Adscam

[August1991]

Great to be back? Not really, but it's Friday, I've got some time and I feel like a matou - make some points.

First Point

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Political junkies and partisan pundits are outraged and rightly so, but I wonder how a cynical public will look at it. Could people be so inured towards political corruption that this won't make a dent?

BD is right. Everything I've heard was known before. (I think Kimmy made a similar point: Brault is no solitary witness.)

Brault's testimony is not new. Before June 2004, anyone who wanted to know the basic facts of his testimony could have known. The government gave money to advertising agencies who then gave money/worked for the Liberals. We knew that.

Second Point

Some say that this is politics as usual. It's unfortunate but it happens. And what about Mulroney? He was a thief on a grander scale. (Harper is just another Mulroney...) And what about Bush and Halliburton?

No one stops to think about politics, and government. I'm astonished to read rabble.ca threads now. Enron was a voluntary operation. The Liberal Party of Canada has the force of law. (Lesson? People in government can do tremendous good but they must be circumscribed by others.)

I liked Andrew Coyne's 'Trust Us' take on this.

I know the Tories think they can just run on "elect us, we're not them," or even "we're more honest than they are," but the public has heard that now for twenty years. Mulroney said it, Chretien said it, Martin said it.

What this member of the public wants to hear is: Don't trust us. You don't have to. Here are the specific things we'll do to ensure that you don't have to trust us -- because this kind of thing will be impossible. That means the sort of deep structural reforms that remove these standing pools of money from temptation's way: whether by privatization, or New Zealand-style corporatization of government departments. And, of course, by ending business subsidies. All things the Tories don't want to talk about.

Third Point

Québec. Que dire. Cette affaire dépasse tout scandale.

Jacques Parizeau l'a dit, le soir même, qu'ils l'ont achété. Voilà la preuve.

A country does not survive by 20,000 votes or so. For Heaven's sakes. Since 1995, too many English Canadians have been like Gorbachev when he returned to Moscow after the failed coup in August 1991. "Everything is the same but somehow, things are different."

Like Gorbachev in August 1991, English Canada, the Toronto Star, Ontario and so on has chosen to believe that Canada is a country as existed in 1908, or 1994. It's not.

----

Finally, when I have time, I read the forum. I really enjoy the rock 'em, sock 'em health care debate.

[kimmy]

Yay! Nice to see you again

Brault's testimony is not new. Before June 2004, anyone who wanted to know the basic facts of his testimony could have known. The government gave money to advertising agencies who then gave money/worked for the Liberals. We knew that.

Indeed. Those of us who've been following this already had a pretty good idea what was going on, thanks to testimony from others. And among those who haven't been following this, there are probably a significant number who just don't care, or have already made up their minds.

But Brault's testimony, unlike much of the other testimony, was vivid and attention-grabbing. He did not have the "convenient memory lapses" which have characterized many of the other witnesses. His description of brown envelopes left on chairs in restaurants, "the Choo-Choo Man", and other details, was a departure from the dry testimony that's characterized the inquiry. I think that potentially had the effect of getting the attention of people who wouldn't normally pay attention. I think the publication ban also had the effect of creating interest in Brault's testimony. And I think the Liberals' decision to have their own lawyer attend the proceedings also served to create interest-- if they had to have a lawyer there, then whatever Brault was saying must have been trouble. Ultimately I think that was a blunder by the Liberals-- it made them look frightened, and Brault scored points off the lawyer in their exchanges.

And yes, as Mr Coyne says, the "Trust us, we're different" is not very reassuring. The Conservatives have a lot of work to do on their own platform before they go to the polls. Convincing people not to vote Liberal is only half the battle. I must admit I'm concerned and discouraged at the lack of concrete positions coming fron the Conservatives right now.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Is this the smoking gun?

Une simple lettre pourrait bien enfoncer davantage Paul Martin dans la tourmente des commandites. Plus tard cette semaine comparaissent les représentants de l’une des principales agences impliquées, le Groupe Everest, avec qui il entretenait des relations qui restent encore à expliquer.

«Claude, j’aimerais profiter de l’occasion pour t’offrir mes meilleurs voeux de bonheur et de santé pour les prochains 50 ans!»

«À titre du plus vieux cru (probable) de l’assemblée, je lève mon verre aux agapes qui sont sur le point de commencer, ajoute M. Martin. Joyeux anniversaire de naissance, Claude et encore de belles années à venir. À la bonne vôtre.»

Et Paul Martin, d’ajouter avec sa propre plume: «Claude, tu es maintenant trop vieux pour jouer au golf!» Signé: «Paul»

Journal de Montreal (You can translate with Google.)

It doesn't seem as if they were mere acquaintances.

[Tawasakm]

August, google is not a great way to translate.

For example if you translate "Wow you are really hot" from English to French, then paste the French translation and translate from French to English you end up with, "Defect of the sound reproduction you are really hot".

Still I'll give it a go.

[Tawasakm]

In fact I may aswell quote the translations here and save others the effort.

A simple letter could insert more well Paul Martin in the storm of the mixed liability companies.  Later this week the representatives of the one of the principal implied agencies appear, the Everest Group, with which it maintained the relations which still remain to be explained.

