Ethics Watchdog Launches Grewal Tapes Probe

So now we are playing bad guy against worse bad guy? Is tampering with the tapes, or taping the conversation, or making the offer, or asking for an offer worse? Or all of the above?

I fail to see the difference between deals made or offered between one member, and deals made and/or offered between two parties, I mean is there really a difference?

The NDP made a deal with the Liberals to vote for the budget if certain conditions were met, social programs being funded and corporate tax cuts not; then the Cons were offered that if they voted for the budget they would get the Corporate tax cuts being denied through the budget, after the budget, with separate legislation, but the Cons rejected the deal, while the NDP and Liberals made the deal, which Martin was prepared to back track on, later.

The Cons made a deal to stand with the Bloc and oppose the budget and bring down the government if they could, while one independent made no deals, and another wanted a deal for more aid to Darfur; previously Orchard made a deal with McKay, who changed his mind and made a deal with Harper, who made a deal with Belinda, who then made a deal with Martin; so with all the deals which obviously started behind closed doors before they were made public, which ones are we suppose to say are improper, wrong or politically incorrect? All, some or none?

Certainly something to think about, and wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just lay their cards on the table, stop making deals, and agree to work together under the mandate given by the voters, and if the party they are elected under no longer works for them and their values, hold a by-election so that the voters can decide, if the person still works for them?

Wouldn't it be great if the voters were actually told what the party and/or candidates stand for before the election and then the candidate and party did in fact stand for the same once elected? Perhaps then we wouldn't be continually forced to pay for investigations into wrongdoing, sponsorship like scandals, and breach of ethics. If there is a way to spend taxpayers money on something other than the people, it would seem that the last twenty years of politicians have found many ways!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

The Liberals will use their lapdog 'Ethics Commissioner' and their poodles in the RCMP against any MP who tries to expose their corruption. Canada, integrity be damned - it's about power.

Maybe its just me but I see a pretty huge difference between parties making deals and parties 'bribing' particular members. Compromise is typical of minority governments, that is how they function and personally I think that's how it should always function. However, calling up particular members and bribing them for a vote is something else. It certainly doesn't surprise me at all, I think it functions like that all the time, however, that doesn't excuse it and finally somebody was smart enough to get it on tape. Dhalliwal (excuse the spelling I don't know how to spell it) has been a hated figure since he was the impotent and racist fisheries minister so I hope he goes down in flames. Things certainly aren't going the liberal way lately.

"...finally somebody was smart enough to get it on tape."

You think Grewal is smart? I don't see it that way at all. He claimed it was his duty to operate a sting operation to show up the Liberals. Since when is that part of the job description of a backbench MP? The he provided an edited tape in which he tried to leave out the parts where the Liberals were specifically refusing the deal he wanted. There is no evidence that if the Liberals had actually offered him something that he would have refused it. Grewal's actions and Harper's defence of these actions have tarnished the Conservative Party further.

The problem is that it isn't just the Liberals willing to buy power or influence. Both Solberg and Ambrose appeared on television lamenting that they did not have the same resources to buy people like the government did. As far as I am concerned that sends the wrong message. The Conservatives tried to buy Chuck Cadman's vote by offering him an uncontested Conservative nomination.

There is a big difference between making trade-offs in politics between groups in the public interest. That is how politics generally operates. In a country as diverse as Canada there must be a great deal of negotiating and compromise to make things work.

What is particularly disturbing about all the various examples we have seen recently is that so much of it the horse trading is for personal gain rather than for a broader public purpose. Minority governments can work well if the parties involved are ethical. If the parties involved are unethical everything becomes merely sleazy because both sides seem to be so power hungry that they will try anything either to maintain or gain power.

Yeah, I really must stop shooting off my mouth on things I haven't researched. The only people I can say I agree with is the bloc and NDP who want an investigation. The whole thing almost seems so soap opera-ey that hopefully more people will look at it as say 'why in gods name wouldn't we want to be a direct democracy-these people are pinheads'.

I haven't yet come across anything yet that ties Harper into it though. As usual these things are done by underlings to keep their leaders clean. It's pretty hard for liberals to make the claim that no deal making went on after the Stronach thing. At this point we still really don't know the whole story, the transcripts I've read haven't been that inflammatory, as the above poster mentions, it just puts the whole thing into disrepute.

Yes and there is another person, who hasn't spoken publicly on this, yet deals were being made on her behalf. Why does a duly elected member of parliament, Mrs.Grewal, allow her husband and the Libs to barter or make deals for a senate appointment for her? Is she not capable of standing for herself? I find this rather strange, as she is expected to stand for the people who elected her, which brings into question why her husband could even discuss any appointment for her, without her being involved. Why isn't she speaking?

As for the comment that minority gov are suppose to work this way, I agree in part, but why are the deals always done in secret? Why are compromises etc not done in the open? It does not add to the confidence of voters. I also agree that what we are seeing today is people working for their own interests and not the public's.

Also if this was a sting so to speak, and Mr.Grewal was approached, why didn't he notify others in his caucus prior to making the tapes, usually a person doesn't work unilaterally to perform a sting? The questions rise because there are too many unanswered questions, did he really ask for favours and then after being refused, used the tapes, had he been granted the favours would the tapes have been revealed?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

The Globe and Mail, for one, allowed a good three or four days between the
first reports of "alleged" tampering with the audio with the accompanying
claim by the CPC that it was a "software glitch", and the more definitive
reports of tampering by experts.

And what of the obvious question, about how so politically critical a recording
was not double-checked by a human being for accuracy before being handed
to the press?

Now today the Globe indulges an expert in the field who demonstrates how
unlikely it is that software would err as claimed--namely, restricting glitches
to those which provide such obvious advantage to the user. Wow, imagine if
all bugs worked like that! So the tampering is pretty much certain. Well d'uh.

We can justifiably make this as much about the mainstream media as
anything, since what we've been given so far amounts to little more than
ignorant stenography. And they know damn well that most public opinion on
this will be locked down by day 1, page 1, with the unfolding details
commanding far less ear time from the average citizen.

It's always done in secret because its not SUPPOSED to give voters confidence. We come from a constitutional monarchy with, at best, a system of 'parliamentary government'. Unless an independant is elected, which is rare, or at the municipal level, there is no claim that these people represent ridings, let alone voters. They represent a party, that's why a party nominates them and not the public, and thats why the party always has a platform. They don't say "we're better than the other guys so vote for us and then tell us what to do". They just hope that enough people agree with their platform that they will win, if not, they will typically alter their platform a bit or else sit on the sidelines like the NDP has for the past 20 years (federally) or else wait until enough people are cheezed off that they want to get rid of the bums and try something new (like conservatives).

Trudeau said that MP's are "nobodies", can you imagine what he thought of us? We're even less than nobodies, we don't even register. We can do NOTHING about the government in power. I'm still somewhat surprised that there hasn't been more commentary here on the newspaper studies that show just how bad our access to information rights are. Perhaps because Alberta got the best grade. Not only can we not affect the government, we can't even find out what it's doing. I can't find a word more insulting than 'nobodies', when I think of one I'll name a new political party after it!

My comment has nothing to do with parliamentary secrecy, another topic
altogether. My point was the mainstream media has had almost a week to
ask a reasonable question of Mr. Harper's party (if the audio tampering was
indeed an honest mistake, why did you not check the fidelity of the recording
before passing it to the press?) , and it has not. Even after experts concluded
the recording was tampered with prior to being released by the CPC, the
press wore kid gloves. You'd think it especially relevant, or at least juicy from
a media point of view, since it accuses the party currently claiming the moral
high ground.