Heavens, how did that get there?

Conservative MP Gerald Keddy claims not to have noticed that a large novelty cheque he presented on behalf of the government of Canada bore the logo of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Keddy, MP for South Shore-St. Margaret’s, said he never noticed the logo when he presented the cheque, which bore his stamped signature. “You’re asking me about something that happened a couple of weeks ago,” he said. “Staff would have looked after it.”

In fairness, the display of the blue ‘C’ logo was quite subtle in this case.




Browse

Heavens, how did that get there?

  1. I feel very comfortable and secure in knowing that my government is paying more attention to partisanship games, political 'gotcha's,' and asking themselves where they should place their logo, instead of governing.

    This government sounds like a Monty Python movie.

  2. I feel very comfortable and secure in knowing that my government is paying more attention to partisanship games, political 'gotcha's,' and asking themselves where they should place their logo.

    This government sounds like a Monty Python movie.

    • Exceptin' that Monty Python movies are intelligently made…

      • Monty Python are jokers who make me laugh.

        The Conservatives are jokers who make me cry.

  3. Well, let's be fair here. Maybe he was too busy signing his own name on a government cheque to notice the illegal Conservative Party logo.

    But the Conservatives are obviously taking this very seriously. They've immediately started blaming a staffer which jumps them all the way right to DefCon 2 (Defend Conservatives) right out of the gate:

    DefCon6: Dismiss the story/controversy/event as minor, not relevant and a non-story.
    DefCon5: If it does not go away, blame the Liberal Party.
    DefCon4: If it still does not go away, blame the media.
    DefCon3: If it still does not go away, find some other non-Conservative to blame – a bureaucrat, provincial premier
    DefCon2: If it has still not gone away, blame a staffer and fire him or her if necessary
    DefCon1: If none of the foregoing has worked to deflect, start talking about the Sponsorship Scandal, broken GST promises, Trudeau's NEP, torture, "just visiting".

    • It was a NOVELTY cheque. It has no meaning beyond symbolism.

      There are NO LAWS of any kind that apply to it. It is not an official treasury board cheque.

      • Um, yes there is. It is not only unethical but not permitted. Ask the PMO guys who were quickly trying to get rid of Harper photos on the Action! Plan website. They`ll tell all the rules the PCO was telling them they were breaking then too.

      • The Government of Canada has pretty strict rules about how taxpayers' money can used. The Federal Identity Program makes it clear that it should be issued in an nonpartisan way. No logos, no Conservative slogans.

        • I guess the good part of it is that the CONservative party is now doing good work with its money, instead of attacking the character of others? Now if we could just get them to use taxpayers' money with the same imperative purpose, we'd be laughing too.

          • Hey, that'd be an appropriate penalty. The Conservative party has to pay the government for every novelty cheque issued with their logo or slogan.. the amount to pay is written on the cheque.

      • I hate to burst your little bubble there Jesse but……It is against the law!
        He should be charged as should any politician who has done the same since the law was past.

  4. We can debate some of the other instances of potentially inappropriate partisan messaging, but even the most fervent Harper Conservative fans must agree that this is an outrageous abuse.

    • Adscam was an outrageous abuse. This is clearly a misguided effort by some staffers, that the PMO has strongly criticized. To call it an outrageous abuse is just trying way too hard to make it something it isn't.

      • I agree with Ed. This use of CPC logos should be ended, but it is a far cry from being the outrageous abuse that some are calling it. Let's hope it helps over zealous CPC staffers to be more careful in the future.

        • Breaking the law is ok with you Two?

          • No, I am not in favour of breaking the law. This was a misuse of the rules governing the Canada Wordmark. The PMO has already come out and made a public statement to the effect that the practice was wrong and that it should cease immediately. And, yes, the MPs involved deserve to be embarrassed politically for doing something stupid.

            As for the suggestion by some posters that someone be "charged", this wasn't exactly a criminal offence. I don't believe this broke any laws under the Criminal Code.

