Debates of Nov. 26th, 2009

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There is no consent.

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber on a point of order.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during my exchange with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, we referred to a brief submitted by the deputy attorney general of Canada. For the benefit of my colleagues, and to help them understand the exchange, I would like to table the aforementioned brief. This may also benefit the minister, who has clearly not grasped all of the elements we are dealing with here.

I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to do so.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Evidently, no.

Content of Flyer--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 19, 2009, by the hon. member for Mount Royal concerning the mailing of a ten percenter to some of his constituents by the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London comparing the positions of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada on certain aspects of Canada's policy in the Middle East.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Whip of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Windsor West, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for their comments.

In outlining his case, the hon. member for Mount Royal stated that a mailing purporting to contain information on three issues, namely, fighting anti-Semitism, fighting terrorism and supporting Israel, was sent to some of his constituents, as well as to other ridings with identifiable Jewish communities.

The member went on to claim that this mailing was not only, in the words of the hon. member, “false and misleading”, but also “slanderous, damaging and prejudicial” to the Liberal Party and, by extension, himself.

This argument was supported by the Whip for the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Windsor West, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

In response, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister explained in some detail the content of the ten percenter in question and defended its veracity. For his part, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons pointed out that all parties are engaged in this style of communication.

As hon. members know, in deciding on a question of privilege, the Speaker is not charged with determining the facts; the Chair's ruling is limited to whether on first impression, prima facie, the matter before the House merits priority consideration. In cases where a member alleges that he has experienced interference in the performance of his parliamentary duties, the Speaker's task is particularly difficult. As O'Brien and Bosc states at page 111:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of member of Parliament, the intimidation of members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

The Chair has examined the numerous documents submitted in this case. Having heard all the arguments presented, I must agree with several members who suggested that there is no denying the critical role that context played in shaping the cumulative net effect of the words used in this mailing. In my view, the end result was a negative effect that spilled over to the member for Mount Royal in a very direct and personal way.

It is not for the Chair to comment either way on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the comparisons drawn on the bulk mailing complained of by the member for Mount Royal. That said, however, the Chair has no difficulty concluding that any reasonable person reading the mailing in question, and this would, of course, include the constituents of Mount Royal, would have likely been left with an impression at variance with the member's long-standing and well-known position on these matters.

Therefore, I must conclude that the member for Mount Royal, on the face of it, has presented a convincing argument that the mailing constitutes interference with his ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and his credibility.

Consistent with the ruling given on November 19, 2009 in relation to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and with other rulings in relation to mailings in 2005, and I suggest hon. members look at the ruling on November 3, 2005, pages 9489-90 of the Debates, the Chair finds that a prima facie question of privilege does exist. I therefore invite the hon. member for Mount Royal to move his motion.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised by the member for Mount Royal be now referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after I raised the question of privilege on November 19 on which you have now ruled, you ruled on another question of privilege raised by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to which you have now referred. Accordingly, in the light of that ruling and your ruling today, and in support of the motion to refer, I wish to tender the following submissions in support of the motion to refer and which incorporate as well the rulings that you have made and which adduce as well, for the benefit of the members of the House and the committee to which it will be referred, new evidence which has emerged that supports your ruling and this motion of referral.

Mr. Speaker, you mentioned in your references that sometimes it may be difficult to codify the criteria, but you have set forth in the ruling today and in the ruling of November 19 specific and relevant criteria. I would like to now relate to those and the evidence that can be adduced to support your ruling on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on November 19 on the matter of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, you found:

Having reviewed the material submitted, as well as the arguments made, the Chair can only conclude that the mailing sent to the constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore did distort their member's true position on the long-gun registry and, at the very least, had the potential to create confusion in their minds. It may also have had the effect of unjustly damaging his reputation and his credibility with the voters of his riding and, as such, infringing on his privileges by affecting his ability to function as a member.

Mr. Speaker, as this House will recall, my original question of privilege was in regard to Conservative ten percenters targeting Jewish constituents in urban areas, such as my riding of Mount Royal.

Indeed, these ten percenters, and they go to a larger question of subvention of public funds, were also an abuse of process in the use of coupling to target more than ten percent through the aggregate use of this ten percenter.

