Sponsorship scandal part 2 "option canada"

[Bakunin]

A new book came out with proofs that the "No camp" violated laws during

the 1995 referendum and is problably what would be the begining of the sponsorship scandal.

The secret organism would have spend 3 to 3,5 millions illegally to help the "no" camp, with strategy similar to the sponsorship ad scandal. More detail to come.

The scandal would affect many people and company from the sponsorship scandal including BCP, Everest, Tony Mignaca, André Morrow communications (the owner is Liza Frulla husband ), Pierre Pettigrew.

here is one of the article about it:

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

New book on unity fund adds to Liberal woes

Updated Mon. Jan. 9 2006 3:20 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

News about the imminent launch of a book detailing alleged activities of a clandestine Canadian unity group during the 1995 Quebec referendum couldn't have come at a worst time for the Liberals.

On the same day a crucial English language debate is set to hit the airwaves, authors Robin Philpot and Quebec investigative journalist Normand Lester gave a sneak preview into Les secrets d'Option Canada, which hits bookshelves Wednesday.

The book provides alleged accounts of what happened to a portion of federal funds that went to Option Canada -- a pro-federalist group during the Quebec referendum.

According to the authors, Option Canada received $5 million from the federal government -- and $3.5 million of that sum was illegally spent by the referendum campaign's "No" side by bypassing Quebec's spending laws for the referendum.

The authors claim that some of the amount was used to pay Grit volunteers who worked on the "No" campaign, including an organizer who was recently banned from the Liberal Party over involvement in the sponsorship scandal.

Sovereigntists have long accused Ottawa of using the group to skirt rules on referendum funding. Spending limits for both the Yes and No committees were set at $5 million each.

At a Monday morning press conference in Montreal, Lester said a source recently pointed him to documents from Option Canada in a cardboard box behind a suburban Montreal shopping centre.

Philpot told CTV Newsnet in an interview that the documents revealed "a will on the part of the ... conceivers of Option Canada and the federal government to break Quebec's referendum laws and to secretly inject money into a democratic political campaign..."

Philpot claimed he and Lester have uncovered a "very, very serious case of the government injecting secret money illegally to deny a legitimate political debate ... from taking place."

Included in their book are details about a $12,000 grant that allegedly went to one of Liberal Leader Paul Martin's current cabinet ministers to promote national unity before the referendum.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2006

[The Honest Politician]

Gilles Duceppe said tonight the conservatives are also involved with the Option Canada issue.

[tml12]

Gilles Duceppe said tonight the conservatives are also involved with the Option Canada issue.

Of course, now that we have threatened his 50%+1 goal. I am sure the Christian Heritage Party was involved if they threated the Bloc too...

[Bakunin]

Gilles Duceppe said tonight the conservatives are also involved with the Option Canada issue.

i think it was a cheap political play from duceppe, the conservative are partly involved in option canada but from what ive heard they where not involved in the scandal of option canada.

[Riverwind]

A new book came out with proofs that the "No camp" violated laws during the 1995 referendum and is problably what would be the begining of the sponsorship scandal.

I don't consider allegations by a seperatist apologist to be proof of anything. Even if there is some truth to these allegations, seperatists can hardly complain this point since they unilaterally decide what the rules and make sure they benefit them. The next referedum will not be fought according to rules set unilaterally by the PQ.

It really makes my blood boil whenever I hear sepeartists complain about federalist propaganda: the PQ has spent last generation using the powers of the government to indoctrinate Quebequers with seperatist 'propaganda' yet Quebequers are blind to these manipulations.

[tml12]

A new book came out with proofs that the "No camp" violated laws during the 1995 referendum and is problably what would be the begining of the sponsorship scandal.

I don't consider allegations by a seperatist apologist to be proof of anything. Even if there is some truth to these allegations, seperatists can hardly complain this point since they unilaterally decide what the rules and make sure they benefit them. The next referedum will not be fought according to rules set unilaterally by the PQ.

It really makes my blood boil whenever I hear sepeartists complain about federalist propaganda: the PQ has spent last generation using the powers of the government to indoctrinate Quebequers with seperatist 'propaganda' yet Quebequers are blind to these manipulations.

Both sides played dirty, no doubt about it.