          • No, I am not in favour of breaking the law. This was a misuse of the rules governing the Canada Wordmark. The PMO has already come out and made a public statement to the effect that the practice was wrong and that it should cease immediately. And, yes, the MPs involved deserve to be embarrassed politically for doing something stupid.

            As for the suggestion by some that some posters that someone be "charged", this wasn't exactly a criminal offence. I don't believe this broke any laws under the Criminal Code.

    • "outrageous"? Perhaps that's a bit much. Considering how popular big checks are I wouldn't be surprised if all the party's have done this in the past.

  5. Ted, you aren't being fair.

    "You're asking me about something that happened a couple of weeks ago,” he said.

    That's DefCon6 right before the rest of that quote, which as you said was DefCon2. So you are wrong. Just like a Liberal, always playing with facts. :)

    • Aren't you aware, the truth has a well known liberal bias

    • As long as he never ever takes any kind of responsibility for this, then he's A-OK within the Tory caucus, no matter what kind of excuse he makes up.

      • It seems likely in fact that one could easily hold multiple DefCon positions simultaneously. Not only "it's a non-story and a staffer did it" but how about also "the media would pay less attention if they didn't take their cues from the Liberals"

  6. Interesting that it took a regional reporter to break this story on the National news. Attention Press Gallery: I know that many of you are worried about your jobs. But while you are worrying about your jobs somebody else is DOING your job.

    Can a shake up be far behind?

    • Not quite that simple either. The photo was posted on a local Chester blog on Oct. 1…

      http://chesterns.ca/blogger.html

      About a third of the way down the page.
      So it was around for about two weeks before a reporter sniffed it.
      But then who checks Chester blogs ? I suspect a reporter was handed a gift.

    • The Press Gallery? A shakeup? Wishful thinking, but my money's on our grandkids reading the same drivel from the same personalities.

  7. This sort of thing happens to me all the time. I am a busy man. I once drove 150 miles before I noticed the Cow in my back seat. lol

    Typical Con. ……………… Knows it's wrong ………. doesn't care!

  8. ok it has hit macleans/cbc but not ctv and the globe and mail. when the picture hit front page G&M maybe something will happen. CTV makes senators, cbc and others make news.

    • Ya it is getting worse and yet some in the media refuse to cover it. Very scary.

      • I think it's a Rovian technique where if you stand in front of the elephant in the room and keep belittling those who would point out there is an elephant in the room, pretty soon people will begin to wonder if there really is an elephant in the room.

    • Is this activity illegal? The article says there are no rules that would prohibit this.

      • The article says no such thing. A cabinet minister defended the partisanship claiming it was OK, but for some reason all of those illegal partisan propaganda have disappeared from the websites of those Tory MPs. Hmmmm.

        The Federal Identity Program, among other rules, makes it crystal clear that you are not allowed to use slogans or logos of a political party when doing government work.

      • Yeah, what article did you read???

        The only time the word "rule" even appears in the above article is this quote: "“In my view, I think they've broken every rule in the book in this regard".

        How can one POSSIBLY read that sentence and conclude that "the article says there are no rules that would prohibit this"???

      • Yes, it is illegal Style.

  9. It does make you wonder how many other novelty cheques looked like this, doesn't it?

    Ah, National newsmedia. I miss you.

  10. Once again, Say Anything Steve thanks all of us lowly taxpayers with his standard salute of “Your tax dollars. My friends”

  11. Team Canada is doing it's part for the economic recovery. The olympics is pork central, so their experts by now.

  12. Seriously? The Government of Canada can be labelled the Liberal Party of Canada, and you're fine with it?

  13. Ridiculously inappropriate use of the Conservative logo and MP signature on an oversized novelty cheque. Gerard Keddy richly deserves to be spanked because of this. Has anyone found another example of this, or is it an isolated incident?

