Liberal Cheque Mates UPDATED

Liberals hand out giant pieces of cardboard too.

by Martin Patriquin on Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:45pm - 180 Comments

A propos of absolutely nothing, I swear, here are a few choice pictures of Liberals with giant cheques, from the recent past.

And before anyone accuses this corner of Conservative counter-hackery, let me say this: to hell with the two of them. A pox on both houses. I vote only for one party–at least they’re honest–and will only say this: this kind of holier-than-thou name-calling is the reason good people stop caring enough to vote. Get back to work, the two of you*.

Here’s Richmond Hill MP Bryon Wilfert with a big cheque. “There is no comparison with the Conservatives,” Wilfert told Maclean’s. “No one is trying to pass this off as Liberal money. End of discussion.” (Not quite. See * below.)

Bryon

Here’s Malpeque, PEI MP Wayne “Stephen Harper has done everything that he once criticized” Easter, giving a real Government of Canada cheque to a local PEI businessman in 1998.

muscheque

Here’s Scarborough Guildwood MP John Mckay with big cheque. Found on his own website.

JohnMackay

York West MP Judy Sgro, handing over a surprisingly cheque-like piece of cardboard–without any Government of Canada markings at all. Her office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

2sgro4

Last but never least, Scarborough-Agincourt MP Jim Karygiannis. “Cheques like that have been delivered since parliament was invented,” he told Maclean’s. Exactly!

P1010020

*Oh, and to anyone who says, Well, yes, but at least the Liberals didn’t have the gall to put their names or party affiliation on these oversized cheques, I say this: most of the pictures of ‘Conservative partisan cheques’ wafting out of the Liberal fold are no different from the ones above, in that they are run of the mill political grip-and-grin photo ops. Also, remember this little ditty: Quebec Liberal MP Claude Droin once helped a local college obtain a $5,600 scholarship, and the college repaid him in kind by stamping his name on a plaque. Little more permanent than a novelty cheque, no?

And don’t get anyone started on Alphonso Gagliano. Surely the erstwhile Public Works Cabmin didn’t spend $6,800 of sponsorship money–earmarked, lest we forget, to promote the Federal Government in Quebec–on a “Piazza Canada” plaque… in San Martino, Italy?

He did? Oh.

UPDATE: This is exactly what I’m talking about. The Liberal whatever-room just put out a media release entitled “181 partisan cheques is not an isolated incident”. Among the purported Conservative partisan atrocities is the one below, with Jim Flaherty. Take note: there is no Conservative logo and no Jim Flahery signature, just a grinning Jim Flaherty holding a big piece of cardboard with three other stunned-looking people. Yes, there are some flagrant indulgences in there (You there, Larry Miller, take a bow), but overall the so-called ‘partisan cheques’ are just examples of plain, everyday politicking identical to the (Liberal) pictures above.

4015033394_6a67244247

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

    I am mocking the oversized cheques as a "real" issue for the regular voter. I don't live on the Hill or drink the partisan kool-aid.

    The Polls reflect the "silly" stories for months have –>NO<– bearing on the minds of those contacted. This is not about Harper as this is about the Leader and the Liberal Party.

  • wilson

    After 13 years of Liberal government,
    some of the Tory ridings are long long overdue for federal infrastructure funds.

    So how about some investigative reporter check out the last 8 years,
    4 for each governing party, and see if they average out equally.

    ex: did Peter McKays riding get any fed funds from 2001-2005 ?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    This isn't about "oversize" cheques, as you well know, this is about portraying public funds as gifts from the Conservative party. Nobody here seems to be arguing against oversized cheques, they're arguing about party logos and MP names plastered all over federal funds.

    But like you say, the only "real" issues to you are those perceived by the voters. Just what I've been saying all along is a guiding principle for the right.

    There is such a thing as right and wrong. Manipulating the system in violation of the *spirit* of the law is wrong, even if the voters don't care.

    Incidentally,quoting Ted above:

    "It violates, as do the personal signatures, the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada (implemented on August 1, 2006) and the Federal Identity Program which prohibits the use of any logo or slogan or name other than official Government of Canada logos, slogans and names in association with a document issued by the Government of Canada. "

    Sounds like they have violated the *letter* of federal guidelines, in addition to the spirit. You've consistently argued that doesn't matter, as evidenced by the polls.

    So tell me – because you never answered my question: what principle underlies your argument?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    You're making the same argument as CanadianSense: it doesn't matter if it doesn't cost votes.

    You seem to feel that Canadians are so injured by Adscam that they're prepared to allow the Conservatives to game the system in smaller ways.

    Whether that's true or not, does it make the Cons' actions right?

    • Anon Lib

      Didn't you guys understand CanadianSense? He KNOWS what the "real folk" care about because ummm…he buys groceries; whereas Liberals aren't "real Canadians" at all…you know, the same way Ignatieff isn't a "real" Canadian and Stéphane Dion is secretly French.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

    being called on your behaviour comes with power

    Sure it does, though who has the dirtier hands would be an interesting discussion. But the fact remains that while it's no excuse for whatever badness may be going on now, the Libs aren't exactly coming in with clean hands themselves. It's your typical endless cycle of condemnation by the people who were on the outs, who'll probably do much the same thing when they get their turn at bat.. Doesn't make the Liberals any less hypocritical, though.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Habitant Habitant

      ''It's your typical endless cycle of condemnation by the people who were on the outs''

      I agree with you. Of course, this is what politics is and, particularly, the life of the Opposition…

      Which brings us all back to the issue at hand… The now! And what we have now is the biggest spending ever. Billions upon billions more, never having the number just right. Criticism on any current fallout is completely untainted by governments of past.

      If the Liberals can't rightfully criticize because apparent blood on their hands from previous Liberal governments, the NDP can't because they are left wing socialist lunatics and, the Bloc have no right because they are evil separatists hellbent on destroying the country, have the Cons not become irreproachable?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    "(Hint you really have no clue?) … Pay attention school is now in session."

    Again, smirking, strident arrogance. Is this tone necessary? Show a little respect for your fellow Canadians, and grow up.

  • wilson

    The advertising GUIDELINES were crossed, at the riding level, and PMSH said the logo shud be Canadian not party, and it won't happen again, and a letter from the PMO was sent to all MPs giving them a second reminder to follow the guidelines………..there are just some things you Liberals can not turn into a federal offence, this is not ADSCAM, not a kick-back scheme, no 'laundered' money stuffed into brown envelopes here.

    Meanwhile, MI lays out policy in Vcr, and Liberals ignore it,
    instead they choose to chance the Cheque-gate ambulance.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

    TJ, Ted

    I understand as apologists for your party you need a "serious" issue to force an election. Again now for the 10th time. Regular voters are not paying attention if some MP's are photoshop challenged and used logos from their party on oversized cheques. (Every single time!)

    Wow this Federal Indenity Program Comunications Policy violation is very serious!

    How many voters are now confused because 30-143 CPC MP's are taking pictures with oversized cheques with the wrong logos, wrong signatures, wrong font? (Really)

    Do you get out much? Talk to real human beings outside political circles?

    Groceries are up over 5% at my grocery store. (hint real conversations)

    or

    Dude I can't believe those evil neocon reformatists are putting their names,logos on oversized cheques taking credit and photos for projects we taxpayers paid for! Let's have an election and throw out the bums!

    Crying wolf over the violations of FIP is going over like gang busters in the Lib blogs.

    Remember all the "faux" outrage over the 20 scandals listed as serious by the opposition? Just add this one too the pile of silly stories. Polls don't lie. The Liberals are going to hit below 24% if they push this as well.

    I am not looking forward to the Auditor General Report on the waste of taxpayers money regarding EAP. (Just as I am unhappy about the hundreds of millions wasted on E-health)

    I am looking forward to another reason for the Liberals to introduce a non-confidence motion. I can't wait to have the opposition MP explain to me about this MOST aggregious violation is a threat to National Security, good ethical government, blah blah blah.

