“This is a significant conversation, my friend . . . ” says a voice identified as that of Ontario Liberal Party fixer Gerry Lougheed, speaking to wannabe Sudbury Liberal MPP byelection candidate Andrew Olivier. And it is a significant conversation, or it should be.

“I come here on behalf of the premier,” Lougheed says, going on to ask Olivier to step aside to allow local former NDP MP Glenn Thibeault to win the nomination by acclamation. “The premier wants to talk to you. They would like to present to you options, in terms of appointments, jobs, whatever. That you and her and [the premier’s deputy chief of staff] Pat Sorbara can talk about.”

This recording, released by Olivier and now under investigation by the OPP and elections officials, seems to me to pretty straightforwardly capture Olivier being offered an inducement to step aside, which is a direct contravention of election laws. The Liberal party has denied that interpretation.

Back to the tape: “If you say fine, I’m going to go along with this because it’s the right thing for the premier and the party, but in turn I have to be guaranteed a future in what’s going on, I think they should give that to you,” Lougheed says. Then later, “What’s in it for you? . . . If you take the high road on this, what is your reward? They say Andrew Olivier took a bullet for us, so what do we give to Andrew Olivier?”

There may be facts not apparent to us that somehow make this conversation something other than it appears to be, but what it appears to be is pretty straightforward: a quid being offered directly pro quo, what I would call a bribe. Indeed, as the police investigating the matter write in the information they filed in a warrant application, the use of the premier’s name in such a conversation “threatens the appearance of the government’s integrity.” Yep.

Lougheed appears then to offer his advice on how to effectively solicit a good inducement from the premier, even as Olivier insists he’s still leaning towards running. “You need to say . . . What’s in it for me? Politically, what’s in it for me? In my long term, short term, is there an appointment, are you going to let me head up a commission? What are you giving me to step down that is worthwhile? Otherwise, guess what, I’m going to go sell memberships and see what my chances are.”

A subsequent conversation with Sorbara was also captured on tape and is also part of the OPP’s investigation.

In the end, as we all know, Olivier ran as an independent and lost on Feb. 6, while Thibeault won the riding.

Justin Ling, an Ottawa reporter for Vice who often covers federal politics, recently wrote about the tapes and then remarked on Twitter, “This is the sort of thing that should be a huge friggin’ deal. How is it not?”

Sure, the OPP is investigating and we’ll eventually sort out some degree of criminal guilt or innocence, but on the face of it the scandal doesn’t seem to have rocked the public consciousness. The Liberals won despite the investigation. The public debates beer store options and rumours of a carbon tax with more enthusiasm than this allegation of a major ethics breech staring us in the face.

Indeed, the Lougheed-Olivier conversation is like dialogue from House of Cards, confirming our worst suspicions of how our political class approaches elections and the task of governing. What’s in it for me? What are you giving me? I suspect the answer Ling’s question is that it is not received as a bigger deal precisely because we suspect this is routine. Everybody knows the fight is fixed, that’s how it goes.

Former Ottawa parliamentary secretary Dean Del Mastro is not just charged but convicted of election fraud, and while he faces a possible jail sentence, his party remains competitive in the polls — even after robocalls and a Senate scandal seemed to confirm a pattern of integrity violations. Toronto Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti was reprimanded by city council over an improper fundraiser that appeared to funnel money into his own pocket, and then was found guilty by a court of violating election spending laws, but he remains in office — re-elected by a comfortable margin.

Integrity laws? Bald-faced perversions of our very democratic process? Ho-hum.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

If our failure to be shocked isn’t exactly shocking, it may be ultimately more disturbing than the specific allegations themselves. For if we no longer consider the laws that govern how we govern ourselves inviolable, if we accept that the rules are there to be broken with a wink and a nudge and all’s fair for those who don’t get caught, then our democracy itself is severely broken.

Government by the people depends on a belief that the system runs fairly, even if it runs imperfectly. Respect for the rule of law demands our faith that lawmakers are bound by the laws. If the public grows so alienated and cynical that it no longer expects integrity in government, then democracy itself is undermined. Nothing will warp the system faster than the widespread understanding — and acceptance — that the system is already warped. Does that sound hopelessly naïve? I suspect it does: a further symptom of the corrosion we’re talking about.

We should pay close attention to the OPP investigation in Sudbury. A lot more than a single nomination is at stake in cases such as these. As Lougheed’s voice on the tape says, this is a significant conversation.

Read more about: