# Adscam/ Gomery Inquiry/ et al



## bossi (5 Jul 2002)

Friday, July 5, 2002 (Toronto Sun)
Ad firm paid for bad logo
By Maria McClintock

OTTAWA -- A Montreal ad agency at the centre of the government sponsorship program controversy was paid nearly $25,000 to create a new logo for the defence department -- and its design was ultimately rejected. 

Documents obtained by Canadian Alliance MP John Williams shows that in 2001 the defence department paid $66,000 to eight firms, including Groupaction Marketing, to develop a new logo. 

Groupaction was paid the most at $24,836 -- $19,588 of which was paid out on the last day of the fiscal year in March 2001. 

In the end, the final report submitted by the Montreal polling company Createc Plus said none of the five suggested new logos were acceptable. 

"Changing to one of the new logo concepts was seen as a major shift for the (Canadian Forces), and ... this shift was perceived as too dramatic," its report said. 

"It was just an excellent way to channel money right into Liberal donors," Williams charged. 

Capt. Ian Grant, of the defence department, refused to comment.


----------



## Pikache (10 Feb 2004)

http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1076411365455&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154 

Feb. 10, 2004. 08:41 PM 

‘Shocking‘ misuse of public funds
Martin launches public inquiry

CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA (CP) - The quarter-billion-dollar federal sponsorship fiasco was so widespread that even Canada‘s fabled national police force was used to funnel cash to friends of the federal government, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said today. 
Fraser delivered a brutally methodical account of how the Public Works Department used Crown corporations and the RCMP to systematically shovel funds from a national-unity program to a select group of businesses. 

The ****ing indictment claimed its first casualty before it was even made public. Former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano was summarily fired from his job as ambassador to Denmark by Prime Minister Paul Martin. 

Gagliano‘s department ran a now-infamous sponsorship and advertising program that saw organizers of Quebec public events paid huge sums to display Canadian flags or federal logos from 1997 to 2003. 

But more than $100 million - or 40 per cent of the $250 million fund - ended up in the pockets of middlemen who sometimes did nothing more than just turn over cheques, Fraser charged. 

The list of mysterious transactions, enigmatic banking and blatant fraud was detailed in detached but devastating prose in her report. 

Crown corporations like VIA Rail, Canada Post, and the Port of Montreal were also fingered in a report that has potentially explosive consequences ahead of an expected spring election. 

"This is just such a blatant misuse of public funds. It is shocking. . . . Words escape me," Fraser told a news conference. 

"This wasn‘t just a matter of missing documentation or bending the rules. These methods were apparently designed to pay commissions to communications agencies while hiding the source of the funds." 

Each glance at her own report stirred her to outrage, Fraser said. She called for an independent inquiry into the affair. 

The government immediately agreed to hold an investigation. 

Justice John Gomery of the Quebec Superior Court will lead the public inquiry. Another jurist, Andre Gauthier, was named special counsel for financial recovery. Gauthier‘s job will be to launch civil suits to recover some of the squandered money. 

The government has had several months to prepare its response to what turns out to be a ticking political time bomb tossed into Martin‘s lap by his predecessor, Jean Chrétien. 

Fraser‘s report was supposed to be made public last November, but Chrétien prorogued Parliament which delayed the auditor general‘s indictment until he was out of office. 

But Martin‘s field generals and his entire cabinet have been seized by the need to dull the sting of a blow that could ground the prime minister‘s lofty public approval ratings. 

Several senior members of the government were at a meeting at 8 a.m. today. Aides could be seen lugging bulky briefing material into the Langevin building housing the prime minister‘s office. 

One senior government official promised to follow the investigation wherever it might lead - even if it hurts the Liberal party. 

"We‘re not interested in a witch hunt and we‘re not interested in anything that could negatively affect the party brand," said the official. 

"But at the end of the day the public interest demands that the answers to these questions be provided. 

"We‘re the government. We‘re not just a political party." 

Martin immediately called the report‘s findings "intolerable" and announcing several steps to contain the damage. 

"Canadians deserve better and we will deal with the findings of the auditor general‘s report in all of its facets and we will do so immediately and we will do so thoroughly," Martin said. 

He said the government will take four steps: 


An independent public inquiry to probe the scandal. 

An immediate review of the auditor‘s report by the House of Commons public accounts committee. 

Appoint a special counsel to recover public funds which were inappropriately attained. 

Introduce other measures to ensure the problems never occur again, including whistleblower protection and better management practices. 
Opposition critics swiftly pounced at the scent of government blood. Their primary question: Why didn‘t Martin take action when he was finance minister in Chrétien‘s cabinet alongside Gagliano? 

"Why did the prime minister stay silent when long ago he could have just said, `Stop it, this isn‘t right," Grant Hill, the interim Conservative leader, asked in the Commons. 

"The prime minister knew about the scandal and yet he said nothing and he did nothing. Why did he choose to be silent instead of speaking up?" 

Martin responded that he was unaware of any wrongdoing and approved funding for the sponsorship program on the assumption that rules were being followed. 

But several opposition critics predicted that closer examination of the money trail will further embarrass the prime minister and damage the reputation of the governing party. 

"This was not a government operation," NDP MP Bill Blaikie said of the sponsorship program. "This was a Liberal party operation." 

When allegations of mismanagement first surfaced two years ago, the RCMP was called in to launch a criminal investigation that has since resulted in charges against Montreal businessman Paul Coffin. 

Calling in the Mounties to investigate this time will be impossible, said Conservative MP John Williams. 

"They (the RCMP) have to explain why they have become involved in a money-laundering scheme. This is our national police force," he said. 

"This is a scandal of the greatest magnitude." 

The RCMP‘s 125th anniversary in 1999 turned into an embarrassing waste of taxpayer dollars, Fraser said. 

Public Works contributed $3 million to a trio of ad agencies - Lafleur, Media/I.D.A. Vision and Gosselin - who were responsible for transferring the money to the RCMP. 

Those three agencies took a combined $1.3 million in fees and commissions and transferred $1.7 million to the RCMP for its anniversary celebration. 

Fraser‘s audit concluded that the RCMP‘s Quebec division received its payments through a separate non-government bank account, which violates the federal Financial Administration Act. 

The transactions were recorded manually rather than in the RCMP‘s standard accounting system, and some of the supporting documents were subsequently destroyed. 

Fraser outlined similar practices in a stamp competition organized by Canada Post; in a Via Rail-sponsored television series on hockey legend Maurice Richard; and in a project to raise $1.5 million for a giant screen TV for the federally run Port of Montreal. 

The auditor general expressed two major concerns with the practice. 

First, there was obviously no need to go through private middlemen to transfer cheques from a government department to a government agency or crown corporation. 

And it was useless to pay federal agencies like the RCMP to display the federal logo at their events. Treasury Board guidelines required them to do it, with or without the sponsorship program, Fraser noted. 

The Chrétien government created the now-infamous program as a response to the near-catastrophe of the 1995 Quebec referendum. 

Federal funds were used to fund sports and cultural events - almost always in Quebec - while event organizers plastered Canadian flags and federal posters for visitors to see. 

But the government used the fund to confer lavish commissions on a small group of ad agencies that acted as middlemen. 

Fraser had already denounced the practice in a narrower 2002 probe that focused on $1.6 million transferred to Groupaction Marketing Inc. 

She concluded at the time that the federal government broke ``just about every rule in the book" in awarding contracts to the Montreal agency. 

Groupaction said today it has voluntarily collaborated during each step of the audit. 

But the Quebec company said it has been a victim of the situation, which caused the loss of about 100 jobs. 

"It‘s important to underline that all of the work received by Groupaction were for contracts duly issued," the company said in a news release. "That said, the absence, not to mention the apparent disappearance, of government documents has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to Groupaction." 

Fraser‘s report released today also blasted the government in other areas. Fraser also concluded that: 


The Chrétien government ignored federal contracting policies in rushing to spend $101 million on two Bombardier jets for the prime minister and other VIPs. 

Indian and Northern Affairs has failed to track spending or resolve disputes linked to native land claims worth more than $1.2 billion. 
Her probe into the sponsorship fiasco highlighted a number of other irregularities. 

Among them was the story of a communications firm that received a $600 commission from a $5,600 grant to a Quebec college. 

All the government received in return was the MP‘s name added to a mural at the college. 

She also explained how the Montreal Impact soccer team received almost $150,000 in sponsorship funds during the 1998-99 indoor season. 

A similar request by the Edmonton Drillers soccer team was rejected, with the government claiming no funds were available.


----------



## bossi (22 Mar 2004)

(whew ... thank goodness ... at least he was Air Force, not Army ..)

‘Mr. Government‘
Guite feds‘ ad czar
By LOUISE ELLIOTT AND JIM BRONSKIL, THE CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA -- As a loadmaster in the air force, Chuck Guite traversed the world supervising tricky operations -- like managing the drop of a bulldozer by parachute from a thousand metres in the air. Guite eventually parlayed the knack for overseeing tough assignments into a high-powered career as the federal government‘s advertising czar, a job that has landed him at the centre of the unfolding sponsorship controversy. 

"He was never a simple soldier," one acquaintance says. 

‘KNEW THE GAME‘ 

Joseph Charles Guite‘s mettle is again being tested as the sponsorship affair plays out in Ottawa amid rampant speculation about the part he may have played in the debacle. 

Guite, who is vacationing in Arizona, declined through a friend to be interviewed. 

A Commons committee has summoned Guite to answer to charges from Auditor General Sheila Fraser that $100 million in sponsorship money was misspent or could not be accounted for between 1997 and 2002. 

"I think Mr. Guite knew the game he was playing. He was paid for that," multimedia executive Alain Richard says. "He knew he was in power. He knew he was Mr. Government." 

Others, including Prime Minister Paul Martin, have contended that public works bureaucrats like Guite took orders from political masters. 

While Guite‘s role may be unclear, the man himself is becoming less of a riddle. 

A straight shooter and tough talker -- some say to the point of arrogance -- Guite, who turns 60 next month, revels in simple pleasures: Drinking beer, fishing, driving his truck. 

Wearing a sturdy outback hat, he‘s as comfortable riding horseback at a dude ranch on his current holiday as he was sitting around a table with the bureaucratic elite. 

Former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano says he met regularly with Guite to discuss certain sponsorship files, indicating an unusually direct relationship between a cabinet minister and a mid-level bureaucrat. The former public works minister has told MPs that Guite initiated the meetings. 

The controversial sponsorship program bankrolled hundreds of events in the wake of the near-victory by Yes forces in the 1995 sovereignty referendum. The aim was to raise the sagging federal profile in Quebec. 

Public works employee Allan Cutler has testified at committee that Guite pushed him out of a job after he blew the whistle on years of alleged rule-breaking. 

Guite has admitted bending -- but not breaking -- the rules to stave off separatism. 

‘WAS ABOUT RESPECT‘ 

The attitude perhaps befits a native Quebecer who rose from humble beginnings in the rural Gaspe hamlet of Dugal to an important post in the federal public service. 

After retiring from his 34-year public service career in 1999, Guite worked as a lobbyist for ad firms through their trade associations. 

The esteem of his superiors motivated Guite above all else, one former colleague said. "It wasn‘t about money, it was about respect."


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Mar 2004)

Is this a CF connection or a DND connection?


----------



## Spr.Earl (23 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Brad Sallows:
> [qb] Is this a CF connection or a DND connection? [/qb]


Brad it appear‘s the Lado who was part of the DND computer scam was a fromer load master on Herc.‘s as I read it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2004)

Yes, but my point is: did this happen because of things people in uniform did, or people in civilian clothes did?


----------



## bossi (24 Mar 2004)

Both.
The tenuous link is through a former CF member (i.e. somebody in civvie clothes who once wore an air force blue uniform).


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2004)

Guite was employed as a loadmaster a long time ago.  He has been out of uniform for a while.

He has been implicated in the "adscam" case, the 100 million paid to the GroupeAction public relations firm for which the auditor-general couldn‘t account.

The 160 million "removed" from DND is a separate loss.

What could you have done with 260 million in the training and maintenance budgets?

Kirkhill


----------



## Art Johnson (15 Sep 2004)

Quebec's windfall

National Post

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Adscam is still fresh in the minds of many Canadians: The judicial inquiry into the $100-million in dubious commissions funnelled to politically connected ad agencies in Quebec got underway just last week, and has continued to cast light on the largely pointless quarter-billion dollar "sponsorship program" under which those payments were made. Yet this week's revelations that 70% of federal funding for the 2004 Canada Day celebrations wound up in Quebec show that the federal government has still not reformed its favouritism toward la belle province. Given that Quebec has only 24% of the national population, the allotment of funds is manifestly unfair. Alberta, with more than 10% of the population, received less than 3.2% of the funds. Ontario suffered the biggest disparity -- 40% of all Canadians yet just 10% of total funding for the July 1 celebrations.

The Canadian Heritage department's explanation for the disparity -- that the feds have to give Quebec celebrations far more money because local governments and the province put up so little -- is wholly unsatisfactory: Why should celebrations in other provinces be robbed to fund Canada Day festivities in Quebec communities that show so little local interest or commitment? If anything, the federal government should be encouraged to ante up more in patriotic areas where local enthusiasm is made manifest with matching funds.

Unfortunately, such favouritism is the norm. In the late 1980s, when the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney were in power, the decision was made to ensure half of all military procurement occurred in Quebec. Manufacturers who wished to do business with the Canadian army, navy or air force were effectively told to set up shop in Quebec. The CF-18 maintenance contract was stripped from a Winnipeg firm and given to one in Montreal, and Ottawa chose Quebec as the site for Canada's emerging aerospace industry.

