Vindication for Chretien? Well, not quite
Warren kinsella is not going to be a happy camper when he reads this Don Martin piece - Remarks return to haunt Gomery:
…Jean Chrétien and his hangers-on can claim a technical legal victory from the bias verdict rendered against a judge they openly loathed and mocked.
But in the court of public opinion, he will remain the prime minister who tried to bribe Quebec with our money — and rendered the once-mighty Liberals a pariah in a province that refused to be bought.
Ouch!
* * * *
Friday Update : Martin’s article in today’s print edition of the Post provides some quotes from the ruling.
Judge fell for ’spotlight’ - Post.
Saturday Update: Chretien, Martin still at it - Sun.
Wednesday Update: Gomery’s lapses don’t absolve Liberals - Gazette
June 26th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
The disconnect between the judiciary and the public will always end with one balance: the judges can make flowery rulings all the want, but the public will still smell the aroma of @#$% in the air.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
smell the aroma of @#$% in the air….yes with this comment by Mr. Expert Don Martin…
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, despite campaigning as a new improved Mr. Clean, presides over a government that is more secretive, controlling and centralized than ever, precisely the sort of conditions that would allow another money-wasting program like the sponsorship scandal to flourish undetected.
Except they arn’t a LIBERAN$ Government!!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Sorry Ontario Girl,It was Chretien and the Liberals that were in up to their necks in @#$%.Golf courses,bank loans,signatures on napkins,fountains,,brown envelopes,,HRDC,Gun registry,and on and on and on.ALL Liberal Ontario Girl…Your not saying your for that kind of stuff are you???Your not saying thats the kind of Government you want are you???No Ontario Girl the Liberals get all the credit for those REAL scandals and more,and its time they spent some time in jail.But we will settle for just telling us where the money went.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
UM. There are people in jail. None of them are from the Liberal Party. Let me repeat that…none of them are from the Liberal Party.
Conservative PM taking cash in envelopes? Now that deserves a jail term.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
What Conservative PM taking cash in envelopes?
Oh… I get it. Paranoid delusion scandals (i.e. fictional) are more dangerous in the Liberal mind than the real scandals. A scandalous “hidden agenda” that has never been given an ounce of proof by anyone — including Garth Turner who supposedly was once a part of that hidden agenda and is now a Liberal and doesn’t know anything about it — is more serious than a series of REAL scandals by the Liberals.
Pathetic.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Um. Mulroney admitted taking the money in hotel rooms. Then he decided he better pay some tax on it. Is that paranoid and delusional too?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
The funniest part of the newser was when Goldenberg tried to shame Martin into apologizing to Pelletier. Did Chretien and Pelletier ever apologize to Francois Beaudoin?
“In 2004, Quebec Judge Andre Denis issued a scathing 200-page judgment on the Beaudoin case, awarding the former banker $4.3 million in damages, and describing the actions of the RCMP and Chretien’s goon squad as “an unspeakable injustice.” ”
–Greg Weston, Sun Media, Oct 5/06
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/10/05/1955783.html
Did Chretien ever apologize to Canadians for insisting for months that he did NOT lobby the BDC on behalf of his friend, then admitting during the 2000 election that he did, because it was “the normal operation?” Must have missed it.
Remember folks, Liberal arrogance is a dominant gene. And it never skips a generation.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
What. 4.1 million dollars isn’t a sufficient apology?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Thanks Joan, that pretty much sums it up. Is Paul Bernardo owed an apology because he wasn’t convicted of his sister in law’s murder?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:08 am
NO James, apologizing with taxpayers money is not sufficient for ruining an innocent public servants career and rep, except in entitled eyes.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Really? Wasn’t that Gommery’s intention? Using your rationale, I would say yes.
As for the Bernardo comment, kind of classless as far as analogies go…especially for us who are from Niagara.
On that note. Have a good night.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Not only paranoid and delusion, but ancient history. As for the Sponsorship Scandal, wasn’t Dion Chretien’s right hand man in Quebec at the time?
Seems a lot closer to a real scandal than one that has never resulted in any criminal charges.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Well James, how about
Cote, stuffing envelopes with stolen taxpayers money to 12 Liberal candiates….$120,000 in $100 bills.
