff is positively vapid and nauseating to read. There is a universe of difference between someone writing something worthy and interesting that comes from a particular ideological perspective, and the stale crap that Lawrence Martin writes in the Globe these days. People like David Brooks, Thomas Friedman and Charles Krauthammer all have obvious biases and partisan leanings, but their writing shows that they are also capable of critical thought and reflection — as opposed to essentially "four legs (Liberal Party of Canada) good, two legs (Tories) bad".

    If you can't see and appreciate that difference, then I really wonder about you.

  26. Rahim's connection with his old party resulted in his proposals being denied. Now, IF some former colleague had said, "Hey let's do this for Rahim and he'll promise to kick-back some into the Conservative kitty," that would have been a scandle. He appears to have worked hard to try to get something going and perhaps he should have registered. But his former colleagues didn't bite. I don't see much of a scandle, if this is all there is to the story.

    Mr. Wherry, you are very selective in your description of QP. It is not accurate.

  27. Just as you or Baird or the CON dimbulbs who keep repeating the $39-40 million number as though there's proof that points its trail to the Liberal party. It is easily forgotten that most of those Gomery and the law found to be guilty were former CONs who jacked the system.
    Just as it's now proven that the person at the centre of the left-wing-media's 'mini-scandalette' of 3 years ago, where one Liberal MP used a CBC reporter's questions in a committee room, is apparently laying with the CON wolves.
    Just as Grumant Gerwal's clouseauesque attempt to trap the Liberals into some taped web of illicit offers; it ended up dissolving when the CONs hide the tape. Funny that, the one reliable tape a few years later was from a reliable third party who caught the PM in a driveway without his sulking orders – admitting that members of his own party visited a dying MP with 'an offer.' CONs and their blogsters can't handle the truth.

  28. Of course not. Standing By is too busy munching on the donuts in the Liberal War Room.

  29. I truly believe stupidity will be the defense strategy if this ever ends in a court.

  30. Read about Rahim Jaffer's ties with TransAlta, a firm the Conservatives supported Clean Energy Fund dollars. There are important documents here that you won't find anywhere else:
    http://battlelight.blogspot.com

  31. The federal Conservatives are responding to issues of Parliamentary privilege and federal ministerial conduct in 2010 with references to provincial Liberal misconduct in Quebec before 1995.

    Flailing much?

    Also, isn't a bit weird that the Conservatives are spinning Jaffer as a dilettante and a nobody? He served reform, Alliance and the CPC for 11 years. He was at the core of the Alberta federal team. He stood side by side with Harper throughout … now he's being cast as a peripheral character?

    The conservatives cannot move their lips without emitting lies.

  32. Does anyone doubt that money would be flowing to Mr. Jaffer's various projects, even as we speak, if not for Mr. Jaffer's unfortunate run-in with the law last fall?

  33. Alright already. So the Liberals Adscam was dastardly. Can we forget it now .. it was years ago.

    No, no, no & No. The Liberals will wear Adscam for generations… and they should. Not one of the current crop of Liberals had the guts to disavow Adscam & those directly involved in it… That stink will linger for a long, long time. As it should.

  34. It's funny how Macleans' audience seems to enjoy the thumbs up/down feature. Looks to me like liberals have more time on their hands and sign up for this service whereas conservatives just don't give a damn and post their message.

    So you always end up seeing this: liberal talking point = thumbs up, conservative talking point = thumbs down. It kinda irks me honestly, because I don't like seeing liberals get some false sense of security that they're right about something. Just makes reality's job of convincing liberals the truth about their surroundings a little bit longer of a road.

  35. I'm not sure I agree. My belief is that corruption is in fact everywhere, and it is thus in our best interests to tighten things up to prevent such a thing. While Adscam was indeed bad, it should not reflect on every Liberal out there. The Cons overplay this card way too much – it is a very destractive shiny object. Essentially, they are building up a belief system where so long as anything bad that they do is nowhere near as bad as Adscam, it should be ignored.

  36. This is very likely what would have happened. I imagine many were cautious with him because of this incident, knowing full well that it would attract more scrutiny. If I was a sitting MP, I'd be rather careful about my associations with someone who was detained for blowing over the limit, and possession of cocaine. This is common sense.

  37. While Adscam was indeed bad, it should not reflect on every Liberal out there.

    I disagree. I don't want the Cons to police the Liberals & the Liberals to police the Cons. I want all politicial parties to police themselves. The entire Liberal party allowed Jean Chretien to turn their party into an embezzlement scheme. They did not police themselves. I don't think we should forget that & I don't think we should let them off the hook for it even if we are equally disgusted with the Cons.

  38. When the libs pay us back, then we will/might forget.Until then, they are doomed nver to lead this country.They have never owned Adscam

  39. I did wonder myself. Perhaps they are just tired of the non issues that the opposition keeps raising.

  40. I watched a similar exchange between Baird and the Grits on Wednesday. Two Liberal MPs got up and asked who wrote 'From Rahim' on the top of those documents. Baird got up and said it has all been sent to ethics commissioner and then proceeded to admonish the Liberals for adscam demanding that they cough up that $39 million. He gave the same response three or four times in a row. OK, fine, the Liberals are no-good crooks and no one should ever vote for them, we got your point — but why couldn't he have at least attempted to answer the question: who wrote the note? Even an 'I don't know' would have been a better response. I guess that's why they call it question period and not answer period. Makes for damn frustrating television.

