Canadian DUers: Please critique this article

[Jack Rabbit]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sponsorship scandal

The sponsorship scandal or "AdScam" is an ongoing scandal that many think will lead to the collapse of the government of Canada. It has affected the government of Canada, and particularly the ruling Liberal Party of Canada, for a number of years, but rose to especially great prominence in 2004. The scandal involved the misuse and misdirection of funds that were intended to go to government advertising in Quebec over the preceding decade. The funds were apparently allocated to advertising firms that were allies of the Quebec branch of the federal Liberal Party, and evidence suggests that in some cases few or no services were rendered in return.

Read more.

Posted about two hours before the scheduled kinda-confidence vote.

[Joel]

1. to keep current

You may want to add other senior Liberals have also corroborated Brault's testimony.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Thank you. The linked article on Brault doesn't say that.

It says that Brault funneled money to the Liberal Party in Quebec in exchange for receiving advertising contracts. It also says that a liberal operative through whom this money was allegedly passed, Jacques Corriveau, denies everything and that other members of the Liberal Party question Brault's integrity.

So far little concrete evidence backing up Brault's allegations has been presented.

It seems that the connection with the central government is in the person of a former Public Works Minister named Alfonso Gagliano. When he came under investigation, Chretien squirreled him away to Denmark as ambassador. When Martin received the Auditor General's report on the matter shortly after becoming Prime Minister, he fired Gagliano (February 2004).

Prime Minister Martin falls under scrutiny because he was Finance Minister during most of the time this was going on.

It may be right to ask what Martin knew, but not to jump to conclusions about it. Nevertheless, the Conservatives might have an interest in jumping to conclusions right now.

Would the Liberals be better off with a change in leadership?

[CHIMO]

3. Essentially Correct

However, the election was fought last year on the same issue and with the Conservatives claiming through innuendo in various parts of the country that Chretien had walked away with $250 million.

The auditor general, to the best of my memory, stated that there was an amount of $100 million that she could not trace. After that Martin got on his high horse and seemed to use it to beat back the former Chretien loyalists. Now it is engulfing him.

For Martin to be all so good and honest about things he must be kind of dense. All he needed to do was read "On The Take" by Stevie Cameron, published in 1994/1995.

From the book:

"One public servant, Chuck Guite, director of the advertising and polling section at Supply and Services, admitted he had not produced a written report for Murray rating the different pitches. All he did was brief him orally. And when he tried to explain to Cobb and Kennedy how the winner was picked, Guite became extremely defensive. Treasury Board policy was not followed in this instance, he said, because 'the policy is a guideline. It's not a rule. We change the guideline to fit the situation...It's not the first time it has been done and not the last time it will be done either."

This was during the PC times of Mulroney.

And from an article within the last week:
Guité reveals the naked truth about sponsorship

The problem isn't the corruption in the awarding of advertising and communications-type contracts. These always have been politically partisan.

The bid-rigging and the kickbacks happened no differently under Chrétien than under Brian Mulroney or under Pierre Trudeau, or indeed under John A. Macdonald in the 19th century.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1115296610604&call_pageid=970599109774

So it looks like the Conservatives have milked this one as far as they can. Everyone is fed up but the Cons can't seem to turn it to their advantage. It seems to me that the NDP are the ones most likely to benefit from another election as they have appeared to be reflecting the majority and trying to get things done.

Also just want to add that this inquiry can't put anyone in jail. Based on the results, the police may investigate further and others will probably sue individuals. But all this will be after the fact, down the road.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Thank you.

Now another question.

If Martin promises to call new elections in December or January when the Gomery Report is released, why is Harper in such a hurry to call elections now?

[Spazito]

5. They are hoping for momentum

for a little while recently, when the Gomery Commission first started being televised and Harper was hollering in the House, the Cons poll numbers went up, the Liberals down. That has changed, the Cons have hit a ceiling and the Libs the floor. Harper desperately wants an election as soon as possible because his numbers will continue to drop and by the time the Commission reports the FACTS he will be back where he started out in support and that wasn't and isn't enough for him to win.

[Mother Jones]

8. My boss, a die-hard conservative, says that

they want the election now b/c Chretien has legal plans to block the inquiry from continuing. (at taxpayer's expense)

Thus preventing the truth from ever being revealed and saving the liberal party serious damage.

I don't know how true that is.

I've been on the phone to my own MP (conservative, unfortunately), who *claimed* in the paper a few wknds ago NOT to support an election now, but of course, who did stand behind his cult-leader in a decision to force one.

Drafting a really nice note for our local paper about the conservatives own wasting-taxpayers-money tactics (ie another election) being on par with the liberals. Hey, if I can't get through to these idiots on platform, I can at least try to show they are no better than the party in power.

[CHIMO]

6. Some Possible

Guesses.
When the inquiry moved to Montreal certain testimony was given under a publican ban. Thus when things were said it was made to appear that it was so damming it would sink the Liberals. I think that his faithful got into a frenzy and the train started to move. Then when the testimony came out and the Liberals started to fight back the poll numbers stalled and turned around. Now he is stuck out there with his fundamentalists. In the meantime the backroom guys like Mulroney may be playing him for a defeat and a new leader to emerge from the old PC group, such as Mckay.

It is hard to say.
But if one goes back further to the convention where Mckay was elected as head of the PC's it seems obvious that another group within the party was quickly becoming the dominant group and that was David Orchard. It seems to me, at least, that this was the reason that the PC's merged with the reform group. In effect preventing a group that would put the backroom boys out of the picture. So now they have to remove the old reform guys out of the picture and perhaps that is what is happening. Also there are rumors of a fight going on within the Conservatives between the old PC's and the Reform. What better way to keep people in line than to have a war, so to speak.

In summary I don't know why he is taking the approach that he is. It is pretty much conjecture on my part. Should be interesting to read the story in the future.

[MrPrax]

7. Why?

Harper is under pressure from the 'fundie' western Canadian zealots to kill the same-sex marriage bill among other things.

It was no coicidence that Harper, at about the same time, Brault's testimony was making the 'internet' rounds due to the blackout, attended a huge 'extremist anti same-sex' rally on Parliament Hill.

I guess they assumed that was a good enough excuse to make sure Parliament falls before that bill and the other pieces of 'social' legislation, like 'decrim', are passed. Mind you the National comPost or Global News especially is not really making note of the Harper 'flip flop' on the Consverative support of the budget. In fact the Post's 'second coming' like front pages seem to have been co-ordinated with the Tories.

Obviously if they go out on the campaign trail next year after the passing of 'same-sex', the Conversatives would have to deal with their angry little klaverns.