The Murphy tape - latest

The transcript is available here, or listen to the audio here . The Bloc Quebecois is demanding an RCMP investigation, which would put the force in the position, yet again, of investigating itself, since one of the many troubling questions raised by the tape is whether the Liberals offered to call off an RCMP investigation they had just launched in return for the intended target's abstention on the budget vote. John Ibbitson is particularly exercised about this aspect, in a fine, feisty piece. But according to two Liberal cabinet ministers (or their spokesmen), it was Grewal who first broached such a deal. I thought the storyline was that he was angling for a job... Democracy Watch, meanwhile, is calling on Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro to rule on the ethics of all this (or anything else, for that matter). It quotes from the

Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which requires Cabinet ministers and ministerial staff to do the following (and similar rules apply to all MPs): * under Part I, sub-section 3(1) "to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced"; * under Part I, subsection 3(2) "to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law" and; * under Part II, subsection 23(1), to "take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization, or the representative of a person or organization, that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder."

But then, the thing to remember about all this is: it's all Stephen Harper's fault. That is the actual, unretouched position of the Toronto Star, official newspaper to the ruling party, in today's lead editorial:

The time has come to cool the fury in Parliament, to ease the pressure on Martin to resort to seedy vote buying, and to let him deliver on his many promises, including ethical promises.

Did you catch that? It's not that he's seedy, it's that he's being pressured. And just in case you thought that was a slip, the paper repeats the point lower down:

And while Martin's manoeuvring to retain power wasn't a pretty sight, it was Harper who triggered the unsavoury bidding war. He pushed for a non-confidence vote the moment his party edged up in the polls. And he rejected Martin's offer to buy peace in Parliament by promising an election once Gomery reports.

Harper "triggered" the "unsavoury bidding war" -- a war in which only one side seems to have been bidding -- by "rejecting Martin's offer" -- that is, by declining to promise his party would not vote against any important government legislation for the better part of a year, which is what Martin's "offer" implied (the government would have only to declare the matter one of confidence, and the Tories would be obliged to let it pass, or bring the government down). It's not enough that the Tories voted with the government on the budget -- the first Official Opposition in Canadian history to do so -- but they have to vote with them on everything else, too?