Pat Martin statement to Campaign Research

From: NDP/NPD Communications
Sent: March 7, 2012 5:00 PM
To: NDP/NPD Communications
Subject: Statement by MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) // Déclaration du député Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

Statement by MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

On Sunday, February 26, 2012, I appeared as a guest on the CTV Question Period program. In the course of that broadcast, I made certain comments dealing with the allegations of voter tampering at the 41st federal general election of May 2, 2011, that seem to have been misunderstood by the corporate officers in charge of Campaign Research Inc, an Ottawa-based company. Today, I would like to clarify my remarks.

I did not accuse Campaign Research Inc. of having engaged in criminal activity in respect of robo-calls during the Spring 2011 election campaign, nor did I intend to convey that meaning. My exact remarks were to the effect that this is a company, meaning one of a number of companies, of a size and organizational capacity as to be able to have engaged in strategies to influence the outcome of the election. In fact, the concluding part of my comments was: “So I would hope the investigators look at the other contractors that are working for the Conservative Party.”

As a Member of Parliament, I not only have the right, but indeed the obligation, to comment on current issues vital to democracy and to the conduct of public affairs.

Pat Martin
Member of Parliament
Winnipeg Centre

***
Déclaration du député Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

Le dimanche 26 février 2012, j’ai participé à titre d’invité à l’émission Question Period diffusée à CTV. Lors de cette émission, j’ai fait certains commentaires concernant des allégations de fraude électorale lors de la 41e élection générale du 2 mai 2011 qui semblent avoir été mal interprétés par les responsables de Campaign Research Inc., une compagnie d’Ottawa. Aujourd’hui, je voudrais clarifier mes propos.

Je n’ai pas accusé Campaign Research Inc. de s’être livré à des activités criminelles dans l’affaire des appels téléphoniques robotisés lors de la campagne électorale du printemps 2011 et je n’ai pas non plus tenté de transmettre cette idée. Mes propos exacts étaient que cette entreprise, comme d’autres, avait la taille et la capacité organisationnelle de participer à des stratégies visant à influencer le résultat d’une élection. En fait, la dernière partie de mon commentaire était : « Alors, j’espère que les enquêteurs s’attarderont aux autres entreprises qui travaillent pour le Parti conservateur. »

En tant que député, je n’ai pas seulement le droit, mais aussi le devoir de commenter des enjeux d’actualité qui sont importants pour la démocratie et les affaires publiques.

Pat Martin
Member of Parliament
Winnipeg Centre

-30-

Comments

comments

  • Pissedoff

    No Martin as an MP you do not have the right to slander or libel anyone or company.

  • Pissedoff

    No Martin as an MP you do not have the right to slander or libel anyone or company.

  • Anise

    Is this supposed to be a pie-eyed apology?  Or excuse?

  • Bec

    “that seem to have been misunderstood by the corporate officers in charge of Campaign Research Inc, an Ottawa-based company. ”

    Well I misunderstood that too. How many others?

    Pat Martin seems to think he can say anything he wants under the cloak of his MP status and he reaches, offends , and in this case, created a huge doubt about the integrity of this company. It seems to be a regular badge of honor that he seems to love on his chest. I would also assess this MP as a classic bully and like many bullies, he seems to get away with his vulgar and foul language as well as, demeanor.

    If I were to assess this statement, I would say it’s the furthest thing from an apology but does sound a lot like a justification.

    I hope it’s inadequate for this company. It’s certainly inadequate from my perspective.

  • Anonymous

    Do I detect a wee smellf effing weasel in the air.

  • Anonymous

    Why waste all the words Martin?  You should stick to you M.O. and just tell ‘em to f#$k @@f, same thing, less words.

  • Mthielen

    Is that an apology or an attempt to ward off another lawsuit.

  • tsf55

    As kevin O Leary is fond of saying, “sue them into the stoneage”.   bawahahaha…

  • James

    It is allowed in the parliament but yes since this wasn’t in parliament that is correct.

  • James

    The usual “I’m sorry you misunderstood me”. That’s all good Pat, hopefully the libel and slander lawsuit is just a “misunderstanding” but I doubt it.

  • Anonymous

    Martin has been intemperate in his remarks, but he’s essentially correct. Campaign Research Inc.  is NOT a neutral service provider, they are self-professed Conservative operatives.