Cote confessed to it, but never named names, no one has been charged YET.
I want to know who the 12 Liberal candiates in Quebec were.
Receiving an envelope full of cash…..yah know the money is dirty, right!
Did Dion receive a wad of $100’s ???
June 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Oh, and Dion wanted Cote to return to the Liberal party, seconded by Jennings. Dion thought being barred from the LPC for a couple of years was punishment enough for distributing stolen cash…
The MPs in the LPC that had half a brain boohooed the idea, Dion climbed down (as usual).
June 27th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Delusional you are SC. Ancient history? There’s an inquiry going on. Like as we speak. What world are you living in. If anything, sponsorship is ancient history. The inquiry is done and over with.
Willie, you’re on thin ice when implying (Did Dion receive a wad of $100’s ???) someone committed a crime. Mulroney won a lawsuit like that I think.
Anywho. We’ll chat tomorrow. Night all.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:36 am
“After reviewing the evidence placed before me on this issue, I am convinced that there is more than sufficient evidence to find that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through would find a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Commissioner,” Justice Teitelbaum wrote in his decision.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Attention All Lemmings!
The entire Liberal party will wear Adscam for a long, long time.
The love-in over at Kinsella’s blog only succeeds in reminding Canadians of the sleeze and as Martin suggests “poor judgement of the Liberal leadership”.
Who WAS the leadership? Anyone?
Hey, but, lemmings, go ahead continue to remind us all still of how the Liberals intend to pay back the money of Canadians that found its way to Quebec ad firms.
It’s the gift that keeps on giving to Steve.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I always find it funny when people mix PC party of Canada with the CPC- and only when it suits them.
When Mulrouney got the greenest PM award, they were lamenting that it was a shame that the CPC was NOT like the PC party of the past. When the Mulrouney/Shreiber incident come up, CPC and PC are one in the same.
Which is it?
Also, please note, when you start to investigate something from the 1980’s and keep it alive you have no defense when Adscam is brought up again and again.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I agree, the court of public opinion has and will always make liberals wear adscam, judge or no judge.
Dion was part of the party at that time so he too wears some responsibility.
And, Brian was not PM when he got some money. And Brian has not spent time in China trying to get our money via a carbon credit scam. Eventually the truth will hit the fan about that.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Just because there’s an inquiry in place doesn’t mean it isn’t ancient history. Just because a serial liar facing deportation keeps coming up with new stories — that just don’t fit the facts — doesn’t make it relevant. It just makes the people who buy into it a bunch of wishful thinking morons. Hmm… I guess that’s why you pin your hopes to it, Curran.
You’d do better to believe that Criss Angel can actually disappear into thin air and that it’s not just some trick of the eye. At least there’s some kind of proof to that.
As for the Sponsorship Scandal, more charges were laid just a couple of months ago, so there will be a trial. And, the Liberals still haven’t paid back the $40 million they owe. I’d say that’s a lot more relevant than an inquiry based on the submissions of a person who has repeatedly changed his story before the courts.
But, tori is correct. The Liberals can’t make up their mind whether to paint the CPC as the old PC Party or not, or the Reform party or not. Delusions, delusions…
June 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am
James, surely you are not silly enough to try and now dismiss Adscam as never happened.
Money is still missing and unaccounted for. Various people who worked for the Party testified they received cash payments when “volunteering” on campaigns. Chretien himself admitted a “few million” might have been stolen. Under the boundaries of the inquiry Gomery and the auditors were not allowed to look at the contracts where criminal charges might or had been laid.
What was the name of that guy who slept at Chretien’s house, the one who made millions for doing nothing? Benoit Corbeil was recently charged, and unless the media all had it wrong, he was from the Liberal Party. At the time of his arrest the RCMP stated charges against others will follow. Paul Martin accepted the findings of the inquiry. The Liberal Party fessed up to a little over $1 million in kickbacks, and said they would repay it.
When it became obvious illegal things occurred, and much of it landed on the feet of Gagliano, what did Chretien do? Why, he named him Ambassador to Denmark. I won’t even bring up all the howls against Harper for Bernier making Bernier a backbencher.
