It's a vast right-wing punditocracy!

The RCMP must investigate allegations that senior Liberals and Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal were engaged in possible bribery because the matter is potentially more serious than the sponsorship scandal, a Canadian ethics expert said Wednesday. The University of Manitoba's Arthur Schafer also warned that Canadians should not expect ethical standards in Ottawa to improve if they don't convey to politicians their "clear indignation, intolerance and disgust." "My fear is that the public responds to a cash bribe in a brown paper bag with shocked horror but to a promised/hinted Senate appointment or ambassadorship with a cynical shrug," said Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. "In my view, the latter is every bit as serious as the former. Perhaps more serious, since the harm to Canada may last longer and be more serious than the 'mere' loss of public money." The RCMP, which has been asked in writing by the Bloc Quebecois to probe the affair, needs to investigate because of the seriousness of Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe's allegation, Schafer said. The Criminal Code's bribery section allows judges to impose a maximum 14-year sentence, the same maximum penalty for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault. "Why would the law carry such a heavy penalty? I think it's because the very integrity of the system that holds our society together hinges on the system not being corrupted."... Schafer said police may end up finding no crime took place, since Grewal has said he was simply setting a trap for Liberals and the tapes released so far show no explicit offer from the Liberals. "If it is not an outright and illegal corrupt act, it certainly -- from a portion of the transcript I've read -- skates terribly close to that. And what transpired seems clearly to be unethical and bordering on, or going over the line, into sleaze."... Schafer said Murphy was speaking in "thinly disguised code," but the "hints were broad and unmistakable. I think to a large extent what is considered proper behaviour, and what is considered over the line and corrupt in Canada, will hinge on how Canadian public opinion reacts to the Grewal tapes and the revelations. "If people aren't outraged ... then I think we can expect in the future that ambassadorships and other government appointments may be used as if they were the private resources of politicians acting in their own self-interest or the interest of their party."

-- The Vancouver Sun, May 26

Il suffit d'écouter l'enregistrement de la conversation qu'ont eue M. Grewal et Tim Murphy, le chef du cabinet de M. Martin, la veille du vote crucial de jeudi, pour comprendre que le gouvernement était acheteur. C'est M. Murphy qui évoque une proposition qui pourrait être faite après l'abstention de M. Grewal et de sa femme, elle aussi députée conservatrice.

-- Manon Corneiller, Le Devoir, May 25

"There is definitely a large grey area whenever you get a provision that's worded as broadly as this one is,'' said University of Ottawa criminal law professor David Paciocco. "My own feeling is, looking at this section, it is extremely unlikely that a court is going to seize on the ambition of an individual to have a position within the government so they can carry on their political work as being some type of corrupt consideration. That's the stuff that politics is made of. It's not what these provisions were intended to go after. If, on the other hand, they were trying to manipulate a vote in order to give someone a personal advantage, then you are more likely to see a successful conviction."

-- Vancouver Sun, May 24

Two Conservative members of Parliament in three weeks have alleged the Liberal government offered them patronage appointments in exchange for their votes in the House of Commons. Inky Mark's allegation two weeks ago largely rests upon his word, but Gurmant Grewal recorded part of the conversation in which, he claims, offers were made. This smacks of political bribery, a criminal offence. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police must be called in. Inviting opposition members to cross the floor is a favoured tactic in the political skullduggery that plays out among all levels of government. But attaching a reward -- a patronage appointment, for example, or a financial payoff -- to an MP or member of the legislature for crossing the floor or for changing a vote cannot be tolerated. It is forbidden by the Criminal Code. Mr. Mark has said a cabinet minister, whom he refused to name, offered him an ambassadorship. Mr. Grewal said Mr. Martin's chief of staff, Tim Murphy, offered him an appointment of some sort and his wife, Nina, also a Tory MP, a Senate post. The Liberals hotly denied all of this, but Mr. Murphy's taped voice was heard by reporters, discussing abstaining from a vote and pledging follow-up negotiations in the aftermath. Canadians have had to put up with a lot of hearsay or first-hand testimony, backed by some evidence at the Gomery inquiry, about kickbacks, conspiracy and corruption involving government offices. None of it has been proven as yet but Canadians are becoming increasingly cynical of the political process. Allowing bribery claims to pass without investigation would be destructive to the political culture. Conservative leader Stephen Harper must insist Mr. Mark and Mr. Grewal report their claims to the RCMP.

-- Winnipeg Free Press, editorial, May 20

"Although [Martin] denies it, there is compelling evidence that patronage appointments were dangled in front of opposition MPs so as to lure them out of voting against the government."

-- Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, May 20 Naturally I dissociate myself from all this right-wing hyperventilating. Still, one must suppose these opinions were fairly held, on a matter of public interest...