Credits: JULIE JOCSAK/QMI AGENCY
What kind of proof do we seek?
Well, as Chretien so clearly put it, "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." So far, however, the robocall allegations primarily being spun by the Bob Rae Liberals have been nothing but allegations.
No good proof has yet been proven.
A recent story by the two Postmedia newshounds doggedly attempting to sniff out this proof reported that Elections Canada has now received 1,394 complaints about misleading elections phone calls - double the number being touted in March - but refuses to table the exact details to the Federal Court.
Why is that? Is it simply privacy concerns?
Perhaps Elections Canada commissioner Yves Cote shares our suspicion that, just as the robocall brouhaha seemed to be dying out, there was suddenly a doubling-up of complainers wanting to allege the Harper Conservatives were playing dirty with fake, electronically generated phone calls - and in 234 ridings, no less.
But what kind of proof do they have?
Do they have recordings of all these calls? Probably not. Do they have notes scribbled down by these complainers the moment they hung up on the robocaller? Probably not.
Did they all dial *69 to get details on the last caller's phone number, and then jot down the details? Probably not.
Or does Elections Canada have only vague recollections from the complainers? And did these complainers, by and large, sound overwhelmingly like Liberals with a collective interest in concocting a "good proof" that could be sold to investigators as having some semblance of truth?
In other words, was it more politically driven than reality based?
These are questions worth asking because, after months and months of accusations against the Tories, none of these questions has been answered.
So it boils down to this: If you do not have a good proof, it's because it's not proven.
Have we made ourselves clear?