  41. Sir:

    You insult Winnipeg, intimating that the population are drones.
    You will take back that insult, sir, or else cease making remarkably ironic posts about 'no respect for Ottawa".

    Glass houses, stones, etc…

    Thank you for your time.

  42. "whereas conservatives just don't give a damn and post their message"

    About that…while I may be anonymous, you can easily track back every single comment I've made with the click of a button. It's "accountability light", in that I can be held to public ridicule for contradicting myself.

    You don't need to worry about that though, so i can see how that would be attractive. To a certain type.

    Besides, if I was really worried about my thumb rating, I would stop posting rebuttals to stuff Mark Steyn writes.

  43. Are you saying that everyone who was working for the Liberals knew about Adscam? Is this why they should be punished?

    Everyone? Probably not. But everybody in the party watched and remained silent while Alfonso Gagliano was sent off to Denmark . Everybody in the party learned during the Gomery Inquiry that *illegal* campaign contributions were given to a dozen candidates in Quebec.
    I'm not holding them responsible for the things that happened outside of their knowledge or control. I'm holding them responsible for their own choices. Not one Liberal broke ranks to denounce criminality in their own party. They all put their heads down and waited for it all to blow over. That was their choice… Now they can all continue to sit and wait, because it ain't blown over yet.

  44. All the coverage seems to focus on Rahim's involvement with the government, but what concerns me the most is the pressure that was placed on public servants to move Rahim's files forward. That seems far worse than unregistered lobbying.

  45. "I'm holding them responsible for their own choices."

    So – once again – your solution is to keep punishing them for this in perpetuity? What good does this actually serve? How would a party system work if everyone started denouncing one another? When the scandal involving Sir. John A. was uncovered, how did the party deal with it? He was willing to get out, but they insisted that he stay, to serve the better good. Why? Because while what he did was wrong and bad, his innappropriate actions did not outweigh the various good things that he had done. It seems to me that your sense of justice is very puritanical – possibly even vindictive.

  46. The Conservatives can make the Liberals wear Adscam for as long as the voters will let them… I've got no problem with that. What galls me is using it as a smokescreen, as if two wrongs actually do make a right. Baird used adscam as a method by which he could refuse to answer direct questions, or be accountable.

  47. It seems to me that your sense of justice is very puritanical – possibly even vindictive.

    You can look at it that way if you like. I'd simply counter that my sense of justice requires accountability whereas yours seems to require nothing more than the passage of a little time.

    You charactorize my solution as endless punishment which suggests a failure of communication between us . My solution is a Liberal party that admits to it's complicity in the corruption of the past, and one that makes a sincere vow to learn from it's mistakes and police itself with real vigour in the future. If they did that, properly and with real humility, they would win the next election. Because even small c- Conservatives (and I count myself as one) are full of contempt for this current government.

    But everytime I see someone snorting that Adscam is "old news," or suggesting that the Liberals have been "punished enough" or any of the other attempts to minimize or rationalize what happened there, I will loudly object. If that makes me vindictive in your eyes, then I'll simply have to find some way to bear that additional weight.

  48. PS. Adscam wasn't even the worst of it, IMO. What Jean Chretien tried to do to Francois Beaudoin of the BDC was just about as low and vile a political rat-f*ck as I have seen in decades of political observance. Once again, never a word of objection raised by any Liberal politician. Not one.

  49. I think that's a tactical mistake by the Cons. Baird is inviting the comparisons between the very worst of the Liberal scandals and the current mess. If it were me, I'd reject the comparison, not invite it.

  50. Forgive my ignorance, but what did he do?

  51. So this story started out interesting, then went flat for a little while and now it's interesting again.

    You got to hand to the Conservatices, they know how to hold my interest in these stories!

  52. The thing is – I don't think there is anyone from the Liberals who is saying that Adscam was good. You simply feel they are not repentant enough? You want them all to fall to their knees, and beg for mercy? It's an odd request, especially when you want people who were not directly involved in it to do this.

    Let's say you had a brother, who committed a large crime. Are you expected to denounce him forever because of this action? Would you like it that people judge you based on his actions? Is there anything wrong with you acknowledging the wrongdoings of your brother, while still standing by his side and helping him work through his problems? It is a tough line to etch between loyalty and justice.

    So again I ask – Do you believe there are people who are presently working for the Iggy Liberals who directly benefited from Adscam that have not been brought to justice? All in all, I think the Liberals dealt with it somewhat sufficiently, considering the circumstances. No – they did not denounce each other all over – they pinpointed the problem within their organization, and cut it out. What more do you want?

