The Commons: Let us debate that which is unsubstantiated

Whatever happened, the Conservatives had nothing to do with it


The Scene. After tracing the necessarily circuitous route to her question, Nycole Turmel was as straightforward as she can be.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday on CBC, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary said the Conservative party was investigating the allegations of election fraud. An hour later, on Sun TV, he said the Conservatives were not conducting an investigation,” the interim leader of the opposition recounted. “Could the Prime Minister tell us which it is? Are the Conservatives investigating, yes or no?”

Could the Prime Minister? Theoretically speaking, yes. Would he? Practically speaking, no.

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party has made available, from the beginning, all information to Elections Canada,” Mr. Harper said. “The Conservative party can say absolutely, definitively, it has no role in any of this.”

On what basis can the government say this? It is difficult to say.

Speaking to the CBC yesterday, Dean Del Mastro, the aforementioned parliamentary secretary, seemed to confirm that the party had looked into the allegations, but speaking to Sun News, Mr. Del Mastro said there was no internal investigation. Last weekend, Peter MacKay said he thought that “they’ve”—whoever they are—”identified the individual that was involved in this” and that “that individual is no longer in the employment of the party.” Perhaps the Defence Minister was relying on unconfirmed news reports, but the only individual publicly known to have resigned from the government in the last week—Michael Sona—says he had “no involvement” in the fraudulent calls.

So the Conservatives may have looked into the allegations, but they’ve not necessarily conducted an investigation. And if they have figured out who is responsible, they haven’t said who that is. Except to say that they’re quite sure the Conservative party had nothing to do with it.

The opposition parties remain less-than-convinced of this certainty. Keeping with yesterday’s explanations, Ms. Turmel recalled that the government side said it called its supporters to notify them of changes in polling stations. But, Ms. Turmel said, some of the ridings in questions did not witness changes in polling stations. “Will the Prime Minister confirm that the calls were made in ridings where no change of polling station was planned?” she asked.

He would not. Her would only say that the Conservatives had provided “all” information to Elections Canada and it was his conclusion that the NDP was engaged in a “smear campaign.”

On this matter of information provided, Ms. Turmel wondered what precisely Mr. Harper’s party had turned over. Mr. Harper would not say, except to say “all.” “It is interesting that the NDP says it has provided information to Elections Canada,” he added. “Elections Canada has since said there was almost no complaints during the election.”

An investigation might be in order to determine how the Prime Minister generally defines the phrase “almost no.” As of last September, Elections Canada had catalogued 119 complaints related to phone calls, including 30 that involved calls about polling stations.

Pat Martin then unleashed his eyebrows and his vocabulary upon the government side, haranguing them about the “moral authority to govern” and “treachery.”

Dean Del Mastro, having a day earlier denied the existence of Edmonton East during a television interview, thus stood to deny the existence of anything that might suggest something untoward. “We just heard the leader of the opposition indicate that they have made all their evidence public,” he reported. “I guess we would have to conclude then, based on what they have made public, that this is nothing but an unsubstantiated smear campaign on behalf of the NDP, and they should withdraw all their comments in this regard.”

Mr. Martin was undaunted. Indeed, he was moved to analogy. “Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight,” he pleaded. “We have the gun sitting here and we have this plume of smoke hanging over the gun, but the Conservatives say there is no proof that the smoke is in any way related to the gun.”

The proof, Mr. Martin ventured, “is coming in by the hour, every day, to our offices of constituents reporting that their right to cast their ballot was interfered with on election day.”

Mr. Del Mastro was unimpressed. “This is an unsubstantiated smear campaign led by the opposition parties,” he said. “They have absolutely nothing to back up what they have said.”

Bob Rae duly stood here to list off various complaints: calls made to Jewish voters on Friday nights and Saturdays, calls at terribly late hours, all purporting to be from the Liberal party. “If this happened in one riding, we would say it was just a prank. If it happened to be two, it might be a coincidence,” the interim Liberal leader guessed, chopping his hand and jabbing his finger and raising his voice. “When it happens in over 30 ridings, the explanation has to come from the Conservative party with respect to what was going on.”

Mr. Harper repeated his claim that Elections Canada “received virtually none of these complaints” and suggested that Mr. Rae was just upset that a majority of Jewish voters had cast their ballots for the Conservative party.

