McGregor and Maher published another installment in their series covering the robocalls controversy a couple of days ago. They led with the news that Allan Mathews, the former RCMP investigator who has been working as an investigator for Elections Canada, has been asked to submit an affidavit in the case of the applicants who are seeking to overturn the election results in six ridings. If he complies, he may end up on the stand for cross-examination.
But this, several paragraphs into the story, is just as interesting if not more so.
Earlier this month, a few days after the Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News reported on email records that showed Elections Canada officials suspected the Conservatives of "mischief" with misleading telephone calls during the last election, Shrybman wrote to the agency to complain that it had failed to provide the emails when he requested records of complaints in August.
This week, Elections Canada agreed to introduce records containing the emails...
The Conservatives have maintained all along that this challenge is being brought by sore losers who didn't like the election results. That line of attack is blunted by the fact that the emails in question reflect complaints that Elections Canada received before anyone knew what the results were. Those complaints began coming in two days before election day.
It sounds as though this was as much news to Shrybman as it was to the rest of us. And why would that be?
If Shrybman had known about the complaints that inspired those emails and prompted Elections Canada to make inquiries of the CPC before the polls had even closed, why would he only be complaining now? So when he made his request of Elections Canada, why did the agency fail to supply this evidence? They were already releasing information, so why hold back on the subject of the earliest complaints they received? How does the information they withheld differ materially from the information they released except to make the applicants' case stronger?
Why is it so difficult to get those who are supposed to be protecting the integrity of our democracy to talk to the people on whose behalf they're supposed to be working?