I think, in my humble opinion, leaders like Charest saved Canada, not the federal Liberals who fumbled and flounced in their kerfuffle.

Of course, he has been quite a disappointment in Quebec City...

An editorial in the Montreal Gazette a few weeks back said he would probably be leading a Conservative majority government if he was still in Ottawa. Who knows?

[Riverwind]

An editorial in the Montreal Gazette a few weeks back said he would probably be leading a Conservative majority government if he was still in Ottawa. Who knows?

Not very likely - he had no choice but to go into Quebec politics - if he stayed as leader of the PCs he would have been branded a coward who would not fight for Canada when it really counted. It is also very unlikely that the Reform-PC merger would have happened with Charest at the helm.

[Bakunin]

I guess there is no end to this, once there are fact brought on the table it always end up " bah who cares, the separatist are evil" and blah blah blah !

Could we just for once put partisanship aside and try to understand what is hapenning, damn, violating such law is problably as much damaging as violating an election law. We are hearing so much scandal over the past year its not even funny anymore, the best thing we should do is at least try to understand them.

Over a thousand of invoice and documents meant to be destroyed by the federal government ends up a few month ago in a trash dump in the back of a small comercial center and a well known investigation journalist finds them...

Then when the government hear about this investigation going on with the paper he asked to be destroyed, he call the RCMP and say finally something went wrong in 1995 and maybe they should investigate...

I think just from there, we could almost make a movie out of that... Its obivious that something isnt right in all of this, why can't we agree on that ? because fighting the evil separatist mean it is right to violate law and morality ?

[tml12]

I guess there is no end to this, once there are fact brought on the table it always end up " bah who cares, the separatist are evil" and blah blah blah !

Could we just for once put partisanship aside and try to understand what is hapenning, damn, violating such law is problably as much damaging as violating an election law. We are hearing so much scandal over the past year its not even funny anymore, the best thing we should do is at least try to understand them.

Over a thousand of invoice and documents meant to be destroyed by the federal government ends up a few month ago in a trash dump in the back of a small comercial center and a well known investigation journalist finds them...

Then when the government hear about this investigation going on with the paper he asked to be destroyed, he call the RCMP and say finally something went wrong in 1995 and maybe they should investigate...

I think just from there, we could almost make a movie out of that... Its obivious that something isnt right in all of this, why can't we agree on that ? because fighting the evil separatist mean it is right to violate law and morality ?

My thesis is both sides played dirty...remember Parizeau and the union intimidators?

Landry said he wanted independent oversight at the next referendum.

We'll see if Boisclair plays up on this...

[Riverwind]

Could we just for once put partisanship aside and try to understand what is hapenning, damn, violating such law is problably as much damaging as violating an election law. We are hearing so much scandal over the past year its not even funny anymore, the best thing we should do is at least try to understand them.

We are not talking about fraud, theft or some other violation that every agrees is wrong. We are talking about violating an artifical restriction on election spending. There are many people who consider such laws to be an unreasonable restriction of on free speech. The only reason this law exists is because seperatists are trying to rig the process to give themselves maximum advantage. That said, I agree that it is a problem that the federalist side should not have violated the law. However, I also believe that Quebec cannot seperate without a constitutional admendment ratified by the rest of the country - a UDI is illegal and immoral. So if you want to criticize some federalists for breaking laws then why don't you at least acknowledge that the seperatists are pefectly willing to break many more important laws in the name of achieving their objectives.

[Guest eureka]

Any such laws should and will be ignored. The separarists have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over the years to subvert democratic process in their treasonable drive. Why the hell should Canadians observe any restrictions on the way they will wage war on this gang of thugs? As Sparhawk said, the governments of Quebec have been engaging in propaganda at public expense for years. They have alsp spent huge amounts of public monies on their referendum campaigns.

Who the hell cares what rules they make? War is war and it is better than spending the money on guns.

[Bakunin]

My thesis is both sides played dirty...remember Parizeau and the union intimidators?

IMO parizeau was the dirtiest or should i say the only dirty, rude and untrustworthy prime minister we had in the last 45 years, He was intelligent, strategist and its higly probable that he made a few dirty small strategy like the union thing. Nothing as big and dirty as the federalist like the sponsorship ad and option canada but still dirty strategy. This is why i hate him more than any other politician (except prolly trudeau and chretien who where worst IMO).