“Where is the beef?” the Prime Minister begged. “Where is the proof?”

So nothing is certain. Except that which each side is certain of.

The Stats. Ethics, 20 questions. Government spending, seven questions. Bilingualism, crime and military procurement, two questions each. Aboriginal affairs, mining, health care, the environment and infrastructure, one question each.

Dean Del Mastro, nine answers. Stephen Harper, six answers. Pierre Poilievre, five answers. Denis Lebel, three answers. Tony Clement, Gerry Ritz, Jacques Gourde, Rob Nicholson and Julian Fantino, two answers each. Diane Finley, Greg Rickford, Lisa Raitt, Leona Aglukkaq and Joe Oliver, one answer each.


The Commons: Let us debate that which is unsubstantiated

  1. Based on this I actually think Ms Tumel handily won a round with the PM.

    As for Dean…an hour elapsed between different lies…er, stories is pretty good for him eh!

    As always,love the writing…always good for a laugh or two.

    • I’m just impressed the NDPQ have a talking turtle as their leader. Good for them eh?

      • I’ll take a turtle over a liar who doesn’t have the stones to call an inquiry.

      • I have scoured these boards to find a conservative with a reasoned and logical response to these robo calls….and all I have found so far are insults…that’s it….it just makes me ( a Progressive Conservative…waiting for the party to come back)sad and a little concerned that hard core Harper supporters care so little about this

        • John g, hoser-to-hoosier, and Crit_Reasoning can all be fairly good.
          Healthcare Insider can sometimes provide new information that we haven’t yet seen to various issues as well.

          edit: Oh! GreatWallsofFire and WhyShouldISellYourWheat can be reasonable to discuss with, but it depends on the day/issue.

      • That’s a pretty slimy comment even for you.

      • Thx for all the likes…lol

        I just wonder how many of you realized I’m a Liberal? Nice to see all the new dipper supporters on here though – the place needed some new blood…and no you can’t have them back :)

  2. Just a wild guess here. Is Harper’s repetition that they have “sent all the information to Elections Canada” with no details being divulged (what information, about what calls, to which ridings) an indication that they (Conservatives) really are under investigation by the RCMP and cannot talk about it in detail?  Certainly actually admitting that that was (if it is) the reason he continues to not answer a direct question with a vague assurance that might be rephrased as “cooperating fully with the authorities and cannot comment on an ongoing investigation” is to be avoided at all costs. So what else can he say but what he has?

    It might explain the scripted non-answers DelMastro keeps repeating as well.  Straying from the script might result in an slip of the tongue that lets this cat out of the bag.

    [updated to add:] Oh! Now I’ve had another flash of insight. Ouch!

    Maybe DelMastro is right: there IS an investigation but the Conservatives are not in charge of it. So at the first interview he slyly or otherwisely said “we are investigating” using an all-inclusive “we” that in his mind was the short form of “the RCMP and we” and was counseled or instructed not to make that kind of misstatement again. So at the second interview he more correctly said “we are not investigating” which in this case means the Conservatives only.

    I like this explanation. It fits nicely into the puzzle frame.
    [update ends]

    If this all turns out to be what a lot of people are starting to suspect it is: serious criminal conduct by a political party and an equally serious (and insulting) coverup, I hope those responsible are removed  from office and incarcerated.

    Canada is starting to sound more and more like a country needing oversight and assistance from the UN to preserve her peoples’ democratic rights than a country that is overseeing election proceedings in other countries.

  3. Very interesting article on Postmedia. http://www.canada.com/news/Elections+Canada+probe+annoying+political+calls+told/6229034/story.html

    Especially the last few paragraphs which might contain an explanation for the fact that Elections Canada is looking for a new Commissioner.  EC’s site says applications were/are being accepted for the position from mid-Feb to Mar 2, 2012. 

    This might be why:
    On Tuesday, the procedure and house affairs committee tabled a report in response to the post-election report of Marc Mayrand, chief electoral officer.

    After the recent election, Mayrand sought to enhance the agency’s power to examine documents that support the expenses that political parties claim in election campaigns, which would allow investigators and officials to get a better picture of how campaigns are run.

    The vote on that motion was defeated in a secret vote earlier in February, which means MPs can’t discuss it publicly, but sources say the NDP and Liberals voted to enhance the
    agency’s powers but the Conservatives, who have a majority on the committee, voted against.