    Campaign Research client and House Speaker Andrew Scheer ruled it “reprehensible” while Campaign Research client and Con House Leader Peter Van Loan defended it as “vital free speech”, but Campaign Research cofounder Nick Kouvalis put it best when he described his firm’s now infamous phone calls to Lib MP Irwin Cotler’s constituents :

       “We’re in the business of getting Conservatives elected and ending Liberal careers. We’re good at it.”

    Since 2003. For 39 Conservative candidates in the last federal election alone.

    Kouvalis, who managed Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s successful campaign, was also election day chair for Kitchener-Waterloo Con MP Peter Braid.
    Other Campaign Research staff currently include the other co-founder Richard Ciano, now president of the Ontario Con Party, and Aaron Lee-Wudrick, campaign manager for Con MP Peter Braid.

    These guys are Conservative tools, in more than one sense of the word. They deserve no apology; they should thank Martin because this ‘crisis’ highlights their ability to produce results, and more Conservative business is undoubtedly coming their way.

  • Bec

    Whether they are thrown more business or not by the Conservatives is hardly the point, kenn2. What a ridiculous argument.

    That gives no one and inthis case someone that ‘SEEMS’ to love a soundbite and ‘SEEMS’ to love a camera whenever he gets a chance to be outrageous and noisy in front of an entire nation.

    They guy is intemperate in his remarks and no, he is not essentially correct. He does not get to walk around under the safety of his MP status and diss whoever the hell he wants to.
    It’s about time he eats some expensive humble pie. 

  • Anonymous

    Whether they are thrown more business or not by the Conservatives is hardly the point, kenn2. What a ridiculous argument.

    It’s entirely the point. The charge of libel implies that the comments in question will negatively impact the future reputation and earnings of the ‘offended’ party. I’m saying that the comments will actually boost their reputation with the clients they want… Conservatives. So my argument is bang-on.

    No harm, no foul. Besides, the principals of Campaign Research are already well-placed and climbing the ladder of the Conservative hierarchy. They’re ‘made’ men.

    I repeat my earlier assertion that there’s NO WAY this will go to open court; too much is at stake. If Martin’s pseudo-apology isn’t pseudo-grudgingly accepted, there will be a few weeks more of posturing and sparring sound-bites. Suit will ultimately be dropped. They’re too smart to do otherwise.

  • Switchyard O’Taylor

    It’s strange, this may be the first time I agree with Kenn2 ever.

    If we were to call Pat Martin a sub-human, low-IQ POS of a person, it would only raise his stature among the people who normally vote for him… because it seems that is what the people of Winnipeg Centre and the NDP are looking for in a politician.

    No harm no foul right?

  • Anonymous

     If we were to call Pat Martin a sub-human, low-IQ POS of a person…

    If? People here have been doing exactly that for almost a week. What’s your point?

  • Frances

    Is this ‘clarification’ being given the same prominence as the original statements?  If not, then it’s worthless.

  • tac

    Your argument and logic is twisted and off base. Even if it does increase business from the conservatives, and you could argue that the conservatives will distance themselves from the company, it still might reduce business from others and might have hurt the company’s reputaion.. You can’t go around making malicious and slanderous statements against companies or people expecially if you are a very public person and on a national tv show.
    Libel is when the defamation is written or published by other means suach as pictures. Slander is when defamation is done orally which is the case here. Financial damages is only one of the things taken into account and saying it benefited you with one of your clients does not excuse the damage it has done to the company’s reputation in the public’s eye or with other clients nor loss of revenues from other clients. It also doesn’t prevent you from being convicted of defamation (slander) even if there were no monetary damages.

  • Anonymous

    … the damage it has done to the company’s reputation in
    the public’s eye or with other clients nor loss of revenues from other
    clients.

     If insults were actionable, most right-wing blog groupies would have already been sued into a pulp.  I don’t think that Campaign Research has lost one iota of reputation with their past and future client-base… unless there actually was some questionable behaviour that they’d rather didn’t come out.

    Campaign Research’s self-declared Conservative ‘mission’  means they are as deep in the pit of politics as their ‘client’ party. To pretend they’re harmed by a political opponent’s insults is too cute by half.