Dingwall - not cleared by Canadians
My thoughts on the Dingwall affair after 'the audit' (is this like the Liberal Party audit which wasn't an audit) match up well with Weston's column today:
Andrew at BbG seemed distraught at the turn of events. I think perspective is in order.
You can't separate Chretienites and Martinites by their sense of entitlement - it's buried deep into the upper echelons of the Liberal party. This is the bigger issue and why Canadians were and are upset.
While that may be good news for Dingwall, it is surely cold comfort for taxpayers to learn that living high on the hog is just another ho-hum day at the trough.
It is also beside the point.
The controversy surrounding Dingwall's bouts of fine wining-and-dining and European travel was never whether he broke the mint's spending rules.
The issue, unchanged by the audit, is the lack of judgment and the outrageous sense of entitlement that would compel a public servant to blow more than $700 on a dinner for two. Ditto for the now-infamous $1.29 pack of gum.
The issue isn't the money; it's what kind of person in a political patronage job and making close to $300,000 a year in pay and perks submits an expense claim for $1.29.
All of which brings us back to the one aspect of the Dingwall affair that is most causing taxpayers' blood to boil: Severance.
Andrew at BbG seemed distraught at the turn of events. I think perspective is in order.
You can't separate Chretienites and Martinites by their sense of entitlement - it's buried deep into the upper echelons of the Liberal party. This is the bigger issue and why Canadians were and are upset.