Sparhawk, the supreme court of canada said both side could spend 5millions each, its wasn't a sovreignist strategy its just simple logic just like the rule of any election, a party can't spend more than X amount of money.

Levesque was as fair and honest as a politician can be and the same for Bouchard. Both where 2 sovreignist and are prolly the closest sample of how ideal politics should be. Bernard landry and jean charest aren't good prime minister but at least they are democrats.

I just can't beleive how much Jean chretien was dishonest that we still hear about his numerous scandal over and over again, it seems to have no end... And we aren't talking about small tricks, we are talking about heavy violation of democracy and thousand of millions spent on propaganda... Trudeau was such an ass, more arrogant than a thousand of arrogants liberals and a dirty strategist, Paul martin doesn't stand up for nothing, he just surf on whatever he can, he his a completly different man than when he was a finance minister, i think he would sell off his mom if he could to win the next election.

The last worthy prime minister i can think of is Murloney, maybe he wasn't perfect but he truly tryed to understand the situation, he tryed to understand what canada was all about and find out a way to bring it back together. I think harper is finally understanding this, he his slowly but likly finding its way in quebec, i dont know if he is fooling us to win the election but at least he his truly different than what we know about the liberals.

[Riverwind]

Sparhawk, the supreme court of canada said both side could spend 5millions each, its wasn't a sovereignist strategy its just simple logic just like the rule of any election, a party can't spend more than X amount of money.

Can you find a link to the judgement? (French version ok). If the law is based on a federal supreme court ruling then that does change my perspective on the issue.

I just can't believe how much Jean chretien was dishonest that we still hear about his numerous scandal over and over again, it seems to have no end... And we aren't talking about small tricks, we are talking about heavy violation of democracy and thousand of millions spent on propaganda...

I hated Chretien - wanted him gone long ago. Many people in English Canada felt the same way but they were stuck because the Conservatives could not get their act together.

I think harper is finally understanding this, he his slowly but likly finding its way in quebec, i dont know if he is fooling us to win the election but at least he his truly different than what we know about the liberals.

I am pretty sure Harper believes what he says about the fiscal deficit because right wing economic thinkers know that taxes, whenever possible, should be collected by the level of government responsible for spending them. Our current system where the federal gov't is a 'sugar daddy' to the provinces screws up the chain of accountability

The best thing Quebequers could do right now is vote Conservative - even if the Conservative candidate has no chance of winning or even if that increases the chance that a Liberal will be elected in a tight riding because more support in Quebec will translate into more support in Ontario.

[Bakunin]

Sparhawk, the supreme court of canada said both side could spend 5millions each, its wasn't a sovereignist strategy its just simple logic just like the rule of any election, a party can't spend more than X amount of money.

Can you find a link to the judgement? (French version ok). If the law is based on a federal supreme court ruling then that does change my perspective on the issue.

I just can't believe how much Jean chretien was dishonest that we still hear about his numerous scandal over and over again, it seems to have no end... And we aren't talking about small tricks, we are talking about heavy violation of democracy and thousand of millions spent on propaganda...

I hated Chretien - wanted him gone long ago. Many people in English Canada felt the same way but they were stuck because the Conservatives could not get their act together.

I think harper is finally understanding this, he his slowly but likly finding its way in quebec, i dont know if he is fooling us to win the election but at least he his truly different than what we know about the liberals.

I am pretty sure Harper believes what he says about the fiscal deficit because right wing economic thinkers know that taxes, whenever possible, should be collected by the level of government responsible for spending them. Our current system where the federal gov't is a 'sugar daddy' to the provinces screws up the chain of accountability

The best thing Quebequers could do right now is vote Conservative - even if the Conservative candidate has no chance of winning or even if that increases the chance that a Liberal will be elected in a tight riding because more support in Quebec will translate into more support in Ontario.

The conservative are now ahead of the liberal in quebec.

As for the supreme court thing:

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060109...25/CPACTUALITES

En vertu de la loi québécoise sur les consultations populaires, ces dépenses sont illégales puisqu'elles n'ont pas été comptabilisées. Les règles approuvées par la Cour suprême du Canada limitaient à 1,00 $ par électeur, soit environ 5 millions $, le financement de chaque camp.