Moreover, as I attested to in the House, the contents of these ten percenters contained serious falsehoods and misrepresentations, and this is putting it mildly, Mr. Speaker. But I want to relate to the criteria that you enunciated both today and in your ruling of November 19:

--did distort their member's true position on the long-gun registry and, at the very least, had the potential to create confusion in their minds.

That is as per your ruling, but I may add, Mr. Speaker, and again quoting from your ruling:

It may also have had the effect of unjustly damaging his reputation and his credibility with the voters of his riding and, as such, infringing on his privileges by affecting his ability to function as a member.

Indeed, what is specifically damaging, and where the breach of privilege is most evident, is in the false and cruel characterizations of my party and myself. This is the only allegation I will deal with. The flyer states that the Liberals “Willingly participated in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban I”.

This is a particularly outrageous accusation to be made in ridings that are targeted because of their Jewish communities, as Durban has emerged for Jews in my own riding and in others as a metaphor for virulent anti-Semitism.

Accordingly, to identify any political party, let alone a Jewish MP, with willingly participating in such an anti-Semitic event is a most loathsome and dangerous accusation that one could make against that party and that member.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, and this is the important point in respect of your rulings on breach of privilege and in support of the motion now to refer this prima facie breach to the House committee, these accusations have already had damaging and prejudicial effects on my reputation and standing in my constituency, to use your criteria, as the composite of the three accusations in the flyer constitute the most damning accusations one could make. These were attacks on me as a person, as an MP, and as a member of the Jewish community, and on the party to which I am a member.

It not only has sowed confusion, Mr. Speaker, to use your criteria, but anger among some of my constituents. It not only unjustly damaged my reputation and credibility, though that would be bad enough, to use your criteria again, but clearly infringed upon my privileges and prejudicially affected my ability to function as a member.

I might add that some of the responses to the flyers in my riding called upon me to leave Parliament, to in fact even leave the Jewish community, as I had betrayed that community. There could not be a more pernicious and prejudicial fallout from this damaging flyer as that which I have quoted, and I can tender the evidence to you, Mr. Speaker, for the record.

In that regard, I refer this House to the ruling of Speaker Fraser of May 6, 1985, wherein he said:

--anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member’s identity...[can] impede a Member in the discharge of his duties is a breach of privilege.

Let me quote the full statement of Speaker Fraser:

It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his functions effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member’s identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member’s functions. Any action which impedes or tends to impede a Member in the discharge of his duties is a breach of privilege. There are ample citations and precedents to bear this out.

Mr. Speaker, in our ruling today and in your previous ruling regarding the member of Sackville—Eastern Shore, you have in fact contributed to these principles and precedents.

I bring up the issue of identity, referred to in the ruling of Speaker Fraser, because in my case there can perhaps be no greater betrayal for the people of Jewish religion than the portrayal of one of their own as anti-Semitic, and that holds true as well for the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

This accusation, as set forth in the ten percenter, is absolutely abhorrent. Constituents have reported even receiving this same mailing in their household more than once. They have asked how I could remain with a party that is anti-Semitic, or how, as a Jew, I could be engaging in such self-hatred. This is just some of the evidence respecting the prejudicial fallout and supporting the breach of privilege on its face.

Even my wife, if I may make reference, herself a constituent and who as it turns out received a ten percenter from the President of the Treasury Board, felt compelled to write an op-ed for the National Post on this issue, again evincing the tumult and prejudicial fallout from these flyers. As she wrote, and it bears again on the question of privilege:

This week, I received the Conservative “ten-percenter” mailing from [the President of the Treasury Board], targeting assumed Jewish households across Montreal's Mount Royal riding...The mailing makes misleading statements about what the Liberals (including my husband, who has represented this riding for 10 years) did or did not do regarding matters of value to the Jewish community's members.

It is presumptuous enough to assume that Canadian Jews only vote on these issues--regardless of concerns over health care, the environment, social justice, poverty--and that they vote as a bloc. In fact, so far as I know, no other religious community in our riding has been so targeted. But even on the “Jewish” values issue, the flyer is a series of false and arguably slanderous statements.

I will end the reference here to her op-ed. I think it makes the point as to how this constituted a breach of privilege and the prejudicial fallout that it has caused.

I will move to one other point and with this I will close.

There is this other point that may also impede members in the discharge of their duties and constitute thereby a breach of privilege. I am referring to how the targeting of Jewish residents was compiled and their reaction to being so targeted, and the concern of a violation of privacy in the creation of such lists.