Members of the Liberal Party received things like tickets to the Montreal Grand Prix from ad execs, never claiming them even though the value was above the legal limit for gifts.
Aside from all that James, and if you really want to get into it further I will be more than happy to debate you the goings-on of Adscam, what the inquiry did was expose the party and the respect it showed for the average Canadian.
And I have to ask James, why would some joe-blow bureaucrats set up a scheme that benefited the liberal Party? You know, Liberal’s like to say Harper is attacking government institutions, but gee, let’s see.
1. Liberaal leadership candidates sued EC over claims and won $50,000 each.
2. Chretien attacked the findings of a judge in an inquiry.3. What were those momments made about the AG again when she blew the lid on sponsorship?
3. Tell you what James, you don’t even need to address the first two points. Just give a fair reason for Chretien’s attack on Freances Beaudoin, whom he tried to ruin financially, professionally, and emotionally. Why, because he had the gall to expose the fact Chretien lied for almost two years about contacting him in the Shawinigate loan. Which by the way, the guy ended up forfeiting on, stiffing me the taxpayer.
So what do ya say James. Give me the spin. And if you want to get into all the fine details of Adscam and debate it, just say the word.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’m afraid if you’re looking for a debate with James, you’re only going to get dismissal. He’s too busy drinking the Kool Aid to deal with real facts.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Paul Martin hated Chretien.
Paul Martin calls the inquiry(got caught) & appointed Gomery.
Gomery rules Chretien holds responsibility.
Gomery rules Paul Martin is innocent.
X judge Gomery, comes out “BLASTING” PMSH in committee.(great timing) The fairy tale CPC scandals were drying up.
Does anyone think , possibly,x JUDGE Gomery was offered a “SENATE” seat by Dion and Martin?
Too bad he won’t be getting it. Liberano$ will be toast in the next election.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I don’t know if Gomery was offered anything. I do know that Chretien ran the most corrupt government in Canadian history. Of course he took lessons from the former record holder PET but that little tidbit is verboten in gritdom.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am
• Globe and Mail: “ABSOLVING CHRETIEN, JUDGE BLASTS GOMERY…Saying inquiry chief showed bias with comments like ’small-town cheap,’ court quashes conclusion that former PM bore responsibility…It was sweet victory for a former prime minister who had chafed under Mr. Gomery’s characterization of him as “small-town cheap,” and insisted his legacy was being unfairly tarnished…”
• Toronto Star: “GOMERY WAS BIASED…A Federal Court ruling has blasted the biased musings of Judge John Gomery during the sponsorship inquiry and cleared former prime minister Jean Chrétien and his chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, of any blame in the affair. In a judgment that strips out a key finding of the final sponsorship report, Justice Max Teitelbaum agreed with Chrétien and Pelletier’s lawyers that Gomery was “seduced by the media” and showed an unacceptable bias against them even before he’d heard their testimony…Teitelbaum was scathing in his ruling….”
• Ottawa Citizen: “GOMERY BIASED, FEDERAL COURT RULES…An expert on public inquiries hailed the rulings as a warning to the public that politicians too often are “indulging in kangaroo courts” to deal with matters they are afraid to tackle themselves or that should be handled by the police and real courts. The Gomery inquiry, said University of Ottawa professor Gilles Paquette, was “a joke and a circus.”
• SunMedia: “SPONSORSHIP JUDGE CHASTIZED FOR BIAS…The scathing 51-page judgment took Gomery to task for being seduced by the media attention and for making public statements to the media, outside the hearing room, before having heard all the evidence.”
• National Post: “JUDGE FELL FOR SPOTLIGHT…”It’s a scathing judgment and you would think that anybody else who takes on a public inquiry will be much more circumspect and much less likely to engage in any sort of informal discussion with the media,” said Bryan Schwartz, a law professor at the University of Manitoba…”
Ahhh. It’s a good day.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am
You’re hilarious, Curran.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Joe Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I don’t know if Gomery was offered anything. I do know that Chretien ran the most corrupt government in Canadian history. Of course he took lessons from the former record holder PET but that little tidbit is verboten in gritdom”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D9103DF932A15751C0A961948260
7th Resignation in Ottawa
REUTERS
Published: February 21, 1987
LEAD: The Minister of Public Works, Roche LaSalle, has become the seventh member of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s Cabinet to resign under pressure from allegations of influence-peddling.
