Ethics committee talks social media without Del Mastro

I had a few committee meetings to choose from while I was in Ottawa last week, and attending the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics meeting on Tuesday made sense. And not just because it was hearing witnesses on a study of the privacy issues around social media.

I was hoping to see Conservative ethics committee member Dean Del Mastro, who has been keeping a low profile and allowing Pierre Poilievre to speak for him. Alas, Dean was a no-show. Disapointing to those hoping for a show, but perhaps a blessing for those looking for some substantive debate on what is a rather important topic as well. And we did get that; there was none of the partisan sniping that we hear of when committee hearings actually do get coverage. Instead, everyone was asking reasonable questions designed to get useful answers, not just score points or push a message. At one point, Liberal Scott Andrews even followed-up on a line of questioning when Conservative Blaine Calkins ran out of time.

There were three witnesses invited to testify: Sara Grimes, an assistant professor in the faculty of information at the University of Toronto; Tamir Israel, a staff lawyer with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa; and Adam Kardash, a managing director and head of access privacy with law firm Heenan Blakie. While Kardash emphasized he was testifying on his own behalf only, it did later come out that he has represented social media giants such as Facebook.

Grimes spends her time studying social networks for children and the practices of social networking sites with regard to children, and in her introductory remarks she called for a new approach that would shift from trying to protect young people from the risks of social networking to empowering them to make better decisions. Some sites ban anyone under 13, but that's too easy to get around. Too much data is also being collected on children and their online activities and being used for marketing purposes, without the informed consent of the children or their parents. She called for the development of more kid-friendly user agreements in language they can understand, and regulation to control the collection and use of data of children collected online. She also made the point that social network creating kid-friendly walled-gardens for young people won't work; she wants to give companies guidelines that balance risk with responsibility and education.

Israel said users feel like they've lost all control of their data as more and more of it is being collected and used, raising alarm about the rise of data brokers such as Acxiom, which harvest and sell detailed profiles of individuals based on their publicly-available Internet activities, from brand preferences to medical conditions. MPs from all parties would come back to the data broker issue and express surprise and concern. Kardash cautioned these businesses are mainly in the U.S. where laws are different and they probably aren`t interested in Canada, while Israel called for regulation and the creation of a central place where you can learn what brokers have info on you, and then find out what it is. Speaking about privacy settings for social media sites, Israel called for the requirement of privacy by default, rather than open by default or whatever works best for the site's business model by default. He also called for PIPEDA and the privacy commissioner to be given some power beyond the ability to name and shame offenders, which he feels isn't sufficient deterrent.

Unsurprisingly given what we later learned about his client list, Kardash disagreed with Israel on that point. He feels PIPEDA is working just fine, thanks and is still doing a strong job of safeguarding our online privacy even as new technologies have been developed since it was drafted. He said PIPEDA needs to stay technology-neutral so you're not redrafting it every time something new is invented online or it will be obsolete before it's enacted; technology is evolving too quickly. He called for more industry self-regulation rather than supplementing PIPEDA with more regulations, and said the privacy commissioner's ability to "name and shame" offenders is more than a sufficient deterrent to would-be privacy offenders.

As we got into the rounds of questioning from the MPs, Charlie Angus from the NDP got Kardash for favouring self-regulation over tougher enforcement, and chided him for not disclosing his relationship with Facebook and other major social media companies, which he has represented with Heenan Blakie. He did insist though that he loves Facebook and his wife claims' he's addicted (Twitter, not so much). He added we're in the age of big data, and with the increase in data mining activities (companies gathering our personal data and using it to sell and market to us) there needs to be regulation.

Conservative Blaine Calkins said he used to be a data base administrator, so he understands how this information can be gathered and the prospect of data brokers such as Acxiom "frankly has me terrified." He also spoke about the long and complicated user agreements that we all agree to, usually without reading or understanding, before we use a social networking service. He wondered if it shouldn't be made possible to modify the agreement, picking some elements to accept and some to regret. I found that interesting, but it would probably have a negative impact on the business model of the service provider. There would have to be a corresponding reduction in service level.