While I find it offensive enough that the Jewish community is reduced to a single issue voting block by the contents of this flyer, I realize that this matter, standing alone, is not an issue of privilege. But what may well be an issue of privilege and breach of privilege, and where members may be impeded in their duties, is where constituents may become hesitant to communicate with us if they feel their personal information is somehow being compiled and manipulated.

The targeting of specific and identifiable communities on issues of pressing importance to them may not only be regarded by them as an abuse of parliamentary resources, which it clearly is, but one that violates privacy expectations as well as further impeding members in the discharge of their duties.

The Leader of the Opposition has written to you, Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Board of Internal Economy on the issue of ten percenters. Should the Board become seized of this matter, and should the motion be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would be prepared to go forward to present this case study of ten percent misuse and abuse, and how it can have prejudicial and damaging effects on members and their ability to discharge their functions.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I understand Your Honour has found a favourable prima facie case of privilege with respect to the document in question. The matter can and will be further reviewed at committee, as it should be.

I would, however, like to put on the record certain clarifications and corrections.

First of all, the document in question does not mention any member of this place.

Let me say that the respected and learned member for Mount Royal, for whom I have great regard, went on at length about supposedly targeting people from a particular community with this ten percenter.

I will leave to the Board of Internal Economy the rules and regulations of distribution of parliamentary communications, including ten percenters, but I would point out to my learned friend that his colleague, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, circulated similar ten percenters arguing that the official opposition's record on issues of concern to the Jewish community was superior to that of the government. That ten percenter appeared to have been distributed in areas with a particularly large Jewish population.

Therefore, everything the member just said with respect to distribution of these materials with respect to the flyer in question could equally be said of the distribution of materials from a flyer from the member for Eglinton--Lawrence. I, therefore, underscore at what is at best a basic inconsistency.

I would secondly point out that the flyers in question from the member for Eglinton—Lawrence were distributed several weeks before the flyer in question.

I did not see any members of the government rising to their feet complaining about matters of privilege because of the very similar communications tactic, in fact, the identical communications tactic being used by members of the official opposition. Apparently for them, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

There should be one set of rules for official opposition MPs and another set of rules for government MPs, when it comes to distribution of these ten percent documents.

Having said that, to move on to some of the substance of the member's allegations, I find spurious and reject completely the terribly mistaken inference that he draws from the document in question that it alleges that he or any other member of this place is anti-Semitic.

What the document says is that the Durban conference was overtly anti-Semitic. I am sure that members will be able to present the copious evidence in support of that contention. I think that essentially it is almost a widely accepted fact. It is hardly contentious to allege that there were many acts of overt anti-Semitism, displays of overt anti-Semitism at the first Durban conference.

It is further more a fact, not an opinion, that the previous government decided to participate at Durban I knowing full well about the charged environment of anti-Semitism at that conference.

I can make these other points--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I neglected to say to the minister, when he got up, that we are on questions and comments. I was not sure whether the member for Mount Royal was on a point of order. It appears it was a speech consequent on the motion which it turned into when I put the motion to the House, so we are technically on a 10-minute question and comment period.

Perhaps he would like to put a question based on his comments, but he will have an opportunity to say more later if he wishes because after the question and comment period is over we will resume debate.

I invite the minister to bear that in mind, given the length of his comments already.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I will present my subsequent response in the next speaking spot, I will just terminate first, with an assertion and then a question.

I am disturbed by the suggestion that there was any accusation found in the document that any member is anti-Semitic. This is clearly outrageous. The fact that the previous government decided to participate at Durban, knowing full well the atmosphere of anti-Semitism that surrounded it, and the member knows very well because he was there, is a statement of fact. It is equally a statement of fact that this government was the first in the world to decide to withdraw from Durban II because of those concerns. Now that in my judgment is a legitimate policy difference and that is what public debate involves.

However, my question for the member is this. In the year 2000, former minister of immigration, my predecessor in the Liberal government, said that my party was filled with “racists, bigots, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers”. Now this was not an argument over who attended a conference or the nature of a conference. This was not a conventional political debate about facts. This was truly the most vile kind of defamatory slur against tens of thousands of members of my party, myself included, and the millions of Canadians who voted for it, who she accused of being filled with “racists, bigots, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers”. I do not recall a single member of the Liberal Party standing and condemning those remarks or even offering any kind of apology for those remarks. That member was promoted in a subsequent cabinet.