Under the Liberals in the 1990s, fully 71% of Canadian International Development Agency contracts went to Quebec companies, largely because CIDA rules permit the minister in charge to choose from one of five tenders pre-screened for "acceptability" by bureaucrats, ignoring the lowest bidder if he wishes. Under the infamous Transitions Job Fund, Quebec received nearly three times as much make-work money as the next highest province, and during one period it was discovered that the Quebec riding of then-prime minister Jean Chretien received more grants than Alberta and British Columbia combined.

Whether it is subsidies to upgrade home heating, or non-repayable "loans" to manufacturers, or federal university scholarships, other examples abound. There have even been complaints from Olympic athletes outside Quebec that the province receives more than its share of development funds. The sponsorship scandal, with its allegation that tens of millions of dollars were redirected for personal enrichment, is very much in a league of its own. However, the Quebec bias with respect to the disbursement of Canada Day monies is, regrettably, business as usual. It is high time this favouritism was ended.


----------



## SEB123 (15 Sep 2004)

They have to put money where they need to win votes, if they dont do that peoples from quebec will separate from canada.


----------



## SEB123 (15 Sep 2004)

by the way put scared to your vote


----------



## canuck101 (15 Sep 2004)

It's not that they will ever separate from Canada they know where there bread is buttered.  They just know that if they simply make some noise suggesting that they may do that, the   Federal governments gets its  undies in a bunch and the money flows in.  You can not tell me that Quebec is a have not Province.  They have been telling there citizens for decades that they have been treated badly by the feds and now they believe it.  All you have to remember even now they still get 2/3 of the money that is ear marked for Canada day and that is after the ad scam.

On the main topic the people get the government that they vote for simple said.  The liberal seems to have the golden touch when it comes to feeding  Bull carp to  the people and they want more.  They never seem to remember the past for very long. I hope and wish someday that they wake up from the nightmare that our country is turning into.


----------



## Acorn (15 Sep 2004)

Isn't this more for the political thread in The Mess topic?

Acorn


----------



## chief_of_da_fence (16 Sep 2004)

money being spent in QUBEC. LOL any one know why wee need a brand new fleet school in qubec city.lol :


----------



## GDawg (16 Sep 2004)

SEB123 said:
			
		

> They have to put money where they need to win votes, if they dont do that peoples from quebec will separate from canada.



I fail to see the problem here...
Quebec hasn't expressed any legitimate interest in separating since the 60's or 70's. What they have done is suckered money from the rest of us by staging silly little BS referendums. They have no desire for national Independence, just handouts and preferential treatment, which is simply unacceptable.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Sep 2004)

It will never change in my life time sorry to say.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Sep 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> It will never change in my life time sorry to say.



Right, then.  We'll kill you first.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Sep 2004)

nice to know. I do live in Ottawa which is in Ontario but very close to Quebec. If you are ever in the O.C. go across the river to Hull and check out the live entertainment ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



For you people who's mind is in the gutter i really meant the casino.
cheers


----------



## SEB123 (16 Sep 2004)

canuck ,you are right, its a really nice casino, better than the one in montreal


----------



## bossi (8 Feb 2005)

Wow!  I gotta get me one of them ties that cost $121.50 each!!
I figure they either tie themselves, or are bulletproof ...
(which might come in awful handy for some people at the Adscam inquiry ...)

*Ottawa paid thousands for ties, inquiry hears*
Feb. 7, 2005. 08:01 PM 

OTTAWA (CP) â â€ The Liberal government paid nearly $60,000 for 480 neckties to be given to foreign dignitaries on Jean Chrétien's trips abroad, the federal sponsorship inquiry heard today. 
The information came to light just as the former prime minister was getting ready to testify at the inquiry. 

Chrétien is cheduled to begin his testimony tomorrow morning and continue for up to two full days. 

The ties, which came in two styles and bore maple leaf logos, were ordered in 1998 after Jean Pelletier, who was Chrétien's chief of staff, complained about the poor quality of souvenir neckwear his boss had been handing out. 

â Å“I thought Canada deserved a tie that held its own, that had some allure,â ? Pelletier told the inquiry headed by Justice John Gomery. 

He said he asked Jean Carle, then Chrétien's director of operations, to come up with better products. 

Details from there are hazy, but the job was eventually entrusted to the Montreal ad agency Lafleur Communication. 

Pelletier said nobody told him the final price tag at the time. He only found that out last week, when he was shown the invoices in preparation for his testimony at the inquiry. 

â Å“I was scandalized,â ? he said. â Å“All those costs made no sense, it wasn't what we wanted. 

â Å“If I ask somebody to buy four tires for my car, it doesn't mean I'm giving him authority to pay four times the price.â ? 

Documents provided by the Public Works Department show that Lafleur charged $88 apiece for 240 ties in one style, and $105 apiece for another 240 in the second style. 

The two lots added up to $46,320 â â€ but that wasn't the end of it. 

Lafleur also billed Public Works for commissions of more than $8,000 for the agency's work on the project. 

Another firm, Pluri Design, collected $4,500 as a subcontractor, billing for â Å“strategic researchâ ? as well as a range of other creative and production services. 

Previous evidence has shown that Pluri Design was owned by Jacques Corriveau, a Montreal businessman who also did electoral campaign work for the Liberals. 

A onetime vice-president of the federal party, Corriveau provided outdoor advertising signs for all Liberal candidates in Quebec in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections. 

His name surfaced last week at the inquiry, in connection with other subcontracts he obtained through Groupe Polygone, a printing firm that did millions in sponsorship business with Ottawa. 

Former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano has adamantly denied claims by opposition MPs that Corriveau was favoured for sponsorship deals because of his previous election work. 

The fancy neckties weren't the only items that found their way to the Prime Minister's Office under the catch-all heading ``promotional itemsâ ? funded by the sponsorship program. 

Chrétien was also furnished with dozens of golf balls embossed with his signature, in a deal that Gomery denigrated as â Å“small town cheapâ ? in a pre-Christmas media interview. 

The judge held his tongue today and offered no personal view of the tie transaction. 

Paul Martin, who was finance minister during the sponsorship years but killed the program when he took over the top job from Chrétien, is expected to testify Thursday and Friday. 

Under Chrétien, starting in the mid-1990s, Ottawa spent some $250 million sponsoring sports and cultural events, films, TV series, books, magazines and a host of other projects. 

The primary aim was to raise the federal profile in Quebec and fight separatism. But an estimated $100 million went to Liberal-friendly ad agencies and other middlemen who often failed to deliver quality work. 

In his testimony, Pelletier readily acknowledged - as he has done before - that he offered personal advice on which projects should be funded. 

But he insisted there was nothing wrong with that, given the program's overriding goal of promoting national unity. 

"I have no apologies," he said. "I think I only did my duty. . . . I have a clear conscience about all of this." 

Pelletier said it was natural that Chuck Guité, the Public Works bureaucrat in charge of sponsorship files, would want political guidance. 

"So he would consult the Prime Minister's Office frequently to get our opinion. It was absolutely logical, in our view." 

The opinions were offered in meetings where Pelletier, sometimes accompanied by Carle, would go over lists of proposed projects with Guité and discuss how much money each should get. 

For some "major files" Guité may have referred to the need to hire a particular ad agency with sufficient resources to manage the project, said Pelletier. 

"Perhaps he mentioned that, and perhaps I accepted it." 

Pelletier maintained, however, that neither he nor anybody else at the PMO tried to impose their own views on which firms should handle specific events. 

"We never chose any agencies at the Prime Minister's Office. We had nothing to do with that." 

Pelletier conceded he had socialized with Jean Lafleur, the founder of Lafleur Communication, but said the two never discussed sponsorship business. 

He also sought to play down the fact that Eric Lafleur - the son of Jean and a vice-president of the family ad firm - worked as a contract employee for the PMO on a 1998 trade mission by Chrétien to South America. 

Eric's job was to look after relatively minor logistical matters like bus schedules and hotel accommodations, said Pelletier. 

He was recommended for the work by Carle, who had also employed the younger Lafleur as a Liberal campaign volunteer during the 1997 federal election.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Feb 2005)

...and no one's going to jail, I bet.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Feb 2005)

Not unless there was a Columbian necktie or two involved.


----------



## rw4th (9 Feb 2005)

If don't pay my taxes, they can ultimatly put me in jail, but behavior like this (and the sponsoship thing as a whole) goes unpunished. It makes me sick everytime I see the almost 50% taken off the top on my paycheck.

I wish someone would come up with a system to make politicians accountable. God knows I've racked my brain over it, but given the backroom dealing, blackmail, extortion, and corruption implicit in politics I don't see it ever happening. 

Makes me want to move to a small uncharted island in the pacific.


----------



## bossi (9 Feb 2005)

I noticed this item at about the same time I heard that Art Eggleton is linked to the "middleman" company that chartered the Antonovs for the DART deployment to Sri Lanka ... hmmm ...
(no wonder so many Member's of Parliament walk into jammy appointments when they "retire"  ...)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Ottawa/Greg_Weston/2005/02/08/923659.html

*Grits continue to hide billions*
By Greg Weston -- Sun Ottawa Bureau, Tue, February 8, 2005 

The next time Paul Martin proclaims how very, very committed he is to transparency and accountability in public spending -- watch for it ad nauseam when the PM appears at the Adscam inquiry later this week -- someone should whack him over the head with a copy of the auditor general's report. 

It doesn't much matter which report. 

Every year since 1996, the auditor general has pounded the Liberal government, over and over, for hiding billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in so-called "independent foundations." 
   
Next week, Auditor General Sheila Fraser is expected to take another round out of the Martin government over the same issue in her latest compendium of government waste, mismanagement and general stupidity. 

Good thing, too. At last count, Fraser tallied a staggering $9.1 billion of taxpayers' cash that the Liberals have stashed in foundations over the past eight years. 

That's roughly the equivalent of about $1,000 from every taxpayer in the country. It is also far more than even the Liberals have been able to spend. 

Fraser recently noted that even though the government publicly lists the money as having been spent, $7.7 billion is still in the foundations' bank accounts. 

But most of all, the federal watchdog of public spending is rabid over the lack of anything resembling the transparency and accountability that taxpayers should reasonably expect. 

*The foundations are essentially fronts for government cheque-writing on a massive scale, providing handouts to all manner of no doubt worthy causes from garbage recycling to telemedicine. * 

But don't ask how it's disbursed or to whom. 

*The books of the foundations are conveniently exempted from the Access to Information Act, and are even off limits to the AG. * 

*Unlike the usual flow of funds from the treasury, the government has simply filled the foundations' bank accounts and given them up to 10 years to spend it all. * 

But not to worry -- our money is in the good hands of foundation boards packed with qualified Liberal appointees. 

As Fraser warned in one of her earlier reports: "I am concerned that these huge amounts of public money are provided up front to foundations when there is such a limited assurance of proper controls and accountability." 

Last year, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale all but promised to open the foundations and their books to scrutiny. In an interview with me after the April 2004 budget, Goodale said without qualification: "I am perfectly willing and indeed very interested in having the auditor general review the foundations. 

"The fact the auditor general is somehow limited in looking into them raises the spectre of concern, and therefore casts a cloud over what they're doing." 

And finally: "I want to solve the issue of transparency and accountability." 

But apparently a funny thing happened on the way to Fraser's office -- namely, not much at all. 

Months after Goodale's published interview with me, Fraser was so alarmed by the billions still hidden from scrutiny in foundations that she refused to sign off on the government's annual accounts without adding a lengthy cautionary footnote. 

The AG said she was "very concerned about the accountability and governance arrangements for these foundations. 

"I urge the government to implement proper accountability structures." 

Paging Paul: Please call your auditor general for an urgent message. It's not your money.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2005)

And people wonder why I am opposed to the Government daycare proposal......


----------



## Rick_Donald (11 Feb 2005)

Why do the people of Canada continue to reward the present reigning party with election after election when all these cold hard facts about lying, scamming,fraud and waste keep slapping them in the face?
  Why do people keep saying that even if the Conservatives did win the election that they would be just as bad when you haven't even given the Conservatives a chance since the 80's?
  And before you start bashing Mulroney's conservatives remember that the economic winfall that the 90's Liberals enjoyed was a direct result of policies put in place by the Conservatives(NAFTA, GST) that the Liberals, I might add, promised to eliminate but didn't. Now Martin has the nerve to claim responsibility for the boom of the nineties. Give me a break. Let's not forget the White Paper on defence that was started but eventually abandoned due to political pressure from opposition. This was a very real thing that could have occurred if the Canadian public had have been more optimistic and supportive. But everyone wanted to hang Mulroney and his Conservatives over the GST and Nafta (which turned out to be a success.)
Furthermore the New Conservatives are not the Progressive Conservatives of the past but an entirely new party that has never been given a chance to prove itself. So save your prejudgments for the other two parties.
  That's it, I'm done now.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

Fairly simple answer to your question Rick.  The people know what the people are told.....And guess who's doing the telling?

Solution to that problem?  I dunno.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Feb 2005)

That is enough to make me pull my hair out.



M.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2005)

Breaking news on the radio; 0900 EST Thursday 2005 03 03:  Chretian lawyers trying to close down Gomery Inquiry by dismisal of Judge Gomery.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (3 Mar 2005)

Haven't heard anything of that out here in the PST.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2005)

Seems his lawyers are taking the matter to the Federal Courts in the hopes of getting Judge Gomery dismissed.



