The Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Cote said in a report released on Thursday, “The evidence [from his investigation into voting irregularities] does not establish that calls were made with the intention of preventing or attempting to prevent an elector from voting.”
One might expect this would be enough for fair minded people who have followed the file to conclude that nothing like the massive fraud reported on by many media outlets and screamed from proverbial rooftops by opposition members has occurred.
Perhaps something more occurred in the riding of Guelph, but elsewhere, no.
According to Elections Canada’s website, “The Commissioner has concluded that, following a thorough investigation by his Office, the evidence is not sufficient to provide reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed.”
And remember the 40,000 complaints about Robocalls received by Elections Canada? Turns out that 39,350 came from an online form sponsored by the left-wing activist group, Leadnow. You guessed it, a leftist attempt to slander the Conservative party after it won a majority in the 2011 general election.
Yves Cote’s findings were formally reviewed by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Charron, who wrote:
I will start with the ultimate conclusion reached by the investigative team that there are no grounds to believe that an offence under the Canada Elections Act or the Criminal Code has been committed in relation to the complaints outside the electoral district of Guelph. In my view, this conclusion is amply supported by the evidence.”
Sounds conclusive to me, but it is not good enough for the opposition and some of the “progressives” who make up their media cheering section.
I watched CBC’s At Issue broadcast and noticed two regulars, Bruce Anderson and Chantal Hébert, were quite prepared to accept the report at face value and seemed to agree that the media did perhaps go overboard on the story.
Huffington Post’s Ottawa bureau chief Althia Raj, though, was something else. She was filling in for Andrew Coyne, and nothing about Yves Cote’s report seemed to dissuade her that the election was anything but a scandal and a fraud.
Neither Chantal Hébert nor Bruce Anderson can be considered apologists for the Conservative party. So I can’t help but question Raj’s motives for being so offside with her co-panellists. Time and again she seemed to disagree with their more reasonable assessments.
I’ve sensed bias—to the point of partisanship at times—in Ms. Raj’s commentary on political shows, but this was even more so than usual. While watching one show she was on, I wondered out loud if she had a schoolgirl crush on Liberal leader Justin Trudeau—her enthusiasm for the man was so conspicuous. I would have thought impartiality would be more evident in a bureau chief of a major media source.
See the At Issue episode here and judge Raj’s performance for yourselves.