But it didn't.
The CBC's Kady O'Malley wrote a little piece suggesting that perhaps Del Mastro may not be deserving of an apology because of something that he had said in Committee earlier in the day.
Here is some of what O'Malley wrote:
"Okay, so I have to admit that I was momentarily struck speechless when Dean del Mastro got up in the House after Question Period to demand an apology from Liberal MP Michelle Simson over "an entry she posted on twitter" -- a tweet, in other words -- in which, he sorrowfully informed the speaker, she had made hurtful remarks about his weight that, as far as he was concerned, went beyond the bounds of decent parliamentary conduct. With the air of a grievously wounded martyr, del Mastro read the text of the tweet from his BlackBerry, accusing Simson of "discrimination" -- not just against him, but every Canadian whose body shape falls outside the approved Liberal standard, and even suggested that it was this kind of elitism that will keep the party from ever returning to its previous strength." It was a masterful performance, really -- del Masterful, even -- given the fact that it was coming from a member who, just a few hours earlier, had repeatedly refused to withdraw the potentially unparliamentary comments that he made at the very committee meeting to which Simson's tweeting referred; a meeting that, as luck would have it, I was able to witness firsthand, what with liveblogging it and all.
A few points.
It is not up to Kady to judge what is and what is not ''unparliamentary" behavior. That is for the Speaker to decide.
Comparing Del Mastro to "a grievously wounded martyr" does not help your case. Come on Kady, you are better than that.
It is not wise or classy to make fun of the persons name (del Masterful, even) in a story calling out the bad behavior of others.
It is not a good idea to enter into some kind of bizarre relativism exercise in an attempt to equate 2 totally separate statements as if somehow one could possibly cancel out the other, and more so when O'Malley uses the following bit of very flawed logic for the basis of her argument:
"Szabo points out that actually, no Liberal members (or does he mean Members?) were charged with, or convicted of a crime, and invites del Mastro to withdraw; he refuses to do so, repeating, somewhat sulkily, that *he* thinks it was a crime. Does del Mastro understand the meaning of the word "crime"? Because it does technically involve charges, and courts, and convictions."
Really. A crime does not become a crime unless you are caught and charged. Wow! This of course is total bunk and unless you are a attorney for the Province of Ontario in Caledonia would anyone think that a crime is not a crime unless arrests and charges are made.
I think perhaps Kady may have accidentally stumbled upon the main plank of the Liberals election platform.
Fire the police and we can reduce Canada's crime rate to zero!
Do I really need to go on?
FYI you can hear Del Mastro's words here if you are interested. ( he starts at approx 34:25, the crime comment comes at approx 38:30)
Del Mastro was referring of course to Adscam and the FACT that some of the STOLEN money somehow made its way into the hands of some Liberal riding associations in Quebec. There were arrests, there were charges, and there were convictions with Adscam and although I am not a lawyer, the use of stolen money for anything sure appears to be a crime to me as well.
Did Del Mastro cross the line of proper behavior in Committee? I do not know if he did but whether he did or did not should have no bearing at all in justifying the classless Tweet from Michelle Simson, and Kady should know better than to even attempt to do so.