      • And according to that article:

        “Treasury Board looked at the cheques this week, and spokesman Robert Makichuk said there is nothing in the formal identity policy "that would prohibit the use of a prop cheque" containing the Canada logo or Conservative slogans.

        The political props were reportedly the brainchild of Transport Minister John Baird when he served as Treasury Board minister in the first year of the Harper government.

        Pictures of the oversized cheques are prominent features, for instance, in the online photo galleries of MPs Larry Miller (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound) and Joe Preston (Elgin-Middlesex-London), as well as Human Resources Minister Diane Finley (Haldimand-Norfolk) and Minister of International Co-operation Bev Oda (Durham).“

        • So of all the hundreds of novelty cheques that have been printed, the Gerard Kenny example is the only time the logo was used?

          I'm less concerned about MP signatures on a cheque, like those Van Loan examples from June and July, but I still think it is inappropriate. Have you found any more examples of signatures on a novelty cheque? It seems extremely rare, given the large number of novelty cheques on display (as you noted).

          • Van Loan's cheque had the Conservative Party slogan on it, also a no-no, as did the others mentioned in that article. As I noted below (posted at the same time as yours), they seem to have deleted these photos from their websites. Here is another example of labelling the Economic Action! Plan with the Conservative logo (below the Kenny photo).

            Given the large number of novelty cheques out there, who knows how rare it is. We know about Kenny because some local person posted the photo on their blog and then it got picked up.

            Clearly they don't do it all the time, but as the article points out, it was being promoted as a good idea by some serious cabinet heavyweights. So we know that certainly some did not have the illegally partisan propaganda, but the likelihood that Kenny's, Van Loan's, Finlay's, etc are the only ones is pretty high.

          • Of course, we both mean Keddy and not Kenny.

          • No, no, they killed Kenny. The bastards.

          • Make of it what you will, but I did a quick scan of some of the Conservative MPs and I can't find any big cheques, illegal or compliant.

        • Interestingly, if you go to those websites now, the photos with the illegal cheques have all been excised.

          Although poor Larry Miller doesn't seem to play by the Conservative rules: he has the "decency" to just put his own name illegally on the Government of Canada cheques he doles out: http://www.larrymiller.ca/photos_detail.asp?photo

          • Wow, Ted. Thanks.

            We should make him pay it personally, too. This is ridiculous!

          • Your quote above says there's nothing that prohibits these cheques. Why do you keep referring to them as illegal? They aren't actual cheques, just props for a photo.

          • It is not a matter of whether it is a real cheque or not. It is a Government of Canada announcement and a Government of Canada billboard/prop/whatever you want to call it.

            Putting a party logo or a party slogan on a government prop/publication is not allowed.

          • Where do you get that? Here's a quote from one of your earlier comments: “Treasury Board looked at the cheques this week, and spokesman Robert Makichuk said there is nothing in the formal identity policy "that would prohibit the use of a prop cheque" containing the Canada logo or Conservative slogans."

            If there's nothing that prohibits it, that suggests it is allowed. Are you referring to some other prohibition?

          • There's nothing that prohibits giant prop cheques to advertise that you're doling out taxpayer money.

            There is ABSOLUTELY something to prohibit giant prop cheques bearing the logo of a political party when you're doling out taxpayer money. You're basically creating an ad saying "Paid for by the Conservative Party of Canada" when in reality the project is paid for by the GOVERNMENT of Canada.

            Apparently, Treasury Board thinks there's nothing wrong with a cheque that has a Tory SLOGAN on it, but I can't imagine even the most partisan hack could read the rules and conclude that you're allowed to put the logo of a political party on an advertisement trumpeting the spending of taxpayers dollars.

    • Don't worry, as soon as the PMO finds out about it in a couple of months, they'll get right on trying to figure out what happened.

    • They must have found a loophole in the rules – when asked yesterday, Keddy said with a big confident smile that he 'would absolutely do it again', so it seems that it's standard operating practice for the 'Conservative Government of Canada'.

