Gomery inquiry set to return to front pages.

[shoop]

Please provide an accurate and appropriate link for that $100 million figure otherwise some Liberal folks might think you were making it up, eh! Tories are their own worst enemy it seems 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Will do just as soon as you start answering the back log of questions you have ignored.

Too bad the NDs have no enemies. Kinda sad they are such a laughing stock nobody takes them seriously enough to consider them an enemy.

[kimmy]

Political self-destruction is not on the Liberal agenda, but sometimes things don't always work out the way the Liberals planned.

Time for a little history about the Liberal Adscam game plan:

1 Liberals set up Gomery prior to last election, to get through the election, on the assumption that they would get a majority.

2 We all remember. Martin was going to lead the Liberals to the promised land with a massive majority of 250 seats.

3 With their majority government the Liberals would shut down and bury Gomery after the election, if and when it became a problem for the Liberals.

What actually happened:

1 Liberals did not get their much bellyhooed majority

2 Liberals no longer completely control the Gomery agenda

3 Liberals are currently freaking out about the potential Liberal damage when Gomery releases his findings

4 Liberals are desperate to get another majority government in order to control and bury the damage that Gomery is going inflict on them.

So far, I think this is a very astute analysis of the situation.

5 To suggest that anyone actually knows precisely what or who Gomery is going to report on is full of it. It may well be that Martin is exonerated but so what. There are a slew of other ministers that could be implicated.

This one, I quibble with a bit. I think the danger to the Liberals is not so much that there might be current ministers implicated in the actual wrongdoing. I think the more likely (and more damning) indictment would be if Gomery contends that prominent current Liberals had knowledge of the shenanigans ongoing in their midst, but turned a blind eye to it.

If there is an exemplar of a Kangaroo court in contemporary Canadian law, the Gomery inquiry would be it.

We have a judge who has:

a. attempted to lead witnesses on the stand,

b. engaged in personal attacks on people involved in the inquiry, and

c. asked for public input into the inquiry, even though the public has been privy to only a tiny fraction of the evidence and testimony, evidence that was reported by the press on a ratings influenced agenda.

Apparently, people like Gomery seem to believe that trials and inquiries ought to be conducted, at least in part, by public opinion polls.

(A.) Given the amount of legal representation that concerned parties had on hand at the inquiry, I'm skeptical that due process was violated. "Leading the witness"? This was an inquiry, not a trial from an American lawyer show.

(B.) I found Prime Minister Martin's defense of Judge Gomery's impartiality to be highly inspiring-- indeed, the highlight of his term to date. If he's good enough for our Prime Minister, who am I to find fault?

(C.) In this instance, I'd imagine that asking for public reaction to the sponsorship scandal and to the testimony is much akin to asking for Victim Impact Statements.

-k

[Argus]

If I was the PM and considering such a scheme I would make sure it could not be traced beyond the beaurocratic level.

A more plausable explaination is Martin had nothing to do with the scheme because he wouldn't have wanted to damage his reputation. It is illogical to suggest that someone with such grand ambitions as PM PM would have even considered being party to a scheme that offered him no advantages but risked everything if it was found out.

You are not reckoning with Liberal arrogance. This is the way the game is played in Quebec, and has been for decades. Why would Martin have a problem with that? Because he's Mr. Clean? I highly doubt it. I've seen no sign of Martin, the Great Reformer. He seems just as interested in backroom deals and payoffs as those who came before, rewarding his buddies with government jobs and govenrment contracts. I would find it incredible if Martin, like Chretien, had not been fully aware of what was going on from start to finish.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I would find it incredible if Martin, like Chretien, had not been fully aware of what was going on from start to finish.

I have to completely agree. Martin was Finance Minister, far closer to the 'shenanigans' than Chretien could have been. The best than Martin could possibly plead is imcompetence, (ie: "I had no knowledge of the activities of which I was in charge") or he is guilty of corruption and/or theft.

mirror,

I am as left as they come, but I feel all 3 major parties in Canada presently suck.

Please provide an accurate and appropriate link for that $100 million figure otherwise some Liberal folks might think you were making it up, eh! Tories are their own worst enemy it seems

I would place the figure (from the last 5 yrs) as over $2 billion squandered, mostly though largesse.

