Well it seems that the Bloc was pretty clever to bring forward their motion today that states, that the House express full confidence in Elections Canada and the Elections Commissioner, (paraphrased). It of course was a political move but useful in it's way. It's just too bad all of Canada didn't see the debate. Many things came to light.
Poilievre spent his 20 minutes deliberately confusing issues, distorting as usual and bringing up comparisons of how the other parties followed exactly the same procedure as the Con's. Interestingly, he seems to be raising all the issues that their legal team wanted to present in the civil suit, but they were ruled inadmissible and irrelevant, (that according to Dominic LeBlanc).
Why would you do that? Oh right, to confuse Canadians!
Each and every example Poilievre brought up, was shot down by the opposition. For example, the petulant one stated that Dominic LeBlanc did the same thing in a group ad buy. LeBlanc has explained numerous times how it is different, so I won't go through that, but Poilievre went further and said that LeBlanc's office wrote a cheque for the ad to the Liberal Party of Canada, proving that the national party actually paid for the ad and allowed LeBlanc to claim a refund from EC. What Poilievre leaves out is that the cheque was made payable to the Liberal Party of Canada (N.B.). In other words, he interpretted the law as it was intended.
Over and over P.P. uses the same evidence, (all contained in a shiny new black, 3 ring binder), all of which is as solid as a snowball in hell. He speaks only to the civil suit and of course ignores the real issue, alleged over spending nationally. It's really quite bizarre.
Anyway, the debate served to shine a light on what the Con's did and their evasive responses shone a light on who the Con's are.
The Con's voted against the motion tonight and even though this was meant to be a political move on the Bloc's part, I think the Con's have made yet another mistake.
For the government of this country, not the Conservative party, but the government to indicate that they do not have confidence in a trusted institution through a vote and not just rhetoric, sends a pretty bad signal.
Will it resonate internationally? Doubtful but the risk is certainly there. Sending Canadian observers to an area that is known to be less than ethical in voting procedures is something we have been proud of. What's to prevent an unethical player to suggest that our observers are useless, using the argument that the Government of the country they represent doesn't have confidence in them? As I say, I doubt that will happen but this a group of people that seems not to think through the possible consequences of what they do.
Most of us have known their position on EC and other institutions for some time, but they have been pretty good at denying that and providing an alternate explanation that seems to receive a lot of ink. Now they are on record and that just reinforces all of their other moves and the motivation behind them.
The list has grown to be quite long but, hmmm, who was the last person they said they had no confidence in? Hint, she's suing for wrongful dismissal.
Throwing snowballs in hell. Go team!