Layton: the final enigma

Eventually, Canada will begin to oblige men in Layton’s position to be excruciatingly forthright about their health


[Olivia Chow] won’t reveal the nature of [Jack Layton’s] final illness: “Jack’s wish is that we don’t talk precisely about what kind because we want to give other cancer patients the kind of hope they deserve and should have. If we talk about this kind of cancer, or that, then if you have that particular kind, you would be really worried…” –The Star, Tuesday

Pardon me, fellow Canadians, but this is preposterous. Olivia Chow’s explanation doesn’t even make sense on its own terms: in the absence of information about what kind of cancer killed Jack Layton, patients with any kind of cancer at all might be frightened or upset by his sudden demise. She is denying us information that could ease the minds of the vast majority of these people. But then, this isn’t the first time we’ve been given a strained, unconvincing excuse for secrecy when it comes to Jack Layton’s health, though it is likely to be the last.

When Jack Layton was first diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, his secretary Brad Lavigne told Canadians that we would not be receiving details of Layton’s treatment because, basically, we are too stupid to handle it. Cancer sufferers, Lavigne argued, might perceive such a disclosure “as general medical advice” and conclude that the same therapies “might be suitable for them.” This was an amazingly brazen answer in an era in which “awareness” is worshipped like a tiki. Jack Layton might have been the first cancer victim in decades who believed that his disease did not provide him with a morally binding opportunity to educate others—that, in fact, his duty was to conceal. The question nobody asked: what if there were prostate cancer patients who might learn, by means of Layton’s example, of a treatment that was truly “suitable”?

Instead, Lavigne’s bizarre rationale was accepted, and questions about Layton’s later hip fracture were shrugged off, even though Canadians have abundant, well-founded reasons to suspect politicians, as a group, of habitually queue-jumping and seeking private care outside the country. The NDP cannot shut up about how Tommy Douglas gave us medicare like some cornball Prometheus bringing fire unto primeval man; its leaders therefore might be regarded as having a special responsibility to rise above such suspicions.

This would be the case even if Layton hadn’t availed himself controversially of private clinics in the past, and it would be the case even if it weren’t for the mysterious affair of April’s disappearing “hip replacement”, when we were all asked to believe that Layton’s sister, who was travelling with him and essentially acting his physical therapist, got an exceedingly rudimentary detail of his treatment wrong. Could happen! It would have been awfully simple for him to confirm it with medical evidence!—he said so himself, and offered to provide that evidence!

But by that time, no one in a position to ask was interested: the adversarial relationship between politician and media had already broken down. It has been pointed out incessantly in defence of Layton’s privacy that Canada, unlike the U.S., has not established a full-disclosure norm in health matters for important politicians. What nobody observes is that the U.S. adopted this norm for very good reasons—reasons with labels like Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy. Long experience of republican government has taught Americans that politicians will tell merciless, outrageous lies about their health status to secure electoral advantage unless a full-disclosure norm is aggressively enforced by the press.

Jack Layton, of course, was never the chief magistrate of a republic—just a man who claimed to be running for our prime ministership in earnest, and, later, a officer of state with responsibility for assembling and leading an alternative government. Still, eventually Canada will, like the U.S., begin to oblige men in his position to be excruciatingly forthright about their health. And eventually someone will spill the beans about what killed him. In the meantime, 4.5 million Canadians who voted for a party led by Jack Layton will just have to wait and see what they actually end up with.


Layton: the final enigma

  1. Yes, the info on Layton’s health has been confusing and the latest explanation – to not worry other cancer patients – did seem particularly strange.  Who knows what gives, but one plausible explanation is that the truth would have affected the election because the prognosis was grim.   Anyway, in this case, it did not have any real impact on the governance of Canada and was never likely to.  

    I think the US is more aggressive in making sure the nation knows the health of serious presidential candidates.  While one can’t fully plan for unknown future events, one should have the information available to make informed decisions.  Perhaps, Canada should have a discussion on this topic.  If we believe who the PM is makes a big difference (and it should) then this is an issue we might discuss.

    • But the speculation ranges from metastasis of his prostate cancer to his bones resulting in the hip fracture, to AIDS-related cancer, all well known before the election.  Now we must question whether Jack even had prostate cancer and if it was a lie to cover up his true ‘new’ cancer which must be kept secret for quite feeble reasons.

      If Jack lied for political reasons, then he intentionally misled Canadians about his health status.  The only way to clear up the doubt is for Jack’s doctor and oncologist provide their professional explanation about Jack’s ‘new’ cancer that finally killed him.  Chow and the NDP cannot be trusted now.

      • “AIDS-related cancer”




    • A discussion on the issue would definitely be important. However, I would note in passing that by definition, the prime-minister of Canada (and the premiers of the provinces) are first ministers, thus first amongst other ministers who could conceivable do the job. Also, the first minister can more easily be replaced by other ministers than can a president, specifically the President of the Unites States of America.  Thus it is perhaps less important that the health of a Canadian first minister or first minister wannabee be a matter of public record. In a worst case scenario, elected members of the governing party could and would show the no longer able to function properly first minister the door. A few provincial first ministers were essentially shown the door lately, in BC and Alberta I believe.

    • I disagree. If the splits had gone the wrong way we could have had a minority NDP government or at the very least a coalition government.

      Elections matter and they do have consequences. We could now have all parties except for the Greens operating with interim leaders.

      In these tough global economic times we need a full time competent leader. The fact the election turned out ok is pure luck.

      • We seem to have differeing definitions of “competent”.  Or at least “ok”

        • You cannot believe that a government run either by Layton or Ignatieff would have been the way forward for Canada.

          • Actually, I do believe Ignatieff’s policies could have been a great way for Canada to move forward — stronger investment in education and incentives for private citizens to move that way, less focus on cutting public service in a time when people are needing it more, no crime omnibus bill, no useless (or even harmful) minimum sentences imposed, less need for expensive prisons, fewer concerns about our rights being eroded by warrantless internet monitoring such as the CPC is putting forward.

            Equally as important, a minority Liberal government would be able to bend either left or right and get support as the situation warranted, whereas a minority NDP government could only bend right, and a minority CPC government could bend only left.

            Not to mention, a Liberal government would, evidence suggests, be much more open and transparent.  The Gomery inquiry beats the hell out of absolutely nothing done on the Clement file.

          • Then you and I will never agree. Incentive in education. Free education? A liberal government would have had to cut expenses in order to cover the deficit. Otherwise you are suggesting the Libs would have kept on spending thus increasing the deficit and the debt. The public wants and every polls shows this they want a stronger justice system. Unless you are a criminal the omnibus crime bill would not impact you in anyway. Are you among the hug a thug groupies?