Perhaps the member makes a lot of comments that are not on the public record and perhaps he made some private condemnation of those remarks, but I would challenge him. If he really wants to get into these issues, and I hope he is aware of the consequences of this, would he stand in this place and point out where any member of his party condemned the outrageous, defamatory slurs of Elinor Caplan, a former Liberal MP?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I did, in a public forum condemn, those statements. That is number one. But the point is we are talking here and this changing of the channel is trying to take us off the issue. What we are speaking about is a breach of privilege in the use and abuse of ten percenters, which has the effect of impeding the work of the member of Parliament.

What the member said, which was not a ten percenter, which deserved all the criticism in the world, is a very different issue. If they wanted to raise it at the time as a breach of privilege, it could have been raised as a breach of privilege. However, the hon. member and no one else raised it at the time because it was not the kind of character of the targeting of a riding with ten percenters with that kind of malicious statement.

The hon. member should know better. It was not just saying that Durban was anti-Semitic, it was saying that the Liberals willingly participated in the anti-Semitic Durban I. That is the calumny to which we object.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

You did, you did.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, the Liberals went there, as did every other government in the international community. That is not mentioned by the hon. member and it is not mentioned that—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Except Israel and the United States.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The member just referred to Israel. The State of Israel commended the Canadian delegation for condemning the anti-Semitism at Durban.

So at least if he wants to deal with facts, put facts, do not continue the calumnies as a matter of public record. I find it outrageous that this statement is being continued and this calumny is still being poured into the public record. For shame.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with all those—and I think all opposition parties are in agreement—who want this motion to go before the committee. I think we can all agree on how important the ten percenters are, those pamphlets we can send to our constituents to explain what goes on in this House—the political positions, the debates and the challenges.

However, in the past few weeks we have seen some real abuse by the Conservative party, the Conservative government, the elected Conservative members, and I think we are heading for disaster, because the public is really questioning the need for these ten percenters. I think that if we do not want to find ourselves one day without the ability to use this very important tool to communicate with our constituents, we need to correct the situation immediately.

In the past week or two, Mr. Speaker, you have recognized two points of order concerning the misuse of ten percenters for purposes that practically border on demagoguery. We will absolutely support the motion before us.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I hope not to be too long. I will just finish where I began in questions and comments.

I have to correct the record again. My learned friend from Mount Royal, whose dedication to these issues, of course, is legendary and who is a valued member of this place, I think just misspoke himself, and I am sure he will agree that he did so, when he said the entire world community withdrew from the Durban I conference. That is factually incorrect. The state of Israel and the United—

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I did not say that.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

He didn't say that.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is exactly what he said. The state of Israel and the United States withdrew. There were calls within Canada for Canada to withdraw.

In fact, let me quote from an editorial that appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist, on September 5, 2001, “The continued presence at the conference of Canada's secretary of state for multiculturalism”, now the member for Vancouver Centre, “ no longer serves any useful purpose and, in fact, helps to legitimize what has become a propaganda forum for some of the worst anti-Jewish hatemongering since the Second World War”. That was the editorial board of the Victoria Times Colonist.

Why do I quote that? Simply to point out that the sentiment expressed in the ten percenter in question was a commonly held view, and continues to be a matter of legitimate public debate. It is not an accusation of anti-Semitism, but rather an accusation that the previous Liberal government, of which the member was a part, made the wrong decision. It did not make the decision to withdraw from Durban. It made the decision to stay, and in the words of not the Conservative Party but the Victoria Times Colonist and many others, to legitimize the Durban process, which was filled with overt expressions of anti-Semitism.

The point is this. What we have here is the discomfort. What we hear is the reflection of the discomfort of certain members of the official opposition when presented with the bald facts of its own record, so, consequently, an effort to deflect from those facts by inventing charges of anti-Semitism, which are very explosive.

Let me be clear. If I heard any member of my caucus or party accusing any party in this place or any member in this place unjustifiably of harbouring anti-Semitic views, I would condemn it. If I thought this document in question made such an accusation, I would, without hesitation, condemn it. However, it makes no such accusation. That is a completely trumped up allegation.

I understand the discomfort of the member opposite. I respect his views on these issues. I disagree, however, with the decision of the government of which he was a part to stay at Durban I and, thereby, to legitimize it.