    The Conservatives have so far declined to make public records that would show how much they paid to their robocall and call bank service providers during the last election.

    Asked about the matter, Del Mastro said in question period on Wednesday that “the Conservative Party of Canada always provides all documents requested by Elections Canada.

    Not sounding good at all.  Why would the Conservatives be against giving more powers of investigation to Elections Canada when they are all for more powers of investigation for the police in general (C-30)?

    • Because Elections Canada has demonstrated an anti-conservative bias.

      • I think it’s more that the CPC has demonstrated an anti fair elections bias.

  4. Did our host have his Decibel Meter with him today and if so could he tell us who was the loudest yeller and who had the most bluster?

    • My, but you display a tenacious ability to focus on the irrelevant.

      • Deflection and denial — the Con meme.

  5. Rae’s comment is a perfect example of the opposition taking a legitimate concern about this government and trivializing it. Really? Calls to Jews on the Sabbath? You think they are the only religious group to be subjected to campaign calls on their holy days? Do Jews now have their own area code to make them easily distinguishable to callers? Personally, I’d be more concerned if they are tracking/targetting by religious affiliation.

    The impersonation of Elections Canada to misdirect voters is a legitimate, serious concern. Calling someone on their holy day ranks up there with calls like “Is your refrigerator running? Then don’t you think you should catch it?”

    Get serious Rae; once again the overkill is going to lead to voters ignoring the serious issue because it’s been buried under a ton of BS. By the opposition. That’s no way to advance your party or defeat the megalomaniacs seated across from you.

    • Jews were most upset when they got ‘Happy Chanukuh’ cards from the Con party….they don’t generally like being identified by religion.
      But this indicates Cons know who they are.

      • No; it indicates Rae thinks the Cons know who they are – and called anyway.

        I got calls on Sunday – didn’t keep a call log or anything, but I’d guess I got them from all three of the major national parties. Is Rae saying Christians are fair game, but lay off the Jews?

        (BTW – this is not in any way a comment on those of the Jewish faith; a good many of my friends are of that faith – but strictly a comment on the absurdity of Rae’s statements.)

        • Yes, everyone is aware the Cons knows who the Jews are…and Jews don’t like it.

          Christians don’t have a sabbeth meal on Sunday morning….they’re in church.

          • Globe/Mail ~ Sept 2011: 
            An Ipsos Reid exit poll of voters in the last federal election found that 52 per cent of Jewish voters supported the Conservatives, 24 per cent the Liberals and 16 per cent the NDP. If remotely accurate, the exit poll reflected an enormous shift in voter preference among Canadian Jews.

            Canadian Press ~ Dec 2006:
            Bob Rae was the target of anti-Semitic attacks during the Liberal leadership contest, motivated at least in part by the fact that his wife is Jewish. Sources close to Rae say that his wife, Arlene Perly Rae, was approached during last weekend’s convention by a delegate who didn’t realize she was the candidate’s wife. The delegate told her not to vote for Rae “because his wife is Jewish.”

          • Trust you to mangle it beyond recognition.

            Herb Grey, deputy PM, is Jewish.  So is Cotler. So are many others in the Lib party…..sorry, they’re not anti-semitic

            Lot of Cons at that convention though.

    • Calls to Jews on the Sabbath? You think they are the only religious group to be subjected to campaign calls on their holy days?

      You’re missing the point.  

      Sure, religious groups are often subjected to campaign calls during their holy days.  THESE, however were FAKE campaign calls.  The point isn’t that the callers were annoying people of the Jewish faith, the point is that the callers were (apparently) DELIBERATELY annoying people of the Jewish faith while pretending to represent other political parties.  A Tory agency annoying voters from a particular religious group is just annoying.  A Tory agency deliberately annoying voters from a particular religious group while pretending to represent the Liberals is a reasonably serious breach imho, of ethics, if not the law.

      • Oops; missed the “claiming to be from the Liberal party” line.

        If it’s true, it is somewhat serious and definitely unethical, but may be a stretch to reach the level of illegality. It also assumes a lot to jump from getting calls from someone claiming to be from one party to blaming a specific other party. Are they sure it wasn’t the NDP or the Greens? Evidence please!