  14. To think about it – why in hell do adults need these show and tell events? In a recession, hardly a way to watch spending.

    • Well it does no good to spend your money in the conservative riding if the conservative MP doesn't show up to take the credit, now does it?

    • After the Rick Mercer spot on short pencils, you don't see any humour in this non story?

  15. Probably all part of the small print of "conditions for getting CONservative samolians, along with having to shake hands with rather oily and smug characters while photographer grins and bears it."

  16. It's the Publisher's Clearing House school of politics. Watch out for the late-night infomercials coming soon to a local channel on your dial.

    • Exactly. Novelty cheques are for charities and lotteries. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart even joked about some GOP politician using those cheques last spring/summer when that PVL photo hit the wire.

    • Exactly. Novelty cheques are for charities and lotteries. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart even joked about some GOP politician using those cheques last spring/summer at the same time as that PVL partisan cheque photo hit the wire.

  17. "Staff would have looked after it."

    Yes, I suppose that's true. Gerald Keddy probably did not order the giant novelty cheques all by himself. Then again, he is the Member of Parliament. One would hope that he would have some sense of accountability and responsibility. This government has a real proclivity for pointing out the errors of low-level staffers, but no inclination to consider who is responsible for said staffers. If staffers think that slapping a partisan logo on government business is a-ok, then their bosses have done a poor job explaining to them the way Canadian government works.

    • Keddy actually signed this fake cheque, the one with the logo on it. So his throwing his staffers under the bus, and so quickly, is highly disengenuous ass covering.

      • And who paid for the prop? Party or public funds?

  18. I get the impression that Conservatives don't understand what all the fuss is about – it's as if, to them, Party and Country are one and the same.

    • Party = Government
      Just like in the People's Republic of China.
      Hmmm….

  19. I think Peter MacKay did this to embarrass ThePianoMan.

  20. It turns out we can all relax, folks. I've learned that Keddy was simply caught up in Olympic fever, but used the Conservative logo by mistake. Who among us might not make the same error?

    • LOL!

    • B.S.

    • Perhaps we should hire a Novelty Cheque Production Czar?

  21. Why don't we just say it: it's illegal. They broke the law, knowingly, and I bet they do it all the time.

    And I love how the MP, when questioned, immediately throws his staff under the bus.

    This really has to stop — it's subliminal. Silly Canucks don't even know why they just plain associate money, good times, and the Olympics with the Conservatives…

  22. OK, so this 'cheque' was a prop for a PR stunt, and not a facimile of the real thing (I didn't get that till now. . . doh *red face*). But how IS the stimulus money being transferred from the federal government to the recipients?

    • Manila envelopes stuffed with cash?

      • 'great minds. . .'

    • Here's the secret: the majority of these projects will never see the money because they won't be completed by 2010.

    • Here's the secret: the majority of these projects will never see the money because they won't be completed by 2010. All of the positive press, all of the credit, no actual spending.

  23. The saddest part is that for the most part we really are this stupid.

  24. I don't think that was a nice thing to say, G. It's plausible that MPs are transferring funds into their private accounts, then writing giant cardboard cheques to their constituents. Which would be really inconvenient at the ATM, but that just shows the callous indifference of this government to the struggles of ordinary Canadians.

    • This must be the CPC "Hidden Agenda" to help support the oversized cheque printing industry.

  25. That seems reasonable. What is the rule we should read to come to this conclusion?

    • We could start with the two FAAs: the Financial Administration Act and the Federal Accountability Act. Having said that, there has to be a clause in the Criminal Code that covers political corruption of this magnitude. Time for Gomery 2?

      • Thanks. Do you have a particular clause in mind for either of the FAAs? I can't think of anything directly relevant.

  26. Improper use of taxpayer money to illegally advertise your party……

    Isn't that tantamount to theft?

    • Sounds like a type of Adscam to me..
      ..say, didn't somebody promise to ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen?