          • Yes free education. Which arguments are you going to trot out against it? The same ones that ignorant idiots used against free high-school and free elementary before you?

            Right now is exactly the time to increase deficit and debt, especially if they can do so in a way that has proven benefits to our overall economy as education does. (OECD reports show an increase of about 2% in GDP for every additional year of education, on average, that a population has)

            The public wants no taxes and increased services as well. Do you really think that’s the way to go? And no, simply not being a criminal doesn’t mean an omnibus bill won’t affect me. Minimum sentences affect everybody because they increase the tax-requirement of our government and remove the ability of judges to make informed decisions based on the circumstances. One example is a story here on Macleans not too long ago about a grandmother getting busted for trafficking when she sent 4 grams of pot through the mail. Under the new crime laws trafficing is a crime that requires a minimum of 6 months in prison. You’re really arguing the Canadian public wants grandma in prison?

  2. One swore never ever to read another Macleans Magazine piece about Mr Layton, but Mr Cosh at least tries to break from the pathetic sycophancy that has characterised the effusions of almost all commentators since the death.  As a final thought, perhaps MacLeans could rechristen itself “Laytons Magazine”?

    • Someone please tell me what Layton’s accomplishments were? He talked a lot and granted he was as smooth as a used car salesman but tell me his actual accomplishments not what he talked about. A list anyone?

        • Except maybe when he went for a massage.

      • Take a look at the 2006, 2007, and 2008 CPC budgets.

        • Have you lost it? This is about Jack Layton. It is not about Stephen Harper. Come on Thwim you are better than that. Shame on you.
          I am still waiting for the list of accomplishments for Jack Layton.

          • So you’re saying those budgets were all conservative then?  Really?

      • You could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_layton

        A couple examples, he served as deputy mayor and acting mayor of Toronto at various times, that’s quite a respectable accomplishment. He also co-founded the White Ribbon Campaign to stop violence against women, a very noble cause.

        I don’t know what the point of asking what his accomplishments are other than to imply he has none. Pretty disrespectful, and unnecessary. We get it, you don’t like the NDP.

        • Thank you for the link. However, I read it and did not see much in the way of actual accomplishments. Oh yes, he lived off the public dole all his working life and he opposed a lot of things but I was looking for actual accomplishments where he made life better for Canadians. Particularly as it relates to his stint in Ottawa. Yes he made the NDP more successful but beyond that what do he actually accomplish since he was never in position to change anything.

          I guess I was disappointed to see the NDP along with the media turn his passing into a circus and of course the NDP never wanting to miss a chance turned his funeral into an infomerical for the NDP and the “movement”.

          More importantly I was shocked at the reaction of some Canadians. Some people need to get a life. I can’t believe that Canadians would line up and cry for somebody who they likely would not vote for or who they never met in their lives. Shows they are missing something in their lives I guess.

          You are right I don’t have much use for the NDP and their jingoistic policies which if they were implemented would drown the middle class in higher taxes. I can spend my own money quite well thank you very much.

          The NDP is now a surrogate for the Bloc and I predict they will lose support in the rest of Canada as they fight the government on spending reductions because it will hurt their buddies in the public sector unions and of course in their efforts to appease Quebec.

          The party was Jack Layton and with his unfortunate and untimely passing it will never be the same.

          • So let me get this straight.  You’re criticizing Layton for “living off the public dole” but praising Harper for pretty much the same thing?

            Harper is beginning to remind me a lot of Trudeau.  He’s all about policy and re-making the country in his own image, but when it comes to actually successfully implementing those policies, left a huge mess to be cleaned up by future generations.

          • We are talking about Layton. Harper can be subject of another blog.

            However, the point of achieving power is to do the things you think will make the country better. Canadians and only Canadians will decide in four years whether Harper has done what he said he was going to do and whether they agree with the direction he took the country.

            As for your comment on Trudeau. I fully agree. He changed the country and not for the better.

          • “More importantly I was shocked at the reaction of some Canadians. Some people need to get a life. I can’t believe that Canadians would line up and cry for somebody who they likely would not vote for or who they never met in their lives.”

            Jack was a very visible public figure, especially in Toronto where he could often be seen out and about in the community. More importantly he was simply a nice guy that people enjoyed being around. It’s perfectly normal to regret the passing of such an individual. I’m sorry if your android emotion circuits can’t process the concept of empathy and loss.

            I guess I should have expected you to ignore or callously scoff at any of his considerable accomplishments. Acting mayor of the largest city in Canada? Feh, he’s living on the public dole. Co-author of numerous federal budgets? Who cares.

            What have you done with your life? Why are you so hard to impress? Somehow I get the feeling your accomplishments aren’t nearly as extensive. I’m not saying Jack was a saint and you have to love the man but come on. He did more with his life than any of us are likely to. The White Ribbon Campaign alone is greater than the sum total of anything I can claim to have done.

            Predictably, you remind us how horrible it is to pay taxes. Predictably, you fail to mention how much you enjoy using roads, drinking clean water, and otherwise benefiting from the infrastructure that allows for a stable market economy.

            You also claim the NDP is somehow tainted after gaining the support of Quebec voters. As if you ever had any respect for us in the first place. You’re just mad because we outmaneuvered the Conservatives on national unity.

            Here’s a tip — telling Quebec that they’re a “distinct nation” was a good start, but it wasn’t such a great idea to immediately turn around and tell the rest of the country that the Quebecois are essentially traitors and parasites who do not deserve a constructive role in the governance of Canada.

          • Wow! I am an android because I live in the real world and not the world illusions. You can love him to bits and I can feel badly that a man has passed away in his prime but to cry and weep I am sorry that goes too far. It strikes me as artificial.

            I do enjoy roads, clean drinking water etc. However, those are not the things the NDP proposes it is the cradle to grave government programs that do not work and rarely achieve the results intended. Cradle to grave government is not the answer. However, I suspect you and I will not agree on this. Life is tough. However, confiscating money from those that work hard in order to raise their own families so that some utopian dream can be achieved is not realistic. I would love everyone to have pensions, healthcare that covers all services including pharmacare and of course the favourite of the left a national daycare program. At what cost and will those programs achieve the results intended. Since when does government deliver services cost effectively and efficiently.