Calkins didn't have a chance to ask about the role of parents vs. that of regulation, so Liberal Scott Andrews put that question. Grimes said we need to find  the best way to welcome young people into this social media world they've been born into; it has a ton of benefits that must be balanced with the risks. There needs to be regulation because it can't all be left to parents; there's so much to learn. Even some cyber-nanny software, she notes, is used for data collection and mining. 


Andrews followed-up by asking if we have ages at which you're allowed to drink and smoke, should there be an age limit for social media? Grimes noted its a tricky comparison, as drinking has a proven negative developmental impact on youth. She likened the web to a city, with much of it as public space. We don't ban kids from the public park, but we don't let them into bars. 


The NDP's Charmaine Borg asked if the privacy commissioner should have the power to impose sanctions when organizations routinely change the privacy settings users have agreed to, and don't do a good job of informing them, or change the user interface to avoid existing regulations. Israel said this is definitely a problem to address, but noted social media is also rapidly evolving. He called for a process that allows the privacy commissioner to adapt the principles of the privacy law to the evolving reality on the ground. Kardash again downplayed the problem, noting most companies usually work out deals with the privacy commissioner to avoid the prospect of public naming.


I found the back and forth interesting, even if it seemed to do not too much more than scratch the surface of some of these issues. And it was refreshing to see a complete lack of partisanship as MPs seemed genuinely interested in learning more about the issues at hand. Of course, that could also be because this is an opposition-backed study of little interest to the Prime Minister's Office. And any amendments to PIPEDA are likely to be written by the government without regard to this testimony. So interesting information, but unlikely to impact policy. Which may explain the lack of partisanship.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's so hard to find good help these days...

You know, I'm starting to feel sorry for Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro. I'm sure he wants to do good, but he just keeps being foiled by those around him. I mean, it is so hard to find good help these days, isn't it?

Take these allegations of campaign overspending in the 2008 election campaign that have dogged Del Mastro of late. Apparently it's totally not *his* fault. No, apparently his campaign manager *accidentally* approved paying $21,000 for services that were never supposedly contracted for or delivered. Happens all the time, I'm sure. You're paying your bills. Hydro, check. Cable, check. $21,000 for something I don't remember ordering, check...

A document filed in court and in his election expenses file indicates Del Mastro's campaign manager approved $21,000 in payments to Holinshed Research Group for 630 hours of election campaign phone calls, as well as get-out-the-vote services on the day Canadians went to the polls. 

That cost wasn't included in the list of expenses Del Mastro provided to Elections Canada, which show he spent $90,987.52 or 98.29 per cent of his cap. 

Del Mastro says that's because it was a quote, not an invoice, albeit one his campaign manager, John McNutt, signed off on and submitted payment in two instalments. The quote is dated Sept. 14, 2008, with McNutt's signature and a note about the payment dated the next day. 

Oops. And then there's the allegations around donations made by employees of a Del Mastro cousin. After avoiding the press for days since the story broke, reporters finally caught-up with the Peterborough MP and asked him about the allegations. Unfortunately, despite being all over the news for days, the story was news to Dean.

Asked about the story on the way in to his party’s weekly caucus meeting Wednesday morning, Del Mastro told reporters, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” 

Oops again. You know, you can't blame Dean for being in the dark. After all, he's been pretty busy not answering questions in the House of Commons, not attending committee meetings, entering Parliament through the back door, and not stepping aside as Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary. You really have to fault his staff, again, for not bringing these stories to his attention. Maybe they could set up a Google News Alert under his name, so such embarrassing situations don't happen in the future. Or maybe turn on a TV. Or check Twitter. Perhaps the Library of Parliament could set up some kind of clipping service, and deliver it to MPs offices daily.


But don't blame Dean. It's so hard to find good help these days. Something the people of Peterborough are finding out as well... 

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dean Del Mastro's lie-based campaign techniques

At a punditry panel this morning at the Conservative Convention in Ottawa, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Dean Del Mastro, took to the microphone to share some of his campaign techniques.

Apparently his primary technique is deliberately misleading his constituents. In this video, he talks about how he told voters that a private member's bill from Ruby Dhalla about immigrant pension reform was a Liberal Party policy, even though he knew full well it was a private member's bill that not only wasn't Liberal policy, but was officially opposed by the party leadership.