[EDIT: 1028 EST]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109860877610_105270077


Court asked to consider removing Gomery: report
CTV.ca News Staff

A month after their arguments failed to budge John Gomery from the helm of the sponsorship inquiry, lawyers for former prime minister Jean Chretien are asking the courts to intervene.

Citing sources close to Chretien, reporter Mike Duffy says briefs were filed with the Federal Court of Canada on Thursday morning.

"They're asking not that the commission be shut down, but that Justice John Gomery be removed as the head of inquiry," Duffy told CTV Newsnet in an interview from Ottawa.

First spurred by a pair of newspaper interviews published last December, in which Gomery said the sponsorship program was run in a "catastrophically bad way,'' Chretien's lawyers have argued that he has repeatedly shown bias.

Chretien's legal team argued their case in front of the veteran justice last month. When it was all over, Gomery said he regretted the "distraction," but had decided to stay put.

They then had 30 days to take their case to court.

MORE TO COME...


----------



## Blue Max (3 Mar 2005)

Chretiens team is hoping to trip up and unravel the enquiry befor it completes its work, thus saving themselves anymore embarrasing revelations and most importantly, Chretien would be able to finish his memoirs as a self proficised saint. Yeh right >

B M.


----------



## pbi (3 Mar 2005)

> First spurred by a pair of newspaper interviews published last December, in which Gomery said the sponsorship program was run in a "catastrophically bad way,'' Chretien's lawyers have argued that he has repeatedly shown bias.



Well, well, well. "Catastrophically bad" for them and their gang, maybe. I say let them twist slowly in the wind.

Cheers


----------



## dutchie (3 Mar 2005)

Isn't this the second time that Cretien has shut down a public inquiry early? I wonder what he has to hide....

Thank God he's not the PM anymore.


----------



## Blue Max (7 Mar 2005)

Caesar, what does Chretien have to hide you ask?

Just about any half rumour that was heard about his time in office, of which he was able to squash, hide or defend quite well from, to this day.

Because parliament can not clear the air of Liberal political machinations to control power, Canadian political morality/ideals are steadily being lowered to the lowerst common denominator, until one day we will be a true banana republic.   :rage:

B M.


----------



## helene_alone (9 Mar 2005)

I do not know how to approach the matter without sparking a fire that will go nowhere. But I feel bad. I've heard people suggesting that if the scandal happened, not only it was because of the Quebec separatist's menace but also because of the way business is done here, in Quebec (which implies that it is careless, fraudulent or even machiavelious) and I just wonder...
Are we really to blame for all this? do the rest of the Canada really think that it is Qubec's fault? Or is the reaction about the same as here, being that our politicians are somewhat unashame of doing illegals things,  justifying it by lies and are that this might exist (or could have existed)  for other motives than this one?
I don't know... I think I need a reality check...


----------



## mdh (9 Mar 2005)

Helene_alone

I certainly don't blame Quebec - if anything the electorate of Quebec are as outraged by the scandal as anyone in English Canada - which is the reason why the Bloc has done so spectacularly well against the Martin Liberal Party.   

I do blame the Chretien machine which doled out gobs of cash in an attempt to increase the presence of the federal government in the province - primarily in the sustained panic that overtook the feds after almost losing the country in 1995 referendum.

For what it's worth I think there is good chance that Mr. Martin will continue to pay for the sins of his predecessor, and the BQ will remain the dominate federal force in Quebec.   In fact, there was recent speculation that the Bloc could topple the minority Liberals on a budget vote, go to the polls and increase their share of seats past the current 54.

The real mystery is why Ontario federal voters - normally a pretty fastidious bunch - continue to support a clapped out party that stands for nothing except perpetuating itself in power.

Cheers, mdh


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2005)

Short answer; don't blame Quebec, *blame Cretien*.

Unfortunatly, it is hard to imagine anyone connected with this will either be punished or spill enough beans to fully expose the corruption to the light of day. Imagine if Mr Dithers; the president of the Quebec caucus and Finance minister during the period in question can be proved not to be as clueless as he claims...he could share a cell with Mr Creitien, rahter than both of them continuing to milk taxpayers for huge sums of money.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2005)

Ottawa Sun 2005 03 10 Editorial:



http://canoe.com/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Editorial/

Thu, March 10, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the money
The stench around the federal sponsorship scandal continues to grow stronger with each passing day, as does the suspicion that it was set up and run by a government without moral principles. 

Members of the Lafleur family are providing us with daily jaw-dropping details about the massive waste of taxpayers' money through a program that was supposed to make Quebeckers feel at home in Canada. 

Ironically the sponsorship fiasco may end up doing exactly the opposite, stirring up separatist emotions in a population that feels embarrassed by a government that thought its patriotism could be so easily bought. 

This week we have heard the first direct evidence that some of the sponsorship money paid out by the feds flowed right back into the coffers of the Liberal Party. 

Here's how it worked: Lafleur Communication Marketing prevailed on its own staff members and others doing contract work for the company to make donations to the campaign of a local Grit candidate. 

In most cases the donors were then reimbursed by Lafleur at the same time as the company was billing the government for millions of dollars in commissions. 

Yesterday Eric Lafleur, son of the firm's founder, startled us yet again when he disclosed that the name of one of his own employees, Michel Octeau, was used to bill thousands of dollars from the federal government despite the fact Octeau never worked for his father's company. "There are places where Michel Octeau is billed a relatively significant number of hours and I don't remember seeing Michel Octeau work on those projects," said Eric Lafleur. 

The younger Lafleur also said he met occasionally with Chuck Guite, the former bureaucrat who ran the sponsorship file for several years. 

Small wonder that former prime minister Jean Chretien was in such a rush to get the Gomery commission shut down. The extent of the rot that had set in under his watch may give him something he had always craved while he was in office -- a legacy that will long be remembered. 

And another thing ... 

Nice work by local police forces who pooled their resources to raid a multi-million dollar marijuana production network yesterday. 

About 100 cops from the Surete du Quebec, RCMP, Gatineau and Ottawa police took part in the operation that netted both drugs and weapons. 

Hitting the kingpins in the drug industry with the full force of the law is the right way to curtail this illegal business.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (10 Mar 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> The real mystery is why Ontario federal voters - normally a pretty fastidious bunch - continue to support a clapped out party that stands for nothing except perpetuating itself in power.



Because people prefer the status quo?  They don't want things to change and are afraid that if the Conservatives get to power, things will change.  The known devil is better than the unknown one, especially the devil with Reform flavours still swirling around party policy.  Or you can blame the Liberal vote-buying in the 416 and 905 ridings that have a large and growing immigrant community.  Or you can blame the effete intelligensia that gravitates around Toronto and would rather have corrupt but "caring" liberals than a right of centre party - no matter how much better government it could deliver.  There is no rhyme or reason to it.  The one conservative win in Ottawa itself displaced the one liberal politician and minister who actually displayed fortitude and principles and a clear understanding of the nasty world in which we live.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Mar 2005)

Where to place the blame:

Quebec? No.

Ontario? Partially, for refusing to do anything about the problem.

Club Auberge Grand Mère? Definitely!


----------



## RCD (11 Mar 2005)

It's a shame they didn't give the right to charge them. & look at Chretien notes when he was PM Now that be a political junkie dreams come through


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2005)

In the news this morning:



> Gomery testimony spurs election buzz
> 
> Scott Stinson and Paul Vieira, with files from Ian Bailey
> National Post, with files from CanWest News Service
> ...


http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=942bf60a-31c3-4583-9b37-99f08cffded8


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Apr 2005)

I noticed PMPM is looking a little ashen the past few days.


----------



## mo-litia (4 Apr 2005)

Check these sites out....

The news story on the broken publication ban is at:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/04/04/981625-sun.html




> Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog or the Canadian news site that promoted it or providing the blog's Internet address could lead to a contempt charge.



[Edited to remove link to US website article that has violated publication ban.   We don't want to see Mike with a contempt charge]


----------



## bossi (4 Apr 2005)

For clarity, here's some more detail on the publication ban:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968705899037&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Bloggers point way to banned Brault evidence


MIRO CERNETIG
QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

MONTREALâ â€Bloggers are using the Internet to get around the publication ban put in place by Justice John Gomery, which prevents publication of politically explosive testimony heard in the sponsorship inquiry.

At least two Canadian Internet sites, one well known to many who follow Canadian politics, have posted links to a conservative U.S. Web page carrying a 900-word synopsis of what was said in the hearing last week.

*Canadian news outlets have been temporarily ordered by Gomery not to publish, broadcast or post on the Internet any testimony from Jean Brault, former president of Groupaction, the Montreal ad agency which earned millions of dollars in federal contracts.*

Asked about the controversial move to offer links to the U.S. site, one Canadian Web operator responded: "No comment."

Brault, former bureaucrat Chuck Guité and ad executive Paul Coffin are due to appear in court May 2 on fraud-related charges involving the $250-million sponsorship program. Gomery ruled March 29 that media reports of their evidence so close to trial could make it difficult to find unbiased jurors.

*The restriction could be lifted as early as this week, however, because Brault and Guité have asked that their criminal trial be postponed until September, a delay that could decrease the effect of the media on jurors.*

[and, some more info from McG]:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/04/04/981625-sun.html



> The American blog, being promoted by an all-news Canadian website, boasts "Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open" and promises more to come. The owner of the Canadian website refused to comment yesterday.
> 
> Inquiry official Francois Perreault voiced shock at the publication ban breach, and said the commission co-counsel Bernard Roy and Justice John Gomery will decide today whether to charge the Canadian website owner with contempt of court.





> Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog or the Canadian news site that promoted it or providing the blog's Internet address could lead to a contempt charge.


----------



## mo-litia (4 Apr 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Check these sites out....
> 
> The news story on the broken publication ban is at:
> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/04/04/981625-sun.html
> ...



True, true! Of course, if you read the article there is a certain phrase in quotation marks that will lead you right to the suppressed testimony via Google.   If accurate, the stuff is pretty shocking.



			
				Rick_Donald said:
			
		

> Why do people keep saying that even if the Conservatives did win the election that they would be just as bad when you haven't even given the Conservatives a chance since the 80's?....
> *And before you start bashing Mulroney's conservatives remember that the economic winfall that the 90's Liberals enjoyed was a direct result of policies put in place by the Conservatives(NAFTA, GST) that the Liberals, I might add, promised to eliminate but didn't*. Now Martin has the nerve to claim responsibility for the boom of the nineties. Give me a break. Let's not forget the *White Paper on defence that was started but eventually abandoned due to political pressure from opposition*. This was a very real thing that could have occurred if the Canadian public had have been more optimistic and supportive. But everyone wanted to hang Mulroney and his Conservatives over the GST and Nafta (which turned out to be a success.)
> Furthermore the New Conservatives are not the Progressive Conservatives of the past but an entirely new party that has never been given a chance to prove itself. So save your prejudgments for the other two parties.
> That's it, I'm done now.



Don't stop, I think you're just geting warmed up!   The real question to be asked here is just how complacent the Ontario voters are the next time we get a chance to go yo the polls. (Soon...vote of non-confidence, anyone? ;D)   I know Ontario is generally happy to wallow at the Liberal trough, but even the most die hard Fiberal must feel some anger at the way our tax dollars have been stolen from us.



			
				RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> She also explained how the Montreal Impact soccer team received almost $150,000 in sponsorship funds during the 1998-99 indoor season.
> 
> A similar request by the Edmonton Drillers soccer team was rejected, with the government claiming no funds were available.



Hmmm......yet another reason for western aalienation   This scandal could be the catalyst that kicks separation back into high gear out West. (Not that I'm advocating that   : )   Or, if the new government that we will likely soon get is SERIOUS about national unity, we'll have some badly needed electoral and senate reforms that will keep the majority of disgruntled Westerners reasonably happy with Confederation.

I'm sure glad all those transfer payments from my land of plenty went to a good cause.   :-X


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> ... The real question to be asked here is just how complacent the Ontario voters are the next time we get a chance to go yo the polls. (Soon...vote of non-confidence, anyone? ;D)   I know Ontario is generally happy to wallow at the Liberal trough, but even the most die hard Fiberal must feel some anger at the way our tax dollars have been stolen from us.
> 
> ...



There was an interesting little bit in the _Economist_ a week or two back about so called _dog whistle_ issues: those _messages_ which are aimed at a well defined group and reach them without offending or even being much noticed by others.

One huge _dog whistle_ issue in Ontario has been, for over 100 years but especially for the past 40 (Laurendau/Dunton, in '65, etc), that _*only the Liberals can *_*manage Québec* (a.k.a. _keep Québec in its place_).  Ontarians, despite the best efforts of Premier _Dim Dalton_ McGuinty, are probably the lest 'regional' Canadians: most see themselves as unhyphenated Canadians, first, and Ontarians third or fourth.  Notwithstanding the fact that Québec no longer has much impact on Ontario's prosperity (it was Ontario's biggest market until the end of the '60s when Ontario _morphed_ into what Prof. Tom Courchene (Queens) - http://www.queensu.ca/sps/faculty_and_fellows/faculty.htm - calls a _North American Regional State_), Ontarians still, quietly, almost silently, worry that Québec must be kept 'happy' and 'in' Canada.  Ontarians are willing to forgive the Liberals *almost* anything so long as Québec is an issue.  The Liberals must, as Trudeau did, actively persuade Ontarians that they (the Liberals) are in need of a rest and have lost control of Québec before Ontarians will vote them out.

