Still not to be trusted

Obviously today's announcement of charges surrounding an income-trust leak has given rise to some differing views on who owes who an apology. But on closer examination, the Libs' position today doesn't seem any more tenable than their previous claim that they could be trusted in saying nothing was amiss.

From Ralph Goodale's statement today:

The investigation has indicated no involvement in this matter by me, my staff or any other political person.

Let's compare that to the details of the individual charged:

The RCMP have concluded a 14-month investigation into the possible leak of income trust tax details by charging a senior civil servant in the Finance Department with breach of trust.

Serge Nadeau, the general director of analysis, tax policy branch, was charged Thursday, the RCMP said in a statement.

Now, it would seem to me to be a painfully weak argument to try to claim that a senior official in the department directly supervised by Goodale doesn't qualify as "staff" who should have fallen within the scope of his investigation. But even if there's a distinction between "staff" and "department", Goodale himself volunteered at the time that both were free of responsibility:

Mr. Speaker, first, let us be clear. There is no evidence of a leak. There is an allegation on this, particularly from the opposition.

The hon. gentleman asked if I inquired within my staff and within my department. Indeed I did, and I am satisfied that all requirements were met.

Of course, Goodale conveniently modified his wording today to try to pretend that his original position had been vindicated. But in reality, it appears that Goodale was, at best, flat-out wrong in so readily becoming "satisfied" that nothing worth investigating had happened within his department. Which means that if anybody's gonads are in evidence today, it's the Libs who have the nerve to ask for an apology for their own mistake.