  53. You're going to get me going on a rant here, Sam.

    If I had more time I'd get you some citations but here's a brief summation. Francois Beaudoin was the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada. He tried to call the loan which he had extended to the Owner of the Grand-Mere Inn after he had been personally lobbyed by Chretien (illegally & covertly) to make the loan. This despite the fact that the loan applicant did not meet the criteria. Chretien, with the help of the RCMP and his personal thug, Jean Carle, then tried to destroy Francois Beaudoin by charging him with fraud, raiding his home, his offices – and his golf club – and generally just trying to ruin him. In the end, after a lengthy legal battle, Beaudoin was completely exonerated of all the false charges brought against him.

    Andrew Coyne wrote very extensively about it, I'll see what I can find online. The details are outrageous.

  54. Aaron,

    I hope from QP or statements today you will let us know if any Liberals defy Ralph Goodales orders not to pay tribute to Judy W-L on her last day in Parliament because he's still mad that she had the nerve to call the RCMP about the Income Trust scandal.

  55. I think if they didn't allow anonymous posting that would make accountability guaranteed.

    As it stands, I see no reason really to put in the effort in creating an account… though then again, if it were required I might still see no reason and then the quality of posts here would drop dramatically…

    Yes just kidding about the last part; the posters on these comment sections are generally quite good actually, even if I disagree with a lot of them. At least, the grammar is really good. And yes, sometimes I myself use improper grammar, simply because I enjoy it. I don't like saying I did "well" on something. I'd rather say good. I got a bit off topic here, hmm..

  56. Exactly. This is the problem I have as well. What – you question me about this? Well – at least I wasn't involved in Adscam! It's become so predictable, you almost need something like a "Godwin's law" name to identify it. Much like making stupid comparisons to evil and Hitler, playing the Adscam card over and over really cheapens the relevance and importance of the wrongdoings of Adscam.

  57. I think they've paid the price and it's time to move on. Harper can't blame the past for his present situation. That's cowardly.

    By the way, it was $39 million not the exaggerated $100 million AND actually no one can be blamed until it's found as it may not have been the Liberals afterall, we don't know. The proof is the proof.

  58. LOL – coming from someone who keeps bringing old and overused junk and defending Harper – your standards are way too low.

  59. Well, well – so true. The banking system by the Liberals, that Harper brags about right now but lobbied and voted against is the Liberals fault – why isn't Harper blaming the Liberals for that????? LOL

  60. You're not reading what I wrote.

    Do you believe there are people who are presently working for the Iggy Liberals who directly benefited from Adscam that have not been brought to justice?

    Yes.

    they pinpointed the problem within their organization, and cut it out.

    You really believe that?

  61. Hey, a world where we all argued about nothing but grammar would mean we lived quite the life of leisure…or that we were so boring, people no longer speak to us face-to-face and we're left alone, in a basement, eating skittles and ranting about dangling participles on the internet.

  62. Now, now – the Cons dimbulbs don't like to hear that stuff – they aren't grown up enough to handle it.

  63. I've still not gotten over that and yet the Libs and NDP don't demand it back when in QP.

  64. their afraid to answers questions – they're cowards.

  65. Hey M_A_N : I have to admit I did not know for sure that Martin`s history involved a time in the union hall, but I assumed because his confrontational speaking style reminded me of the rhetoric one would hear at a grievance hearing in a union hall. Then I checked, and sure enough he worked for various unions before he became an MP.

    So you may have misconstrued my comment to think that I was slagging all my good cousins in Winnipeg, when, in fact I was simply saying that Martin`s " union rally rhetoric " may work inside the union hall amongst the union brothers but it gets him no respect in public.

  66. all of his former colleagues bit.

    it was the civil service that stopped him!

  67. Yeesh. I think it's time you wiped the foam from your mouth.

  68. Political parties have always policed themselves. Nevertheless, things fall through the cracks.

    Are you saying that everyone who was working for the Liberals knew about Adscam? Is this why they should be punished? What we should learn from Adscam is to makes sure we have a better system of checks and balances to ensure everything is on the up and up. It would be ideal that all people involved in politics be altruistic, but this isn't the reality of things. Many are in it to further their own agendas, as well as the agendas of those who supported them. IMO, the overuse of Adscam doesn't serve much of a purpose, other than to discredit the Liberals. I also did/do not believe that Harper should pay for the sins of Brian.

  69. Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

  70. Jaffer's sin (crime) is that he has acted like a Liberal. He signed up for the wrong party. When a Liberal gets into his situation they make him a Senator.

  71. "Do you believe there are people who are presently working for the Iggy Liberals who directly benefited from Adscam that have not been brought to justice?

    Yes."

    Really? Name them.

  72. This bs doesn't matter to anyone out here in the real world and as its been pointed out by many other posters here and else where there is no tax payers money involved here.Conseratives do not steal from Canadians,Liberals do,they lie,steal and play any dirty trick to get power.As Mr. Baied said, where is that 39 milion, on Monday morning i would like nothing better than to have an investagation started in to the liberal party, as well as a law suite, with the aim of recovering this stolen money.Further more i pray Mr. Harper has the dirt on the liberals with regards to this so called detainee scandal and is just waiting for the right moment to pull the trigger.Then comes an election,a Conserverative majority and an end to the $1.95 per vote and the slimy liberals and the disgusting traitors from Que are gone in one clean swoop.

  73. You are a gentleman.

Sign in to comment.