The Minister of Public Works, Roche LaSalle, has become the seventh member of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s Cabinet to resign under pressure from allegations of influence-peddling.
Imagine 7 Cabinet Ministers resigning.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am
“tori Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I always find it funny when people mix PC party of Canada with the CPC- and only when it suits them.
When Mulrouney got the greenest PM award, they were lamenting that it was a shame that the CPC was NOT like the PC party of the past. When the Mulrouney/Shreiber incident come up, CPC and PC are one in the same.
Which is it?”
Not the Same old Party? LMFAO!!!
Gilles Bernier, MP (born July 15, 1934 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) is a former Canadian politician and diplomat. He was the Member of Parliament representing the riding of Beauce from 1984 to 1997 initially as a Progressive Conservative and later as an Independent and Canada’s ambassador to Haiti from 1997 to 2001.
A native of Montreal, Bernier moved to the Beauce in 1953 [1]to pursue a radio career at CKRB radio station in St-Georges-de-Beauce and quickly became a local celebrity. Capitalizing on his popularity, he decided to go into politics with Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative in the 1984 election. He served two terms as a Tory but was forced to run as an independent in the 1993 election after Kim Campbell barred him from running under the PC banner due to fraud charges from which he was later acquitted. In 1997 Jean Chrétien named him ambassador to Haiti which made his riding up for grabs for Liberal candidate Claude Drouin in the 1997 election.
Bernier’s son, Maxime Bernier, won the riding in turn from Drouin in the 2006 federal election, as a candidate of the merged Conservative Party of Canada. Maxime Bernier would serve as Minister of Industry and Minister of Foreign Affairs before resigning from the cabinet amid scandal in 2008.
And then there’s this guy.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay, PC, QC (born August 5, 1936) is a retired Canadian politician.
MacKay was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons as the Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Central Nova through a 1971 by-election. He was re-elected in subsequent elections, and served as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the short lived (1979-1980) government of Prime Minister Joe Clark.
MacKay resigned his parliamentary seat in 1983 in order to allow newly elected PC leader Brian Mulroney to enter Parliament through a by-election in MacKay’s Nova Scotia riding. In the subsequent 1984 election, Mulroney moved to a Quebec riding, and MacKay was again returned to the House as Central Nova’s MP.
Following the election, Mulroney became prime minister, and appointed MacKay to the Canadian Cabinet where he served as Solicitor General of Canada for a year before becoming Minister of National Revenue. In 1989, MacKay became Minister of Public Works. From 1989 to 1991, he was also responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act. While the parliamentary opposition often accused MacKay of doling out patronage, no wrongdoing was ever proven. He was removed from the ACOA portfolio in 1991. From 1991 to 1993, he remained Public Works minister and was given responsibility for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
MacKay retired from Cabinet when Mulroney’s tenure as party leader ended in 1993, and did not run in the 1993 election.
After leaving politics, MacKay’s name was mentioned in relation to the Airbus affair due to his friendship with principal figures such as Karlheinz Schreiber and Frank Moores, but no specific allegations were ever made against MacKay.
Elmer MacKay’s son, Peter MacKay, entered politics several years after his father’s retirement, and was the final leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The younger MacKay, currently a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, is now the Member for Central Nova, a re-creation of the same riding his father once represented. Once in government, Peter was assigned several portfolios, including that of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the job of representing Prince Edward Island in government; both jobs previously performed by Elmer. Peter has also held the cabinet positions of Minister of International Affairs and Minister of Defense.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I thought I heard Bob Fife say yesterday that he heard that more charges are possibly coming later this summer.
I sure hope finally these charges will be on some of Librano politicians.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am
• Globe and Mail:”A VICTORY THAT IS OVERINTERPRETED”…Mr. Gomery did not cause “great damage to our public institutions” or augment “cynicism toward public life,” as Mr. Chretien’s supporters alleged yesterday. That was achieved by the program he was appointed to investigate, and the lack of accountability it revealed. A prime minister under whose watch that occurred has little cause to gloat.
• Macleans: “UNTOTAL NON-VINDICATION”…Judge Teitelbaum has not ruled that there was no sponsorship scandal, that senior members of the Liberal party were not intimately involved in it, or that the Gomery inquiry was not a valuable exercise in exposing and describing both.
Of course, on the other hand, it is heartening to see a Liberal like Curran chiming in that a Prime Minister should not be held responsible for criminal actions in a program run out of their own office. That gives a HELL of a lot of clearance for Harper over the whole Bernier issue which wasn’t even in Harper’s office and wasn’t even criminal.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“Surecure Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Just because there’s an inquiry in place doesn’t mean it isn’t ancient history. Just because a serial liar facing deportation keeps coming up with new stories — that just don’t fit the facts — doesn’t make it relevant. It just makes the people who buy into it a bunch of wishful thinking morons. Hmm… I guess that’s why you pin your hopes to it, Curran”
A serial liar?
Peter MacKay didn’t hesitate on taking a job that the serial liar referred him for with an arms company called Thyssen. Refresh my memory. Is he the current minister of defense that just announce $490 billion in military spending under cover of night.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009740
Peter MacKay, lawyer, politician, leader of the PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY (b at New Glasgow, NS 27 Sept 1965). MacKay graduated from Acadia University in 1987 with a Bachelor of Arts degree and from Dalhousie University in 1990 with a Bachelor of Laws. He was called to the Nova Scotia bar in 1991 and began practising in New Glasgow, focusing on criminal and family law. In 1991 MacKay moved to Germany, where he subsequently worked for Thyssen Henschel at Kassell for one year. He returned to Nova Scotia and settled in Pictou County, where he assumed the position of Crown Attorney with the Nova Scotia government.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
hey james,
I’ll have to remember that when it’s flipped for the lpc benefit
June 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“Of course, on the other hand, it is heartening to see a Liberal like Curran chiming in that a Prime Minister should not be held responsible for criminal actions in a program run out of their own office.”
More KoolAid drinking misinformation. The program was not run from the PMO. The program was run out of the Department of Public Works by convicted Chuck Guite. Nice try though.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Someone pull Curran out of his time warp…The poor lemming is stuck in the late 1980’s when ugly hair dos and bad music ruled.
Nah! On second thought just leave him there he might just go away like Nillie Vanillie.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“hey james,
I’ll have to remember that when it’s flipped for the lpc benefit”
I didn’t even wanna mention the PC Cabinet Ministers, John Baird, Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty….
Anywho, I won’t see the dissolution of the Liberal Party of Canada in my life time…I doubt you will either.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
“Someone pull Curran out of his time warp…The poor lemming is stuck in the late 1980’s when ugly hair dos and bad music ruled.
Nah! On second thought just leave him there he might just go away like Nillie Vanillie.”
June 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
June 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Peter MacKay didn’t hesitate on blah blah blah…”
Oh… was that a, “Yeah! Yeah! So…”?
As for the Sponsorship Program, duh, of course it was run out of Public Works. But, who was it that set the whole thing up on their own and was shown to have direct oversight circumventing then finance Minister Paul Martin? Oh, yeah! It was the PMO!
Either way, it is of more serious consequence and much closer to the PMO than the whole Bernier… um… whatever you want to call that nothing news. As I said, heartening that something so much larger and closer to the PMO than the Bernier brouhaha, and you don’t have a problem.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
http://whatdoiknowgrit.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-all-my-conservative-friends-at-blue.html
A special post for you Grinder.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Yes, Mulroney had a number of ministers who screwed up or had problems in their departments and had to resign.
Chretien took a different tack: refusing to fire ministers, no matter what they did or what happened in their departments.
Chretien’s regime was the most sustained insult to the concept of ministerial responsibility in Canadian history. His court challenge to Gomery’s reasonable reprimand was the cherry on a rotten sundae.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You should know that I, personally, held Bernier in high regard and anticipated much more from him. Many thought he was good in the portfolio he had in Industry. And, I have laid off of him for the most part during this ridiculous farce.