  27. The advertising is the novelty cheque. If the government paid for the novelty cheque, that might be improper. But saying that the Conservative party deserves credit for delivering the project is fine. It's the same as the New Democrats running ads saying they're helping Canadians by enriching EI. The Government can't pay for the ads but the Democrats don't need to pay the EI. There seems to be some confusion about this in the comments so far.

    • Government announcement? Use a government cheque.

      Conservative party announcement? use a Conservative party cheque.

      It's really not that confusing.

      • Well, if you have a Conservative MP at a press conference he called, isn't that a Conservative party announcement? Parties are allowed to claim credit for public spending. It's actually a big part of what they do.

        • Then why are they now saying it was "inadvertently" put there?

          Yes, parties can claim credit for what they do in government. But they can't conflate government programs and spending with party advertising. There are times when it may be a matter of debate, but putting party logo on a cheque representing taxpayer dollars isn't one of those times.

          • Put it this way. In Ontario, you are not allowed to place a party name or photo of a Minister or Premier on a government ad. It's considered to be advertising for the party.

            The current federal government knows the difference, as evidenced by the "Just Visiting" ads that were, quite clearly, branded with the Conservative Party logo. They wouldn't put the Government logo on those, nor sgould they put the conservative logo on government cheques.

          • Are the big novelty cheques government cheques? Could you deposit them? They seem more like props for sending a political message at a political press event.

          • Yes, but the political message the cheques are sending is "This project was funded by money from the Conservative Party of Canada" when in reality the project is funded by money from the taxpayers of Canada.

            By your logic, there'd be nothing wrong with the Tories throwing a Tory logo on everything the government purchases during their tenure on a sticker saying "brought to you by the Conservative Party of Canada".

          • Do you really think people believe the infrastructure money comes from Conservative fundraising rather than tax revenue? The message seems more that the Conservative government deserves credit for this government program.

            Somehow, putting stickers on all government purchases seems different from holding an oversized novelty cheque. Wouldn't that be vandalism?

    • "It's the same as the New Democrats running ads saying they're helping Canadians by enriching EI."

      No. A thousand times, no. Paid political advertisement, and the administration of government programs are not the same thing. When an MP shows up to ceremonially deliver taxpayer money for a project, that MP is not on party time, nor is that MP doing party business. As such, party advertising is against the rules.

      Now, if the Conservatives want to buy ad time – with their own money (yes. I know it's ultimately subsidized!) trumpeting the various projects they've funded while in government, that's just fine. That would be the same your NDP-EI example. The giant cheque is not.

    • "It's the same as the New Democrats running ads saying they're helping Canadians by enriching EI."

      No. A thousand times, no. Paid political advertisement, and the administration of government programs are not the same thing. When an MP shows up to ceremonially deliver taxpayer money for a project, that MP is not on party time, nor is that MP doing party business. As such, party advertising is against the rules.

      Now, if the Conservatives want to buy ad time – with their own money (yes. I know it's ultimately subsidized!) trumpeting the various projects they've funded while in government, that's just fine. That would be the same as your NDP-EI example. The giant cheque is not.

      • As mentioned earlier, big cardboard novelty cheques are not actually how the government delivers money. Amazingly, MPs are not responsible for bringing EI cheques to your door either. But they can hold press conferences and photo opportunities, with props, claiming that they are delivering EI. Of course, if the novelty cheque is against some rule or law, you only need to point that rule or law out to correct me.

        • No. A thousand times, no

          Sean are you sure its a thousand times and not 999? or 1,001? I would concentrate the on the Liberal message of new ideas, not hyper-ventilate over some props.

          • I'm not a Liberal. Just a fan of accuracy.

        • Makes sense a conservative supporter would not see the problem in taking credit for something somebody else did.

          Hint: Harper's party, with these novelty cheques, is attempting to take credit for something that the entire government did. That includes the 170 or so MPs from the opposition side.

