There's hyperoble, and then there's someting a million times worse than the vilest thing you can imagine.

The Honourable leader of the opposition said that the Liberals were in league with a criminal organisation. God Damn. If Stephen Harper can actually back this up it would be the greatest scandal in the democratic world in more than a hundred years. No foolin. But you know what If he had this information, he'd have already tabled it. The Liberals could map out the government spending strategy for the next 200 years, all the way to when our houses will be made out of Candy and the work week will be 20 minutes, and they'd still lose the election. So If the Grits were in league with organised crime, say a biker gang or, better yet, foreign mafiosos it would be the end of them forever in dramatic fashion. They wouldn't get 16%. So why didn't Stephen table the evidence that day, since, as he said, the Liberals are in league with organised crime. Remember he didn't say tantamount to, didn't say behaved as if they were, said they were involved with organised crime. I'll tell you why he didn't table evidence. Parliamentary privilidge. There are fifteen rooms in this country where you can slander anybody and get away with it. The Legislative Assemblies, the House of Commons, and the Senate chambers. The laws don't apply in parliament due to a priciple called parliamentary supremacy. Parlaiment is supposed to be all powerful in Canada, therefore that green chamber has a special soverignty all its own. It is the only true sanctuary in the country. And thus the best way that you can tell if someone is lying in the chamber is if the person whom they're accusing demands they repeat the allegation outside the house. The Grits asked Harper to take it outside, but he demured. If I were on the government benches, firstly I would have sold my soul a long time ago so as to numb the pain, but secondly I would want to call Stephen Harper a Liar. But I could not, because it is considered unparliamentary (read not allowed) language. However, I would say that the Hon. Leader of the opposition had:

Loosed
Innacurate
Epithets
Deliberately

Let he who is with sin cast as many stones as they think will win them the election.

So Will wants to play hardball. Good. The Conservatives are far from blameless in the ethics game. Some of you might have heard of David Orchard. 2-time Progressive Conservative leadership candidate, and one time Progressive Conservative candidate, (the highest 2000 PC vote total in Saskatchewan) Well in 2003 David Orchard lost the PC Leadership by a substantial, but not embarassing margin. Actually he was able to parlay his delegate strength into a signed committment from the winner, Peter MacKay to not merge with the Canadian Alliance. Peter did anyway, throwing away what little political credibility someone who worked for Karlheinz Schreiber in the 90's has.

The PC's allowed people to get tax receipts for donating to leadership campaigns by bouncuing those receipts through the party. The cheques, totalling $55,000 were promised turned over in a period of 48 hours. Also a $15,000 deposit for not breaking any rules during the leadership race was owing to Mr. Orchard, for a total of approximately $70,000. This was in December of 2003. It is nearly two years later. Where's David Orchard's money? In Conservative Party coffers. He started by politely asking for it back, no small feat given the incredible burden that a 70 K puts on an organic farmer's cash flow.

Consider, if you will, that if the federal government stole $70,000 from every Canadian citizen (approx. 32 million) that would amount to $2.24 Trillion dollars. La Scandalle, $44 Million about $1.40 per person. But hey, There were only PC's that had their money misdirected. And only about a quarter of them were Orchardites. PC's claimed about 40,000 Members. About 10,000 supported David Orchard. So this was only about $7 per Orchardite (Plus their $10 membership fee accepted in what feels to many klike bad faith) So it's really only proportionately the size of 5 sponsorship scandals.

But hey, the Conservatives didn't misuse tax payer dollars, only tax payer subidized donations. I'm sure that with this kind of inclusiveness you can trust them with the public purse. But hey, William McBeath says I'm being too picky here. The Conservatives are willing to give David his money back as long as in the settlement he agrees to give up his rights to sue the Conservative Party over any issue and also never speak of the issue again. You see they don't want him going around the country holding a little thing like deprivation of a Canadian citizen and his financial health over thier heads. Fortunately as the Hill Times reported (March 28 – April 3, 2005) the judge presiding:

Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt dismissed a motion by the Conservative Party of Canada to have Mr. Orchard accept a settlement and sign a broad "mutual release" that would prevent him from using "the allegations in [his] statement of claim...in any subsequent or future context."

Quoth Saskatchewan VP (For the Progressive Conservatives when they still existed in that form) Marjaleena Repo:

"They’re claiming they’re doing that to prevent mischief by David Orchard, meanwhile they are the ones who have taken the money."

Also:

“These are the people [Conservative MPs] who are constantly standing up in the House of Commons and saying to the Liberal government, ' Give back the money' over the sponsorship scandal, but this is a very embarrassing issue in their own backyard," Ms. Repo said.

The Conservatives want to ban David Orchard, and themselves as well (how charitable), from referring to the claim and the incidents giving rise to it.

If you hit me with a car, and we settle on your personal liability, I'm still gonna talk about it.

For that matter if your party receives monies to which it isn't entitled and then returns them, the Conservatives apparently believe that that should be the end of the matter. Yet their current conduct doesn't suggest as much.

How about a little consistency? Why isn't Stephen Harper asking why Conservatives aren't in jail?

Probably because they know enough to keep their mouths shut after they leave the house.

Note to Will. Just because the other guy screwed up does NOT give you a free pass to screw up too.

J'accuse.