        Don’t get me wrong here – if the CPC was breaking the law there are few who would be happier than me to see them get nailed. I frankly can’t see how anyone with a sense of morality could have continued to support them after ther first minority win. It’s because I want to see them go down in flames that I want a solid, evidence-based attack – not “cry wolf” tactics that cloud the issue and detract from the truly serious charges.

        • I agree. It’s much better (and requires much more diligent sleuthing) to build an irrefutable case from solid empirical evidence than to throw every rumour at the wall in an indiscriminate volley in the hope that some of it sticks.

          Otherwise, every act of random idiocy committed against the Cons by parties unknown during the last election will, justifiably, be thrown back at the opposition parties in an orgy of mutually-assured destruction unless everyone shows a little circumspection.

        • Call records will tell the tale.  Two kinds of them. The people who received these harassing calls will have records that show the number of the caller. Even if they don’t know the records are there, they probably are in the databases of their service providers. If those match with the numbers used by a campaign, you’ll know who was behind the harassment. If they weren’t used by one of the campaigns, then you don’t know much… unless they are not all random. If they are all the same numbers (within a riding for instance), then you’ve got another thread to follow and find out who was behind that number (just like the cell phone in the robocalls got traced).

          The reverse relationship can be investigated as well: on which party’s campaign call records do these people’s numbers show on the times and dates they say the harassment took place?

          Very doable IMO.  Just about everything is driven by or recorded by a computer these days. Not hard to search at all.

          • Ya, there’s no privacy issues there at all! Just start going through everybody’s phone records.

          • What are you talking about? Who has suggested going through everybody’s call records without permission?

            But the folks who have lodged complaints and want EC to get to the bottom of this might give their permission for investigators to look through call records specifically to ascertain the relationships I described.  Similarly I would expect the political parties would give their permission if their records are not already available to EC.

            You should relax, eh?

          • Maybe; it depends on how long they store the records…

      • Of the law!

  6. “As of last September, Elections Canada had catalogued119 complaints related to phone calls, including 30 that involved calls about polling stations.”

    Like the long form census, this situation is clearly completely out of control.

  7. Somebody help me out here. From my understanding, the Elections Canada investigation has been on-going for 5 months now and the only real tangible line they have to pull on is a disposable burner phone with a fake name. 

    Do we have any idea how EC got their hands on this phone to begin with?

    If this phone had never been discovered would we even be talking about this at all beyond scattered newspaper reports the day of the election of misleading calls?

    •  Someone wrote down the phone number that was on the display after getting a questionable call about polling station being changed IIRC.  They complained (either to their MP who forwarded the complaint to Elections Canada or directly to Elections Canada) and I believe when more reports came in about the same number being used, the investigation got started. 

      There’s a newspaper report from the Montreal Gazette that did a pretty good job of explaining how things progressed.  It’s online somewhere.  From last week I think….

    • Calls from it traced to Racknine I assume.

    • Well, I can’t find it on the Gazette site anymore, but here’s how things got start from the Ottawa Citizen’s site: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Elections+Canada+investigating+robocalls+that+misled+voters/6194146/story.html

      From another Citizen article http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Documents+show+Pierre+Poutine+owned+disposable+cellphone+robocall+scandal/6222956/story.html#ixzz1nq9GVMBl

      The “Pierre Poutine” [the disposable cell] phone was activated April 30, two days before the
      election, and called only two numbers other than its own voice mail. Both corresponded to RackNine.

      Pretty damning. Obvious that the cell was purchased only for this purpose and registered with a fake name and address to evade identification.

      Then there’s the fact that RackNine did not get mentioned in the documents filed with Elections Canada of Conservative campaign expenses. How about that? Why would the Conservatives not report a legitimate expense like that? Right. Because someone thought that would be enough to keep this whole thing from being discovered.

      If there’s any other rational and believable explanation, I can’t wait to hear it.

      I don’t see how the Conservatives can pretend they know nothing with a straight face.

    • Go to Ottawa Citizen and read back in their articles; it’s their reporters who basically broke the story to the public last week, and they’ve been working on it for some time.  Their journo work has been really amazing; I don’t think we would know anything about the EC investigation without their work. 

  8. This is the great thing about unfounded accusations and open ended smears… how do you defend yourself… ha, ha ,ha… Good luck with that Cons! Like Pierre’s HRC’s, the truth is not a defense. The Separatist leader of the NDPQ really showed who’s the boss in this exchange. Also a big thumbs up to the “Liberal” leader, NDP Bob, it’s hard to beat the bile that spews out of that guys mouth. The CONs might of won the election, but they can’t stop us from manufacturing “scandals” and sleaze…. thats where we have them beat every time. Big ups to the CBC, CTV and MacLeans, this smear campaign wouldn’t have gone anywhere without you’re help… respect.

  9. Breaking News:
    An elderly resident in a Cabbagetown nursing home has lodged an official complaint with Elections Canada concerning possible misconducts in the 1957 Federal Election.

    That election was narrowly won by the PC`s under Diefenbaker. The elderly lady says she was prevented from entering the polling booth due to a roadblock that she claims was caused by a man she identifies as Stephen Harper`s grandfather.

    CBC have a camera crew over there tonight and Bob Rae says he will be wheeling the old lady into Parliament tomorrow.

    • You can always tell when things get hot for the Cons….they get hysterical….and dumber than usual.

      Which is a baaaad combination.

      • You can always tell when a “Liberal” smear campaign is going wrong… they get more hysterical… and fartier than usual… Which is a baaaaaaaaad combination.

        • Are ALL conservative posters like this??……

        • Sorry, not a Liberal…..however they aren’t the hysterical ones….you’re doing a good job on that though.

    • God, we’re really getting the B team.  They must have sent the ‘brains’ over to shadow Andrew Coyne.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • Hey spnlll — how ya doin’?

        • Cheap insults, no content

           You could be a front line conservative minister 

          • Probably is too. LOL

          • My money is on a senator recently appointed for his proven expertise in electoral fraud.

    •  So, as you’ve just demonstrated, even your attempts at satire are lame.

      • So, nuetered dog, as you’ve just demonstrated, your attempts at criticism are just as lame as your frothing at the mouth smears. 

    • You still haven’t answered my question:  Are you Pierre Poutine?  So far we’ve eliminated Michael Sona and TTYY as suspects.

        • Awesome!  I thought finding that amoral character was going to take years!

  10. If the Conservatives do not call a Royal Commission it raises the question, why not?  Already there is a voice recording falsely claiming to be calling on behalf of Elections Canada.  There is no doubt the election is tainted by illegal actions; more than enough to warrant a Royal Commission.  Why not call a Royal Commission?

    • Why call a Royal Commission while Elections Canada is still investigating? Do we need to be actively seeking out new ways to make lawyers richer?

      • You claim Elections Canada is biased against the Conservatives so doesn’t there have to be one?

  11. And then out of Quebec comes this:


    The campaign of Bertin Saint-Denis, a defeated CPP candidate, paid $15,000.01 dollars to Responsive Marketing Group (RMG) during the last federal campaign but the local conservative campaign has no idea what this money was used for – money it got from the national campaign.

    «On ne l’a pas payé [le contrat avec RMG], ajoute M. Denis. Le financement est venu du national et on a fait un chèque.”

    From his official agent, Ghislain Pelletier who was asked what he got for that money:  «Absolument rien, madame. Si j’étais dans une entreprise privée, j’aurais demandé un rapport.»

    ‘Bertin Denis a dépensé au total 56 311 $ pour sa campagne et Carol Néron, presque 103 000 $. Le contrat avec RMG représente donc 27 % et 15 % respectivement de toutes leurs dépenses. Dans les deux cas, il s’agit de la plus importante sortie d’argent.

    In and Out redux.  Reward crime and it will be repeated again and again.

    • And ironically, they sent Doug Findley out to defend the Criminal Party of Canada’s actions yesterday.

  12. So what are the facts?

    We know that someone(s) produced a fake recording purporting to come from Elections Canada that purposefully tried to mislead voters to fake voting locations.

    We know that Elections Canada does not make such calls, so these are truly fraudulent and not mistakes.

    We know that complaints of this are coming from multiple ridings across the country.

    We know that these calls came through a Racknine account which works closely with the Conservatives.

    We know a burner cell phone was used to hide the identity of at least one person.

    We know that the complaints come almost entirely from Liberal and NDP voters.

    In conjunction we know for a fact that;

    1) The Conservatives have allready used robo-calls to harass and mislead constituents in Cotler’s riding concerning his status as their representative.

    2) That many Liberal voters received phoney and purposefully harassing calls purporting to be from the Liberal party.

