Well that didn't take long, did it?
Steve pointed out earlier that a Canwest publication, The Ottawa Citizen, had used an inflammatory and false headline to publish the fact that the Lib leadership candidates had been granted a loan repayment extension under the current EC rules.
As I expected, Pierre wasted no time reacting to the media, who propped him up once again, is suggesting that EC is bias.
The Conservative MP said he was not even sure the extension complied with the complicated details of the financing law.
"We're still reviewing whether this is legal," said Poilievre, who added "Elections Canada has been extremely generous with those candidates."
No, they haven't. The provision exists in the law and EC will no doubt follow it, just as they have in rejecting the Con election expense claims. Oh and can someone please explain to me how on earth the Con's would know the legality of EC laws if it slapped them? I mean really.
He went further of course. What would Conservative outrage be without making something an issue that isn't?
Poilievre added that Dion's failure to reach a repayment arrangement with the federal electoral agency 19 months after his leadership campaign puts into question his ability to manage finances. And he said it places doubt on Dion's ability to garner broad support from ordinary Canadians under lower political contribution caps introduced by the Tories.
"The fact that Stephane Dion cannot commit to paying off his debts promptly shows that he is a weak leader who can't be trusted with the nation's finances," Poilievre told The Canadian Press.
Dion's ability to manage finances? For the country? Get a grip. Unlike Harper, I do not suspect that Dion will run the finances of the country though indeed, he will be the over-seer. He'll do what most PM's do and that is put someone in place who is qualified to do that job, unlike Flaherty.
Come on media. Which party runs deficits and who has to bail out the country historically? You are running the US narrative and it's not even true there.
Why is that? Someone please explain that to me. Con's good with money, Lib's bad? Give me the modern historic narrative that actually bears that out.
He challenged Dion to "commit to Canadians that he will pay off all of his debts before the next election."
Ewww, scary. I double dare you says Pierre. We're not in High School anymore wonderboy.
Look, I joked on Steve's blog that he'd be the point man on this, but really, if he continues to be, he'll just look more and more ridiculous and make their case look worse. Go Pierre.
The buffoonery doesn't end with the Con's of course. No, Pat Martin had to make a pat martin comment.
"It makes you wonder why leadership races within a political party are subject to election financing rules," he said. "When is a loan not a loan? When it's not paid back."
Who has not committed to paying it back? No one. Martin and Mulcair were determined to implicate the Lib's during the committee meetings. Mulcair pushed on the Lib's being tipped off pre-raid. He was shot down, but his buy-in to the nonsense showed. He's a smart guy so he surprised me with this line of questioning.
Oddly though the examples the Con's used were Bloc and NDP examples. If Jack could get back to objecting to the real villain and lay off the Lib's, the country would be better off.
All of that said, I expect Dion to put forward a reasonable plan that abides by EC reg's. I'm sure he has. What is not mentioned of course is how much time he spent assisting the other candidates to pay down their debt by showing up at events.
I wonder. Will they return the favour?