        • Makes sense a conservative supporter would not see the problem in taking credit for something somebody else did.

          Hint: Harper's party, with these novelty cheques, is attempting to take credit for something that the entire government did. That includes the 170 or so MPs from the opposition side.

          If I did a research report with the help of several other researchers, then touted it as my own, I'd be sued. This is akin to what Harper's party is attempting to do. Harper's party can claim that they supported the stimulus package all they want. What they can't do is claim responsibility for it as their novelty cheques suggest.

  28. Not only do I think it was wrong for Keddy to have the CPC logo on the cheque, I can't understand why the party strategists haven't realized it is in the party's interests to have a government logo instead.

    If the CPC wants to replace the Liberal Party as the natural governing party it needs to devlop the mindset of the natural government party. This episode is a sign that party strategists are still in learning mode.

  29. Absolutely right! Plus anything requiring construction that hasn't started — well, guess what? Season's pretty much over throughout Canada.

  30. With thousands of cheques being handed out all over the country, I'm not at all surprised it was Keddy who screwed up… that guy's a tool.

  31. Sorry, I meant March 31st, 2011. But you get the idea.

  32. From the link:
    The Prime Minister's Office is hot on the tail of the big cheque.

    Apparently, it was not authorized by PMO. And what's more, Stephen Harper's office wants Keddy to acknowledge his mistake.

    It is undoubtedly a stupid mistake, but a lot of these comments are way over the top given that it was some staffer in a constituency office that didn't know better.

    • Okay, so you're suggesting either that Keddy doesn't bother to verify the work of his staff before he goes public with it, or that he had no problem with it. Which would you prefer?

        • Then I'm not sure how you can say the comments are over the top.

  33. Whoever selected "non sequitur use of past Liberal transgression" in the reply pool, get in touch with me. You've won.

  34. Once again, Stephen was led astray by the treachery of others

  35. Whereas Mike is screwing it up all by himself?

  36. non sequitur? I don't think so. Its a very good example for the scale of outrageousness.

  37. Not exactly a glaring transgression. I doubt a prop cheque having a catch phrase on it is going to resonate as a real problem with anyone who isn't extremely partisan. I can see people getting quite uptight about a Conservative logo, but not really the Van Loan prop.

  38. Not exactly a glaring transgression. I doubt a prop cheque having a catch phrase on it is going to resonate as a real problem with anyone who isn't extremely partisan. I can see people getting quite uptight about a Conservative logo, but not really the Van Loan prop. Not that I am excusing either.

  39. So it's only an issue if people who aren't extremely partisan get quite uptight? Those people who aren't extremely partisan wouldn't assume that they're getting money from the Conservative Government of Canada?

    • This makes for good fun for those partisan bloggers. I am waiting for resignation calls by the opposition.

  40. He was presenting the prop as a representative of government. Which makes the use of party logo on the symbol of taxpayer spending against the rules. (I don't have time to find the exact statute right now, but I will later and post it here).

    • Thanks. Someone above suggested the Financial Administration Act and the Federal Accountability Act. Not sure which clauses she had in mind though. I'll check back this evening to see what you find.

      • http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/h

        Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons…

        "Furthering private interests.
        8. When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the Member's family, or to improperly further another person's or entity's private interests."

        A political party is not a public entity, and thus counts as a private interest. I suppose one could argue that Keddy was operating as a party operative, and not fulfilling parlimentary duties, but even the PMO hasn't tried that. If you show up in a town to ceremonially present money, you're working for the taxpayers, and have to abide by the code.

        • This is a stretch, Sean. Clearly MPs seek to futher their political fortunes when engaged in parliamentary duties – just watch Question Period. The Code prohibits using your parliamentary role to enrich yourself or others (like Chretien and the hotel projects or Martin and some of the rumours around Canada Steamship Lines).