            However, there is only one taxpayer. Unless you want to turn Canada into a socialist state where the government provides everything it will not work. It is the job of the government to create an economic environment to ensure that anyone who wants to work can work. Yes there is room to help those who are disadvantaged for reasons beyond their control but there are limits. Jack rung $4.5 billion out of Paul Martin to look after homeslessness. We are still talking about homelessness. Libs set in place a policy to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. We are still talking about it.

            Quebecers have been part of every government that I can recall. It is in this last election that they chose to vote for the NDP. That is their right. However, they cannot complain now they are not part of the government.

            Why is it that Quebec which is the second largest province in the country has been a have not province for as long as I can remember and extracts from the rest of Canada $8 billion a year in equalization. What is wrong with that picture? Yet they province services and benefits that other provinces cannot afford. Why is it?

            You and I have a different political philosphy. I believe in the need to work for a living to provide for ones family along with personal responsibility. The NDP believe in wealth redistribution in an effort to make the playing field level. That will never happen in a free market. There will always be the haves and the have nots. Its sad to say but that is the reality of today.

          • What do you care how people react to the death of a public figure? Maybe people are just genuinely saddened by it, did you consider that? I didn’t shed any tears when Reagan kicked it, but I didn’t go out of my way to mock the grief of those who did either. And that dude was a war criminal.

            For the record, I support raising taxes on the wealthiest members of society, who benefit from the society more than anyone else, so that those who have been left starving in gutters can have their most basic needs met.

            You claim to oppose wealth redistribution, yet you support parties and policies that have resulted in the largest upward transfer of wealth in history. This concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands has decimated the spending power of the vast majority of people, reducing consumer demand and thus creating mass unemployment. It seems that the only kind of wealth redistribution you truly oppose is the kind that helps the poor and vulnerable and gives people an opportunity to participate in the workforce.

            Homelessness isn’t something that can be solved in 10 years. It is an ongoing struggle. It is especially difficult when right wing social darwinists like yourself are busily facilitating the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the ultra-rich.

            Your implication that NDP supporters don’t work hard, don’t take responsibility, and don’t care for their families, is profoundly insulting and shows that you are arguing in bad faith. Tell that to my grandfather, who came here with virtually nothing, endured years of poverty and humiliation, built ships and fixed motors for a living, voted NDP in every election and paid his taxes without complaint. I’m sure he’d have a thing or two to tell you about hard work and taking responsibility. He understood that a man’s responsibilities don’t end with himself and his bluegrass lawn.

            Quebec — again, you have nothing to add other than tired, hilariously exaggerated, anti-Quebec boilerplate. (Granddad might agree with you here, he hated anything French.) And yet we are supposed to believe that the NDP is the new Bloc — the true threat to national unity.

    • Considering you’ve just admitted you are incapable of living up to your word, why on earth should anyone listen to you?

  3. It’s none of your business. 

    Pick apart the corpse some more.

    • Better than more breathless, tear-stained hagiography.

        • So when he was alive he kept his ‘new’ cancer a secret, and now that he is dead it’s none of our business?  Is that what you are saying?

          Here’s what I think: Jack knew he was terminal well before the election and he lied to Canadians about his health status.  If his full medical record were made public that would confirm my suspicions.

          What is truly puzzling is those who staunchly support the secrecy about Jack’s ‘new’ cancer because they fear the truth will destroy Jack’s speckled legacy and adversely affect the NDP.  As for Ms. Chow still grieving; she looks like she’s gotten over it and is quite relieved Jack’s secret ‘new’ cancer has gone to the grave with him.

          The deviousness of the NDP again reveals they are unsuitable to govern in an open and transparent manner.  The complicity of much of the media in the obvious cover-up is quite disgusting too.

          • Paranoia gets you elected.

          • Not  paranoia, reality!  Let the truth emerge about Jack’s ‘new’ cancer because Chow’s reasons for secrecy are  preposterous.  If Jack wanted it kept secret then he lived a lie and lied to Canadians too.

            You obviously want the lie to be protected which makes your silly comments disingenuous.

          • Jack isn’t the Prime Minister, and never will be. If the ability to “govern in an open and transparent manner” is your concern, then you should look around you.

          • Your attempt to misdirect us is quite fallacious.  Jack’s ‘new’ cancer is the issue and the obvious attempt to cover it up with feeble excuses only raises suspicions.  What is being hidden from Canadians in a most disingenuous manner?  Why the devious secrecy?

          • “Jack’s ‘new’ cancer is the issue”

            Only in your sick mind.

          • ‘Looks like she’s gotten over it’?  In years of stupid remarks, Anon/Observant that has to be the stupidest.

  4. “This would be the case even if Layton hadn’t availed himself controversially of private clinics in the past,”

    Private clinics are an integral part of our health care system. Anyone who doesn’t understand that at this point is bloody stupid.

    • Yes.

      But for a politician to criticize such clinics for the public and then to use them himself when needed is something that should be duly noted.

      • OHIP pays for Ontarians treatment at Shouldice. 

        • But the NDP routinely demonizes private facilities. This is why Layton had to rather implausibly insist, once the Shouldice Clinic story broke, that he didn’t even know it was private until his procedure was done.

    • As Doug says above, Colby Cosh comes across as a pathetic corpse-picker.  Especially when mentioning the “private clinic” (which we all use when referred by a GP).  He also paid fair market value for an apartment in a mixed-income housing development!  How could you not mention that, Colby?

    • In defense of Jack on his hernia operation, the Shouldice Clinic does specialized hernia repair in which only they specialize.  Trying to make an issue of his hernia operation is not appropriate.

      • Oh but it is when he was railing against private clinics and maligning their very existence. Layton was a hypocrit who lived off the public trough all his working life.

        • The Shouldice Clinic should be thought of as a specialized clinic owned and operated by doctors who specialize in hernia operations.  I was not aware that Layton spoke against such clinics.

          • I don’t think in Saint Jack’s mind he distinguished the difference. The Shouldice Clinic was one where you paid for its services out of your own pocket. Hence not part of the public health services which Jack so admired and bragged about incessantly.

          • Ontario patients are covered by OHIP.

          • Jan…my understanding is that the clinic is a pay for service clinic and your ohip card would not be accepted. I stand to be corrected which I am sure you will be quick to do.

  5. I think it is pretty clear Layton hornswoggled electorate over past year. 

    Layton started to plan his funeral at same time he told Canadians that he was diagnosed with new cancer but he would return in September. Layton died a few weeks later. What kind of cancer kills people in a few weeks? 

    Judge Layton by actions, not words, and he was less than truthful, that’s for sure.

    Left wing types like to hector others, don’t like to discuss their own actions tho.

