No man, woman, or child has worked harder campaigning for the Martin Liberals in the wake of the sponsorship scandal than Gurmant Grewal. And just when you thought he had already given it his all, it turns out he's being accused of depositing campaign contributions into his personal accounts.
It's hard to imagine a more effective way to completely neutralize any fallout from the Gomery report than to have a Conservative MP out there telling donors ``Oh, and that campaign contribution cheque? Yeah, just make that out to `cash'.''
Now it's clear that whatever Grewal may have done -- and it's only allegations at this stage -- is not even playing in the sponsorship scandal's league in terms of total dollars. And instead of it being all Canadian taxpayers being fleeced, it was a few donors. In its way, though, that must make it all the more frustrating for the Conservatives. Because however comparatively small the amount, it remains awfully hard for the Conservatives to effectively play the ``Vote them out! They're corrupt!'' card against the Liberals when the allegations suggest that at least one Conservative MP -- a very public one who the leadership has stood behind -- would be out there passing cash under restaurant tables with the best of them the moment that his party took power.
Stephen Harper doubtless thought that being loyal to his MP was the right thing to do. But the ``they're corrupt, vote for us instead'' pitch is only convincing if the public has good reason to expect that you will be much cleaner than the alternative; claiming fewer corrupt politicians is a pretty weak selling point. If the Conservatives wanted to be taken seriously as the party of good behaviour, they should have walked the walked and ousted their member at the first whiff of impropriety. Or at least the second or third.
Despite the black humour that the ever more sordid Grewal affair allows, this situation is enormously discouraging. A second party which would make for a viable government is absolutely essential, and the traditional two seem, at the moment, hopeless. But then, traditions change. If Jack Layton -- who Canadians view as significantly more honest -- starts running a strong `cleaning House' campaign, who knows what might happen.
Well said, my friend. Kudos. The Tories are soooooooooo finished. I just hope that Grewal does not expect to get paid by Martin for his pro-Martin campaigning efforts .... ;-)
Yep, now it's just a few dollars in donor money. Just think how much money the Tories could pocket if they were in government!!! Adscam would pale in comparison - the Tories would certainly take off with at least ten times the Adscam amount.
And where are the tax receipts for the brown envelopes from the Liberals?
I agree, no Party will be honest--but keeping the Liberals in charge of our money is condoning what they have done. It will take the CPC a while to get up to speed when they are elected--a change of government will give us a rest from theft for a few years. Big government is giving us big problems--time to get back to what our forefathers wanted--small central government--stronger provincial government
"time to get back to what our forefathers wanted--small central government--stronger provincial government"
Did you just cut-and-paste this talking point from an American website, change `state' to `province', and hope it would be still true for Canada? Because it isn't.
If the Fathers of Confederation had wanted small central government and strong provincial governments, we'd live in a country where federal powers and responsibilities are circumscribed, and all other powers go to the provinces.
But that's apparently not what the Fathers of Confederation intended, because we live in a country where provincial powers and responsibilities are circumscribed, and all other powers and responsibilities go to the federal government.
Just sayin'.
Every time I hear "those corupt liberals", I think "is that all you have"? By nature you can find waste in government, despite any and all measures put in place to avoid it, but when the conservative side tries to wrap themselves up in a cloak of moral turpitude I think to myself "does no-one remember the Mulrooney years?"
He didn't, after all, get the moniker lyin' Brian for nothing! And for anyone over 30 in Canada, that is how we remember conservative rule.
Was King Jean surrounded by goons towards the end? Yes - he was. I didn't like that a bit and welcomed the housecleaning Paul did on assuming the mantle. The attempt to smear him with the sins of his predecessors is disingenuous.
Has there been no corruption in the birthplace of the Reform party? In Alberta? With Ralph Klein?
Uhhhh, the answer would be: Hell yes!
Anyone in politics who tries to argue on superior morality always worries me, and besides that I'm interested in the policies - not a "my morals are bigger than your morals" nonsesnsical pissing contest. And getting one of their own caught with their hands in the cookie jar is sweet justice in my eyes.
Try sticking to issues next time around Stephen.
"time to get back to what our forefathers wanted--small central government--stronger provincial government"
Just to add to Jonathan's comments - Confederation happened only two years after the American Civil War - the Fathers saw what had happened to a country with states that were too powerful and were determined to do things differently. Consequently, as Jonathan points out, provincial powers were limited.
Two things have happened since that have given the provinces more power. First, things deemed unimportant enough to go to the provinces (at least from a governmental perspective) like health and education are obviously much more important today. Second (in the opinion of some), the wishes of the Fathers of Confederation were undermined by the chief Courts of Britain that served as our courts of last resort until the late 40s. They apparently interpreted our federation as being more like the US and often ruled in the favour of the provinces in disputes despite the provisions of the BNA Act. And once the precedent was set...