Now he says that members of his constituency and community are disturbed to think that his party, his government, did so. I would say rightfully so, they should be disturbed. That is a natural political reaction.

We need to make a very clear distinction between the trumped up allegation that this document somehow alleges anti-Semitism, which it does not. The anti-Semitism of which it speaks is not anti-Semitism of a member of this place or of a party in this place, but rather of the Durban I conference. I submit that is basically incontrovertible fact.

The member goes on at great length about his consternation that a ten percenter went to homes of Jewish-Canadian voters. I have in my hand a ten percenter distributed by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. The last I checked he was a member of the Liberal caucus. The ten percenter is entitled “Does only one Canadian political party support Israel?”. It goes through criticizing the Prime Minister for not attending, for not visiting Israel. It talks about the Liberal Party's voting record at the United Nations on Israel. It has a Canadian and Israeli flag on the top, just in case members think there is any lack of subtlety here.

I am willing to accept that perhaps the member has legitimate concerns about the distribution of one ten percenter, but then I am sure his concerns are equally directed at the ten percenter distributed in a number of electoral districts by members of his own caucus, and he continues to be absolutely mute on that point. This is the fundamental hypocrisy of the Liberal Party on these issues.

The ten percenter in question says, for instance, that the Conservative government was the first government in the world to withdraw support from the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. On the other side, it says that the Liberals opposed this government's defunding of the Hamas-led P.A. and actually called for an increase in that funding. That is not a fact. It is not a slur. It is not an allegation of hatred. It is not any of those trumped-up ridiculous overstatements that we are hearing from members of the opposition. It is a fact.

When the Prime Minister and this government announced that it was removing funding from the Hamas-led P.A., following the election of a Hamas government, or pseudo-government, in March 2006, the then foreign affairs critic and now former leader of the Liberal Party said that the government should, right away, commit itself to maintaining the $52 million in help, that the social problems in the territories were awful, that, in fact, Canada should do more, not less, so to cut $7 million would be a mistake.

I know it is uncomfortable for the member that some of his constituents now realize that his party wanted us to increase funding to the Hamas-led P.A., but that discomfort constitutes a legitimate part of political debate. Here is the record. This government was the first in the world to cut funding for the Hamas-led P.A.. The Liberal Party, in favour of that funding, was demanding an increase in it. Is that somehow slurring members of the opposition by stating their record? I think that reflects a lot.

Furthermore, the ten percenter question says,“On support for Israel: The Conservatives 'strongly backed ' Israel's right to self-defence against Hezbollah during the 2006 conflict”. I think that is an incontrovertible fact. The Prime Minister was much criticized for that, including in this place. On the other side it says, “The Leader of the Opposition accused Israel of committing war crimes”. That is not a slur, it is a statement of fact. It is a legitimate point of debate in public discourse. What is our source?

When he appeared on the show Tout le monde en parle, while he was simply the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the Leader of the Opposition said that he believed war crimes had been committed by Israel in Lebanon.

Those are not our words; they are his.

What we have, I submit, and I say with great respect for that member, is a conventional political communication, the kind that we all engage in as robust participants in a public debate. This is not an allegation that the member or any of his colleagues are anti-Semitic, and I would condemn any such outrageous allegation. It is, on the other hand, a legitimate point of information.

I would simply close by saying this. If the member is that concerned about having to defend the record of his party on these issues, maybe he has to ask himself some questions rather than trying to inflate this into a false debate about anti-Semitism, which it is not.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say this for the hon. member. If the flyer had condemned Durban 1 as being anti-Semitic, I would have no problem. Indeed, as I have said elsewhere in the House, I have written and spoken as much about that as any member of Parliament in any parliamentary forum in the world. However, the calumny is that in a flyer, which compares the positions of Liberals and Conservatives, it specifically says that the Liberals willingly participated in the anti-Semitic Durban I.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

They did. They did.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

How can you deny that?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The clear inference is to associate the Liberal Party with anti-Semitism. Let me just quote from what my wife wrote on this issue in response to that:

—on the "Jewish" values issue, the flyer is a series of false and arguably slanderous statements....The flyer accuses the Liberals of "willingly participating in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban 1 [conference in 2001]," thereby associating the Liberals -- and my husband -- with support for anti-Semitism. That is condemnable on its own.

That is condemnable on its own, but the facts are—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

They did.