If Québecers can convince that English _national_ media, including the Toronto Star, that the Liberals have lost control of Québec then Ontarians will return something like 65 Tories, 20+/- NDPers and a bare 20 Liberals.  With 65 seats in Ontario, 70 in the West and 10 in Atlantic Canada the Tories can form a minority government.

A Tory minority will have to court support from one of:

"¢	A _breakaway_ faction of fiscally conservative Liberals - a highly unlikely circumstance; Liberal Party discipline will remain strong;

"¢	The BQ - which is a _leftish_, pro-Kyoto, anti-military group;

"¢	The NDP and Greens - if they can develop and implement a strong _green_ agenda; or

"¢	A Liberal Party which is too frightened to face the electorate again, for a while.

In any event, I think a Conservative government would affirm and maybe even expand the Liberal's $12.5 Billion/5,000 + 3,000 promise but I would not look for anything like $25 Billion and 15,000 + 5,000 which would be more realistic.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Apr 2005)

I, for one, am glad for the publication ban.  We should all be grateful that our political and judicial elite recognize that unlike them, we ordinary Canadians lack the moral and intellectual clarity to give Mr. Brault a fair trial after hearing his Gomery testimony. 

From Instapundit.com:



> Funny how our neighbors to the north lose their expansive view of international law when confronted with things like this:
> 
> _Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers._
> 
> Unless, you know, it's embarrassing to people in power or something.


  Internal link is to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2005)

Funny how the only way to get "real" news in Canada is to read expat canadians like Mark Styen or David Frum, or hope US blogs like Instapundit will carry something. At least this will start putting Darwinian pressure of Canadian MSM and journalists to actually start reporting, as opposed to mouthing Liberal propaganda.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Apr 2005)

I've never really thought of beneficiaries as _victims_ ... the Western Standard put this under "*April 4, 1974:
President Nixon calls in FBI to investigate possible fraud perpetrated against Republican party.*": 



> Liberals contact RCMP to investigate possible sponsorship-related fraud
> 
> 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
> 
> ...


 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=737&e=1&u=/cpress/20050404/ca_pr_on_na/sponsorship_inquiry


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Apr 2005)

What is going to be amusing is when the rationalizations begin to emerge to convince us that the costs and corruption are a small price to pay to maintain the unity of the nation and keep the vile social conservatives out of office.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2005)

What is amusing is the way the LIEberals are scurrying and casting about looking for scapegoats to pin their indiscretions on, to deflect the blame, before the SHTF, in the open press.

What will NOT be amusing is how many of the Canadian sheeple will buy it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Apr 2005)

You can't make this stuff up:



> "They have the gall to depict the Liberal Party as the victim of the sponsorship scandal," Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said as the daily question period got underway in the House of Commons Monday afternoon.
> 
> "Will the Government at least have the decency to simply admit that the only victim is the Canadian taxpayer whose money was stolen?"
> 
> ...


  I think he means "against" in the "funnelled $100 million taxpayer dollars to" sense.  :crybaby:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1112614081885_4/?hub=TopStories


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2005)

Ahhh, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 the spin has started 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It shouldn't read "colluded against the party". It should read "colluded against the Canadian people" Guess he's trying to remove us as the victims and replace the LIEberals as the downtrodden masses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




BOHICA everyone!!


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2005)

Although there is a Canadian publication ban, unless the Liberals can turn off the Internet, our American cousins have come on board big time. I can't provide a link, in case the owner of this site gets into trouble, but if you google onto the bigger blog sites (first letter is "I", rymes with "pundit"), you can find lots of links to start.



> Funny how our neighbors to the north lose their expansive view of international law when confronted with things like this:
> 
> _*Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.*_
> 
> Unless, you know, it's embarrassing to people in power or something.



As Glenn Reynolds would say: *Heh*


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although there is a Canadian publication ban, unless the Liberals can turn off the Internet, our American cousins have come on board big time. I can't provide a link, in case the owner of this site gets into trouble, but if you google onto the bigger blog sites (first letter is "I", rymes with "pundit"), you can find lots of links to start.
> 
> As Glenn Reynolds would say: *Heh*



I went there earlier today and didn't all that much different than what the news media in Canada are indirectly alluding to.  ???


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

Disregard my last tx. Found it!! Yuk.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Apr 2005)

If even half of this is true and provable in a court of law...the mind beggars at the unmitigated gall of these people.

Actually, this raises a question.  How the heck would the Dept of Justice even begin to tackle something this big?  I can't think of a similar situation in Canadian history...

Can't wait for the publication ban to come off, so we can remove the crypto...


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, this raises a question.  How the heck would the Dept of Justice even begin to tackle something this big?  I can't think of a similar situation in Canadian history...



Sir John  A?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Apr 2005)

I thought immediately of Sir John A.

Then I realized he was bush-league compared to what is being alleged...

Sucks being a Canadian taxpayer lately...


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sucks being a Canadian taxpayer lately...



Apparently, it always has!!


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2005)

Oh no, it wasn't the Taxpayers who were scammed, it was the LIBERAL PARTY! I'm not making this up either.....

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004113.html



> Damage control
> 
> The Liberals, fearing for their political lives more than ever since 1993, *are trying to portray themselves as the victims of Adscam.* I swear to God, you can't make this up:
> 
> ...


----------



## mdh (5 Apr 2005)

They aren't going to fool anyone in Quebec where the Liberals are probably going to plummet to record levels of non-support.  

Ontario voters may be as thick as telephone poles these days - but I predict the BQ becomes the dominant party in Quebec - leaving the Liberals as nothing more than an Allophone/Anglophone rump in Montreal.

It's richly ironic that the sponsorship program - designed to enhance the reputation of the federal government in Quebec - has been the single greatest instrument of its downfall. Not only did Chretien almost lose the country in 1995 due to his supreme arrogance and complacency about being one of the few leaders who really understood Quebec nationalism - he created this monster and let it loose on the body politic - Duplessis meets the Sopranos.

And the real question of the hour is - how much did Paul Martin _really_ know? And when did he know it?

cheers, all, mdh


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> And the real question of the hour is - how much did Paul Martin _really_ know? And when did he know it?



He can always "forget" what he knew. Maybe this would be better: "What was Paul Martin responsible or obligated for knowing, and how irresponsible was he in breaching his obligation to inform himself and in ensuring that he remain informed."


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Apr 2005)




----------



## camochick (5 Apr 2005)

Would it be illegal to put up the article from the US site? It wouldnt really be considered publishing it, would it?


----------



## Danjanou (5 Apr 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Would it be illegal to put up the article from the US site? It wouldnt really be considered publishing it, would it?



Camochick that's a grey area and one we best stay clear of. News reports are that some sites that have posted links etc may be in bit of hot water for doing so. Lets not give Mike another potential  hassle right now. Anyone who really want's to read up on this is I'm sure computer savvy enought to find it without our help.


----------



## dutchie (5 Apr 2005)

What I find really interesting is Paul Martin's claim he knew nothing of the scam while it was occurring, and only found out about it after it broke in the media. Utter horse-shyte, I say. Here's my thoughts.....

Paul Martin is the Finance Minister, the Sr. MP in Quebec and it's Lieutenant, and he knew nothing of a major money funnelling scam directly related to BOTH POSITIONS? As Finance Minister, he should have known. As the Sr MP in Quebec and it's Lieutenant, he had to know. Especially considering this 'program' was directly related to the Province of Quebec, it's citizens, and the image of Canada within the Province. It would be different if the ad agencies happened to be located in Quebec, with no other connections to the Province, but that was not the case. This was a major program, and there is no way he knew nothing of the fraud being committed.

There are only 2 possible explanations:

1-He's lying. Very likely considering his track record and his party.
2-He was incompetent and asleep at the wheel at the time. Again, very possible.

Which is it? Either way, he should be given the boot, and charged.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Apr 2005)

> Gomery's publication ban backfires
> 
> The Gazette
> 
> ...



http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=70bb5244-0ad4-4afa-8c60-945d0b13d8ca


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Apr 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> What I find really interesting is Paul Martin's claim he knew nothing of the scam while it was occurring, and only found out about it after it broke in the media.



Wait until the Brault's testimony is public ...



> *Not even second-hand*
> 
> Bookmark this quote [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050401.wgomery0401/BNStory/National/], from last Friday:
> 
> ...


http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/04/not-even-second-hand.php



Also, a buddy of mine just pointed-out that after yesterday's "*we're* the victims of fraud" defense, they've changed tactics.  Today it's "pointing out that we're corrupt plays into the hands of separatists.  So it's your patriotic duty as a Canadian to ignore the fact that we're corrupt & vote for us anyway."



> *Don't cater to separatists, Brison warns Tories*
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1112704781643_196/?hub=TopStories

I wonder what tomorrow's defense might be ...


----------



## mdh (5 Apr 2005)

Looks like the Natural Corrupting Party is throwing in everything into the spin - including the kitchen sink of national unity. 

As sheer unadulterated, panic sweeps the Liberal benches, we should see more and more desperate ploys like this one .   

Now Brison (Tory turncoat and opportunist) is darkly (and rather comically) warning about the BQ separatists and the Tories in an unholy alliance, while simultaneously painting the party itself as a victim - I see Martin's people are already offering up themselves up as unidentified media sources insisting they don't "work that way". 

It's only a matter of time before Paul Martin has visions and starts speaking in tongues. 

Although I can't speak for Ontario - I am confident that this is the end for Martin in Quebec.

Next question of the hour: Is Stephen Harper capable of driving a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party?

cheers, mdh

ps where's Stevie Cameron when we need her crusading spirit most?


----------



## vangemeren (5 Apr 2005)

> Also, a buddy of mine just pointed-out that after yesterday's "we're the victims of fraud" defense, they've changed tactics.  ..."



I would say that defense in my opinion would be true for liberal party member Joe Bloggins out in B.C that had no connection whatsoever to what happened in Quebec. However for use for Paul Martin, it doesn't hold water.

As a side note, in Alberta, the provincial Liberals are thinking of changing their name because of name association with Federal party. 

*Alberta Liberals ponder a new name
Last Updated Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:15:26 EDT
CBC News*

EDMONTON - The Alberta Liberal Party is considering changing its name to distance itself from the federal Liberals and the federal sponsorship scandal.

Party leader Kevin Taft, who has been elected twice in the riding of Edmonton-Riverview, said it's difficult enough to run under the Liberal banner in Alberta.

But if rumours emerging from the Gomery commission are true, it could "forever change the political landscape" in Canada, Taft told the Edmonton Journal.

Taft became leader last year of the 16-member Liberal Official Opposition in the Alberta legislature. He has never belonged to the federal Liberal party.

He said until now he has resisted suggestions the Alberta Liberal Party change its name. "But my resistance on that is down right now, to be honest with you. ... As the leader, I have to ask myself how long do we hang on that? I wouldn't have said that even a week ago, but my resistance to people who raise that is down right now."

The Liberal party formed Alberta's first government 100 years ago under premier Alexander Rutherford when it held 23 of the legislature's 25 seats. But the party has not fared well in most provincial elections since then. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/05/alta-liberals050405.html


----------



## FSTO (5 Apr 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> ps where's Stevie Cameron when we need her crusading spirit most?



You'll have to stick the bullhorn into the Liberal trough where her head is stuck.


----------



## canadianblue (5 Apr 2005)

The Liberals might still win a minority if an election were called. It seems that all the Liberals would have to do is use scare tactics, this can be done by saying that Stephen Harper is an evil Albertan and plans to eradicate medicare when elected. I think its unfortunate that Canadian's are so used to getting screwed over, that they just shrug it off.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2005)

Due Diligence - legal term that requires individuals to maintain a reasonable standard of care when performing a task.  This â Å“standard of careâ ? has three parts:

                   -  following statues, regulations, by-laws and guidelines;   
                   -  preparing for risks that a thoughtful and reasonable person would foresee;
                   -  respond to risks and incidents as soon as practicable.

Examples Of Lack Of Due Diligence For Leaders

ïÆ’Ëœ	  If you should have known about a violation, but you did nothing to find out. 

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You knew about a violation, but took no steps to correct it where you had the ability to correct it. 

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You knew about a violation, but took no steps to refer it to someone who could correct it where you did not have the ability to correct it. 

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You knew about a violation, or you should have known about it, and you did not warn or advise your personnel about it.

ïÆ’Ëœ	  There was a regulation or standard, but you did not follow it, or did not require those under your command to follow it. 

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You believed your personnel were entitled to â Å“assume the riskâ ? and so you did not engage in standard enforcement. 

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You discouraged reports of violations by your personnel.

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You did not provide any violation briefings, task/activity supervision or violation promotional activity.

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You discouraged reports of violations by your personnel.

ïÆ’Ëœ	  You did not provide any briefings, task/activity supervision or  promotional activity.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Apr 2005)

People criticize the US political system for having too many 'checks and balances' ... I'm not conivinced that this is better!    :crybaby:



> April 05, 2005
> Friends In Low Places
> 
> MacLeans [http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n040569A];
> ...



http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001641.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Apr 2005)

Keep voting Liberal, Canadians!   :blotto:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2005)

There are two classes of people in Canada; those who vote Liberal, and those who vote with their feet.....


----------



## vangemeren (7 Apr 2005)

Hot off the presses:

Donations to Liberals led to sponsorship work: Brault
Last Updated Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:20:03 EDT
CBC News

MONTREAL - The former head of a Quebec advertising company has told the Gomery inquiry that he was repeatedly asked to give cash donations to the Liberal party and put election workers on his payroll in exchange for federal sponsorship contracts.

    * INDEPTH: Sponsorship Scandal

Former Groupaction executive Jean Brault (CP file photo).