    3) That a Conservative campaign staffer tried to grab and ballot box and stop a group of university students from voting.

    Okay, so we know all this. Now, what does it take in this country for the government to at least appear to take these things seriously? Because from where I’m sitting they can’t seem to gather any apparent outrage that these things happened at all.

    I mean this is the “law and order” party isn’t it? Where’s the outrage one would expect for voter fraud?

    They’re so incensed by the gun registry, the wheat board, the census etc etc, but potential treason that supposedly could undermine them too… isn’t a big concern?

    Marijuana is the devil incarnate and deserves hard time, but possible treason gets barely a nod of acknowledgement?

    Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but it seems to me that the first requirement in perpetrating a crime is convincing yourself that doing so is NO BIG DEAL. Which would explain their reaction better than just about anything else frankly.

    There are too many facts here to ignore. Someone(s) attempted to perpetrate a very serious crime.

    A cursory consideration of the means, motive and opportunity points towards the conservatives.

    I should think therefore that they more than anyone else has a vested interest in clearing the air.

    Unless they’re guilty of course, in which case they’d want the opposite.

    If I were a CPC member, I’d want my party to be far more proactive than its been, so what’s stopping them?

    • I usually wouldn`t think to ask such a question, however, since it seems to be the thing to do lately, may I ask you:
      Since it appears that you have have spent a considerable amount of time and effort on the research, do you now or have you ever worked for the Liberal Party of Canada?

      • Or in otherwords, “I’ve got nothing of substance to rebut with, so let’s try to deflect attention.”

        Why would the CPC not want this fully and publicly investigated to dismiss the allegations if they are actually innocent?

      • While I feel that you’re attempting to insinuate professional/partisan bias, I have no problem responding with facts.

        I am not now, nor have ever been a member of the Liberal party nor have I worked on any campaigns for them in any role.

        I was however a long standing member of the Progressive Conservatives and have in the past volunteered on campaigns.

        Now what that has to do with the clear facts I’ve provided, or with the obvious conclusions one would naturally draw from them, I’m not really sure.

        And incidentally, all the “research” I’ve done is read the many papers on the topic, including the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, the CBC, the Globe and Mail and a few other minor publications, all of whom would be sued posthaste if they actually published something untrue.

        So to turn the question back to you: What is your interest that rather than take the established facts seriously and advocate action, you would instead fish around for insinuations concerning my affiliations?

        • Actually, I don`t think it matters whether you are a professional or an amateur. My questioning you about affiliation was simply to satirically  counter the irrelevant and improbable accusations of CPC connection, that myself and other conservatives receive from liberals here.

          I think you do a fine job of researching and concluding and advocating. Meanwhile, I will patiently listen to the relevant portion of this story and ignore or make fun of the bluster.

          • Fair enough, but let me just say that I don’t personally care who was responsible, I just want them caught and hung out to dry.

            For me this is as serious if not more so than Adscam or the whole Mulroney/Schreiber affair.

            Sneaks and thieves infiltrating political parties and stealing money is as old as the hills. While loathing it, I feel we as a people at least have condemned it time and again and therefore we’re doing what we can to keep it minimized.

            Voter fraud / treason is however far more troubling to me, and worse, I don’t feel we have a handle on it at all. Money can be replaced and generally hasn’t crippled us in anyway, but the fairness of our elections and people’s trust in the system is not so easily rebuilt.

            That the majority government of the day can’t seem to generate any interest in this topic, let alone the outrage I expected, is something all Canadians should be concerned about.

          • RE: “…the irrelevant and improbable accusations of CPC connection…”

            While I’m not suggesting the party officials necessarily knew anything about this, who else had the obvious means, motive and opportunity if not a conservative campaign worker?

            I think you overstate yourself in such a denial.

            The question to me is not whether this benefits conservatives who also had the means and opportunity to do it, but whether or not it was orchestrated by top brass.

            Maybe it really was a small group of over-eager-beavers, and maybe because of the potential blowback the party heads don’t want to touch it, but I’d suggest that if this was the case, the CPC is not helping itself in the long run by simply trying to ride it out, unless they think they can hide it, which doesn’t sit with me very well either.

            Then again, given what happened after Paul Martin called the Gomery Inquiry, perhaps they feel they have no other choice.

            After all, politicians often fear irony more than anything else. LOL

Sign in to comment.