[Riverwind]

I have to completely agree.  Martin was Finance Minister, far closer to the 'shenanigans' than Chretien could have been. The best than Martin could possibly plead is incompetence, (ie: "I had no knowledge of the activities of which I was in charge") or he is guilty of corruption and/or theft.

This is a simplistic argument that only makes sense to people that don't understand how large organizations with huge budgets work.

The minister of finance allocates funds to each department. It is the ministers in charge of each department who are responsible for ensuring the money is spent properly. Some programs are large enough that the minister of finance might get more involved, however, the ultimate responsibility for that spending rests with the minister in charge of the department - not the minister of finance.

The sponsorship program was a tiny project that used a minuscule amount of money (compared to the gov't budget as a whole). There are likely tens if not hundreds of similar size projects going on within the government at any time. It is not reasonable to believe that the minister of finance could keep abreast of all of these projects.

Lastly, if funds are misused in gov't then there is a process to discover this misuse and find those responsible. This process is centered around the auditor general's office. It is not the responsibility of the minister of finance to do its own audits of other departments. That duty belongs to the auditor general and she did her job in this circumstance. You could argue that Chretien interfered with the auditor general's initial investigation, however, I don't see how that translates into guilt or incompetence on Martin's part.

That said, I don't have enough information to be absolutely certain of Martin's innocence. However, I also feel it is ridiculous to say he must be guilty or incompetent.

[cybercoma]

Let us not forget the timeline of this scandal

1 the sponsorship program is a bubbling stewpot of rumours and innuendo with numerous accusations in the House of Commons.

2  access to information requests by journalists yield startling information about us paying for a useless report at least twice and possibly three times.

3 Auditor General announces investigation of sponsorship group, then cuts it short saying she has found massive evidence of mismanagement, fraud, and probable criminal corruption.

At this point what are Paul Martin's options? He has been portraying himself as Mr. Clean, a big break from the Jean Chretien years. Is he supposed to just shrug this off? He has no real option but to order an independant investigation. But he orders it to begin nearly 10 months in future - after, he believes, he'll have called and won an election with a majority, giving him 5 year to let the electorate forget.

4  during the parliamentary investigation of the House Public Accounts Commitee Liberals are obstructionists. They take up masses of time lobbing softball questions to those they have allowed to be called, oppose every attempt to subpoena documents, even recall trustworthy witnesses to use up more time, and then close down the committee before the any of the unreliable players can be called to testify.

5  Martin calls an election

This is where things went wrong for the Libeals. Instead of being safely returned with a majority they have a shaky minority. They can't close down the Gomery inquiry as they had intended. They start making noises about how much the inquiry is costing, and suggesting it has already heard all the evidence it needs - a clear effort at justifying a shut down, but the opposition isn't buying it (though some people on this site did). It is about a month after this that some of the most damning testimony is heard.

No one but a fanatical supporter of the Liberals can honestly take the position that Martin has been open and honest in trying to get to the bottom of this, or that he should be credited with being honest and trying to get to the bottom. He has clearly been doing everything within his limited power to make this go away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the NDP is responsible for keeping them in power. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[shoop]

This is a simplistic argument that only makes sense to people that don't understand how large organizations with huge budgets work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gotta take issue with the arrogance, and flat out falseness of this one.

Here is how that large organization known as the government of canada works.

Of course the Finance Minister isn't going to know about every little million spent here or there in a budget in the $170 to $180 billion dollar range.

However, this was a QUARTER billion dollar project involving new money being spent. Sure as hell the Finance Minister, and a senior Quebec minister is going to be aware of it.

Because it was that much money being spent for the first time in a new area it was bound to have been scrutinized by cabinet. (Willful blindness is a defence that will not work in this case, much to the chagrin of Martin.)

[Riverwind]

Gotta take issue with the arrogance, and flat out falseness of this one.

That is how I feel about the 'he must guilty or incompentant' argument.

However, this was a QUARTER billion dollar project involving new money being spent. Sure as hell the Finance Minister, and a senior Quebec minister is going to be aware of it.

Sure he knew about it. It was a project to increase the visibility of the Canadian gov't in Quebec - still a worthy goal even after all of the negative publicity created by the mismanagement of funds. He had every reason to believe the fund would be used properly when he approved the budget. And if the funds were misused - it is the job of auditor general - not the minister of finance to find out.