    TJ you need to focus. The polling reflects the voters ARE NOT interested or buying the faux crisis every other week.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      I think the problem we're running into is TJ is talking about what their actions are. You're talking about what their actions will cause.

      You're talking realpolitik, he's talking morality.

      If you can acknowledge that, even though it doesn't matter to the voter, what they did is still wrong, I'm pretty sure TJ would be willing to acknowledge that, even if it's wrong, it probably won't register with the voter.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

        Thwim,

        Canadians were not paying attention when Stephen Harper as an opposition leader was upset about oversized cheques/photos used by Liberals.

        Canadians lose confidence when Reports from an Auditor General demostrate mismanagement and abuses of taxpayers funds.

        I don't look at politicians for lessons in ethical behaviour.

        We (sober, mature people) don't expect politicians are operating on some higher level of morality and ethical behaviour. (That would be delusional)

        I may tell my kids bedtime stories, and put money under the pillow from the tooth fairy, it does not change our view of "real" scandals or real issues.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

        Bang on, Thwim.

        But CanadianSense is still unwilling or unable to engage on that level.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

    TJ we call it sarcasm.

    I was a life long Liberal and don't apologize for the CPC in power. Liberal broke too many promises and have failed to rebuild their party.

    Voters are VERY smart and threw the Bums out when necessary. I have no confidence in the current leadership in the Liberal Party.

    I have ZERO empathy for apologists for any party that won't do the heavy lifting. When the CPC screw up and they will, I will let my MP know.

    I will not call my MP to complain about wafers, bodybags, unsexy comments, tasteless jokes, olympic logos, oversized cheques with CPC logos or violations of FIP.

    E-health, Billions missing, no inquiry, that deserves my attention. (Big Issue vs silly fluff)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    "TJ you need to focus."

    Keep your advice, thanks. You're just repeating yourself over and over. At least be man enough to address my point.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    Whatever you call it, is it necessary to talk to people like that? All that does is make the discussion nasty.

    And it's pretty rich considering you're *still* running from my question: what principle makes it ok to dismiss unethical behaviour as long as it doesn't hurt in the polls?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    "you Liberals"?

    I'm not a Liberal. But I'm a Canadian and I want to see my tax dollars spent according to effectiveness and efficiency, not according to the political needs of the party in power. It was wrong when the Libs did it and it's wrong now.

    It's also wrong for a political party to slap its logo all over public funds.

    You and CanadianSense are working furiously to change the topic, but abuse of power is abuse of power no matter who does it, and no matter how it affects poll results.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

    You say tomato, I say tomato. You see smoke and assume fire.

    I don't see the "fire".

    You have concluded I accept your premise regarding this is as an ethical violation. ( I don't)

    Your question? I have not made the leap of logic you have and don't see a valid question you are trying to frame…those dots do not connect.

    I can't explain how a rational person can lose sleep on this issue. Perception vs Reality. Great article you should read it, it may help you sleep at night.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    Stephen Harper disagrees with you: "I think the member [of Parliament] in question admitted that was a mistake and should not be repeated," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said…"

    You need to focus. The point you've been making all along is that there's no ethical violation because there was no movement in the polls. I'm asking you: what principle supports that reasoning?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

      Stephen Harper did the Auto Bailout and he was wrong, check those polls on that subject.

      I don't agree with the CPC on every issue. I don't see an issue, the Polls are not going to move on a single issue that you and Harper think might be a "serious breach" of ethics.

      Nice try. How was your thanksgiving? Did you sit around and talk about Harper or the government? Most did NOT.

      Big issues vs silly stuff. Do you understand the window of opportunity and being tuned out?

      What part did you not understand the VOTERS are not watching every misstep or error?

      Read the article Perception vs Reality.

  • knick

    Evidence?

  • Axel

    I just can't get too worked up about this as this appears par for the course for governments of all stripes.

    http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page6519.aspx

    Minister Watson signs his name on a $368K cheque delivered on behalf of the "McGuinty Government"?