Stay classy, Dean.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll be back...just not quite yet...first, to Israel

Apologies for this corner having gone dark recently.

It's been a busy stretch at work, including spending most of the last week in Las Vegas for HP's Americas Partner conference. It's an event that always generates lots to cover for us, but then throw in HP deciding to drop $1.2 billion to buy Palm while I was there, and it got even busier. Was a fun trip though. Stayed at one of the newer Vegas properties, Aria, and I quite liked it. Unlike most cavernous Vegas properties where they don't want you to be reminded of the world outside, Aria has lots of glass and natural light. And there's also a route from your room to the conference centre that doesn't involve going through the casino , a first in my Vegas experience and surely a design flaw... And speaking of the casino, I'm not a big gambler but did finish in the green, including a win in the sports book from taking the Habs in game six. Didn't bet on game seven; they surprised me there.

After less than three days back home though, on Sunday afternoon I'm on the road again, but this time for pleasure. I've been invited on a week-long trip to Israel, organized by the CIC and funded by a private donor. Steve at Far and Wide will also be coming, along with some NDP/left-wing bloggers I look forward to meeting. Steve has a good run-down in the itinerary so I won't re-hash it, suffice to say it's busy, diverse and interesting. A good mix of sight-seeing and meetings with an interesting group of local politicians, journalists and bloggers, and even our ambassador to Israel. I shall try to approach it all with an open, but slightly skeptical mind. (If you're interested, here is the current Coles Notes of my opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)

I'm not sure the schedule will allow for much time for blogging during the trip, but I shall try, and certainly I'll have lots to say and share upon my return. All I ask are for two things while I'm gone: my Canucks to still be playing hockey, and my country not to have bumbled its way into an election.

Since my hiatus is to continue a little longer, a few brief thoughts on recent developments in Canadian political land:

* While we've all been distracted with either Jaffer/Guergis nonsense or the detainee docudrama, the Liberals have actually been talking and releasing policy. And much of it is aimed at rural Canada. First was some very sensible ideas around getting more doctors and nurses into rural areas by, among other things, forgiving part of their student loans if they make that commitment. This was followed by a "Canada First Good Policy" to support and promote local farmers and access to safe, healthy food, and a commitment to rural postal service.

Of course, policy isn't sexy enough for media coverage these days so you may not have heard about any of this, and the punditry that scolded the Liberals for not talking policy are, when they talk about it at all, scolding them for talking policy. Outside the Ottawa bubble, however, Canadians are much more concerned about finding a family doctor than they are about who Rahim Jaffer e-mailed. So I hope we keep pushing the policy.

* That's not to say the Jaffer/Guergis stuff isn't important. The investigations should proceed, and if serving ministers acting inappropriately or in contravention of the rules, that should be exposed and they should face the consequences. The e-mails and other documents that came out this week certainly seem to show that the Conservatives have been far from honest about Jaffer's access and influence in his seemingly not overly successful non-lobbying career. And it's often more the lack of honesty than the actual deeds that seems to hurt more in these stories, in my experience.

* On the docu-drama, the speaker's ruling this week was certainly very significant, as was the reaction of Conservative partisans. I think what some of them fail to recognize is that this isn't really about detainee torture anymore. It's about democracy, and it's about the right and responsibility of the legislative branch to be a check on the activities of the executive branch. Harper was elected by a little over 38,000 people in Calgary Southwest; he has no right to thumb his nose at the Parliament of Canada.

One has to think saner heads will prevail here. Ignore the testosterone-fueled rantings of the likes of Kory Teneycke. The Conservatives don't want an election over this. They won't be able to make it about coddling the Taliban, it's an asinine argument. It would be about a dictatorial leader refusing to respect the will of the people's elected democratic representatives. And the Cons didn't exactly fare well during the prorogation drama, now did they?

There will be a compromise reached that allows the opposition access to the uncensored documents, likely in a secret or confidential manner that respects national security concerns. We've seen signals along those lines already from Conservaland. Ironically, always concerned about political posturing and positioning, they're already trying to paint such a compromise as an opposition back-down. Truth is though, the opposition has been proposing such a scenario for months; the government has continually rebuffed it. So, as much as it matters, it would be them backing down. Let's just hope saner heads prevail all around though.