Because it was that much money being spent for the first time in a new area it was bound to have been scrutinized by cabinet.

Why would he be expected to know if his cabinet colleagues are deliberately lying to him? Maybe because you think Martin and Chretien were great buddies that would never keep secrets from each other? How can he launch an independent investigation in a project that was of particular importance to his boss?

There are many plausible and more logical explanations for why a competent minister of finance in Martin's position would have missed the problems with sponsorship. Insisting that he must be guilty or incompetent, based on the evidence available today, is pure partisanship and has nothing to finding out what really happened with sponsership money.

[Minimus Maximus]

The sponsorship program was a tiny project that used a minuscule amount of money (compared to the gov't budget as a whole). There are likely tens if not  hundreds of similar size projects going on within the government at any time. It is not reasonable to believe that the minister of finance could keep abreast of all of these projects.

Any one who has worked for a large corp. and seen top level managment in action knows this to be true. Some CEO's are very hands off and delegate project directives to managers who are trusted to carry out these directives on the level. Some are micromanagers who must control everything. The information on Chretien is that he was hands off.

With the size and scope of the federal gov't it is very possible Martin and/or Chretien did not know anything beyond the initial directives of the program. The argument that all Liberals were in on this just doesn't wash, wish it did but it don't.

Without concrete evidence, painting all of the Liberal party with the same brush is akin to the 6th grade teacher who makes the whole class stay for detention because little Johnny threw a paper airplane at her while her back was turned, and nobody will rat on Johnny.

The problem is that someone is guilty at some political level.

[shoop]

And if the funds were misused - it is the job of auditor general - not the minister of finance to find out.

Which she has. But who should be held criminally responsible for the misspending of the funds?

Why would he be expected to know if his cabinet colleagues are deliberately lying to him?

Could Martin seriously try and use that as a defence? "My cabinet colleagues, including some who now sit in my cabinet, all got together and conspired to illegally disperse millions of tax payer dollars." Funds that just happened to flow back to his party???

If he didn't know who was involved in the fraud why appoint any of the conspirators to his cabinet.

There are many plausible and more logical explanations for why a competent minister of finance in Martin's position would have missed the problems with sponsorship.

Are there really plausible and logical explanations for this blatant incompetence/corruption? If so then why provide an example as ludicrous as the Chretien cabinet conspiring to hide the facts from Martin?

Here is a term you should learn from the world of accounting. Materiality. For the Finance Minister of Canada the spending of $250 Million dollars of new money is material and should be watched closely.

Please tell me if the following is a fair question. Is there any evidence Justice Gomery could present in his report that could make you think Martin was actually culpable in adscam? Do tell what that is.

PS - man, with a defence this weak Martin is dead in the water. The next election is going to be all Adscam all the time. Woo hoo Dithers, good work avenging your father's memory.

[shoop]

The problem is that someone is guilty at some political level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is the key.

Forget sparhawk's ridiculous "conspiracy to keep Martin in the dark" theory.

However, sh*t flows uphill.

Even though Bernie Ebbers, ex-President/CEO of Worldcom probably didn't have direct knowledge of the company's fiscal shenanigans he is still residing in a club fed.

Martin doesn't deserve something, that drastic. But he still shouldn't be PM.

[mirror]

5 To suggest that anyone actually knows precisely what or who Gomery is going to report on is full of it. It may well be that Martin is exonerated but so what. There are a slew of other ministers that could be implicated.

This one, I quibble with a bit. I think the danger to the Liberals is not so much that there might be current ministers implicated in the actual wrongdoing. I think the more likely (and more damning) indictment would be if Gomery contends that prominent current Liberals had knowledge of the shenanigans ongoing in their midst, but turned a blind eye to it.

Dear Kimmy

Thanks for your feedback.

The expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" seems to be apropos here. This program was originally designed to help keep Canada united, after the referendum, was it not? I really wonder how many people realize how serious (I'm talking about the possibility of civil war) the Quebec situation was, and may still be. Chretien, I don't know if allowed is the right word, but whatever, allowed himself to be demonized in Quebec by the separatists. Chretien, for all his faults spent his life trying to keep our country united, and for this I think we should be very thankful. I also don't think a lot of people in Canada have a clue what it is like to be a federalist in Quebec. It has been absolute hell for federalists in Quebec, and certainly there are some parallels with the McCarthy era in the US.

Please though don't misunderstand me. I am NOT in any way condoning any fraudulent behaviour.

I just want to be clear that I understand what you are saying or possibly suggesting. Are you saying that if Martin and all of his current cabinet ministers (also what about current MPs) are not in any way involved in the scandal, i.e. no involvement and no awareness, then Martin is completely off the hook, and will get a resounding majority government?

Even though we have heard some testimony, I don't wan't to condemn anyone prior to Justice Gomery's report.

What I am confused about is after our election of June, 2004, why would Canadians want to have another election before Gomery's report this November. I mean don't Canadians want to hear from Gomery before we go to the polls again?

Cheers

[Guest eureka]

I thought it was the bloodlust so endemic to right wingers, this desire to tar Martin and other senior Liberals with criminality.

I am wondering whether I was wrong. It is beginning to sound more like mental retardation.

Still they yammer on about Marin must have known without the slightest bit of evidence and the funny thing is that they sound sincere in this belief in fairy tales.

Still they carry on about a quarter billion dollars when the figures actually diverted are at most in the low millions. Still they have not comprehended that thse advertising scams have been a preferred method of their own party which did it quite dliberately with the knowledge of all.

The difference this time is that, so far as any evidence goes, it is a few rogue bureaucrats and criminals who have stolen money. Whereas, under the Mulroney government particularly, the money was turned over to the crooked businessmen with the full understanding of the governing party.

The worth of the program and its purpose seems not to have penetrated the fog that most of them post through. Perhaps the leap of understanding to make the link between promoting the benefits of Canada and spending money is too big to make.

[shoop]

I thought it was the bloodlust so endemic to right wingers, this desire to tar Martin and other senior Liberals with criminality.

I am wondering whether I was wrong. It is beginning to sound more like mental retardation.

The worth of the program and its purpose seems not to have penetrated the fog that most of them post through. Perhaps the leap of understanding to make the link between promoting the benefits of Canada and spending money is too big to make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I see it now.

Any Canadian who is outraged that money from the sponsorship scandal was kicked back to support the political activities of the Liberal Party of Canada must be retarded.

Please help me in my mental deficiency and explain the link between promoting the benefits of Canada and having tax payer dollars funnelled to the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The difference this time is that, so far as any evidence goes, it is a few rogue bureaucrats and criminals who have stolen money. Whereas, under the Mulroney government particularly, the money was turned over to the crooked businessmen with the full understanding of the governing party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is somehow better if the theft is perpetrated by rogue bureaucrats and criminals instead of businessmen? Must be my retardation, still not getting the point on this one. But wait, the PCs were, deservedley, turfed out of office in 1993.

[Argus]

I have to completely agree.  Martin was Finance Minister, far closer to the 'shenanigans' than Chretien could have been. The best than Martin could possibly plead is incompetence, (ie: "I had no knowledge of the activities of which I was in charge") or he is guilty of corruption and/or theft.

This is a simplistic argument that only makes sense to people that don't understand how large organizations with huge budgets work.

The minister of finance allocates funds to each department.

The problem with your opinion is that you are trying to compare the government to a corporation. That falls apart on many levels, but certainly on this issue. This was not a "government" project, like building a road, this was a "political" project.

Martin was not merely Finance Minister, he was the second most powerful man in the party, with more than half the party more loyal to him than Chretien, and a very, very strong base of support in Quebec.

Now I can believe Martin had little say in this. I can believe it was all Chretien and Chretien's people. I can NOT believe that with his sources Martin did not know exactly what was going on. And since taking office he has, contrary to the myths being spun by Liberals, done everything possible to minimize everything about this and hide it away. If he'd had a majority government the Gomery Commision would have been shut down long ago, just like the Public Acounts committe hearings.

Further, there is nothing in the stories about Martin the politician which suggest that he is opposed to this type of sordid patronage. On the contrary, he seems quite willing to use public money to reward friends and supporters himself.

[cybercoma]

I have to completely agree.  Martin was Finance Minister, far closer to the 'shenanigans' than Chretien could have been. The best than Martin could possibly plead is incompetence, (ie: "I had no knowledge of the activities of which I was in charge") or he is guilty of corruption and/or theft.

This is a simplistic argument that only makes sense to people that don't understand how large organizations with huge budgets work.

The minister of finance allocates funds to each department.

The problem with your opinion is that you are trying to compare the government to a corporation. That falls apart on many levels, but certainly on this issue. This was not a "government" project, like building a road, this was a "political" project.

Martin was not merely Finance Minister, he was the second most powerful man in the party, with more than half the party more loyal to him than Chretien, and a very, very strong base of support in Quebec.

Now I can believe Martin had little say in this. I can believe it was all Chretien and Chretien's people. I can NOT believe that with his sources Martin did not know exactly what was going on. And since taking office he has, contrary to the myths being spun by Liberals, done everything possible to minimize everything about this and hide it away. If he'd had a majority government the Gomery Commision would have been shut down long ago, just like the Public Acounts committe hearings.

Further, there is nothing in the stories about Martin the politician which suggest that he is opposed to this type of sordid patronage. On the contrary, he seems quite willing to use public money to reward friends and supporters himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eureka says you sound mentally retarded.

[Riverwind]

Martin was not merely Finance Minister, he was the second most powerful man in the party, with more than half the party more loyal to him than Chretien, and a very, very strong base of support in Quebec.

A Martin supporter (Diezene or something like that) in Quebec was one of the few in the party that tried to 'do the right thing when no one was looking' (Christie Blatchford's words). Simply stating that Martin was an important figure in the party and had a lot of support does not automatically mean the he or his supporters condoned the activities or even knew the full extent.

Further, there is nothing in the stories about Martin the politician which suggest that he is opposed to this type of sordid patronage. On the contrary, he seems quite willing to use public money to reward friends and supporters himself.

I have to agree that Martin has make no attempt to change the was the political process works. I was underwhelmed with the process for selecting the latest round of senate appointees even though some of them were conservative supporters. His attempts to open up the appointment process for supreme court justices have been a joke. I don't have any information about how he his handling appointments that don't get media attention, however, I suspect it is just more of the same.

That said, there is a difference between the trading of political favours and the outright fraud that took place in sponsorship. I have heard nothing out of Gomery that suggests Martin was guilty of anything other than choosing not flush his political career down the drain by publicly blowing the whistle on what was going on once he heard the rumours like everyone else on parliament hill.

[Minimus Maximus]

The difference this time is that, so far as any evidence goes, it is a few rogue bureaucrats and criminals who have stolen money.

I may be willing to play devils advocate and say that not all Liberals knew about what was going on in the sponsorship program, but to believe that "only a few rouge elements" were at play here is an ostrich style approach to the whole affair. If any of Braults testimony is true it shows a larger conspiricy than those few rouge elements. There are too many connections between Libs and the missing money to say we can absolve the entire party of guilt.

That said it draws me to the conclusion that these "rouge elements" still exist within the Liberal party.

The worth of the program and its purpose seems not to have penetrated the fog that most of them post through. Perhaps the leap of understanding to make the link between promoting the benefits of Canada and spending money is too big to make.

[

Maybe its the westerner in me, but the entire concept of having to sell Canada to Canadians by erecting plaques in Italian town squares and renting box seats at sporting events for the libs and their buddies is lost on me.

Maybe promoting Canada to foriegn investors, but not promoting Canada to Quebecer's. Its like promoting doughnuts at a fat kid convention. In the end this program has caused deeper divisions in this country, not unity.

I kind of wonder what the libs have in store to promote Canada to westerners(can you say Albertascam?).

[shoop]

Maybe its the westerner in me, but the entire concept of having to sell Canada to Canadians by erecting plaques in Italian town squares and renting box seats at sporting events for the libs and their buddies is lost on me.

Maybe promoting Canada to foriegn investors, but not promoting Canada to Quebecer's. Its like promoting doughnuts at a fat kid convention. In the end this program has caused deeper divisions in this country, not unity.

I kind of wonder what the libs have in store to promote Canada to westerners(can you say Albertascam?).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For Martin not bringing in a new NEP is enough to sell Alberta on the glory of the Liberals. wtf? Vote for us because we aren't going to steal your money as blatantly as Trudeau did???

Seriously though, people were willing to give him a chance in Alberta prior to Adscam. No chance now though. Maybe with a new leader, unlikely but you never know.

[Guest eureka]

That would not be playing Devil's Advocate. It would be morally and intellectually responsible. There is no evidence linking anyone of consequence in the Liberal Party to this time. It is therefore, not a matter of belief on the part of anyone. We have to wait and quit playing dirty politics.

If you knew Quebec (as I do), then you would understand better why Canada has to be sold to the Quebecois - not Quebeckers. In the face of 40 years of unrelenting anti-Canada propaganda by the governments of Quebec, Liberal as well as PQ, Quebec needs very much to be exposed to the truth: to the benefits of Canadianism and to the hidden role of the federal government in those benefits. It needs to have the Canadian flag waved proudly and not hidden from sight as it is now.

As a Westerner, you can be excused for not knowing since, for more than a generation, the media has colluded with the political establishment in keeping from the people the true state of affairs in Quebec.

But, as a Westerner, who supposedly "wants in," it would behoove you to inform yourself about Canada instead of swallowing the propaganda that you are fed by your regional demagogues.

[Minimus Maximus]

That would not be playing Devil's Advocate. It would be morally and intellectually responsible. There is no evidence linking anyone of consequence in the Liberal Party to this time. It is therefore, not a matter of belief on the part of anyone. We have to wait and quit playing dirty politics.

100% agree with you on this one.

If you knew Quebec (as I do), then you would understand better why Canada has to be sold to the Quebecois - not Quebeckers. In the face of 40 years of unrelenting anti-Canada propaganda by the governments of Quebec, Liberal as well as PQ, Quebec needs very much to be exposed to the truth: to the benefits of Canadianism and to the hidden role of the federal government in those benefits. It needs to have the Canadian flag waved proudly and not hidden from sight as it is now.

As a Westerner, you can be excused for not knowing since, for more than a generation, the media has colluded with the political establishment in keeping from the people the true state of affairs in Quebec.

Point taken. But my point about not understanding the need to sell Canada to Quebecois(if you so prefer) is that we have been doing this forever and gotten nowhere. Sponsorship programs are not the answer, from your comments it would seem that the feds have failed miserably in regards to making Quebec federalists feel included rather than part of the family but separate.

But, as a Westerner, who supposedly "wants in," it would behoove you to inform yourself about Canada instead of swallowing the propaganda that you are fed by your regional demagogues.

As far as the "wants in" bit, sorry but I never said it, you must have me confused with someone else. My personal thoughts are less "wants in" and more "unity among the provices".

Concerning my"swallowing propoganda by my regional demagogues", I dont read the editorials in the Calgary Sun in the morning and say "now I know the truth, I am now a well informed Canadian who knows it all". Google searches are wonderful things. I have re-read my posts and cannot see where your final comments originate, this looks like you are stereotyping me as just another dumb hick Albertan with blinders on, so I will take that with a grain of salt(sel if you so prefer).

Eureka, you are obviously an intelligent person who feels strongly about the issues you have brought forth in your rebuttal to my statements, as a fellow Canadian I appologize if the word "Quebecers" insults you(or maybe it was "fat kid", just kidding), but the truth is that forums like this can provide more understanding between people like you and I if we accept the fact that we are separated by great distances and the attitudes we have formed are in part due to our geography. This country, as a whole, needs something to unite us toward a common goal, this goal should be that it is un-neccessary to pay anybody who lives within our borders to wave the flag that we exist under.

This is a separate issue not related to the subject of this thread, but I would like to discuss them with you at another time and on another thread.

[shoop]

If you knew Quebec (as I do), then you would understand better why Canada has to be sold to the Quebecois - not Quebeckers. In the face of 40 years of unrelenting anti-Canada propaganda by the governments of Quebec, Liberal as well as PQ, Quebec needs very much to be exposed to the truth: to the benefits of Canadianism and to the hidden role of the federal government in those benefits. It needs to have the Canadian flag waved proudly and not hidden from sight as it is now.

As a Westerner, you can be excused for not knowing since, for more than a generation, the media has colluded with the political establishment in keeping from the people the true state of affairs in Quebec.

But, as a Westerner, who supposedly "wants in," it would behoove you to inform yourself about Canada instead of swallowing the propaganda that you are fed by your regional demagogues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The issue for the CPC isn't with the goals of the CPC. It's with the way the money was actually distributed.

If you are going to lecture people on needing to inform yourselves about Quebec you should show a little better knowledge of the rest of the country. The whole west wants in thing is three parties and about ten years ago.