          The Code defines "furthering a private interest" as "when the Member's actions result, directly or indirectly, in any of the following: an increase in, or the preservation of, the value of the person's assets;he extinguishment, or reduction in the amount, of the person's liabilities; the acquisition of a financial interest by the person;an increase in the person's income from a source referred to in subsection 21(2); the person becoming a director or officer in a corporation, association or trade union; and the person becoming a partner in a partnership."

          The Code doesn't seem relevant here. How would you fit using a novelty cheque into any of these categories?

          • It's not the novelty cheque, it's the presence of party logo at a ceremony for disbursing public funds. If he were wearing a T-shirt with the party logo, it'd still be a problem.

            I agree that partisan interests weren't strictly the intent of the act, but since MPs are paid, furthering their own party's interests very much speaks to their own financial fortunes ("preservation," would be the applicable description from the above, I suppose).

          • You're saying that an MP trying to remain an MP while performing their duties as an MP is a breach of the Conflict of Interest Code. That doesn't seem right. There must be another rule we could look at instead.

            When I have a moment, I'll try to find pictures of Liberal MPs promoting government programs while wearing or displaying the Liberal logo.

  41. Its the only such example…right? Thank god for adscam!

    • adscam isn't one example, adscam is hundreds of examples, the corruption was widespread.

  42. Keddy should call the cops, somebody forged his name!!!

    and the PMO knew about his for some time… it's just getting a reaction from them as it is now getting a reaction from Canadians.

  43. This is so funny it hurts.

    1)Wafers, tasteless jokes, unsexy comments, plagerism, bodybags, olympic logo conspiracy and now "novelty" cheques.

    Is this really a problem regular voters care about or another example of a media and opposition party out of touch?

    • It's not the specific instance which is the problem.
      It's the continual pattern of a party that is simply out of touch with ethical behavior.
      Each individual breach isn't major, this is true, but when you total them all up, you're drawing the picture of a party that is quite happy to play fast and loose with the rules and our money.

      • Really?

        The Polls (public opinion reflect the opposite) of what you just posted. Regular voter is not paying attention to this BS. Are we stupid? The CPC are polling the highest in their history 36% – 41% for the last few weeks.

        Stealing money and mismanaging is serious. Adscam was theft, E-health is mismanagement. Do you think they compare to some over zealous photoshop challenged MP who are clueless about the rules of Novelty cheques is an issue for the regular voter?

        • Did I not just say that the individual breaches are not major? Tell me, which word in the sentence gave you trouble? And you ask if you're stupid.

          However, Canadians are not.. barring a third or so.. stupid. But they are terribly busy — especially when a complacent media refuses to report on these issues for fear of losing what little access they maintain.

          So to look at the polls now and assume that translates into the results during an election campaign when people actually start paying attention is simply folly.

  44. Over the past four years, Stephen Harper and his ministers have made a habbit of blaming their staffers. If I didn't know better, I'd assume that every decision made by our government was made by a 20-something post grad

  45. Trying to change the subject? Something to hide?

  46. But that would certainly explain a lot if it were true, wouldn't it?

  47. AH … conservative ethics. Isn't that a nihilogism? (part impossibility, part sad joke)

  48. Busted, I am fan of large oversized cheques!

    I think Canadian voters are not sophisticated enought to understand the difference of a PR stunt and how tax dollars are being spent.

    I also think the Liberal Party should try to bring back Elvis during his velvet and rhinestone phase.

    Iffy would look good in a white jumpsuit singing

    http://www.fiftiesweb.com/elvis-song-70s.htm

    [youtube 6vx183adJm4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vx183adJm4 youtube]

  49. Maybe this could all be settled by having Liberal MPs sign and hand out giant stimulus cheques with a big red 'L' on it in their ridings, and the same for NDP and Bloc MPs, with the appropriate logo for each. This would naturally be determined by which ridings get stimulus money. That way voters in all ridings would be reassured that their tax dollars are hard at work in their community.

  50. NOW can we all agree that throwing government money around is a dumb idea?

Sign in to comment.