    Globe – Aug 2011

    Days before Jack Layton announced he was stepping aside for cancer treatment in late July, he called in a pastor to begin planning his funeral.

  6. “But by that time, no one in a position to ask was interested: the adversarial relationship between politician and media had already broken down.”

    Adversarial relationship between msm and pols broke down at least 10/15 yrs ago, maybe longer. Canadian msm gives enormous amount of privacy to our pols, similar to France, and don’t report much other than official statements. 

    US and UK still have proper msm – that’s why there are constant political scandals there but not here. Apparently, Canadians elect superior human beings to parliament and they never do anything wrong because our msm rarely, if ever, reports anything other than press releases.

    Msm is meant to ‘comfort afflicted, afflict comfortable’ but Canadian journos no longer provide proper social criticism. Canadian msm very middle class, statist, they are friends with pols and bureaucrats, not adversaries.

    • The MSM can be selective.  The Ottawa Citizen parked a journalist at the appartment of a former minister of foreign affairs in the previous government because he was single and they wanted to know who was coming in and out of the place.  They published an article basically giving his private address away. 

      But by and large I agree.  MSM are way too close to pols, and pols are more shrewd and play with journalists like a cat would with a mouse.

    • Media maggots feeding off the official lines from the pols … so obvious.

    • Geez Tony, have you missed the whole Rupert Murdoch saga?

  7. … so Olivia Chow, someone’s wife, and Brad Lavigne, a close co-worker, don’t want to publicly disclose what type of cancer a dying politician (and a person) had. Lots of people have cancer; I’ve known several survivors before, during and after their treatments. None are the same; all are changed. Some want to talk about the process, some don’t want to relive it. They get to decide about how much they discuss because it’s ultimately their life – to pry and pry would be petty and only serve my own selfish desires. I don’t think it matters what kind of cancer Jack Layton had when he died – the treatment didn’t work/the cancer was too aggressive. Whatever they tried, whatever he had: IT DIDN’T WORK. I’m not a doctor, but there plenty of different types of cancer with multitudes of variations… will discussing Jack Layton’s cancer/treatment cure anyone? Help anyone? The answer will merely cure your curiosity.

    Back-to-back blogs of inflammatory nature, Mr. Cosh? Perhaps I can go out on a limb such as yourself and start asking the questions no one else has – do you, perhaps, have an undiagnosed illness which is currently affecting your work? It seems different than usual – more grandiose in claim – and considering writers influence others we should have full disclosure of whether or not you’ve become (how shall we say this politely) “nutters”? Or, in the spirit of full disclosure, did MacLean’s recently send you some postage of the pink variety, denoting the termination of your services so you’ve gone a little “punch-drunk” on them?

    • The issue is Jack’s ‘new’ cancer, not somebody else’s cancer.. so stop trying to cover up with your feeble NDP excuses.  Your satisfaction with your blissful ignorance is not justification for the NDP cover up of Jack’s true health status before the election.

      As for your attempt to discredit the messenger, that only confirms the NDP scam.

      Canadians deserve the truth about Jack, not the insulting secrecy that is being perpetrated so cunningly.

      • Just for the record, which I’ve done several times under this pseudonym and others, is state that I’ve never held a membership within any Canadian political party, be it provincial or federal. So as to the accusations of perpetuating political conspiracy I cry foul – a cry which you shall leave unheeded, I reckon.

        As to discrediting the messenger, I am merely concerned – as is Mr. Cosh – with the well-being of a fellow, prominent Canadian (I, however, not being prominent) – can we simply ignore these early cries for help? Take Mr. Layton’s hip, for example: was it a simple fracture or an indication of the insidious nature of cancer and its notorious treatments? Did Jack Layton and his team willingly know he was terminal and (heavens forbid) he kept hoping, beyond hope, that he might survive and make it through? Did the man simply wish to live, as many do, not in blithe ignorance but with the (in retrospect, misplaced) hope that he’d survive?

        … Is that it? Does it seem deceptive to you for someone to keep trying, to keep working for something, even in the face of death? Do we wish to shift this ugly “debate” into considering the barring of unhealthy MP’s from Parliament? Who needs the likes of Jack Layton, or Chuck Cadman (who also had cancer) inside or House of Commons? What about the elderly MP’s or Senators who occasionally die from old age? Should we start to bar them from seeking seats, in case they die and leave us with a vacancy in the house?

        I suppose, in my blindness to the “truth” of this “conspiracy” I’ve ignored the massive secret that people with cancer, more often than not, die faster and more often than people without cancer. What a scam – when they announced he had cancer I thought to myself, “Boy howdy, Jack Layton’s gonna live to be one-hundred and seven to the day and grow as tall as a stalk of corn!” instead of the much more likely, “Poor bugger, I hope he makes it as long as he can.”

        I could leap down the conspiracy rabbit hole, too – who hasn’t been tempted? For instance, did you know that a new radical cancer/leukemia treatment uses a “harmless” variant of HIV to assault cancer cells? Here’s the link from our friends at NBC : ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44090512/ns/health-cancer/t/new-leukemia-treatment-exceeds-wildest-expectations/#.TmeWL10S5q8 ). Maybe we can trust them. I meant, Jack did look fairly gaunt during the last few times in public, the mysterious aches and pains and fractures of a weakening body, the mysterious silence about his treatment… he could be giving us the Rock Hudson treatment, 2k11!

        I’ve taken a peek into the conspiracy abyss, too, so why don’t you pull your head out of yours and we call it a day?

        • You really are living in a socialist la la land. It has nothing to do with anyone else. It has to do with whether Layton was honest with the Canadian people and those supporters who believed in him.

          I agree get your head out of yours and we call it a day.

      • Are you still taking the saw palmetto – I remember how paranoid you were about prostrate cancer?  Explains your over emotional reaction to all this. 

    • Grow up, and save the sniggering amateur diagnoses for Psych 101.

    • Give your head a shake. The man was running to be prime minister and therefore leader of the country. He had an obligation to be honest about his condition. Should we not hold our politicians to a higher ethical standard. If he was terminally ill at the time of the campaign he was being seriously dishonest with his supporters and Canadians in general.

      • If we want to make medical treatment of party leaders an issue, it will become an unending Pandora’s Box.  It’s been a long-standing joke on the left that Harper shows consistent physical signs of heavy use of drugs used to treat mental illness, in particular SSRI’s and benzodiazepines.  Weight gain, loss of control of facial muscles (such as droopy eyelid muscles), pallid skin, headaches, general irritability (and as of today’s news) paranoia about foreign travel are a few examples that spring to mind.

