The Commons: Wait and see -

The Commons: Wait and see

The opposition persists in its questions and the government insists on dismissing those queries


The Scene. Bob Rae stood, with a number of papers in his right hand, and attempted to square what the Prime Minister seemed to say last week about the mandate of Justice Frank Iacobucci with what the government actually announced about Mr. Iacobucci’s mandate this weekend. Suffice it to say, Mr. Rae found the latter quite lacking.

John Baird was sent up to read from the script. “Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister did say in this place last week. He said that he had requested Justice Frank Iacobucci to undertake an independent, comprehensive and proper review of all the redacted documents related to Taliban prisoners. Justice Iacobucci will look at all the relevant documents going back not just to this government but even to the previous government,” Mr. Baird reported. “He will report on the proposed redactions, how they genuinely relate to information that would be injurious to Canada’s national security, national defence or international interests. We should have confidence in a man of this gentleman’s esteem.”

For all intents and purposes, this line of inquiry was thus concluded. Still, the opposition kept on.

Up for his supplementary, Mr. Rae reiterated his party’s suggestion that the government empower Mr. Iacobucci to conduct a full inquiry into this country’s handling of Afghan detainees. Mr. Baird stood here, again, and did as he does, saying not much of anything with great certainty and conviction.

“Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. Justice Iacobucci will have access to all relevant documents. He will be able to review them. He will be able to undertake his activities in an independent fashion,” he said, speaking louder and faster and chopping his hand in the air.  “He will be able to do it comprehensively. He will have the ability to review all of the documents and report back not just to Canadians but this House. We should trust Justice Iacobucci and let him do his work.”

Mr. Rae was permitted one more try. “Mr. Speaker, we trust Mr. Iacobucci. We do not trust the government,” he said, a Conservative backbencher howling in mock pain. “That is the difference, and there is a big difference. Mr. Iacobucci does not have the power to subpoena the documents. The test of relevance is a test that the government itself will apply. It is not Mr. Iacobucci who determines what relevance is.”

Once more to Mr. Baird, now pumping his fist. “Mr. Speaker, we have said Justice Iacobucci will be able to look at all relevant documents. How does one find relevant documents? Exactly from the motion the Liberal leader put forward. He can also look at all documents related to this issue,” he assured. “He also will not need to subpoena documents because the government has been incredibly clear that we will provide him with all of the relevant documents.”

The Liberal leader put forward that motion on December 10, 2009. It demanded that “all documents referred to in the affidavit of Richard Colvin, dated October 5, 2009; all documents within the Department of Foreign Affairs written in response to the documents referred to in the affidavit of Richard Colvin, dated October 5, 2009; all memoranda for information or memoranda for decision sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning detainees from December 18, 2005 to the present; all documents produced pursuant to all orders of the Federal Court in Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada; all documents produced to the Military Police Complaints Commission in the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearings” and “all annual human rights reports by the Department of Foreign Affairs on Afghanistan” be turned over, uncensored and unredacted, to the House of Commons forthwith.

That motion passed the House by a vote of 145-143. The government side offered no indication it was willing to comply.

Eighty-five days later, it announced that a former Supreme Court justice would be asked to review the documents in question and advise the government as to what Parliament is and is not permitted to see. It was noted that this did not address Parliament’s demand and privilege. Eight days after that, this past Saturday, the government formally clarified precisely what Mr. Iacobucci would be charged with doing. The opposition is unmoved.

So what now? Well, the opposition persists in its questions and the government insists on dismissing those queries.

“As we have indicated and was indicated in the terms of reference, Mr. Justice Iacobucci will have access to all relevant documents,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson informed Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh. “He will complete a proper review and he will report those general findings to the public.”

“Mr. Speaker, in fact, the government is responding to the House order of December,” Nicholson told the Bloc’s Claude Bachand.

“Again I point out that he can and should have complete confidence in Mr. Iacobucci,” Nicholson lectured the NDP’s Jack Harris, “who will have the unfettered ability to have a look at all the relevant documents and make recommendations on those.”

So what next? Well, the NDP says the Justice Minister has until the end of this week to clarify whether he intends to comply with the House order—the NDP’s Paul Dewar having apparently sent the Minister a letter in this regard a mere 40 days ago. Liberal Derek Lee, who announced two weeks ago his willingness to pursue the government on charges of contempt, is considering his options.