Jean Brault, the former head of Groupaction Marketing, testified that the scheme to funnel taxpayers' dollars to the Liberal party in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 federal election campaigns continued as recently as 2002.

"If it wasn't for our contributions to the party, we never would have had such a big piece of the sponsorship pie," he said.

Brault began testifying about his role in the sponsorship program last week, but Justice John Gomery banned publication of his testimony.

The ad executive had been scheduled to go on trial, along with co-accused Chuck Guité, on May 2 on fraud charges relating to sponsorship contracts. Gomery ruled that allowing media to report on Brault's testimony at the inquiry could hurt the two men's chances of getting a fair hearing in their criminal trial.

Lawyers for Brault and Guité had asked that the trial be put off until September, but on Wednesday, a Quebec judge postponed it only until June 6.

In the wake of that decision, Gomery partially lifted the publication ban at 2 p.m. EDT Thursday, allowing many details of Brault's testimony to be broadcast.

Brault discovers 'magic recipe' for work

During his testimony at the inquiry, Brault described a system that churned out secret payments to Liberal campaign workers â â€œ payments that were covered up with fake invoices.

The paper trail suggests Brault made $1.1 million in contributions to the Liberal party that never appeared on the books. That was in addition to the $166,000 in legitimate donations Brault and his companies made to the Liberals over seven years.

Brault said he found out that the "magic recipe" to get sponsorship contracts was to "lend a sympathetic ear" to the party's demands.

In 1996, he testified, he met with Jacques Corriveau, head of Pluridesign and a key member of Jean Chrétien's Liberal leadership campaigns.

Brault said that during a meeting on April 16, 1996, Corriveau asked him to "take under my wing for a period of a year, one person who was well liked" by the party â â€œ Serge Gosselin.

Brault testified that Gosselin, a communications expert, never had an office at Groupaction and did little or no work. Nevertheless, Brault agreed to pay him more than $80,000.

Party workers put on Groupaction payroll

Brault also told the inquiry that he put about a dozen party workers on his staff during the 1997 election campaign.

After that election, the Quebec wing of the Liberal party was broke and owed money for campaign signs and pamphlets produced for candidates across the province, among other things.

One of the party's creditors was Corriveau, whose company produced billboards and posters for Liberal candidates in Quebec.

Brault claims Corriveau asked him in the spring of 1998 to funnel to the party 10 per cent of the commission fees Brault charged on some sponsorship contracts. Groupaction charged the federal government a 12-per-cent commission to manage sponsorship projects.

"My understanding is that this money was destined for the Liberal cause," said Brault.

Contracts in jeopardy over hiring: Brault

Brault named two other high-ranking members of the federal Liberal party as key cogs in the sponsorship scheme: Alain Renaud, who worked at the party's offices in Montreal; and Benoît Corbeil, a former official at the party's offices.
Jacques Corriveau, head of Pluridesign. (file photo)

Brault told the inquiry that Renaud was paid $1.1 million between 1996 and 2001.

Renaud left Groupaction in September 2000, but decided he wanted to come back six months later. Brault balked.

He told the inquiry that he then received a phone call from Tony Mignacca, a close aide to Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano.

Brault said Mignacca hinted Groupaction's large contract with Via Rail might be in jeopardy if Renaud was not hired back.

Cash left on chair for fundraiser: Brault

Brault also spoke of a meeting he had when Joe Morselli, a close friend of Gagliano, took over fundraising duties for the party in Quebec.

Brault says he was asked to meet Morselli in an Italian restaurant and leave envelopes with thousands of dollars in cash for the party on a chair.

"I went up to go to the bathroom," he said. "When I got back, the money was gone."

The federal government is trying to recover $30 million from Brault in funds related to the $250-million sponsorship program.

In February 2004, Auditor General Sheila Fraser released a report suggesting that as much as $100 million from the program went to Quebec-based advertising companies for little or no work.

Prime Minister Paul Martin immediately called a public inquiry into the affair. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/07/domery-ban050407.html

Here's my favourite line:



> Brault says he was asked to meet Morselli in an Italian restaurant and leave envelopes with thousands of dollars in cash for the party on a chair.
> 
> "I went up to go to the bathroom," he said. "When I got back, the money was gone."



Sounds like something from a Mob movie.


----------



## dutchie (7 Apr 2005)

Any guesses how long it takes for this Government to fall?

I bet we're back at the polls before July.


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Apr 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Any guesses how long it takes for this Government to fall?
> 
> I bet we're back at the polls before July.



Motion seconded.... watched the news tonight... la merde has definitly hit le ventilateur... we should declare shenanigans !


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

Is this on par with a "Watergate" level of scandal?  Should (and will) some members of the Liberal party also go to jail with Brault and Guite?


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is this on par with a "Watergate" level of scandal?   Should (and will) some members of the Liberal party also go to jail with Brault and Guite?



I would say yes... if money was funnelled back into the Liberal Party from public funds, this would have given them a distinct financial advantage when election time came around... elections are won and lost by PR campaigns... this is direct interference in the democratic process and should be taken very seriously... much more so than a few corrupt politicians lining their pockets... that is if it's true of course


----------



## atticus (7 Apr 2005)

Some liberals should go to jail. You'd think the head of finances would know about this. Will any? I highly doubt it, they will probably try to find a scape goat. If any do go to jail, it will probably be some guy nobody has ever heard of.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2005)

[sarcasm]Since Paul Martin claims the Liberal Party is the victim of Adscam, then the only proper response is to start jailing taxpayers[/sarcasm]

Looking at the Sandy Berger case in the US, where a former top Clinton aide stole and destroyed classified documents from the US national archives, presumably because the documents and their marginal notes were very revealing as to the lack of effective action that was taken against terrorism during the Clinton administration. Instead of doing hard time in Levensworth, he plea bargained a fine, an admission of guilt and a _temporary_ revocation of his security clearance!

Mr Martin, as the president of the Quebec Caucus and Finance minister during the events being described, was either in this up to his neck, or so totally uninterested and clueless as to the operation of his caucus and his job as finance minister that he "never noticed" what was happening around him. Either interpretation speaks against his suitability for any electoral office or position of responsibility. In an ideal world, the Governor General should use her powers to dissolve parliament, and perhaps appoint a coalition caretaker government to watch things while the police investigate the parties involved and charges are laid.


----------



## Andyboy (8 Apr 2005)

Was the money "dontated" to the Liberal Party or individuals within the Liberal party? 

In other words into whose bank account did the money go? I seem to remember that it has been reported since the scandal broke that the Quebec riding was not doing well financially. Fact or fiction? If fact it would suggest that the party itself was not receiving the funds (in Quebec at least) and would indicate that the individuals themselves were pocketing the cash thus "exonerating" the Liberal Party "save for a few bad apples". Part of the Liberal defence so far has been the "few bad appples" line.  Martin has reportedly already dealt with quite a few of the "few bad apples". Unless someone testifies to something Martin doesn't already know about I'm sure it will all be shown to add up to him being an outsider and everything being dealt with. What does that mean in the next election? My prediction is that the BQ and CPC will form a coalition.


----------



## canadianblue (8 Apr 2005)

For some reason I doubt the liberal minority will fall, even with an election. The problem as I see it, is that people, atleast out in Ontario still see Stephen Harper as scary. Not sure why but they still do, whenever the media talks about him getting elected, they say the electorate will only vote for him and hold their breath. I'm going to take a guess that the media will try to help the Liberals in any way they can.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2005)

Andyboy,

It all goes to "Due Diligence". Paul Martin was in charge of the treasury. If he DIDN'T know what was happening, he should have, and taken action. If he DID know, he should have taken action. If he THOUGHT something was fishy, he should have checked. There is NO WAY, being as high up as he was, he didn't have some idea of what was going on. If he didn't, he's incompetent and shouldn't hold the office he does. If he did, so much the worse. He definately should not be leading the Government. He's stuck in a barrel. For the rest of the party to say "It's just a couple of bad apples, not all of us" is hollow. Plain and simple, if they don't know what's happening in their own party, they don't know what's happening in the country, and they ALL gotta go.


----------



## Andyboy (8 Apr 2005)

Recceguy,

I think there are two explanations for the sponsorship scandal. Either the people who received the kickbacks pocketed the money themselves and are the proverbial "few bad apples". No one outside of this lot of bad apples was involved and it is a simple case of a few corrupt individuals. This is the story the Liberal Party is pushing. Could be true but the testimony this past couple of weeks doesn't seem to bear it out.

This past couple of weeks the testimony we have heard is that the money was going into Liberal Party accounts to fund the Liberal Party. Besides naming some pretty heavy weight Liberal Party members the implication was that this went right up to the top. Nothing has been shown to indicate that Martin was involved or even knew about any of it. Again possible but doesn't seem likely to me. In my limited experience things have a way of getting around and it seems implausible that he didn't know anything. While that doesn't sit well with you and I and a lot of others I think there are a lot of people who are quite willing to forgive and forget and are looking for an excuse to move on. I just don't sense the anger that this should be generating. I'm not sure how I would sense it but it just isn't palpable. 

Now that he has accomplished the hard part the easy part is letting it all fall away because of something his predecessor did. 

My own personal opinion is that Martin probably knew about what was going on but kept his nose clean and his mouth shut. One must be sure to remember one's life goal after all! When the story first broke with the auditor generals first report came out my reaction was that if Martin was an honorable and trustworthy leader he would have gone on national television and apologised to the Canadian people for what his party had done. Then he would have named names and had them arrested. And then held an election. THe Liberal party would have been decimated and would have to rebuild itself. Martin wouldn't have been Prime Minister and might even have lost the leadership. THe CPC and the BQ would have formed an alliance and gotten the country back on it's feet again and Martin could have gone down in history as a hero. Instead he is trying to pretend it was just one or two guys and that The Party is a great as ever. Oh well I guess now that he accomplished his goal of becoming Prime Minister he can take the easy way out and let someone else take over becasue of something his predecessor did. Oh well, Cretien goes down in history as the Little Thug from Shawinnigan and Martin disappears into history with a nice pension and a family shipping business. Not bad.

FOr me the best part has been watching the various parties scurrying and scrambling to distance themselves from The Party. Funny how the rats always know the ship is sinking. Take the CBC for example, they see the writing on the wall. If you watch the CBC lately you know this gov't is through. The rats have begun to leave the ship.


----------



## bossi (9 Apr 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> ... The rats have begun to leave the ship.



As a reality check (even though I despise the federal Liberal Party ...)
Your closing comment reminded me of the exodus from the Conservatives when Kim Campbell was PM ... which should only go to remind all of us that there are probably opportunists in every political party who would place party politics before "what's best for Canada" ...

Having said that, I also can't help but wonder whether the federal Liberals are only cozying up to the CF in a desperate attempt to curry some more votes ... ?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2005)

Although a rational person would ask why the Liberals keep getting elected despite their proven track record of sitting back and doing nothing (please name one initiative since 1993 which did not involve retaining the Status Quo or padding someones pockets), the lack of true outrage really speaks to the problem: Canadians don't care.

Outrages like the Gun Registry, Billion dollar boondoggle, Adscam, and Shawinigate simply elicit a shrug and maybe a sigh. In the greater world, the UNs singular lack of success in preventing genocide in the Balkens, Rwanda, Somalia, the Sudan, or ongoing scandals like "Oil for food" in Iraq, "Sex for Peacekeepers" in the Congo or the lack of response to the Tsunami disaster (the coalition of the willing was on the ground in 24 hr, while the UN took almost a month just to get there) are also ignored when discussing the utility of the UN.

How soon before we see revelations of "Foundation scam", where the 7 billion (yeah, thats right, billion) tax dollars placed beyond the perview of Parliament and the Auditor General is revealed to be laundered back into the coffers of the Liberal party? The National Daycare plan is budgeted at 5 Billion dollars, any guess how much will vanish down the black hole?

Face it folks, we are the defenders of sheeple who don't care to step up to the plate and take action, which makes them willing victims whenever real predators like Liberal politicians or UN bureaucrats come calling. Its a good thing we live in a nation with long established democratic traditions, or the situation might degrade to resemble Argentina or Turkey up to the 1980's, when various Juntas ruled. (Imagine NDHQ running the nation  ). Sad prediction: people are so indifferent the Liberals will be reelected even if cheques made out to Paul Martin Jr and Jean Chretien are produced as evidence in the inquiry.

I don't really know what to suggest. Are there enough ex service members to form an effective nucleus to energize the opposition parties and take action from the municipal, provincial and federal levels to turn this ship around and release the potential of the nation, or should we just join the doctors and entrepreneurs and vote with our feet? Where are all the "can-do" people anymore?


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

I'm right here, Al.



Tom


----------



## scm77 (12 Apr 2005)

This is indirectly related to Adscam, but I thought I would post it here rather then start a brand new topic.  It's kinda long so I won't post it all here just the first half or so,, you can read the entire article by clicking here

*Liberals' popularity plunges to 16-year low: poll*

The Liberal Party has plunged to the lowest level of support from Canadians in the past 16 years, a new poll has found, putting Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government in serious jeopardy.

The Ipsos-Reid poll, conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail, puts Liberal support at 27 per cent, down 10 points from a mid-February poll. The previous modern low-water mark was in March 1989, when they recorded 29 per cent support under the leadership of John Turner.

The polling was conducted between April 8 and 10. The startling testimony of Jean Brault, a former advertising executive, was made public by the Gomery inquiry on April 7.

"It would appear the recent revelations of the Gomery Commission have strongly resonated with the Canadian public," said an Ipsos-Reid news release.