Oh, but for a girl…
June 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“Joan Tintor Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Yes, Mulroney had a number of ministers who screwed up or had problems in their departments and had to resign.
Chretien took a different tack: refusing to fire ministers, no matter what they did or what happened in their departments.
Chretien’s regime was the most sustained insult to the concept of ministerial responsibility in Canadian history. His court challenge to Gomery’s reasonable reprimand was the cherry on a rotten sundae.”
Kinda like Harper bringing openess and accountability to the government. LMAO.
So Resigning ministers with problems is the better way to go? There’s logic for ya.
Apparently Gomery’s reprimand wasn’t warranted Joan, or we wouldn’t have a court of law ruling on it yesterday.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
http://whatdoiknowgrit.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-all-my-conservative-friends-at-blue.html
This post is for you Grinder
June 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“So Resigning ministers with problems is the better way to go?”
Ideally, no ministers would get in trouble. But if you practice ministerial responsibility, yes, sometimes ministers have to resign.
Teitelbaum didn’t rule that Gomery’s judgment on Chretien was unwarranted, he ruled that Gomery was biased.
Maybe the gov’t should have an Adscam inquiry do-over with a new judge. Or maybe an appeal of Teitelbaum’s decision will do.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“So Resigning ministers with problems is the better way to go? There’s logic for ya”
Yes, ministers should resign if they have or are a problem. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Are you saying that if a minister is a problem they shouldn’t resign? Wow. No wonder you’re so happy for crooked Chretien.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“More KoolAid drinking misinformation. The program was not run from the PMO. The program was run out of the Department of Public Works by convicted Chuck Guite. Nice try though.
Right. Guessed you missed the testimony at Gomery where Chretien was warned by the Clerk of the Privy Council that he would thus be personally responsible for every grant made out of those funds.
But hey, that’s just one pont. Andrew Coyne did a wonderful editorial awhile back. Please read it, drink your kool-aid, and then give me a reason to dismiss all the points he made
http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/02/my-saturday-column.html
Or explain this:
“”MONTREAL (CP) -Corriveau, who was testifying for the second time at the Gomery commission, contradicted some of the assertions he had made in April. For example, he described party organizer Giuseppe Morselli on Monday as a friend, although he had previously told the inquiry he didn’t know him well. Corriveau’s explanation: “To correct my testimony, I very much agree that I knew him and he was a friend.” Justice John Gomery, the presiding judge, asked: “Why is it necessary to correct your testimony? Weren’t your previous answers an attempt to mislead us?”Corriveau couldn’t, or wouldn’t explain the contradiction in his remarks about Morselli, who a witness said was the party’s “real boss” on financing matters. Three former Liberal officials have told the inquiry Corriveau provided more than $300,000 in cash payments, under the table, to the party in the 1990s. A fourth, Daniel Dezainde, told Gomery that Corriveau admitted to kicking back money to the party from sponsorship ad firms. Corriveau admitted Friday to putting the three Liberal workers on his payroll at the request of Michel Beliveau, one-time president of the party’s indebted Quebec wing. Documents tabled at the inquiry last week indicate Corriveau paid $86,500 to the staffers, one of whom was a party logistics specialist who later worked in Prime Minister Paul Martin’s office. The worker, Gaetano Manganiello, has since taken a paid leave of absence from the PMO”
And I’ll save you the trouble of trying to distance Corriveau from Chretien by this fellow’s testimony:
“”MONTREAL (CP) - Jean Chretien’s former chief of staff said Monday he once advised his boss to “be careful” around graphic designer Jacques Corriveau, recently accused of funnelling cash to the federal Liberals. Jean Pelletier told the sponsorship inquiry he warned Chretien about Corriveau in 1998 or 1999, about a year after, according to witnesses, the designer pumped $300,000 to the party under the table. “When there are rumours, the prime minister must be protected and must be careful,” said Pelletier, a boyhood friend of Chretien’s and his chief of staff for eight years. But Pelletier was vague about why he issued the warning about Corriveau, Chretien’s former leadership organizer and a self-described friend of the former prime minister. Pelletier would only say his advice to Chretien was based on political instincts. “I am an old political animal who was mayor of a city for 12 years,” the former Quebec City mayor told inquiry counsel Guy Cournoyer. “I have met a lot of people and at a certain moment you look someone in the eyes and you have a hunch that . . . incites one to be careful.” Corriveau earned nearly $8 million from subcontracts related to the $355-million national-unity program created by the Chretien administration. Three former Liberal officials have told the inquiry Corriveau provided more than $300,000 in under-the-table cash payments to the Liberals before the 1997 election campaign.”