It is surely still the government with the most questions to answer. But now, for perhaps the first time since Richard Colvin strolled into a committee room last November and began to speak, it is the opposition upon whom the onus of response rests.

The Stats. Afghanistan, eight questions. The environment and food safety, five questions each. Employment and financial regulation, four questions each. Aboriginal affairs, three questions. Helena Guergis, taxation and Internet access, two questions each. Crime, the Inuit, air travel, foreign aid and lobster, one question each.

John Baird, nine answers. Rob Nicholson, six answers. Jim Prentice, five answers. Gerry Ritz and Chuck Strahl, four answers each. Gary Goodyear, three answers. Lawrence Cannon and Ted Menzies, two answers each. Bev Oda, Gail Shea, Leona Agulkkaq and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, one answer each.


The Commons: Wait and see

  1. Mr. Lee and the Liberals seem hesitant to pursue charges of contempt because it may cause a constitutional crisis (and more to the point, an election they're not sure they can win).

    But like it or not, we are already in the middle of a constitutional crisis if the government refuses to obey the oppositions's legal order to produce documents. Partisanship aside, an election is a small price to pay for ensuring that contempt does not become the precedent.

    • There's only an election if Harper forces one, I would think.

    • Please take my one thumb-up and multiply that by the number of days since Parliament demanded to see the documents.

    • I am beginning to agree with you. But what happens if the Liberals force an election over this, the result is another Conservative minority, and the Conservatives still refuse to obey the legal order to produce documents? What happens then?

      The Liberals' problem is the same as it's been since the days of Dion: they have a gun with one bullet in it. If they fire and miss, they have no weapon left.

      • First off, a finding of contempt does not lead to an election by itself.

        Harper could well decide contempt=loss of confidence and call one of course, but that is his choice. Assuming for the moment that that is what happens, that there is another Conservative minority and they still refuse to obey the order to produce the documents, I would guess that whatever punishment or censure Parliament deemed fit to impose on the government when they found the contempt would go ahead. Harper would be a complete and utter moron to then say we need another, other election immediately after having one. Plus I doubt GG would go along with it at that point.

        And while I agree with your one bullet analogy, I have to point out something. If you only have one bullet and you are afraid to use it, don't pull out the gun in the first place.

  2. "Again I point out that he can and should have complete confidence in Mr. Iacobucci,” Nicholson lectured the NDP's Jack Harris, “who will have the unfettered ability to have a look at all the relevant documents and make recommendations on those.”

    Kady has something to say bout that.

    • Well, it's good to see KO'M has taken what she stubbornly learned from Maclean's commenters and applied it now at CBC where she wrote:

      Well, for one thing, at least we can stop referring to the review itself as any sort of inquiry, given the conspicuous lack of any mention of the Inquiries Act in the terms of reference;

      a distinction she refused to acknowledge in her blogging here on listeriosis.

      • How does one learn stubbornly?

        • End a discussion with something like this "and finally, I'm done with this tangent" and then surreptitiously admit you were wrong elsewhere.

        • End a discussion with something like this "and finally, I'm done with this tangent" and then surreptitiously admit you were wrong elsewhere.

  3. John Baird was sent up to read from the script. "Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister did say in this place last week. He said that he had requested Justice Frank Iacobucci to undertake an independent, comprehensive and proper review of all the redacted documents related to Taliban prisoners."

    Um … Mr Baird and Mr Harper … didn't you mean to give him the UNredacted documents? Or is this review even lamer than I thought?

    • Good find. I wonder that no-one on the opposition benches picked up on it. Or, could it AW's error?

    • He can't review the unredacted documents. There aren't any.
      Hopefully, however, he'll get unredacted versions of the documents.

  4. So let's see if I have this right: Last December Parliament asked the Government to hand over unredacted documents. The government prorogued rather than hand them over. Upon returning to session the parliament again asks for the unredacted documents. The government instead says they'll give them to a third party and let *him* decide what documents they'll hand over to parliament.

    In what crazy world is this *not* just another stalling tactic?

    • Richard try to understand this. The judge is looking at all the documents to determine if any are contrary to national security. The ones that aren't a threat, will be shown to the Liberals to chomp on, disect, rip apart, pull, and any amount of shenanegans to try pinning something on the Conservatives.