Here are the figures for all five major parties (February 15-17 results in brackets):

    * Liberals: 27 per cent, -10 (37)
    * Conservatives: 30 per cent, +4 (26)
    * NDP: 19 per cent, +2 (17)
    * Bloc Quebecois: 12 per cent, +2 (10)
    * Greens: 7 per cent, 0 (7)

In Quebec, where the Gomery hearings are the object of intense public interest, the Bloc has 48 per cent support. The sovereigntist party holds a 30-point lead over the Liberals, who are at 18 per cent.
==================

Again, since it's long I just posted approx. half of it, read the full article here


----------



## dutchie (12 Apr 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> What I would like to know, is what did the prime minister know, and when did he know it?



The Gomery Inquiry will eventually reveal what he knew, unless the Liberals shut it down prematurely like they did the Parlimentary hearing, and the Somalia Inquiry. I'll bet my morning donut that our esteemed PM knew a lot more than he is letting on. I can't think of a scenario where the President of the Quebec caucus, who's also the Finance Minister, doesn't know and condone the program and the embezzlement. It doesn't make sense that he wouldn't know.

Waiting for that to come out, and watching the PM twitch when speaking about the scandal, is like waiting for the US invasion of Iraq - everyone knew it was coming, and that it would be one hellava show, were just waiting for the first bomb to drop.

Our next PM will be Harper, and the Liberals will probably have to fight for the opposition spot with Layton and Duceppe. Ah, sweet justice!


----------



## TCBF (12 Apr 2005)

"What I would like to know, is what did the prime minister know, and when did he know it?"

Mr. Baker, 

I am ,like, so having flashbacks to the summer of 73, it isn't funny. ;D

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I'm right here, Al.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom



And what good would you be to us, exactly?  5000 words or less, please.


----------



## vangemeren (13 Apr 2005)

Has anyone looked at the Alberta poll results in the article scm77 had?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113252718119_108661918/?hub=TopStories

Alberta: *The Liberals (21 per cent, +8 points)* continue to trail The Conservative Party (54 per cent, -3 points) by a large margin. The NDP (11 per cent, -6 points), and the Green Party (6 per cent, -6 points) are down somewhat.

I realise that Tory support is still more than twice the number of the Grits, but why the increase for the Grits? It doesn't seem logical to me.


----------



## Jungle (13 Apr 2005)

An eye for an eye...


> Times Colonist (Victoria)
> 13 April 2005
> 
> *Disband that party of rogues*
> ...


Sounds fair...


----------



## GrimRX (13 Apr 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> An eye for an eye...Sounds fair...



niice.  lol.  We need a new party that can take over what few good policies the Liberals have... but arn't quite so... conservative, as the conservative party.

Maybe a Center Party?  With a nice Military per ( )  at the head? lol.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Apr 2005)

Anyone who saw Question Period, or the lowlights yesterday, should feel ashamed. The PM was pathetic. When asked the simple question (if he had lunch  with Claude Boulay) several times he answered with the "hidden Agenda" card on health policy. He absolutely refused to answer the question. Trying to buy Quebec, so that the Liberals would have the majority of  Ontario and Quebec seats in Parlament. What does that strategy mean to Canadians outside of those Provence's? It means we are not relevent. Is this party and it's head ( don't use the term,  leader), that Ontario wants?


----------



## atticus (17 Apr 2005)

vangemeren said:
			
		

> Has anyone looked at the Alberta poll results in the article scm77 had?
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113252718119_108661918/?hub=TopStories
> 
> Alberta: *The Liberals (21 per cent, +8 points)* continue to trail The Conservative Party (54 per cent, -3 points) by a large margin. The NDP (11 per cent, -6 points), and the Green Party (6 per cent, -6 points) are down somewhat.
> ...



I've seen a few different polls done by different groups and they were all surpirisingly different (everything from liberal support at 24 with Tory at 36 to being quite a bit closer). It was probably caused by lots of people being asked in central edmonton or something. I can name two people that I know that support the liberals, and the only reason they do is because they want Alberta to separate.

Yeah, eye for an eye sounds fair...


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Apr 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> I can name two people that I know that support the liberals, and the only reason they do is because they want Alberta to separate.



Now that is a strange statement. Are you saying that people in Alberta who wish to separate would do so by disingeniously voting liberal?


----------



## canadianblue (17 Apr 2005)

> the NDP rose 2 percentage points in the latest polls.  WTH, everyone in Canada raise their hands who thinks Canada needs more failed socialist policies!



Well, thats probably because they aren't viewed as failures among Canadian's. To those outside of the country they are viewed as failures. Not really sure the reason behind the sentiment, I think it has alot to do with the legacy Pierre Trudeau left behind, and many say that he was the man that shaped Canada.


----------



## atticus (17 Apr 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Now that is a strange statement. Are you saying that people in Alberta who wish to separate would do so by disingeniously voting liberal?



Well, I'm not saying that for people I've never talked to about it. It was just two people that I know, and it really makes no sense to me at all either. They think we'd get all this money and that all the busness would come to Alberta, and then we'd be super rich. Liberals are a federal Canadian party and I don't see how voting for a party that isn't pro separation would do anything.

I did find this poll which was conducted by CBC, and at the bottom it shows a bunch of different polls.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2005)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/04/25/1012122-sun.html
  
Tory blasts Grit 'boondoggle'

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, OTTAWA BUREAU, SUN MEDIA
   
Calling it another "$100-million Liberal boondoggle," a Tory MP wants Canada's Auditor General to investigate after a federal building sat empty for nearly a year as taxpayers shelled out $500,000 a month in rent. The building in Gatineau, Que., is owned by Liberal Senator Paul Massicotte's company. Pierre Poilievre also wants a Commons committee to study the ethics of a senator acting as landlord to government. 
"It was rented for the purpose of housing government employees, and there are none," he said. "To this moment, half the building is empty, even though taxpayers are paying the full price. That is an egregious waste of tax dollars." 
Poilievre said an inquiry must get to the bottom of why this "massive error" occurred. 

The company collecting rent is Montreal-based Alexis Nihon Group, which won a $100-million, 15-year contract from Public Works and Government Services Canada to develop the federal complex. Massicotte, appointed to the Senate in 2003 by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, is the company CEO. 
Poilievre said he is not attacking Massicotte's integrity, simply raising questions about the ethics of a senator gaining a lucrative federal contract. He could not say if any Tory senators have deals with the feds. 
Susan Murray, spokesman for Public Works Minister Scott Brison, said the move was delayed because the major client, Library and Archives Canada, was consolidating with the National Library of Canada. That made planning for operational requirements difficult on top of a "fit-up" required to meet the needs of LAC. 

Murray said taxpayers are getting good value and the contract was "competitive, fair, open and transparent." 
Rent for the Gatineau building is significantly below going rates in Ottawa. Seven of the 10 floors are now occupied and the remaining space is to be filled by July 2005. 

  :crybaby: :crybaby:


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Apr 2005)

Interesting ... this was the subject of "Whistleblower" (?) on CTV News just the other night ... IIRC the media really started sucking up to BMPM when it looked like he was sure to win (the first time) ... hmmmmm.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 May 2005)

I'm now so angry I could spit.  



M.   :rage:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Link:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050524.wgomaud0524/BNStory/National/

$355-million was spent on sponsorship, auditors say
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 Updated at 2:32 PM EDT

Canadian Press

 Montreal â â€ Forensic auditing done for the Gomery inquiry has revealed the federal government spent $355 million on sponsorship-type activities over a 10-year period.

A report by Auditor General Sheila Fraser that looked at contracts between 1997 and 2003 concluded that $250-million was spent on sponsorship.

But the Kroll Lindquist Avey auditing firm, which was hired by the Gomery sponsorship commission, tabled a report at the inquiry Tuesday that included funding going back to 1994 as well as for the 2003-04 year.

*The report said about $150-million of the $355-million went in commissions and fees to ad agencies. *Ms. Fraser's report pegged the amount at $100-million.

Kroll said the additional money was included because the special programs it was used for were similar in nature to sponsorship activities.

Kroll reviewed more than 7,000 boxes of documents and released a 189-page report that looked at all the advertising agencies that were involved in the sponsorship program.

The report also said Groupaction Marketing, which allegedly funded the federal Liberals under the table for years, issued $406,000 in cheques that could have been converted to cash.

The auditors did not trace the destination of any of the cheques but they did flag a large portion of the $1.1-million Groupaction president Jean Brault says was funnelled to the cash-strapped Quebec wing of the federal party between 1993 and 2002.

Kroll listed a series of cheques in the name of Mr. Brault, his wife or associates from 1996 to 2002.

â Å“We have identified ... various Groupaction cheques totalling $406,514, which may have provided Mr. J. Brault with the opportunity to obtain cash amounts,â ? said the report.

Kroll also attached a dollar figure to all contributions to the Liberals â â€ registered and unregistered â â€ heard during testimony at the inquiry.

The auditors said $768,000 was donated above board to the party and added, â Å“if the amounts identified by Mr. Brault as payments for a political purpose are included, this amount rises to $2.5-million.â ?

Mr. Brault's alleged illicit contributions were pegged by Kroll at $1.76-million, but the auditors did not endorse the figure, listing it under the heading â Å“payments suggested by Brault.â ?

But Kroll did raise questions about another $430,000 of Mr. Brault's alleged unreported donations.

Documents previously tabled at the inquiry indicate Mr. Brault paid the $430,000 to the Pluri Design firm owned by graphic designer Jacques Corriveau, a friend of former prime minister Jean Chrétien. Mr. Brault has said Mr. Corriveau told him the money was destined for the Liberals.

Kroll, while not backing the claim, said â Å“the available documentation does not indicate what services, if any, were provided by PluriDesign to Groupaction for the $430,370 it received.â ?

The auditors said they requested Corriveau's bank statements from 1994 to 1999, along with other financial data, but that the information was â Å“not available for our review.â ?

A panel of three Kroll auditors discussed their wide-ranging report at the inquiry on Tuesday and were expected to reveal other details about the scandal-ridden program on Wednesday.

Mr. Corriveau will also be called to testify for a second time this spring.

Former Liberal official Daniel Dezainde told the inquiry Mr. Corriveau admitted to running a kickback scheme that funnelled cash to the Liberals from sponsorship ad firms.

Mr. Corriveau has denied all of the allegations against him.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2005)

You know, our plight isn't that unique in the greater world:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20056821728.asp



> Corruption, Not Terrorism, Rules Iraq
> by James Dunnigan
> June 8, 2005
> Discussion Board on this DLS topic
> ...



Just imagine that we were not plagued by corrupt practices like Adscam, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, the Foundation sinkhole, Shawinigate etc. etc. Shawinigate and Adscam sucked over 10million Cdn from the taxpayer and into the pockets of identifiable players, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle sluiced up to $3 billion (the amount was never really determined) away and the "Foundations" have $7 billion dollars which is not accountable to Parliament, the Auditor General or *ANYONE* to play with. Imagine what our economy would look like if money wasn't being bled from the pockets of the productive. Just imagine....


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jun 2005)

> *Exit strategy*
> 
> Monday, 13 June 2005
> Mark Steyn
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Jun 2005)

The Sgro Report ("Strippergate") was just released (a couple of links from the _Western Standard_, for better or worse):



> Tuesday, June 21, 2005
> *Unspinning Strippergate*
> 
> CBC news, May 10:
> ...


 http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/06/unspinning_stri.html



> Tuesday, June 21, 2005
> *Sgro Report -- More Liberal corruption revealed*
> 
> Buried on page 19 of the Sgro Report is a description of how Temporary Residency Permits were used to buy votes during the election campaign.
> ...


 http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/06/sgro_report_mor.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2005)

This, from today's _Globe and Mail_, is every bit as bad - maybe worse - than the sponsorship scandal.

There is a stinking green haze of corruption hanging over Parliament Hill and it dirties all parties - and the bureaucracy, too; worse, it sullies all of us because we vote fo these people.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050622.wxibbitson22/BNStory/National/  


> John Ibbitson
> *Stop this insanity at once*
> 
> BY JOHN IBBITSON
> ...



The solution is not, simply, to limit or rescind ministerial discretion.  Civil servants can be inept and/or corrupt and sometimes the rules make no sense - the law really is an ass - and only ministers can cut through the _Gordian knot_.  We need a complete overhaul of both immigration and refugee polices - starting with understand that they are not the same thing, they are not even very closely related.

We _solve_ refugee problems at the source: by reducing or removing the conditions which make innocent people flee their homes in real, legitimate fear for their lives.  That may involve stringing some dictator up on a lamp-post; that's OK.  We also built and staff refugee camps close to the places refuges want to be - their own homes.  We do not make refuges into displaced persons in a cold, unfriendly, far-away place like Ontario.

We need to _recruit_ the immigrants we want - not just wait to see who shows up and wants in.  Then we need to welcome the ones we want and point the others at less discriminating places - like France.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2005)

The solution to all these problems is disarmingly simple:



> *Brecht â Å“The solutionâ ?*
> 
> After the uprising of the 17th June
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jun 2005)

I don't want to belabour this, but:

"¢	Ibbitson is getting on to the right track - it is systemic reform we need, not just a knee-jerk reaction to (maybe) corrupt Liberals; and

"¢	There is an important _*national security*_ issue; badly designed or ineptly managed immigration and refugee systems provide _cover_ for terrorists. 


Our immigration and refugee determinations systems - and they need to be separate - must, each, have a national security component.

Here is today's offering from John Ibbitson in the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050623/IBBITSON23/Columnists/Columnist?author=John+Ibbitson


> Time to split Grits, immigrants
> BY JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005 UPDATED AT 8:15 AM EDT
> ...