If you knew the West, as I do, the was "wants a fair deal" would probably be more appropriate here and now.

PS, MM. I completely agree with you that we shouldn't have to pay somebody to wave the flag underneath that with which we exist. Alas it was the reality of the situation at the time.

[August1991]

the truth is that forums like this can provide more understanding between people like you and I if we accept the fact that we are separated by great distances and the attitudes we have formed are in part due to our geography.

Good point, MM.

Reading quickly through this thread, it seems to me some basic facts are forgotten.

The debateable merits of the sponsorship programme are not at the heart of the scandal. It is the fact that lots of cash spent supposedly for sponsorships wound up back in the federal Liberal Party coffers. The scandal ressembles alot the Customs Scandal of the 1920s.

It is impossible that Martin and Chretien didn't know about this aspect of Liberal Party financing.

We would not even be discussing this now except for the dogged questions of the BQ in the House and the work of Daniel Leblanc of the Globe & Mail.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

That said, I don't have enough information to be absolutely certain of Martin's innocence. However, I also feel it is ridiculous to say he must be guilty or incompetent.

Fair enough, I understand your argument of 'not being responsible for the minutia'. However, let's look at the overall scheme. I don't believe that a junior staffer would have taken it upn themselves to 'award kickbacks and largesse' (if I may use the such a simplification) to Quebec advertising firms, (which were 'kicking back moneyy to the federal party)ostensibly to promote 'Canadian Unity' to the tune of some hundred million dollars on their own accord.

It is also indicative of a certain problem inherent in tax-funded gov't...no one is held accountable for losses or 'mishandling of funds' the same way as they would in private enterprise. If Martin were the CFO of a private company, and his 'junior accountants' spent (or gave away) the company's money as they wished, they all would have been cleaned out, and it wouldn't have made the news (unless it bankrupted the company).

[Guest eureka]

Your use of Quebeckers does not insult me. I merely try to distinguish the French spaking from the English speaking - something Canada has forgotten in all the noise. Thirty years or so ago, Montreal was the second largest English speaking city in Canada. It is now 5th. The reason for that is that it has lost half of its population since they have been driven out by the politcs of Francisation of the Province and by language laws that have virtually outlawed the English language.

The West wants in was the mantra of those, particularly from Alberta. who demanded the changing of Canada in the image they conjured up from the delusions of Manning. The West was always in but could not accept that the tail could not wag the dog. A minority of Reformers with an ideological outlook that has been discredited for generations now, wanted to impose their "vision" on the Canadian nation. That is what the supposed alienation is about.

I lived and worked in both Alberta and B.C. for years so I do have some knowledge of that region. I have also lived in both Ontario and Quebec so I do have some grasp of their politics - a lot in the case of Quebec.

There is a great need to "sell" Canada to Quebec. The French people of that province are educated from an early age and are battered with reinforcing propaganda for the rest of their lives by the government and media of Quebec, to believe that the Provincial government is responsible for everything good and that the federal government just takes their money. They truly believe that they are economic losers in the Canadian Federation. They also still have the "victim" mentality and believe the ninsense that they have been weaned on about their opression by the English community.

It has been dangerous to be English and Canadian in Quebec: dangerous, too, to be French and Canadian. Not many individuals dare to wave the flag and not many indications of a Canadian or federal presence were very visible. That is why even spreading flags around is significant.

Also, and what irritates me, this "pork" to advertising agencies was at a much higher level under the Mulroney Conservatives. They brought it to an art form. Quebec provincial governments, in spite of the supposed cleansing by the PQ, have always spent government money on propaganda purposes. They do it now under the banner of promoting French culture and ridding the Province of English. They are as corrupt as ever Duplessis was, but they couch their corruption in a cloak of virtue.

One of the first initiatives of the Chretien administration (and Martin, of course) was to lessen opportunities for "pork" that Mulroney had larded his government's wheels with.

The sad part of all this is that a very important and well intentioned program was hijacked by crooks - be they bureaucrats, politicians, or businessmen. The even sadder part is that a few political leaders are attempting to make this into a Canadian "Holocaust" experience instead of cooperating in the determination of what went wrong and of ensuring that the oppoertunities for corruption are lessened for the future.

They are playing into the hands of the Separatists for a perceived short term advantage.