      • Richard is right. YOu are in the wrong here.

        • I don't think Richard is wrong. If the Government's Ministers, themselves MPs, were at all interested in balancing the interests of "national security" with the rights and privileges of Parliament, they would not turn to a retired judge with no standing in Parliament. Indeed, it's quite odd that they have not asked SIRC to review the documents in dispute. The Security Intelligence Review Committee is "an independent, external review body which reports to the Parliament of Canada on the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service".

          Not only is SIRC expert in balancing issues of security and intelligence with the interests of democracy, they already have the highest possible security clearances. Most importantly, though, they are responsible to Parliament. That is, they are legitimate in ways that a retired Judge given marching orders by the Justice Minister is not and can never be.

          Yes, SIRC's specific mandate concerns CSIS and the documents in question undoubtedly involve PMO, DND and Foreign Affairs as well as CSIS. But if the Government were looking for a body qualified to parse though the redacted documents and make a determination as to which ones need to be withheld from our democratic representatives in the House, why on earth would they opt for a retired judge with an expertise in tax law rather than a body responsible to Parliament and expert in matters of national security (such as SIRC)?

          There may be other reasons for the Government's odd choice, but Richard's suggestion that the government is stalling is at the very least plausible.

          • These would have been good arguments two months ago. The time for delay is surely over!

      • "The judge is looking at all the documents to determine if any are contrary to national security."

        Not his job. Nor in the end, a decision he is able to make with any authority backing him. Parliament has demanded the documents, and the law says produce them. That's all there is to this.

      • Are you saying that the Liberals can't be trusted with matters of national security? Just curious.

        My own take on this is that Parliament has the absolute right to view any and all documents. If national security is an issue, this review can be done behind closed doors.

        • Which is precisely what the Opposition has proposed. The Government rejected it and put up this ad hoc process involving a retired Judge.

    • Every party needs window dressing.

    • You know what's hilarious about that? Ignatieff could trot out tomorrow and give the exact same speech the PM gave in that link, and it'd be just as relevant now as it was then.

      In fact, that'd be kind of funny. After the speech, he could say, "And I tell you this not just as a reminder of what Stephen Harper promised to do back in 2006, but as our promise to Canadians to actually get it done."

      • Remember Paul Martin? and how it was no longer going to be about "who you know in the PMO?" I'm pretty sure this is promised by everybody and delivered by none.

      • Anyone from the OLO office reading this? It's an absolutely beautiful way to grab a headline and make a point.
        The only thing is – if you abandon a pledge like this, just as SH has done, you lose my vote.

  5. And if the opposition wants the documents produced, I don't think Harper can actually stop them unless he sees it coming and prorogues yet again (or maybe tries to pass a confidence vote eradicating the earlier motion to produce the documents, maybe that would work).

    Harper would look foolish indeed if he forced and election AND the documents were still given to the standing committee, as they should have been months ago.

    Somebody in the opposition should bring a motion to enforce the order!

    • That's the thing. The Liberals seem scared to enforce the order because they think Canadians will blame them for precipitating an election. But if they enforce the order, it's the Conservatives who will have caused the election by not producing the documents. Perhaps we'll see more action on this after their conference this month.

      Democratic reform could be real hot button issue in the next election, and the Conservatives will almost certainly find themselves on the wrong side. Perhaps that's something the opposition should consider, as Chantal Hebert implies here.

      • Unfortunately, I don't think the Liberals have the luxury of that much time.

        I'm not sure where Chantele is getting her information, but I can tell you that Waterloo Region's Federal Liberal riding associations (K-W, Kitchener Centre, Kitchener-Conestoga, and Cambridge) are hosting a tie-in with the Montreal conference at Bingeman's on Sunday, March 28. I will know more tomorrow night, but according to my poorly written notes, the sessions we will be covering include: Jobs, the environment, the economy, and Democratic Institutions. I think that is another way of saying democratic reforms. If it isn't it could certainly be made to be because these are interactive sessions. Cheques payable to Bingeman's for $10 to cover food and refreshments–this is NOT a Liberal fundraiser. So, everyone (not just Jack), please feel personally invited!