We should *NOT*  be _regularizing_ refugee/asaylum seekers' status - that is madness and it is nothing at all other than the worst sort of political pandering - bribery - aimed at immigrant groups.  Corruption!

We need to move refugees _*back*_* towards their homes - which is where real refugees should want to be.  We cannot, must not just deport and dump - we need to build acceptable refuges, near refugees' homes and equip and staff them, too, but that's another subject.


*


----------



## Danjanou (23 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an important _*national security*_ issue; badly designed or ineptly managed immigration and refugee systems provide _cover_ for terrorists.
> 
> Our immigration and refugee determinations systems â â€œ and they need to be separate â â€œ must, each, have a national security component.





> We should NOT  be regularizing refugee/asaylum seekers' status â â€œ that is madness and it is nothing at all other than the worst sort of political pandering â â€œ bribery â â€œ aimed at immigrant groups.  Corruption!
> 
> We need to move refugees back towards their homes â â€œ which is where real refugees should want to be.  We cannot, must not just deport and dump â â€œ we need to build acceptable refuges, near refugees' homes and equip and staff them, too, but that's another subject



Speaking as someone who works in the front lines of our present mess (and who for obvious reasons will never be the one suggesting, writing policy), Edward you're right on the money. 

The problem with the ostrich technique of management so prevelent in the civil service these days (at all three levels federal, provincial and municipal), means don't expect changes anytime soon. First of all too many people have built their careers and empires on the present mess and will do anything to protect it. Secondly a lot of them see nothing broken.  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jun 2005)

Sorry to keep harping at this, but here is a good example - from today's _Globe and Mail_ - of one (of the many) problems we have with our Citizenship and Immigration _system_ and bureaucracy.

I am blaming the bureaucrats, to some extent.  They should be serving the country's interests, not just interpreting the letter of the law.  The junior ones have little choice: they are duty bound to obey the rules; the senior ones are duty bound to:

"¢	Recognize the holes; and

"¢	Press their political masters to plug them - going public, if need be, to apply and maintain pressure on the politicians.

The emphasis is added by me.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050624.wxsyria24/BNStory/National/


> Ottawa issued travel visas to Syrian general's family
> 
> Relatives visited Montreal so hardliner's grandchild would be born Canadian citizen
> 
> ...



We need to recognize that this is only one of many, many areas in Citizenship and Immigration Canada with potential security problems - magnify this by twenty or so and you have some idea of the tip of the iceberg.  Further, Citizenship and Immigration is not the only department with extensive international _tentacles_ - many others, including  Heath, Heritage and Industry have extensive international dealings and bring people to Canada, on special permits, on a routine basis for conferences, etc, and then get permits and extensions for family members, too - even DND does it (or, at least, it did ten or fifteen years ago).


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2005)

BZ to Captain Ed for blogging this stuff (funny how it never gets repported in the MSM). If you were thinking the Gomery inquiry just couldn't reveal any more filth:  

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004902.php



> Gomery Financial Analysis: Corruption Includes The RCMP And Privy Office
> 
> The Fraser Institute has performed a financial analysis of the financial analysis of the Sponsorship Program, which shows that the corruption and graft runs far deeper than previously thought. The amounts of money and the scale of its laundering dwarf earlier estimates:
> 
> ...



People, email this and the links to your local newspapers, community newspapers, radio stations and every place else this might get reported. Email it to every person you know. True, the CBC and Toronto Star will certainly ignore it, but if there is a critical mass of informed people, maybe (just maybe), we will finally get some real action as opposed to promises and empty words.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2005)

Here is a comment, from today's _Globe and Mail_ by Normal Spector who was, _inter alia_ Mulroney's Chief of Staff in the '80s.

I agree with three important points Spector makes:

"¢	One of the key indicators of a healthy democracy - respect for the laws by the government - has been eroded, seriously, by the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.  The transparency index is just one indicator of our descent;

"¢	Gomery's findings are going to be a bit mild because of his limited mandate; and

"¢	Pelletier was Guité's _co-conspirator_; his denials are not credible.  If Pelletier was 'in' then so was Chrétien - the Chief of Staff, any Chief of Staff worthy of the name, IS the boss when he asks or 'advises.'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050711.wxcospec11a/BNStory/specialComment/



> What Judge Gomery will find
> 
> BY NORMAN SPECTOR
> 
> ...



The "aura of impunityâ ? which lawyer Lussier described is still in place.  The PMO is the absolute _centre_ of the Canadian political system and it has replaced the PCO as the _centre_ of government - which has the effect of being a _coup d'état_ perpetrated in about 1968 and, sheepishly, accepted, ever since, by all of us Canadians.


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

But Edward what is your solution to this problem ? We know how far Gomery is permitted to go, but how  do we taxpayers end this, it took place under the governance of the only two political parties to ever form "government" . It has gone on for years, how do we end it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> But Edward what is your solution to this problem ? We know how far Gomery is permitted to go, but how   do we taxpayers end this, it took place under the governance of the only two political parties to ever form "government" . It has gone on for years, how do we end it?



My solution?

Well it is highly _evolutionary_; it involves reaffirming the fundamental values of a liberal, constitutional democracy.  Those values would be:

"¢	'Respect' for the _*liberty*_* of each and every one of us which begins with ensuring absolute equality at and under the law (but ONLY at/under law) for every person in Canada (more about that in some other time and place, maybe*) regardless of race, creed, sex, status, etc - limited only as can be demonstrated as necessary in a free and democratic society;

"¢	Respect for the constitution which is, essentially, a contract between several sovereign political entities and the people of Canada.  In that contract we, the people, consent to surrender a variety of  'rights' and 'freedoms' in order to secure peace, order and good government; and

"¢	Respect for democracy which is, at its root, government with the consent of the governed, according to laws.

It is my belief that liberty is the 'greatest' of these values and it is best assured when men and women gather together to assert their power over all the institutions which intrude into their daily lives.  That means governments and their bureaucracies, banks, businesses, trade unions, churches, associations, hospitals and, indeed, the police and the armed forces, too.  I believe that one effective way this can be done is for people to form or join political parties.  Several of these parties have, over the decades, been vital national institutions through which ordinary Canadians have promoted their values.  I do not agree with all the values of all my fellow citizens but, so long as their values do not involve treason, sedition, crime and corruption I support their right to advance them and to secure, for their party, the levers of government.

I think all four of the major parties in Canada need makeovers.  Each needs to certify for all Canadians that it adheres to the fundamental, core values, above.  Each needs to select leaders and candidates who are committed to liberty and a constitutional democracy.  There is nothing to prevent people who share our fundamental values from wishing to break up the country - there are good, honest, liberal-democratic separatists who respect our constitution; they just want it to evolve in a different direction.

I applaud people who want to assist in governing our country without joining any political party.  I, personally, like the Westminster model of government which requires a governing 'team' to secure and hold the confidence of the House of Commons (which I, personally, would like to rename as the National Assembly).  Political parties emerged to help manage that constitutional fact-of-life.  I do not want to dump the baby out with the bath water so I want to retain parties, too.  Independents who succeed in getting elected and want to participate may have to find ways to accommodate the party system.

In short, Mr. Coady, I think a reformation of sorts, within our established, indeed comfortable political system is needed to accomplish the ends I see as necessary.  I think all Canadians need to participate in this process because I think Mr. MacLeod is right about the nature of political parties in the 21st century: they are mechanistic election campaign management organizations, too far removed from policy and values.  I believe we, people like you and me, Mr. Coady, need to take back the parties and bend them to our wills.


----------

* I think our Supremes made a reversible error.  I think that anyone who has failed to get past our customs and immigration services - or who gets past them improperly - should NOT be in Canada and not be protected by our laws.
*


----------



## Wayne Coady (11 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> My solution?
> 
> In short, Mr. Coady, I think a _reformation_ of sorts, within our established, indeed _comfortable_ political system is needed to accomplish the ends I see as necessary.   I think all Canadians need to participate in this process because I think Mr. MacLeod is right about the nature of political parties in the 21st century: they are mechanistic election campaign management organizations, too far removed from policy and values.   I believe we, people like you and me, Mr. Coady, need to take back the parties and bend them to our wills.



Well Mr.Campbell, I was a Liberal for 25 years and after many years on the inside of the party trying to bring about change along with others, we were driven out by the money people and here in Nova Scotia that was mainly the backroom  lawyers. So I crossed to the NDP because I was of the belief that they were the peoples party and I was very soon to learn that they were not the peoples party, but the Unions Party.

 In other words union ruled the NDP as the business community ininfluenceshe Liberal Party, I never joined the Conservative Party, because I was told out right that they were a tight organization influencedy the business community as well. 

So where does one turn to?

I along with others started looking at an independent candidate movement and we have been encouraged by the number of people who are interested and I must say that a number of women are looking at this as a possible way of breaking that old boys club barrier that they faced when they were involved in party politics.

Who know, maybe some day we will have a mix of parties and independents elected and maybe we will have elected candidates that will be more loyal to their constituents that they are to the party, now that would be something wouldn't it? 

Mr. MacLeod has made a strong case for change and what you have posted is most interesting, I agree with some of your suggestions and you are correct, hopefully Canadian will get interested in their country enough to bbring about positive political reforms which will position this country as a real example as a just society. 
Right now we have laws , but no justice and the latest release of Homoika is an example why we should not be proud. 

Laws create arguments and arguments make lawer very rich, it is time we had some justice.


----------



## McG (31 Oct 2005)

Gomery's report is in the PM's hands now.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2005)

The fact it was delivered into his hands and is unavailable to the press and public until tomorrow sums up the situation pretty well.

Still, lets all put a big X on the calendars. Mr Dithers did say 30 days to an election, right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Still, lets all put a big X on the calendars. Mr Dithers did say 30 days to an election, right?



Wait for it. He wouldn't have made that promise without an out. Besides, isn't this just an interm report? The official, final one doesn't hit til the New Year. THEN it's thirty days, so look at at least Feb. He won't risk a Xmas election, but will expect the frozen weather of Feb to keep most voters home for the day.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Nov 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Wait for it. He wouldn't have made that promise without an out. Besides, isn't this just an interm report? The official, final one doesn't hit til the New Year. THEN it's thirty days, so look at at least Feb. He won't risk a Xmas election, but will expect the frozen weather of Feb to keep most voters home for the day.



No no, you don't have it. He's just going to declare himself Prime Minister for life, thirty days after an election.

Seriously though, he'll probably start saying he never talked about elections, or tell another outright lie of the sort.

Gotta love democracy, eh?


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

Fred...
Have you ever caught him in an out and out lie?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Nov 2005)

Rick_Donald said:
			
		

> Why do the people of Canada continue to reward the present reigning party with election after election when all these cold hard facts about lying, scamming,fraud and waste keep slapping them in the face?
> Why do people keep saying that even if the Conservatives did win the election that they would be just as bad when you haven't even given the Conservatives a chance since the 80's?



A lack of acceptable personality among Conservative candidates as well as a feeling that the conservatives are not truly a national party.


----------



## kcdist (2 Nov 2005)

By acceptable personality, you mean of course a leader who hails from either Ontario or Quebec.....


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2005)

The "_Martini_" spin doctors (having advanced access to the report) have been able to spin the report placing the blame on Creitien and claiming that Martin was completley innocent.

Since he was both the President of the Quebec Caucus and the Minister of Finance during the period in question, this means either the "_Martinis_" were able to execute an excellent cover up and pin the blame on Creitien, which also weakens the internal rivals inside the Liberal Party, or that Martin is entirely clueless (how could the President of the Quebec Caucus and the Minister of Finance be unaware of such a large scale operation happening in areas of his jurisdiction?)

Either answer (and there really does not seem to be a third possibility) means that the man is unfit for office, and a political party which could raise such a person to high office is also unfit to govern.

Feel free to quote this opinion wherever you like.


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2005)

a majoor.... 
having worked in business finance, once he's reviewed the budget, the VP Finance susally does not go into the nitty gritty detail of all the transactions that have gone thru the account... he'll typicaly leave that to the indians to sort out, record & if something is wrong... to sing out.

It's been well documented that Martin and the Chrétien/Gagliano crowd did not get along together - there was plenty of acrimony. While finance minister, Martin kept some budget surplus numbers very close to the vest so that Chrétien & cronies did not get wind of all that extra money they could squander / spend for little value... you'll probably find that the Old guard were probably sworn to secrecy.

It's something like when Brian Mulroney when he retired..... Kim Campbell really didn't know what hit her. He ran the PC party into the ground and then claimed the country was in the best of shape when KC got the party nod.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Nov 2005)

Quote from Geo,
_having worked in business finance, once he's reviewed the budget, the VP Finance usually does not go into the nitty gritty detail of all the transactions that have gone thru the account... he'll typicaly leave that to the indians to sort out, record & if something is wrong... to sing out._

Well that maybe true, but the chance of said VP finance not only keeping his job but getting promoted on top of that would be considered ludicrous.....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Nov 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Geo,
> _having worked in business finance, once he's reviewed the budget, the VP Finance usually does not go into the nitty gritty detail of all the transactions that have gone thru the account... he'll typicaly leave that to the indians to sort out, record & if something is wrong... to sing out._
> 
> Well that maybe true, but the chance of said VP finance not only keeping his job but getting promoted on top of that would be considered ludicrous.....



But that has little to do with Paul Martin - Chretien left and Martin was the best man for the job of being his replacement.