    My taxes go to Canada and Ontario, not Harper and McGuinty. I do not approve, but I will not lose sleep over efforts by the Harper and McGuinty teams to seek reflected glory for the decisions taken by the Government of the day.

    Unless the "scandals" get more interesting, I will have no choice but to continue to base my votes on party platforms, bench strength and qualities of the local candidate.

    Cheers

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

      Nice catch. And note the headline on what should be a non-partisan departmental page:

      "McGuinty Government Helps Residents Avoid Eviction"

  • http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

    That hissing sound you hear is the air coming out of the latest liberal faux scandal trial ballon.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    By all means, let's expand the size of government so that we can forever get more and more of this nonsense…

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      At this point though, who can we elect who won't expand the size of government?

      The Liberals?

      The NDP?

      The Greens?

      Or the government responsible for the largest spending increase and largest deficit in Canadian history?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Gee, LKO, thanks for cheering me up.

        I am STILL dreaming that Flaherty will yell out "It was all a joke" and that billions have NOT been squandered, just as the Liberals currently allege (and the PBO has trouble deciphering). "Yup, we fooled y'all but good, eh? Our deficit will only be ten or twelve billion this year, and when Piano Man stops turning shovels next week we'll have a deficit of about three or four billion in the next FY, then surpluses after that. GST back up a point on Jan 1, the same day that three ministries will just disappear. Oh, and all those sclerotic 'economic opportunity agencies' that have ended up covering just about every damn square millimetre of the country and do nothing demonstrably useful? Poof!"

        Aah. That felt better.

  • TiredOfTheDoodoo

    Much ado about nothing. At least the money is being used legally unlike the sponsorship money, unlike Shawinigate, unlike cancelling much needed helicopter wasting 1/2 a billion dollars in tax payers money. Funny thing – Paul Martin finally approved new helicopters – we received 10 less than the original order would have delivered at higher cost. I don't agree with the PCs bad example, but the Liberals had become nearly corrupt.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Now you're getting it.

  • Betty Morgan

    I'll bet the Israeli's just had something like this to complain about.
    Grow up guys. It's just a prop for a photo op. What do you want? Blood?

  • Betty Morgan

    I'll bet the Israeli's WISH they just had something like this to complain about. That's what I meant to say.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Hello – the RULES HAVE CHANGED by the treasury board – the Cons have broken the rules.

    Going back to the past "doesn't change that".

    • Style

      Treasury Board said in July the cheques complied with the rules. What has changed that?

      • Mike514

        Do you have a link? I would be curious to see for myself.

  • MMord

    Man, this blog post really, truly missed the point. The fact that cheques Liberals handed out didn''t feature Liberal logos is not a peripheral point. It's the whole issue. That's where this uproar began. Okay, so maybe now the Libs are overplaying their hand, and just grabbing every picture they can find. But that doesn't detract from the overall critcism, which focuses on the indefensible use of the Conservative logo (and to a much lesser extent, names of individual MPs).

    Second, this kind of argument drives me crazy. Yes, in government every party commits some of the same transgressions. That doesn't mean that when they are returned to opposition, they are no longer in their rights to complain about those transgressions. Hypocrisy? Maybe in some small way. But, as your mother must have taught you, two wrongs don't make a right. More importantly, how would parliamentary government work if all that opposition material was out-of-bounds? Under such circumstances, it would've been illegitimate for the Conservative opposition to attack the Liberal government over Adscam. After all, John A Macdonald was the king of patronage.

    Ridiculous. We are all worse off if opposition doesn't oppose.

  • Style

    The rules allow you to include party slogans and MP names on these novelty cheques, as reported by the Star in July. But Warren Kinsella is on tv claiming that all Conservative photo ops are against the law. That's not a trivial component of this story. The Conservatives have done something that's allowed under the rules, that's common practice for political parties and the Liberal are claiming that this is illegal and "breaks every rule". That's not opposition, that's cheap politics. The New Democrats could vault themselves ahead in the polls if they took on both these parties for playing these silly games.

From Macleans