"Claude, I would like to benefit from the occasion to offer to you my best wishes of happiness and health for next the 50 years!"  "To title of the oldest vintage (probable) of the assembly, I raise my glass to the reunions which are about to start, Mr. Martin adds.  Merry anniversary of birth, Claude and still of beautiful years to come.  With good yours."  And Paul Martin, to add with his own feather:  "Claude, you are now too old to play golf!"  Signed:  "Paul"

Source: Google Language Tools

[The Terrible Sweal]

that's very informative... all these years Chretien was using the Google translator as a speechwriter!

[August1991]

Ad executive Claude Boulay argued yesterday that Paul Martin's command of the French language isn't good enough for him to have written a gushy letter that opposition critics cited as proof the Prime Minister has been cozy with the Liberal-friendly Quebec businessman.

G&M

Aside from its style, the letter was far too long to have been written by Martin. It was obviously written by a staffer. But there are two crucial details: The handwritten joke about golf. And the use of tutoiement. (There is no way a staffer would write in that style unless it was known the boss was a good friend of the recipient.)

Claude Boulay's firm received some $100 million in contracts. On these alone, his firm made profits of $27 million of which Claude Boulay personally made about $11 million.

We are very far from the sums in the UN oil-for-food scandal but Paul Martin has given Claude Boulay a comfortable living while at the same time making sure the Liberal Party had the means to run professional campaigns.

[Bakunin]

M. Gagliano confirme qu'il existe des liens entre le premier ministre actuel et l'ancien président de Groupe Everest, Claude Boulay, affirmant que M. boulay a aidé Paul Martin à se faire élire dans LaSalle-Émard en 1993.

[Guest eureka]

Boulay says differently.

[August1991]

L'ex-directeur du Parti libéral du Canada, section Québec, Benoît Corbeil, a livré un témoignage explosif aujourd'hui devant la commission Gomery, à Montréal. M. Corbeil a expliqué qu'à l'approche de l'élection de 2000, le chef de cabinet d'Alfonso Gagliano lui a dit de s'adresser au président de Groupaction, Jean Brault, pour obtenir des fonds. Les finances du Parti étaient alors en mauvais état et des employés menaçaient de quitter s'ils n'étaient pas payés.

....

Parmi ceux-ci, il a identifié Daniel Dezainde, un autre ex-directeur général du PLC-Q et actuel attaché du ministre Jacques Saada, Irène Marcheterre, actuelle directrice des communications du ministre Jean Lapierre, Luc Desbiens, présentement conseiller de la ministre Lucienne Robillard et Pierre Lesieur, qui était alors au cabinet du ministre Alfonso Gagliano. Par ailleurs, l'actuel directeur de la députation au cabinet du premier ministre Jean Charest, Claude Lemieux, a aussi été payé de cette façon.

CP

In all of this, keep in mind some simple facts. The federal government (Trudeau) used tax money to publicise Canada . Then, the federal government (Trudeau and Mulroney) used tax money to publicise their federal government. Then, the federal government (Chretien and Martin) used tax money to publicise the Liberal Party of Canada.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a thief.

This kind of publicity is successful not because it 'manipulates' anyone's mind. It succeeds because it shows that the federal government has the power to advertise everywhere. The federal government is rich. In Quebec terms, "A vote for independance is a vote for poverty."

----

And Greg, I stop there. Your new system has caused me enough problems. It just deleted several paragraphs.

[Bakunin]

Evryday, piece by piece, evrything start to be clear, the overall story of jean brault, his employes, alain renaud and benoit corbeille is coherent. Thei bring proof and their story fit. On the other hand, the story of alphonso gagliano, jacque corriveau and chuck guité wich are as far as we know the main players of this scandals just keep denying with no proof just like if nothing happened... they are also suffering of heavy memory lost.

Its funny because the other day, many old quebec provincial politician where talking about the quiet revolution, hydro-quebec and the CDP in the 60's-70's. they remebered evry little aspect of what happend, how when and etc... Then i zap to the gomery commission in the 1995-2001 and they can't even remember anything... They can't even remember the referendum was in 1995...Evrytime a good question is asked, they don't remember...

[Guest eureka]

You are not quite correct, August. Mulroney's admin used tax money to publicise the Conseevative Party more than Chretien did for the Liberal Party. That is something that has come out of the Gomery inquiry.

Chretien tried to clean it up: that also has come out of the inquiry. He did, however, use tax money to publicise both Canada and ther federal government. That is the Sponsorship programme and has been clearly demonstrated by the Inquiry.

I expect distortions from many contributors to these discussions: they have no depth beyond their prejudices. I always look for something better from your efforts.

The actions of some rogues should not outweigh evidence or intention.

[Pateris]

The actions of some rogues should not outweigh evidence or intention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the weight of evidence submitted at the Gomery Commission (and it IS evidence), anyone who believes that this was simply a "few rogues" is kidding themselves. Especially these revelations about nine CANDIDATES being handed $60,000 in cash at an event in SHAWINIGAN in 1997.

It is become very clear that this was a SYSTEMIC corruption within the Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec) and I cannot imagine that the top level people in the party, from Chretien on down, had no idea it was going on.

[Guest eureka]

What you imagine is of very little importance: what can be proved matters.

There was also evidence of a $200,000 handover in an envelope stuffed with twenties and hundreds from the same witness. Can you "imagine" the size of that envelope? It would have to be big enough to hold all the advertsiing brochures produced.

Evidence is not testimony. And evidence, like testimony, has to be proven to be true.

That is why the bloodsuckers should be reined in and the Inquiry allowed to do its work. This is not 17th. century Salem. We are supposed to be a democracy functioning under the Rule of Law.