June 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
And hey, whatever became Of Lawrence MaCauley.
Last I heard he was on the golf couse with O.J. Simpson, getting tips on how to clear his name.
Afterwards, they went for a few drinks at a strip club, where they met up with Judy Sgro. Not to long afterwards Art Eggleton walked in with his gal pal. She immediately bought several rounds of drinks as she had come into some easy money, whatever that meant.
After a few hours, they decided to go fishing. Lawrence called Jane Stewart, who immediately had a private jet from Irving pick the group up. On the way there, they thought it would be fun to get a round of golf in first, so had the pilot stopover in Shawinigan. After nine holes, they decided to go for a drink at the Inn next door, which had undergone expensive renovations from a BDC loan. To their surprise, the Inn had been burned to the ground, apparently by the fellow who reneged on the loan.
This was not a problem though. A quick call to Alfonso Gagliano and some members of “The Family” picked them up and whisked them away to a lovely Italian restaruant. After finishing eating , the group started to figure out who owed what on the bill. To their great surprise their was a brown paper bag of money for each of the members of the group.
So off it was to the fishing lodge, where apparently anyone can get a free day of fishing in a private lodge. That ended quickly with everyone in the group telling a few whoppers. There was still a few hours of daylight left, so they went to do some whale watching. They were delighted to see a whale, but soon realized something wasn’t right. The poor whale had swam through an oil slick from a CSL ship which had dumped it’s oil rather than pay the unloading fee.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Earth to James:
Ministerial resignations is not indicative of corruption. Ministerial resignations are an indication of someone keeping his ministers honest. As a minister if you screw up you are fired. A corrupt government never fires its ministers because no matter how corrupt the minister be the minister is doing exactly what “da boss” wants.
Chretien ran the most corrupt government in Canadian history bar none.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Wow, great to see such an insightful debate on which of our politicians are more crocked than the other. As the old saying goes power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
From the 1873 Pacific Scandal that plagued Sir John A. Macdonald’s government to Tunagate, Airbus, APEC, Arar, Adscam and now Boobygate, our political leaders have always managed to get themselves into hot water…. regardless of their political stripes.
I find it quite disheartening that ALL parties continually latch onto these like a pack of rabid pit bulls striving to score political points, with total disregard for the effect that it has on the electorate’s trust in politicians, and more importantly their respect for our democratic institutions.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
The government should appeal this decision made by Justice Teitelbaum, this decision is like saying the captain of the Titanic bore no responsibility for the events leading to the striking of the iceberg.
However, with the way the Liberals have operated for decades under the strategy of plausible deniability and filling the justice system with Liberal friendly judges this decision is hardly a suprise.
Mulroney initially appointed this judge, it was Chretien who raised him up to the Federal Court.
Both of these former PM’s have connections to Power Corp and Desmairis.
Liberal Party theft of taxpayer dollars? How about the $250 million Chretien gave to the Trudeau Foundation, have a look who is on the board of directors.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Sorry, James. Your link got caught in the spam filter. I just rescued it.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I hope Grind a Grit hasn’t left for the long weekend yet. He needs to check out Curran’s blog.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Gomery may have been found to be biased by one judge but Chretien remains guilty.
However that doesn’t take away the fact that Chretien was guilty in Adscam and some people are in jail because Adscam did happen thanks to Chretien and the Liberals.
I guess Chretien doesn’t want to be the “boss” and take the blame.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Um. Mulroney admitted taking the money in hotel rooms. Then he decided he better pay some tax on it. Is that paranoid and delusional too?
James, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. The Conservatives were reduced to 2 seats in ‘93 because conservative voters abandoned them.
Now why is the LPC still the official opposition? Because we have higher standards?