The Progressive Labour Party has fired another salvo at the One Bermuda Alliance over the Penczner report this time from Smiths North candidate Patrice Minors who targeted her challenger Michael Dunkley in a statement issued on Wednesday night.“What did Mr. Dunkley know about the secret plan and when did he know it?" said Mrs Minors in a statement issued on her behalf from PLP headquarters.“On Tuesday, Michael Dunkley told Bernews that he must have received the report by email but did not recall it.“Then, less than 12 hours later, The Royal Gazette published an article from September 17th, 2009 in which Michael Dunkley spoke extensively about the report.So, which is it? First, Mr Dunkley said he didn't recall receiving the email. And, less than 12 hours later, its revealed that he spoke extensively on the report in a 2009 article?“It’s time for Mr. Dunkley to come clean. He needs to appear before the Bermudian public and answer the questions: What did he know? and When did he know it?”Last night Mr Dunkley said that Mrs Minors was questioning his character and integrity.“I will not allow anybody to do that. I was asked do you remember seeing an e-mail,” he said. “I received hundreds of emails everyday. I cannot recall an email from a couple of weeks ago. How am I going to remember one from four years ago?“I never denied seeing the plan. I spoke to it in 2009 and I think that puts it to bed.”The consultant’s report was raised by the PLP two years ago after former UBP leader Wayne Furbert joined the governing party.In a 2009 interview, Mr Dunkley candidly admitted the existence of the report, describing it as an “embarrassment”, and said that he had rejected its advice.The PLP raised the issue again this election season in a bid to cast doubt on the credibility of the One Bermuda Alliance by suggesting that the party’s formation was the outcome of a strategy to help the UBP regain power.Mrs Minors’ attack came just a day after her colleague Walter Roban held a press conference to say that Mr Dunkley had contradicted himself and the matter raised questions of character.And on whether the issue was a distraction from the major issues facing the country, Mr Roban said that the many in the country felt it was an important issue.“This issue is about character, it’s about clarity, it’s about transparency. And I think that, certainly, it’s important enough that at least three, four UBP leaders have acknowledged its existence,” Mr Roban said. “And it was important enough for them to ask those questions as well.”He continued: “One has to also ask; if they are treating this as a matter that they are prepared to dismiss, what else would they dismiss? What else would they try to cover up? What else would they not want us to know?“Having been in Government, I know there are great demands on you to be clear, to be transparent and to be straight up with the public.”He rejected a suggestion that the issue was “smoke and mirrors”.Asked whether he was comfortable about being in Cabinet with Tourism Minister Wayne Furbert who had revealed the contents of a confidential report he had seen while in the UBP, Mr Roban said that Mr Furbert was not the leader of the UBP when the report came out and had come to the PLP in an “open and honest way”.But pressed on whether it would be acceptable to him if someone defected from the PLP and disclosed confidential information to its opponents, he said: “Of course not. But Mr Furbert has been clear as to what he believes and why he wished to reveal what he knows. He didn’t say he even was aware of the contents of the report, he just said he knew of its existence — initially — and then has revealed what he understands it to be about. But any issue as it relates to the UBP, which is no longer in existence and whether he’s violating their confidence, would be a matter for the UBP. As it would be for us if somebody did it to us.”A week ago, however, Mr Furbert told this newspaper that he had read the document when with the UBP. “I was a Member of Parliament and I got a copy of it. We read it, it was disclosed to us in the meeting,” he said.Mr Furbert added he was “shocked” when asked his reaction to the document. “I was shocked realising at the end of the day that the report was kept secret within a certain group — until some of us found out at the time that it existed.” He estimated that he saw the report around three months after the 2007 election, and later confirmed that the ubpleaks.com document was the same report he had seen.Mr Dunkley described the press conference as “good comic relief.” Pressed on his apparent memory loss with respect to his 2009 comments, he added: “I can’t remember what I said in the past, but I stand by what I say always.”He added: “My interview can speak for itself.”Mr Dunkley rejected the suggestion that the matter was a major issue for the voters.“In the last four or five days, this matter has only been brought to my attention once on the doorstep.“And they (his constituent) wondered why it came up in the election campaign when we have more important issues to deal with.“People are very concerned about the future.”Asked if Marius Penczner was working for the OBA, he said that question is best asked of the party leader or the party chairman.The Royal Gazette did ask the OBA about its relationship with Mr Penczner last week but the question was ignored.Other unanswered questions sought to determine the reaction of those who received the document and confirmation that they did in fact receive it. Only Kim Swan confirmed that he received the document but it was not the same document that appeared on ubpleaks.com.It is unclear why two versions of the report were prepared. It is also unclear why great efforts appear to have been made to persuade the public that the consultant’s report did not exist when others had already made public reference to it over the years.Nor is it clear why Mr Penczner claimed that he had “no input whatsoever” in the authorship of the report and threatened legal action.