You'd think Chretien would just lie down and take one for the team but that doesn't seem to be his way...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> having worked in business finance, once he's reviewed the budget, the VP Finance susally does not go into the nitty gritty detail of all the transactions that have gone thru the account... he'll typicaly leave that to the indians to sort out, record & if something is wrong... to sing out.
> 
> It's been well documented that Martin and the Chretien/Gagliano crowd did not get along together - there was plenty of acrimony. While finance minister, Martin kept some budget surplus numbers very close to the vest so that Chretien & cronies did not get wind of all that extra money they could squander / spend for little value... you'll probably find that the Old guard were probably sworn to secrecy.



Mr Martin had multiple avenues of information, as Minister of Finance, Treasury Board President, Deputy Prime Minister, and President of the Quebec Caucus. He also had intimate dealings with riding associations across Canada, in order to carry out his coup against Chreitien. In addition, he is often portrayed (in fact touted) as a very "hands on" manager, who needs to know all the details and make all the decisions.

*Given all this, I personally do not protestations of "not knowing" to be very believable, but if we accept this as being true, then you need to ask what else got "overlooked" while he was fulfilling all these roles and micromanaging everything in these files?*


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2005)

Michael,
Chrétien hates Martin with a passion. Been that way for a while - like from the time that they ran against each other for the party leadership.... and Jean like Dubya does not forget and certainly never forgives.

Majoor,
you may be right, the finance minister shoulda known.... but as it stands right now, he's convinced the commissioner that he didn't... go figure!

Now, if we could only get a party leader from another party that would have some personality and could project the image that he / they represent the whole country we could get started in carving out a new era....

What scares me is that, if new Gov't gets into town.... spending freeze goes into effect until new Gov't gets it's feet wet and gets up to speed on where it is and where it wants to go............
Something to look forward to.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2005)

Here is an interesting piece from the _Globe and Mail's_ web site at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051114.wcomment1114/BNStory/National/

My _emphasis_ added.

It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> Web-exclusive comment
> 
> Let's learn Gomery's lesson
> An effective civil service is the best defence against public abuse and institutional failure
> ...



I have no doubt that the public service, including the parts most important to the military (PCO, DND, DFAIT, TB and Finance) has been degraded (maybe worse) over the past 20 years - partially through cuts but, maybe more, through _social engineering_ which has been just as pervasive (although less controversial) in the PS as in the military.  'Who' one is - in racial, cultural, gender and, especially, linguistic terms - matters more, I think than 'what one can do.'  The end result is that fewer people (and there were real cuts in parts of the PS, are doing more work but too many of them are doing it with inadequate skill and knowledge.  It is my belief that current PS HR policies are driving out good, experienced people who are, quite simply, tired of working with - even for - poorly qualified individuals.

I need to emphasize that I am not a public servant, never was in the civil service, and never applied for a civil service position, but I do work with some government organizations and I have friends in the PS.  In fact when I retire next year I believe my replacement will be a PS EX who wants to retire for just the reasons I stated above.

A sound, competent, apolitical public service is one of the key foundation stones of a successful Westminster style parliamentary democracy.  I believe ours has, over the past 35+ years, has been systematically _degraded_ so that it is suspect in both areas.


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2006)

Here is a story the Parliamentry Press Gallery is NOT following (Hmmmmm........). IF what Mr Guite is saying is true, then there is a huge amount of follow up work to do to make a full accounting (and settling of accounts) on ADSCAM. Where is the fourth estate to do the investigative journalism required to bring this story front and centre?

http://www.boundbygravity.com/2006/05/guites-documents.aspx



> *Guite's Documents *
> 
> AdScam was back in the news a couple weeks ago, and somehow I missed it. I don't remember seeing any bloggers picking this up, but Politics Watch was all over it:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jun 2007)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070627.LAFLEUR27/TPStory/National

Fair Dealings....


Disgraced ad executive Lafleur will learn his sentence today
DANIEL LEBLANC 

June 27, 2007

OTTAWA -- Jean Lafleur no longer has his own tennis court. His collection of expensive paintings has been sold. Gone too is the luxurious cottage in the Eastern Townships.
And the millions he made as an adman at the heart of the sponsorship program? Vanished ... at least from his Canadian bank accounts.

With all that in mind, a judge in Montreal will announce this afternoon how many months Mr. Lafleur will spend in prison for his criminal involvement in the sponsorship scandal.
Madam Justice Suzanne Coupal will also rule on a critical question: How much, if anything, will Mr. Lafleur have to pay back to Canadian taxpayers, on whose backs he built much of his fortune a decade ago?
 The former president and owner of Lafleur Communication Marketing has pleaded guilty to 28 charges of fraud involving $1.5-million in sponsorship contracts, and is facing a term of between 2½ and five years.

At his sentencing hearings this month, however, the Crown and the defence painted widely divergent pictures of Mr. Lafleur's current financial situation.
With the help of police investigators, the Crown depicted Mr. Lafleur as a high-flying adman with a penchant for trips across Latin America, and who seemed bent on stashing funds in tax havens, too.

In recent years, Mr. Lafleur has lived in Costa Rica and Belize, and travelled to Mexico, Brazil and France, sometimes for weeks on end. The Crown added that soon after Mr. Lafleur sold a cottage in Sutton, Que., for $1.5-million in 2004, he tried to transfer the amount to a bank in the Bahamas.
The transaction was flagged as fishy by the bank and it did not proceed.

Still, Mr. Lafleur's bank accounts in Canada have fallen dramatically in size over the years, according to the Crown. An account at CIBC Wood Gundy now holds about $20,000, whereas it contained up to $3-million a few years ago.
Another account at CIBC is worth less than $2,000, despite having held more than $500,000 in early 2005.
Most of Mr. Lafleur's remaining money in Canada is at Canaccord Capital, where he has $411,000 in RRSP form and $20,000 in cash, the Crown showed.

Still, Mr. Lafleur declared assets of more than $2-million last year when he applied for a credit card in Belize.
Mr. Lafleur's lawyer at the sentencing hearing, Jean-Claude Hébert, went to great lengths to play down his client's wealth earlier this month. Lafleur Communication raked in more than $80-million in federal contracts from the mid-1990s until the sale of the company in 2001, but Mr. Hébert said almost all of the money was used to cover expenses.

Mr. Lafleur's salary in those days ate up about $10-million, but Mr. Hébert said that after taxes and support payments, Mr. Lafleur only took home about $400,000 a year.
Mr. Lafleur has also hinted that he does not wish to reimburse a $1.5-million sum obtained through the use of 76 fake or inflated invoices. In a handwritten letter to Judge Coupal, he said he has numerous regrets and suggested that he wishes to pay his debt to society in time rather than cash.

"The regret that gnaws at me is to have, in a few years, wasted my life and, more importantly, mortgaged my kids' lives. ... This regret is accompanied by a wish: To pay back my debt to society at the expense of my freedom, and to return to my loved ones as soon as possible," he wrote.



_Yea, because we all know how hard jail is these days. I'm sure his lawyers have already picked out which one has the best golf course._

Take his money.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...
> _Yea, because we all know how hard jail is these days. I'm sure his lawyers have already picked out which one has the best golf course._
> 
> Take his money.....



Agreed.  Jail time does nothing to punish most 'white collar' criminals.  It (jail) may make the general public feel better, briefly, but that's hardly a reason to 'punish' in that way.

Harsh, exemplary financial punishments hurt and, in some cases and if properly applied, *might* help some victims, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2007)

Here is the good news, reproduced from today’s _Globe and mail_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070627.wlafleur_sentence0527/BNStory/National/home


> Payback time for Lafleur
> *Jean Lafleur sentenced to 42 months and told to return all of the $1.5-million he took from Canadian taxpayers*
> 
> THAN TU HA
> ...



As a *general principle* I oppose jailing most white collar criminals – I regard jail as an expensive way to separate dangerous offenders from likely victims.  I think we have better, cheaper ways of depriving offenders of their liberty.  I think the ‘best’ punishment for most white collar criminals involves some combination of restitution, exemplary financial penalties (which may ‘deprive’ the offender’s immediate family) and community service.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2008)

He doesn't miss a trick does he?......a scam man to the very end.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080724/sponsorship_scandal_080724/20080724?hub=Canada

Disgraced adman Jean Lafleur files for bankruptcy
Updated Thu. Jul. 24 2008 11:22 PM ET

The Canadian Press

MONTREAL -- Following his son's example, disgraced formed advertising executive Jean Lafleur has filed for bankruptcy, threatening to leave Ottawa on the hook for more than $7 million. 
Lafleur was handed 42-month prison sentence last year and ordered to pay a $1.5-million fine for his role in the sponsorship scandal. 

The 67-year-old was recently released from jail, and indicated in court documents that he was unable to pay the fine. 
He blamed his financial woes on his "criminal conviction." 
According to the documents, Lafleur sold his home near Sutton, Que. in 2005 for $1.5 million. 

His lawyer deposited the money in a bank account in Liechtenstein, which Lafleur then accessed to live in Costa Rica and Belize until he turned himself in to police in April 2007. 
He still owes Revenue Canada $181,000, Revenue Quebec $174,000 and $1.3 million of his fine. 
The federal government is also seeking $6.5 million from Lafleur in a civil suit that is to get underway this fall. 

Ottawa is trying to recoup funds that Lafleur over billed the government for sponsorship work. 
His company, Lafleur Communication Marketing, made $36 million in royalties from federal contracts between 1994 and 2000. 
Government lawyer Sylvain Lussier said Thursday that he intends to ask federal bankruptcy authorities to examine Lafleur's filings closely. 

Lafleur's son, Eric, declared himself broke in 2007 and settled a $2 million civil suit with Ottawa by agreeing to pay back $150,000 over 10 years. 
Eric Lafleur served as a subcontractor for his father's firm. 
Jean Lafleur pleaded guilty to 28 counts of sponsorship-related fraud after giving 76 fake bills to Charles Guite, the bureaucrat who was responsible for the program in the federal government's Public Works Department in the 1990s.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2008)

This hardly needs comment.....

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/22/kelly-mcparland-jean-chretien-and-the-glory-that-is-china.aspx



> *Kelly McParland: Jean Chretien and the power of China*
> Posted: August 22, 2008, 10:00 AM by Kelly McParland
> Full Comment, Kelly McParland
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2009)

I resurrecting a _nacrothread_ because this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Globe and Mail_, illustrates just how bad things were in the Liberal party of Canada in the later Chrétien  years and it also indicates that the story is not over:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/benot-corbeils-downfall-linked-to-friend-who-became-agent-c4590/article1336323/


> Benoît Corbeil's downfall linked to friend who became agent C4590
> *Citing ‘vengeance' rather than cash payments, Alain Renaud offered to work with the RCMP to help bring down key figure in the Liberal sponsorship scandal*
> 
> Daniel Leblanc
> ...




If the RCMP investigations are ongoing it is bad news for _Price Michael_'s Liberals, bad news, in fact, for all Liberals with ties to Chretien - people like Bob Rae and Denis Coderre andf so on.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2009)

Maybe this was the reason the Liberals were in such a hurry to force an election after summer break; ensure the story never saw the light of day.

Now they should try to sit out 2010 and maybe try for an election late fall next year when this story fades, or (depending on how cunning and ruthless the Martin/Ignatieff faction(s) is(are), play up the story for all its worth; purge the Chretien wing of the party once and for all and then be prepared to fight an election with a unified command and the true ability to show clean hands.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2009)

Well, the Liberals have hired a former Chretienite as the COS, but this should take some more wind out of their sails:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2009/11/motion-on-adscam-to-be-moved/



> *Motion on Adscam to be moved*
> 
> I’ve learned that Peterborough Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro will move the following motion at committee on Tuesday:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2009)

Well we know these guys have _experience_:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2009/11/michael-ignatieffs-new-director-of-communications-has-an-interesting-background/



> *Michael Ignatieff’s new Director of Communications has an interesting background*
> 
> “Everything old is new again” is the buzz coming from Liberals and journalists in Ottawa. Peter Donolo’s the new boss of the OLO shop (the Dunno-LO as one journalist told me weeks ago) and today we’ve learned that he’s finally put the some new key players in place after the wholly awkward ejection of Davey/Fairbrother.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2011)

A long wait for some answers, and maybe even some justice:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/key-figure-in-sponsorship-scandal-set-to-become-witness/article2107295/



> July 22, 2011
> *Key figure in sponsorship scandal set to become witness*
> By DANIEL LEBLANC
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2011)

Chrétien wins another round according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chrtien-wins-200000-in-sponsorship-feud-pmo-demands-he-give-it-back/article2280903/


> Chrétien wins $200,000 in sponsorship feud; PMO demands he give it back
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> 
> ...




The legal _establishment_ didn't like the way Judge Gomery did his business and it thinks it is punishing him by rewarding Chrétien and Pelletier but what they are really doing is giving the Conservative another opportunity to revisit _Adscam_ and even Chrétien's real estate dealings that were peripheral to it - and I hope the Conservatives do not waste time reminding Canadians, yet again, that Jean Chrétien and  Jean Pelletier, aided by a bevy of Québec _insiders_ led a corrupt enterprise from Parliament Hill and the PMO that aimed to give your and my hard-earned money to Québec-Liberal hacks, flacks and bagmen.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2013)

One can wonder about the linkages between the Quebec corruption scandal(s), ADSCAM and so on, but the Liberal Party sure made out like gangbangers with the cash:

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/liberals-received-1860000-from-quebec-corruption-links/



> *Liberals received $1,860,000 from Quebec corruption links*
> September 6, 2013 — BC Blue
> 
> 
> ...


----------