  6. Noted in a comment above, I'm a little baffled as to why the Government has not turned to SIRC to review the documents in question rather than employing a retired judge (with no special expertise in the area). The Security Intelligence Review Committee is "an independent, external review body which reports to the Parliament of Canada on the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service". Seems that SIRC would be the experts in national security and intelligence most proximate to Parliament, and responsible to it.

    • They're probably a bit too independent. Ask any good lawyer, and he'll el you that you never ask a question of a witness you don't already know the answer to.

      • Yeah, but the issue in play here is the power of Parliament to compel the Government to produce documents and witnesses. The committee supports this, House as a whole supports this, even the Law Clerk of Parliament supports this. That the Government is trying to do an end-around makes no sense at all if they give a damn about law and order. My suggestion about using SIRC to review the documents would give the Government an arbiter who is already responsible to Parliament, but understands the interests of national security.

        My suspicion is that the Government doesn't care about law, order or democracy … only stalling in the hopes that this issue will be overtake by other events. The matter of the power of Parliament to hold the Government to account, however, will remain an important one even if politicians choose to move on. Best for both the Government and the Opposition to find a legitimate resolution, for the good of the country.

  7. Of course,

    virtually every post here is premised on two basic notions:

    1) the opposition is entirely free of partisanship or petty political gain, and every issue raised is for the good of the country and only the good of the country, and

    2) the opposite applies to the conservatives: every point on every issue has malevolent underpinnings.

    No bona fides is granted to the CPC, benevolent and good intentions are reserved solely for the Canadian left.

    If you consider these notions in reading these posts and the majority of commenters here, you'll get it, lickety split.

    • I think motive has been taken into account, your ridiculous statements notwithstanding. Even if we assume opposition MPs don't care a whit for enforcing the law and only to embarrass the other side, they risk blowback if they release information which legitimately should have been kept secret.

      Of course, the first bad thing that come up, the governemnt will say "How dare you endanger troops by making this information available?" Even if it is completely implausible for that to be the truth.

      • Biff heads to SDA for "balance"…go figure. Methinks he doth protest much too hypocritically.

      • "Don't care a wit"???

        How about "all have the same political calculus".

        Rae's as partisan as Harper is.

        The problem with recognizing it, is that one has to think the unthinkable: that Harper…gulp…on occaision may have a point or two worth considering.

        And that sometimes…gulp…the Libs are full of it.

        As for the comments that this isn't "straight news", that's true. Though rediculously unbalanced commentary (not from a "blogging tory" or a "libblogger", but from a media owned blog,

        surely cannot be good for public discourse.

        And, purely toxic to the notion that our MSM can somehow play it straight, notwithstanding thier deep seeded leftist tendencies.

        • Your making a Harper statement here media.

          Now, I think you should name all the left MSM.

          Prove your point.

        • Oh Harper's had a lot of points worth considering. The shame is that he almost always turns around and does the exact opposite of what he says he's going to.

          That said though, I have absolutely no question that the Liberals are doing this for political motivations. But their motivations are irrelevant. What matters here is the truth. Why did our governments sign this agreement, and leave it in place for over a year when they had been receiving information that it could be exposing our troops to charges of War Crimes, and more importantly, could be endangering them and making their jobs to win over the hearts & minds of the Afghan people even harder? We need answers to those questions, and we need the people who are responsible for those decisions to be made examples of so that future politicians and generals always keep this at the forefront of their minds:

          There are lines which we, as Canadians, will not cross. The between being a good solider and enabling torture is one of them.

    • Sure, biff. Let me ask you something. Who benefits, in the immediate, by having Parliament not be supreme? Or, in other words, who benefits by making the government not answerable to Parliament?

      Hardly "petty" political gain, this would be huge. Imagine if Harper didn't have to worry about whether he ever got a majority or not? Okay, so that's what's in it for the Conservatives.

      Now, what's in it for the Opposition? Since we are dispensing with 'the good of the country' as a reason to do anything, we are left with the possibility of embarrassing Harper. If you are the Liberals though, you must weigh that with the possibility of embarrassing yourself. I'd say those two would come out about even on the scale, but only for Liberals.

      So the NDP and the Bloc have an upside of possibily embarrassing Harper, and bonus points of possibly embarrassing the Liberals as well, and little to no downside. That's great, but it wouldn't have garnered enough votes for the demand of the House to pass.

    • Only one basic premise applies. Parliament, by vote, has ordered these documents be produced. The sitting Prime Minister is not, to this point, obeying the will of parliament.

      Any other argument, regardless of party or partisanship, is moot.

    • You got it biff and that can be applied to everything that goes on in this country,i have become so sick of hearing and reading how everything Harper does is bad but all the loony left are nothing but out standing people that can or would do no wrong.Go look on any news site,newspaper or TV news channel and its the same thing Harper bad nothing else need be said,the TO star today say's that if this were a couple of hundred years ago Harper would have his head cut off.The fact is most normal Canadians do not see things as Canada's left likes to think and when these slimy cowards finally pulls there heads out of thier collective A$$'s and forces an election we'll never have to hear their sorry names again.

  8. Funny that hansard is recreated here with "scenes" and settings, mood, and of course characterizations.

    The brave and noble Rae, seeking the truth while the slippery conservatives, political serpents that they are, try to avoid the valiant efforts from the left.

    I suspect if there were pictorials to accompany this, Rae would no doubt be wearing a cape.

    The carefully defined target audience here does seem to lap it up though.

    • It's a blog Biff; It's not the front page of the Globe. It's how one journo sees it. You want bald face reporting go to reuters, or some wire site.

    • You do realize that if you don't support this kind of thing, you really shouldn't patronize it by coming here, because then you're counted among the advertising views they get, which tells them that this stuff is what people want to see.

      The internet is amazingly self-filtering that way. If you don't want to see it, avoid looking at it. If enough people do that, it'll go away.

      • You mean like the NYT's, CNN's, MSNBC's, ect radically shrinking audiences?

        Yes you do have a point. Though the cracks started by folks making note of their incredibly biased, you-only-need-to-know-our-leftist-worldview based "news".

        Canadian media will follow suit.

        Not because Canadians are particularly conservative (though they are considerably more than the media lets on – we're all progressives you see)

        but that Canadians want all the news that's important. Including stuff like a theory that seeks to redistribute world wealth and control all aspects of our energy use…crumbling. Not just the statist stuff that they shove down our throats.


    Half you guys have probably already read this stuff, but just in case.
    There's some fascinating and highly relevant info on parliamentary privilege and its relationship to the constitution here. I believe it's a CAPP website.

  10. The best part about all of this is watching how much Bob Rae looks as an opposition leader rather than the faux leader they have right now … I wonder if the realize this at Bay St. Central!!!!

    • Wayne, er, sorry, "psiclone!", your point, inasmuch as you have one, is not further advanceded nor made more salient with the extra-judicial application of triple screamers.

      • Yes, but it is so Wayne-like. It is kind of cute.

      • It's just that he really, really, really wonders about that.

    • The Liberals do have a strong bench, don't they? Impressive to think that a conservative like you could be so impressed by a senior member of the opposition team. I guess you surprise me sometimes. Good on you!

      Did you think Baird looked a strong potential leader answering on Harper's behalf? What about Bernier: do you support his leadership bid?

    • Yes and the day Rae becomes leader is the day all you Conbots will prattle on incessantly about the dark days of his NDP Ontario govt and it will turn out that he's not a leader either.

      Seen this script a couple of times already.

    • amazing you can state this totally irony-free as Baird filled in again for the PM. Not escorting his wife, but in QP in case the talking points you received didn't point that out.

    • The Conservatives would love it if Bob Rae became the leader. For one thing, he is unelectable in Ontario, which is the Tories' primary battleground for votes. And the Conservatives probably have all sorts of footage of him bashing Liberals from when he was the Ontario NDP leader, and would flood all available markets with attack ads featuring this footage at the first available opportunity.

      I have a lot of respect for Rae, but he can never become Liberal leader.

      • Stephen Harper could never become Leader because he would unelectable in Quebec or urban centres.

  11. I've always assumed that the whole point of the Iacobucci inquiry is to try to make the whole Afghan issue go away, preferably until after the Conservatives gain their hoped-for majority.

  12. Hmmm….at $600 per hour for Iacobucci, wouldn't it be more economical to hold the inquiry now?

  13. The crucial question: who defines "relevant information"
    The answer appears to be the PMO and that is wrong. Parliament is supposed to be the highest authority. But, parliamentary democracy is slipping away, while we are preoccupied with – ?

