Conservative MP Mike Allen said the errant e-mail sent by the NDP with details of their conference call did not go to him.
Allen's parliamentary e-mail is allen.m@parl.gc.ca while rookie NDP MP Malcolm Allen's e-mail is allen.ma@parl.gc.ca.
Asked Monday if he received the errant e-mail, Mike Allen said, "No. In fact, I've asked my staff to triple-check messages to make sure they have the right e-mail."
The other pair of Tory and NDP MPs who share the same surname are Vancouver Island Tory John Duncan and Edmonton NDPer Linda Duncan. John Duncan, so far, has not responded to questions on the matter.
David Akin
Canwest News Service
http://www.davidakin.com
Cell: +1 613 355 5347
How amusing if it was Duncan. You had to figure that the NDP beachhead in Alberta was going to pay off at some point, but so quickly?
CTV says that the NDP says that it was Duncan:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081201/ndp_taping_081201/20081201?hub=Politics
Don Newman has asked people a couple of times whether they would use the phone number and password, tut-tutting his disapproval.
I'm sure he'd like us to believe he wouldn't use that number & password to do some snooping – sorry – some information gathering if it was for a Conservative caucus meeting.
And could CBCers get it right, please?
The conversation was TAPED, phone lines were NOT TAPPED. There IS a difference.
In any event, there were already hints dropped of a possible coalition during the last days of the election, but of course they were promptly denied … with the straightest of faces.
I wish I had that same facility of lying through my teeth.
BTW, Mr. Akin, I appreciated both your and Emmanuelle Latraverse's questions, where you both pointed out Mr. Dion and his policies had been rejected by a large number of voters.
the libs want to run the country and have a leader that can't understand a simple question (re: what would you do differently…)
And the NDP wants a hand in running the country and they can't even send an email out without screwing it up
God help Canada if this goes through
Gabby's reply (abridged version): Sure, it was a criminal offense, but it was for a good reason. And anyone else would have broken the law too, if given the same opportunity.
I love it when people take the trouble to read my replies – it's SO … validating, in Oprah-speak. Too bad I can't make sure that the reader understands what I've written …
Would you deny intrepid journalists the ability to get a scoop?
Would you call it a “criminal offense” if it had been someone listening in on a CPoC conference call?
Did you call it a “criminal offense” when the videotape of private conversations between a former PM and a Canadian journalist were used for an unauthorized biography?
See, I strive to be consistent. Now, don't gey me wrong, I'm not saying I always succeed …