* Speaking of saner heads, the head of our military, General Walter Natynczyk, is cool with giving all of the un-redacted documents to parliament, saying the military has nothing to hide. Which raises two questions for me. One: must it be the Harper government with something to hide then? And two, if we employ standard Conservative logic here and respond as the government would in question period, I have to ask, why does our Chief of Defence Staff not support our troops, and why is he a Taliban sympathizer?

* Speaking of interlopers in our midst, turns out that pollster Frank Graves, who the Conservatives are portraying as some kind of undercover Liberal mole polluting the public airwaves of the CBC pretending to be unbiased, has actually been getting millions of dollars of polling contracts from the Conservative government. Including $131,440 from Harper's own Privy Council Office.

I'm sure Dean Del Mastro will join me in demanding that a Parliamentary Committee immediately investigate how this government could give millions of dollars in polling work to a know Liberal stooge. Or maybe they could just, you know, admit this whole manufactured drama is stupid and move on to serious issues. Either one would be fine.

* And on Graves and this culture war nonesense the Cons are hyper-ventilating about, I could go on at length but let me just say this: the Cons have been fighting a culture-war for years in this country. Urban vs. rural, Tim Horton's vs. academic elites and fancy gala goers, support the troops vs you're all taliban lovers, tough on crime vs hug-a-thug. They've been fighting a culture war, we just haven't been fighting back. All Graves "advised" was for the Liberals to start employing some wedges of their own, to fight back, to basically use some of the same tactics Harper et. al. have to some success. And this is news, somehow? For the Cons to be all bitchy about someone suggesting their own tactics be used against them, tactics which have been part of politics, by the way, forever, is just stupid.

* Lastly, I have a great deal of respect for Ujjal Dosanjh, for what he has consistently and resolutely stood for throughout his career, the principled approach he takes to public life, and the energy and commitment with which he approaches it. And I join those who have condemned the threats and attacks against him and others who have dared to stand up to extremism in any of its guises. I'm no sure I agree completely with his take on the impact multiculturalism is having on Canadian society. But it's an important issue we should be debating, and it should be a debate free of threat and intimidation, in the best of Canadian traditions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Flawed Conservative logic: Anti-semitism and weightism

Now is the time when we juxtapose at A BCer in Toronto.

The Conservatives want you to know that Liberal MP Irwin Cottler is a big whiner for being pissed off the Conservatives sent taxpayer funded flyers to his riding all but accusing him of anti-semitism:

Federal Conservatives say Liberal MP Irwin Cotler is pretending to play the victim as he attempts to wring an apology for a flyer they sent to his riding that he says accuses him of being anti-Semitic.

Quoting a conservative columnist, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre told a Commons committee on Tuesday that politicians live to be unjustly accused of something because “the opportunities to play victim are too tempting.”

“I think that puts some of this into its proper context,” Mr. Poilievre said.

But if you imply in a tweet that A Conservative may be a few pounds over their ideal weight, well, how dare you, apologize immediately, how dare you pick on me, shame!

Mr. Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I am in fact saddened to rise on this point of order because I had hoped members in the House would not sink to this level. However, this morning the member for Scarborough Southwest made an entry on Twitter that I find particularly demeaning, discriminatory and unbecoming of a member of Parliament. This morning in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I had to put up with the abhorrent behaviour of a partisan chair who pays no attention to the rules governing parliamentary committees whatsoever. However, during that meeting I provided the respect that each member is in fact due. The member for Scarborough Southwest wrote on her Twitter, and I apologize as I will have to use my name, “In committee this morning, MP Del Mastro should grow up not out.”

I hear some people in the House laughing and that is unfortunate. I apologize for not being perfect and perhaps my stature does not meet the criteria that some members in the House set, but I have actually battled that problem since birth. I apologize for not actually fitting into the requirements. I am still hearing the chastising going on. It is this kind of arrogance and elitism that will be the downfall of the Liberal Party if this continues. I am giving the member the opportunity to apologize. The actions of the members in committee this morning do nothing to discourage me. They only encourage me. I would ask the member to take the opportunity to apologize for what she wrote. She may wish to consider that a number of her own constituents are less than perfect and she represents them as well.