        While there are many other medical & non-medical factors that can cause these same effects (such as exceptionally bad nutrition, a variety of personality disorders, insomnia, nervous system disorders, fear of flying), if SPECULATION about the medical condition of a DECEASED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION is to become a major issue, the possibility that the current PM is undergoing treatment for moderate to severe mental illness can very easily become an issue.

        • Have you lost touch with all reality? You are being noddy (look it up).

          Address the point I made.

  8. Layton was hiding his real health problems from Canadians for an unknown, but apparently, entirely selfish reason.

    We will not know soon but can speculate he was receiving unorthodox treatment that did not work and caused the cancer to spread. Thus the not believable story it was a “new” cancer.  He did not appear to be receiving chemical or radiation treatments.

    Eventually the story will leak out and we will know the truth. 

    Never trust a socialist.

    • Jack’s ‘new’ cancer was also Jack’s shame … ergo the secret he wanted to carry to his grave and remain unaccountable to Canadians.

  9. Well, Catheriine your argument about the election could be correct, however, it makes no sense regarding why he kept quiet after he won.  Then the man was the leader of the opposition – only one of two positions that warrant an official residence in Canada.  I would say he was in an important position in parliament, therefore, he was under some ethical responsibility to be completely honest about his health. 
    At this point, what possible reason would Olivia Chow have for not being open about the type of cancer her husband died from unless it reveals he did have bone cancer and knew it when his hip fractured. 
    What keeps going through my mind is how they  “butchered” Harper for going to the bathroom too man times – maybe the man had gastritis….but no…no sympathy there.

    • Poor little Stevie Harper, he just can’t get a break.  Amazing that he managed to become PM, isn’t it?   

      • Thankyou, Jan.  You just made my point for me. 

        • No sympathy there because there’s been no indication of illness given.

          I mean, if you want, we could assume the man has dementia and then look at his decisions in a sympathetic light. Until someone comes out and says so though, I’m going to assume he’s responsible for them.

          • It never occured to you that the guy made trips to the bathroom because he…had to make use of the toilet?  That is my point.  When it is about Jack Layton, we should mind our own business but when it is about Steven Harper, it is okay to question everything.

          • No.. when it’s about illness we should mind our own business. When it’s about actions taken we should pursue questions.  You’re suggestion is because we shouldn’t question about Jack Layton’s illness, we shouldn’t question about why Mr. Harper seems to have developed a habit of being late for international meetings because he’s in the loo. 

            You’re trying to draw a relation where there is none.

          • Jack’s ‘new’ cancer was also Jack’s shame … so obvious now.

          • Sorry no reply button lower……did you read your comment over before you sent it…..
            The guy was in the loo…….and you are questioning his actions….do people question why you go to the loo?

          • Considering that I’m not going to the loo with international heads of state waiting, unlikely. Then again,  it seems that unlike our Prime Minister, I’m smart enough to make sure that if I have a meeting with important clients or potential partners, I do that kind of thing ahead of time. 

            I mean, while I’m unsurprised that you wouldn’t know about doing that sort of thing, one assumes our PM understands the need to meet with people on time.  

          • Diarrhea waits for no meeting.  I am surprised you don’t know that.  Perhaps you have never had loose bowels.

          • And once again you’re back to how we must excuse actions based on your fantasies of Mr. Harper’s backside.

            In which case I refer you back to my original comment. Perhaps this time you’ll understand it.

            Actually, I realized I’ll probably save some time if I just try to explain it to you:

            You suggest we have no business digging into private matters about a person’s illness. Not Jack Layton’s, not Mr. Harper. I agree. A person’s physical status should have no bearing on whether they’re judged capable of doing their job.

            You then try to draw some connection between people who say we shouldn’t question Jack Layton’s illness to people who are questioning Harper’s being late or not attending meetings of international ministers. Yet here you apply a double standard and are suggesting that it’s because of some phantom illness that you’re making up that it’s happening so shouldn’t be questioned.

            The thing is, the proper link to draw is that if Mr. Harper has some sort of gastro-intestinal problem, nobody should be prying for details about that. What people can, and do, criticize him for, is the actions that he takes, or doesn’t take, regardless of the underlying cause. Whether he’s got the craps or is just completely irresponsible is irrelevant. The fact remains he’s incapable of performing his duties properly. To say we shouldn’t question such because it might be the results of some illness is complete lunacy. The nature of the illness, if any, isn’t our business. His performance at his job IS.

          • Again, no reply button.  Thwim…you totally mischaracterized what I said…
            I was discussing the hypocrisy of people like you who defend the right of Jack Layton to give no information about his illness but assume that Steven Harper has nefarious reasons for using the washroom…..you say it is none of our business that Jack is sick but it is our business that Steven had to go to the bathroom.  I am just asking you to be honest with yourself, if Michael Ignatieff were in power and were late to a meeting because he had to use the washroom, would you be as lacking in understanding?

          • It’s none of our business Jack is sick. It’s none of our business Harper had to go to the bathroom.

            It *is* our business that Harper is missing his obligations, period. That his excuse for doing so is as pathetic as “I was in the john and lost track of time” or whatever is also our business, because it speaks to the reliability of the man to competently handle his position.

            And yes, I’d be damned annoyed at Ignatieff for missing an important meeting for such a pathetic excuse as well. Don’t project your own hypocrisies on to me, thanks.

            The stupid standard is yours. Under your logic, the man could crap on the table at a G8 meeting and you’d be saying we shouldn’t make any judgments from that.. he might have loose bowels.

            If Jack’s illness got in the way of him doing his job then yeah, people should be criticizing that. It didn’t. His performance wasn’t materially affected until he put somebody else in to continue the duties.

            After all, unless Harper has only gone to the crapper twice in his life, you’ll note nobody cares about it most of the time. The only time when it becomes news is when it materially interferes with his duties.

        • So you say that the onus is on PM Harper to disclose his health records before dead Jack’s medical records are revealed to identify the nature of his ‘new’ cancer that ultimately killed him?  Is that your twisted logic?

          • I don’t think you meant to send this to me, Fred. 

        • How are you and colleagues in ‘mental health’ coming on a cure, or at least a treatment for Persecution Complex?  Seems to be an epidemic of it.

          • It is not persecution complex but hypocrisy that has me riled today, Jan.
            Now, in all these comments of yours you have yet to weigh in on the actual point of the article…is the reason given by Ms. Chow for not disclosing the type of cancer Mr. Layton died from really valid?

          • As far as I’m concerned she doesn’t owe us an explanation – period.

          • Yes, like I said…you slur Harper almost everytime you blog….you regularly accuse him of being dishonest.
            As for giggling about cancer…I am glad you find it funny, I don’t.  I happen to think people like Barb Tarbox who use their influence to help others avoid what they suffered to be worthy of our respect and admiration.

          • Well, Jan Ms. Chow believed she owed an explanation and she went out of her way to make up something so she didn’t have to be forthright. I think the truth of the matter is that Jack Layton was a very good person and no one wants to admit he might have not always have been 100% honest….oh well…he was human.

          • Nice slur.  And you provide mental health care?  Geezus.

          • If that is a slur, then you “slur” Steven Harper almost everytime you blog on this site.
            Furthermore, you have no idea what is involved in working in mental health if you think it doesn’t involve expressing honest opinions.  I empathize with Ms. Chow and I do not  judge her harshly for the choices she makes but like Colby Cash, I don’t feel that her explanation is legitimate.
            I have a hard time accepting that someone as smart as Jack Layton would not want information about his own cancer disclosed because he was worried it would negatively affect other people with cancer.  Usually people with his high profile become spokespersons for the need for early detection.

          • I was referring to you accusing them of lying.  Your ‘search for truth’ for cancer patients is very touching but doesn’t survive the giggle test. 

    • There are several positions within the Federal Government which have Official Residences attached – The Governor General/Queen has Rideau Hall and the Speaker of the House literally gets “The Farm”, a house in the Gatineau Hills. It seems, oddly, to be the crux of your argument – that people provided with housing on the public’s dime fully disclose their health info. I’d certainly love to publicly quibble over the T-Cell count of David Johnston, Stephen Harper, and Andrew Scheer or whether or not they produce enough of this or that chemical in their system. The sooner non-doctors and people with agendas get their hands on the most private of personal information the sooner our democracy will reach a blossoming point.

      If you’re not even going to bother getting your basic facts correct, why should we seriously consider your conjectures and hypotheses? It’s bizarre how you can arrive at “bathroom trip is equitable to terminal cancer” conclusion at the end there. However, your concern does make me see how relevant it is to demand answers of our politicians. Under your leadership and guidance, I feel compelled to pick up the torch and demand that Stephen Harper reveal his full medical records. Like you’ve noted, he’s been in a few washroom “kerfuffles” and we need to know if there’s a condition looming. I’m sure each and every person who’s crying foul over the lack of info on Jack Layton’s medical records will now unanimously call for Stephen Harper’s as well – just so we can double-check that he’s alright.

      • Pardon me, I should have said “elected members of parliament” and yes, I forgot about the speaker of the house.  The point I was trying to make was that the leader of the opposition was an important job in parliament – I guess you are disagreeing with that?
        As for me comparing terminal cancer with “bathroom kerfuffles”, if you read my comment, you would see that I did not do any such thing.  In fact what I did was point out that many bloggers were eager to skewer Harper for making too many trips to the bathroom but they had all kinds of sympathy for Mr. Layton’s right to privacy when he chose not to disclose what kind of cancer he was fighting.
        As for my conjectures and “hypothesis” about bone cancer being present when there are spontaneous fractures, this is common knowledge.  You don’t have to accept my word for it.  Nor do you have to accept that prostate cancer often metastisizes to the bones.
        Finally, yes, I think if Harper has any significant illnesses, he should disclose them.  Being a healthcare provider, I know there are countless people living full lives with chronic illnesses, why should a politician be any different.

  10. I don’t particularly care about what type of cancer killed Jack Layton. However, the country is deserving of an explanation. Like many I believe his hip fraction was related to the prostate cancer he was fighting. It is well known that prostate cancer can lead to bone cancer. Whatever it was caused Layton to deteriorate and die quickly. Think about it though. We have a politician who had already being diagnosed with cancer which was suppose to be in remission who may have precipated an election knowing full well he was terminal. Normally the NDP would still be the third or fourth party in the House. Guess what elections do matter.
    So if the NDP had won a minority government we would have a separatist sympathizer as interim Prime Minister, a Liberal party decimated with an interim leader and an official opposition who would also have an interim leader because Harper would have stepped down. Was Layton really thinking of the best interest of the country or was he really just a cynical politican like the rest.

    • Well I do care  about what type of cancer killed Jack because identifying the cancer will reveal what was known about Jack’s health and when.  A full disclosure by Jack’s doctor and oncologist is required to insure Canadians get the whole truth.  MP Chow and the NDP have discredited themselves because they were complicit in a cover-up to deny Canadians the truth.  What did Jack fear that was so incriminatory about his ‘new’ cancer; what was hiding from Canadians while assuring us that he had ‘beaten’ his prostate cancer and was ‘full of energy’??

      • Olivia Chow has stated in her national television interview on CBC that Jack was feeling well and healthy in June. People can get sick very quickly and die. She also stated that there was a delay in waiting for testing when he fell ill, so that probably didn’t help but she didn’t complain about the delay. There’s no story and no cover up here.

  11. What we need to know is if the prostrate cancer metastasized into something else, or if the ‘new’ cancer was unrelated to the ‘old’ cancer, which I guess could happen.

    We further need to know if during the election campaign any hint of the ‘new’ cancer was present. 

    But that’s it.  And that, we could probably get from Olivia–except you all wouldn’t believe her anyway, so we could probably get from the doctors after Olivia gives permission for that information, and only that information, to be divulged.

    • To be honest, what good would it do to know any of it now?

      • Take yer head out of yer dark place and read what I am posting. 

        Honesty is better than lying …. Truth is better than deception …!!!

        • And wasting time over something that makes no difference now is still just wanking.

        • Does it really matter if he withheld information about his cancer? (Obviously he did, a med school freshman could have told you the hip fracture was metastasis.) The man is dead and gone, a new leader will be chosen to take his place, and sooner or later Harper’s personality cult will fall apart (or his fat-clogged heart will burst) and the New Democratic Party will form the next government of Canada. I can’t wait to hear your shrieks of terror when that happens.

    • Why do you need to know? What is that going to fix?

      You won’t believe what Olivia tells you. and Doctors are bound by patient confidentiality laws..

      • NDP MP Chow can direct the doctors to explain Jack’s ‘new’ cancer to confirm what she reveals.  She is keeping Jack’s ‘new’ cancer secret for ludicrous reasons which forces us to conclude that she is complicit in hiding something incriminating about Jack’s health claims.  Jack’s secret will continue to haunt the NDP as long as it stays intentionally hidden from Canadians and reflect on their ability to govern.

      • The only reason *I* need to know is answered by Fred A. Quesnel below.  Because I don’t believe Jack knew anything about the new cancer during the election campaign.  I have no idea how prevalent metastacizing prostrate cancer is, but if it is such a common occurence that it is to be expected, I think that might have played on some voters votes.  So, that should come out–yes, I know voters can’t unvote now and all that, but for transparency for the future (faint hope) I don’t think it should be just given a pass.  Mind you, I also don’t think metastacizing is so common that it should be expected either, and THAT should come out as well.

        I don’t believe Jack Layton did anything wrong whatsoever.  I wouldn’t mind having that proved.  I certainly don’t think we the public need to know every detail of his cancer fight, and that includes what kind of cancer eventually killed him.  As far as I’m concerned, the only thing he did need to divulge is if he was dying of cancer during the campaign.

    • Why? I really don’t understand why it matters a whit.

  12. ONLY FULL DISCLOSURE of Jack’s ‘new’ cancer will lift the shroud of secrecy that is being perpetrated by MP Chow and the NDP.  Only full disclosure from Jack’s doctor and oncologist will be acceptable now to confirm the diagnosis since Chow and NDP Topp refused to provide Canadians with the truth.

    Layton was a public man who cannot suddenly go into hiding about his terminal cancer and then carry his secret to the grave.  Chow and the NDP must be open and transparent about Jack’s ‘new’ cancer and what they knew and when.. otherwise it again confirms they are not fit to govern.

  13. Hmm, when I got a job in a big corporation, I had to have a complete medical examination before the position was made permanent, and the results went to my employer.  They didn’t want to be on the hook paying benefits, etc, to someone who wasn’t well when they took the job!  So as pro-Everyman as he was, Mr Layton indeed had a benefit that most of us don’t: the ability to lie about our health while we’re applying for a job. 

    Say what you will about Colby’s POV: he gets more conversation going than any other blogger here since the election.

    • Yes, trolls often do get the comment sections humming don’t they?

      Hardly a selling point, and certainly not an excuse for the type of nonsense it has generated here.

      • Keep hiding Jack’s shameful secret ‘new’ cancer that would make Canadians and in particular Quebecers go aghast … his lifestyle cancer maybe?!

        • Personally I can’t stomach 90% of the NDP’s positions on anything, but it seems obvious to me that this call for “information” is merely partisan political gamemanship, and I think it’s disgusting.

          There’s no public interest angle worth mentioning here that I can see, but a whole heck of a lot of making crap up to cast it in the worst possible light.

          • The public was conditioned to avoid asking about Jack’s mysterious ‘new’ cancer that killed him so quickly after the election.  The outpouring of grief and sympathy covered up Jack’s shame.

            I also suspect Harper was complicit in hiding Jack’s shame with a state funeral … unless he expected the Truth would eventually emerge and Canadians would feel cheated by Jack and the NDP … ya think ..??!!!

          • Jack’s shame?

            You’r post is precisely the type of partisan trolling that results from a discussion with no basis in fact.

            Where’s your sense of shame?

  14. I for one don’t think anyone should feel pressured to reveal their personal health information, and I find the attitudes in both this article and many of the comments here down right disgusting. The insinuation and self righteous BS is overwhelming.

    And BTW this is coming from a guy who would’ve voted for Layton when hell froze over and monkeys flew out of my rear end. He made used car salesmen look good IMHO.

    The personal details ANYONE chooses to reveal however, is their own damn business.

    You got a problem with that, tough cookies. If you vote or don’t vote for a candidate based on these perceptions, that’s your business, but one thing is painfully obvious:

    The only people calling for this so-called “disclosure” are the same people tearing Layton down and making insinuations of some form of guilt.

    That just about says it all from where I’m sitting.

    Rest in peace Jack. I may have not agreed with your politics, but a good man is a good man, and still hard to find.

    • So you had no problem with Jack disclosing that he had ‘prostate’ cancer and that he was going to beat it … and then hobbling into the election as a half-cripple with a cane and a repaired bum hip he declared he had ‘beaten’ the prostate cancer because his PSA numbers were  ‘nomal’ and then proclaiming he felt ‘energetic’?

      Immediately after the election he vanished from view and NDP spokespersons stood up to explain the election results and party policy … and not a peep from Jack, a politician who couldn’t pass up a chance to toot his horn.  I noted this at the time and asked the forum communities “where’s Jack?”.

      Suddenly he appears, wasted, wizened and barely able to speak at a NDP press conference … read a prepared statement revealing he was fighting a ‘new’ cancer and was going into therapy and was ‘optimistic’ he would recover.  He immediately left the presser as a reporter was heard to ask “what type of cancer do you have?”  He didn’t turn back to answer and was dead within weeks.

      Only idiots or those who have something horrible to hide would now avoid or refuse to be truthful about Jack’s fatal ‘new’ cancer. 

      • Pffft.

        Like I said, insinuations and nonsense from people who simply want to tear him down.

        Why would they feed that fire?

        For no reason I can see.

      • Repetition does not strengthen your argument. 

  15. Hopefully the final column on Layton.

    • … and his cancer of shame can be kept hidden in the closet as planned by Jack, Topp and Chow.

  16. Nycole Turmel could be prime minister today – that’s enough to convince me that a leader who is running in an election and who we know is fighting a serious disease should be totally transparent about his condition, and I am not sure that Mr. Layton was. It’s up to his wife to clarify this and she refuses to do so. Obviously there is nothing we can do about it now but to take note for future reference.

    • Everyone already knew he had cancer, and that there was a chance he wouldn’t survive it, because Layton told you so.

      If that’s really what you’r basing your vote on, then clearly you wouldn’t have voted NDP. Duh.

      But then let’s be honest, you didn’t vote NDP anyways did you?

      • Exactly.  Anyone with a passing knowledge of cancer knows that anyone with a positive diagnosis is not out of the woods for a number of years after supposed remission.  To suggest people were hoodwinked into thinking Jack couldn’t face future health problems is being disingenuous.

        • Going into the election, Jack assured Canadians that he had ‘beaten’ his prostate cancer and felt ‘energetic’ going into the election.  Then he suddenly broke his hip joint requiring surgery and pins to hold him together.  Jack hobbled horribly with his cane and used his affliction to garner an undeserved sympathy vote.  Jack had no political shame … only health shame which he kept secret from Canadians even unto his grave.  Jack was an obvious liar, unless otherwise proven.

          Fess up Chow … tell all and have Jack’s doctors confirm it …!!!

        • Which is why I view this article and the majority of the thread as kind of a sick way of tearing down the reputation of a dead man for the sake of forwarding a partisan political agenda.

          If it was an honest discussion of “public interest” then someone would be making that case in a straightforward manner.

          Alas, not even the article itself does that, so I can’t possibly take it as anything but something analogous to rolling the dead to check their pockets for loose change.


        • A good journalist would have asked Mr. Layton, if elected, would you name a deputy prime minister, and who. This position has a purpose.  I am time and again reminded that people vote for the leader and if everyone knows that the leader’s health is under extreme pressure, it would be fair to ask.  I don’t want to know what cancer killed Mr. Layton – I honestly don’t care.  But should such a situation occur in future journalists should ask a person who publicly admits that he is severly ill what measures he is taking for his succession. 

          • Harper is the PM and he hasn’t named a Deputy Prime Minister, has he? 

          • He should. Citizens have no right to know about the personal details of someone’s health but they have a right to be informed about the governance plans of a political party . I don’t know of a company that doesn’t plan on succession.  Political parties should too, and this should be transparent. 

      • I didn’t vote for Mr. Layton or a candidate of his party.  I don’t want to know what kind of cancer he died from, makes no difference to me, but it seems to bother a lot of people. If the situation arises again, the leader would be subjected to a lot more scrutiny.  At the very least, a leader who we know to be seriously ill could be asked about his succession. Not a bad thing after all to have a ‘vice premier-ministre” in mind, and I may be wrong here, but not uncommon in the past.  I hear it said all the time: people vote for the leader, and if the leader is only going to remain leader for a few weeks, and possibly prime minister for only a few weeks, then I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable with a situation like Layton’s. 

        • Well that at least we can agree on, to one degree or another. Cheers.

      • It’s that most unusual of circumstances where I find myself siding with the proggie posters.  Cosh’s column is predicated on Layton knowing his cancer was terminal, with no realistic possibility of survival beyond a few months, before the election.  His subsequent actions in bringing down the government and campaigning full out during the election, while hiding his diagnosis, would certainly be questionable.

        However, that scenario just doesn’t seem likely to me.  I think Layton probably knew his cancer had not gone into remission before the election (perhaps this was discovered when he suffered his hip fracture), but he either didn’t receive a terminal diagnosis at the time, or if he did, was informed he could expect to survive for at least several more years.  The fact Layton stepped down as leader in July when it became obvious his diagnosis WAS terminal suggests to me he didn’t have the same diagnosis in January or February or March.

        Maybe Layton can be accused of being in denial about his condition prior to or during the campaign, but in the circumstances I assume he was in at the time, it’s hard to differentiate “denial” from “hope” and I would never begrudge a cancer sufferer like Layton, or anyone else, the latter.

        • And what courage!!!
          And now the Cosh like worms crawl out from under the rocks to feed on his carcass.

        • Excellent post. This is precisely the reasonable type of consideration one should be giving the topic if we assume it must be considered at all.


    • Shouldn’t that apply to all leaders whether they have a known problem or not?  And all MP’s because any of them, by fluke of nature could end up as an interim leader.. 

    • No … I can’t believe Jack could have appointed Turmel as PM of Canada … the NDP caucus and party would not accept such a choice.  Jack and Brian Topp, NDP president, probably came up with Turmel as interim leader, and to show Quebecers the high esteem Jack had for their support in electing 59 NDP MPs.

      Either of deputy leaders Mulcair or Davies would have assumed prime ministerial duties if a PM Jack had died.  Thank God that the NDP and Liberals were decisively defeated by the Harper Conservatives in the RoC giving them a majority gov’t without Quebec.  Hallelujah..!!!

  17. Guess we wait for someone to “spill the beans” – or this could turn into another “what did Harper do with the wafer”, lol!!!

    • Cosh is publicly raising this issue, but he must have some information, some speculation or suspicion about Jack’s old and new cancers.  He should share it with us too.

      I believe the MSM people also know about Jack’s ‘new’ cancer, but they are covering it up rather than knifing Chow and the NDP with the Truth.

  18. Public officials do not owe the public complete disclosure about the details of their health or personal lives unless they are found to be doing something against the law.  Even if the explanation for keeping mum about the details of Jack’s death is not convincing to everyone, they still have the right to privacy for whatever reasons of their own. It’s simply bad manners to insist on knowing more.

  19. I see the Prime Minister wants to keep a dinner meeting with the American Ambassador private. Go for it Cash.

    • And to clarify, not the contents of the meeting, but whether it ever happened at all!

  20. I don’t think she has any obligation to reveal details about the illness.  Even party leaders are entitled to private lives, and if anything, one’s health is a private affair.  The only thing Layton needed to divulge was whether he could do the job or not. That is what he did. When he could not anymore, he held a press conference and let everybody know.
    I am no fan of Layton, that’s or sure, but I do believe anyone and everyone is entitled to keep their private affairs private.
    I’m also rather disgusted by Lewis and numerous other NDPers who tried to turn his death and funeral into a political rally and a means to promote their political agendas. Even Layton’s final letter was tinged with politics. Those who had the good sense to mourn his passing without political overtures should be commended.

    • I for one thought the memorial service was pretty exemplary.

  21. ..

  22. ..

  23. Hey, Colby, Vivian Zenari here, the secretary/proofreader/picture girl at the Report during its final death throes. Are you saying Jack Layton got AIDS from  his “secretary” Brad Lavigne and that the TO police really caught Jack at a bathhouse with a bevy of NDP beauties but covered it up because Rob Ford was there too? Hey, Colby, are you really Jewish? Are you over Celeste? Did you bang KJT like all the other guys at the Report? I know all this is idle speculation, and there is no evidence (as yet) that anything I have typed here is true, but I’m just throwing it out there.

  24. Our prime minister has sworn allegiance to an apartheid state and vowed to send our boys to die in Syria in pursuit of his cherished one world government, he is allowing Bank of Canada to “coordinate” with the Federal Reserve to add more “quantitative easing” (adding debt to mounting debt by printing money out of thin air) to the GLOBAL sovereign deficit wreaking havoc in Europe, aaaaand is a regular Bilderberg attendee who has admitted that Canada must give up “part of its sovereignty” in this out in the open worldwide corporatacracy who regular use genocide to achieve their ends.
    And they own the media, who are therefore muzzled out of fear or deliberate collaboration.
    Truth is, we don’t know a damn thing.Sooo, who knows about Jack Layton except what the just pursue?

Sign in to comment.