  14. The longer view is that if parliament backs down on this it will be diminished irrevocably.

    Even if Iacobucci is the second coming (and you'd think he already died the way some people seem to need to eulogize over him) he's still just one lawyer, with one opinion, and as much as he may have been independent as a Supreme Court justice, he isn't independent in this case.

    If he was independent, he would be hearing from all the parties to the dispute, and attempting to mediate their conflicting interests. He is, in fact, acting as counsel for one of the parties to the dispute, and that means he is representing those interests,

    The principle of privilege will still need to be resolved whether the judge looks at detainee documents or reads the Sunday comics. It just isn't up to him to him decide.

    • Congratulations. You nailed it in one.

    • That pretty well sums it up.

  15. Who cares about a few foreign war detainees- Liberals will make hay in the rain, they got nothing, no leader, now how

  16. Any constitutional lawyers around?

    Why does this have to automatically have to lead to an election? One could argue that if Parliament votes that the government is in contempt, then that needs to be resolved before anything else can happen. Trying to dissolve Parliament would be a further act of contempt.

    If not already a crisis, surely an election followed by another minority government would drive us right over the edge into a major crisis, as the issue of contempt would still not have been resolved.

    The issue of contempt must be resolved before an election is called.

    • Same question here.

      What is the official status of a government found in contempt of Parliament? Does it continue to govern?

      If the Harper government was found to be in contempt, would the next step not be for the GG to determine if any other party/parties are prepared to assume the role of government?

      • Not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise. But I do know that contempt does not equal loss of confidence or an automatic call to GG. I know this because of the contempt proceedings in New Zealand we talked about a while ago

        But Harper is free to view it as a loss of confidence if he so desires. That would be completely on him. And so, after any election he might call where we ended up basically where we are now, if the documents hadn't been produced, I think the contempt finding would still stand. Parliament is able to mete out any punishment or censure it deems appropriate, I believe, and if Harper still isn't inclined to accept it, well, I can't imagine he'd be such a moron to try to call and election again, immediately after the (hypothetical) last one he called, and nor do I think GG would allow it. I would imagine in that situation GG would ask the opposition if they could form a government. There is where things would get really interesting, because I have no idea whatsoever as to what would happen after that. I mean, I couldn't even hazard a guess.

  17. 1. If the Opposition gets its ##### together and holds the government in richly deserved official contempt I'll eat my hat AND join the Liberal Party for a period of not less than two years. Get it done already!!!!!

    2. Can someone please explain to me – and I'm not uninformed, so do it in big words – how the government gets away with having the TRANSPORT MINISTER answer these questions so often?

  18. Mr. Ignatieff has been forced into his BIG TEST before he would like it – or before his handlers have written his script!
    Now it's time to show what he has in his jockeys (metaphorically speaking)…
    An agreement between ALL parties who oppose what Harper is doing and feel it is undermining democracy would end this pas de deux once and for all – but that would involve Ignatieff and his elite handlers contemplating an Alliance / Coalition – which appears to be in direct conflict with their dreams of him being crowned king of Canada – and not just of the current version of the Liberal Party of Canada…

  19. Aaron the very last sentence says it all! indeed …. and so far from what I see they are not paying attention as they are too busy trying to throw muck at Harper!

  20. It would be interesting to know what kind of advice the Speaker gave to Lee when they met about Lee's motion just before Parliament resumed. I suspect it may have been along the lines that the motion could have dire consequences and that the government should be given, and should be seen to be given, every opportunity to comply with the order of Parliament to release without delay all of the documents referred to in Ignatieff's motion before Lee's motion is tabled. Then the question would be, what constitutes 'without delay'.

  21. “Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker.

    Yes Bob, do try to be clear just as clear as you were when you told Jim Rutherford that Iggy did not sign the coalition agreement or that the attempt to overturn the election wasn't upsetting to very many Canadians. I'm sorry Bob, but we don't trust you.

  22. The Stats you have posted below looks very informative.Thanks for sharing.

    The Stats. Afghanistan, eight questions. The environment and food safety, five questions each. Employment and financial regulation, four questions each. Aboriginal affairs, three questions. Helena Guergis, taxation and Internet access, two questions each. Crime, the Inuit, air travel, foreign aid and lobster, one question each.