So, if you're scoring at home, according to Conservative logic, say something unkind about an MP's girth on twitter is arrogant elitism that requires a self-aggrandizing sob-story speech in the House of Commons and for every media outlet that will have you.

But if an MP, a leader in the Jewish community respected across the country for his character and integrity, opts to defend himself from scurrilous accusations of anti-semitism that call his very character and life's work into question? Well, he's just a whiner that's playing the victim-card and should shut-up.

“I think that puts some of this into its proper context."

Indeed, Pierre.

Indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative mask is slipping

The polls open in less than 24 hours, but despite running a bubble campaign that has seen at least 119 Conservative candidate muzzlings and a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper that is no longer deigning to answer questions from members of the media, the true face of the Conservative agenda is beginning to show.

For example, there's Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative candidate for Peterborough, who in this video tells a pro-abortion rally on Parliament Hill. Del Mastro assures the crowd that the abortion "issues matters and is not going away" and that the abortion "laws will change in this country." (h/t) No matter what Harper says (when he is willing to actually speak to people) his caucus clearly has other ideas on abortion:



Then there's Peter Kent, the former Conservative TeleVision (CTV) anchor running again as a star Conservative candidate in Thornhill. In a recent debate, Kent called for more private clinics in Canada, a dangerous move towards a two-tier health care system for Canada where there's one system for the rich (who can afford to follow Stephen Harper's stock tips) and another for the rest of us. Once again, Harper's flimsy promises are overridden by his own caucus:

A Conservative candidate's suggestion that a private clinic be used as a model for health delivery across Canada prompted opposition charges that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to expand for-profit health care outside the public system.

Peter Kent made the comment during a recent campaign debate in Toronto's Thornhill riding.

Besides letting their ultra-conservative mask slip, the Conservatives are also staying classy on the campaign trail. Like Luc Harvey, the Quebec Conservative MP that showed up at a BQ campaign event to shout at and heckle Gilles Duceppe. Remember when Preston Manning wanted to restore decorum to Ottawa? I do.

A Conservative MP crashed a Bloc Québécois campaign event in Quebec City today, haranguing Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe who was shaking hands and meeting voters at a local market.

Conservative candidate Luc Harvey narrowly won by 231 votes in the riding of Louis-Hébert in 2006, and is fighting for his political life in the face of polls that predict a Bloc victory in his riding in Tuesday's election.

As Mr. Duceppe talked to farmers and clients at the Marché Public de Sainte-Foy, Mr. Harvey walked up from behind and asked Mr. Duceppe to say what he has accomplished since his election in 1990.

“Tell us about your record,” Mr. Harvey shouted.

There's also Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke-Centre, who distributed a flyer attacking Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj that contained out and out lies, attacking him for not attending committees he's not even a member of, or that don't even exist.

What does it take for an Ontario Superior Judge to leave his Thanksgiving dinner to grant an emergency injunction? Ask Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke Centre, whose latest electoral advertising effort seems to cross the line into actual defamation, according to Justice G. R. Strathy, who earlier today took the rare step of barring Kuhn’s campaign from distributing campaign literature targeting his Liberal rival, incumbent MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

And then there's Stephen Harper himself, who delayed his campaign schedule last week and held his first impromptu press conference to attack Stephane Dion for being unable to answer a poorly-worded question in his second language.

I don't buy their smokescreen that he couldn't answer the question because "he has no plan" for the economy. He has been talking about his plan for weeks before Harper even introduced his platform. The plan was expanded with the "30-day plan, unveiled in the French-language debate, a plan Harper attacked as a sign Dion was "panicking" on the economy.

How, prey tell, could Dion be panicking by releasing a plan when he doesn't even have a plan? The Conservative talking points are tripping over themselves. They make no sense. Their presser was about insinuating that because Dion's English isn't perfect (it's better then that CTV interviewer's though), he's not fit to lead our country. I even heard a Conservative radio ad the other day that used the line "can you imagine him representing us on the world stage?" Real nice. I'm sure this message will go over real well with all the Canadians for whom English is their second language.

It's a good thing for Conservatives that Canadians are more understanding of Harper's difficulties with French:



We're also more understanding of Stephen Harper's problems with English. Unless we're really voting on February 14th:



And unless he really gave us $300,000 in tax breaks (I'm still waiting for my cheque, by the way Steve):



This has been one of the most mean-spirited campaigns I've seen in years run by the Conservatives, and one that has been based almost entirely on lies. They lie about our climate change plan, they like about our massive tax cuts, they say we'll cut the child care subsidy when we'll really increase it, they say we'll raise the GST when we said no such thing and that indeed we will not, they put out attack fliers filled with lies that Ontario Superior Court judges have to interrupt their turkey dinners to issue injunctions against. They display no empathy for ordinary Canadians worried about their jobs and their savings and offer no plan for the economy besides buying bargain stocks. Their candidates refuse to attend all-candidates meetings or talk to the media, and their "leader" even turtles for the last days of the campaign, afraid he might go off script and say something he actually believes.

Do we really want more of this?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons digging themselves a hole

With the parliamentary ethics committee too busy investigating things embarrassing to the Conservatives, CPC MP Dean Del Mastro is trying desperately to get more mileage out of this ridiculous CBC question gate non-scandal.

In brief, the Cons were upset a CBC reporter shared some questions she had for Brian Mulroney with Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez. Since Mulroney wasn’t returning the CBC’s calls, and since Rodriguez agreed they were pretty important questions, he put them to Mulroney during his not under oath testimony before the ethics committee.

This sent the Cons into conniptions, and they managed to get their pound of flesh when the CBC apologized, and re-assigned the reporter in question. You’d think they’d quite while they’re ahead.

But that’s not enough for our Dean though:

The governing Conservatives want to haul Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez before the House Ethics Committee to apologize and to "admit that he lied" when he asked planted questions sent from a CBC reporter in the sensational Mulroney-Schreiber House Ethics Committee probe and they also want to hear from CTV NewsNet´s Mike Duffy host of Mike Duffy Live on the same issue.

After the CBC admitted that its reporter, Krista Erickson, provided questions to Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Que.) when he questioned former prime minister Brian Mulroney in December, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.) introduced a motion at the committee last week to call Mr. Rodriguez as a witness in order for him to "admit that he lied."

Myself, I’d like Stephen Harper to apologize for calling Liberals Taliban sympathizers, linking a Liberal MP to terrorism, insinuating ethnicity had something to do questioning on the Dimitri Soudas affair, and a long list of far more serious transgressions than sharing questions. But that's just me.

I’m reminded though of what the Conservatives warned when the opposition first called for an inquiry into the recent Mulroney allegations, a call the Cons initially resisted. Harper warned the Liberals should be careful, because if they insisted on going down that road, lots of bad stuff they’d done in a similar vein could be dragged out.

Perhaps Mr. Del Mastro should heed his leader’s own advice. The fact is, the media sharing questions and research with opposition MPs, and vice versa, is common and standard practice on the hill, and has been forever. By all parties. But don’t take my word for it:

Ottawa Sun columnist Greg Weston, who was on Mike Duffy Live when Mr. Duffy received the message, said if the Conservatives want to call Mr. Rodriguez, they should also call "every single Conservative MP who sat in opposition" because they did the same thing. "This is a daily thing," Mr. Weston said. "This is the most trumped up, ridiculous pandering to the Conservative core who believe that the CBC is part of the enemy and now it´s been proven we´re part of the enemy too. Well, as you always know, if there are two lists, I want to be on the black one."

So sure Dean, let’s investigate the sharing of information between opposition and the media. Let’s call all every National Post reporter that wrote about Shawinigate. Let’s call all the former Canadian Alliance MPs they worked hand it hand with on that, and umpteen other stories, over the years in a futile anti-Liberal vendetta. Why not, I’ll be fun.

Or maybe we can just have a laugh at this transparent and pathetic attempt to divert attention from the serious work the committee is doing. Former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector is due to testify this week. Rumour has it he’ll have some interesting information to share. It must be, if Warren is mentioning him without referencing him as a former tobacco lobbyist.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers