A Toronto Sun editorial asks the obvious in the wake of Paul Coffins curfew for pleading guilty to 15 counts of fraud – “Is anyone ever going to be seriously punished for AdScam?”
Here in Saskatchewan, of course, we experienced our own highly publicized poltiical scandal in the 1980’s. In view of the severity of Paul Coffin’s sentence for defrauding the Canadian taxpayers (you can’t call it defrauding “the government” when the government is an accomplice) of $3 million, I thought it might be interesting to review those convicted and jailed over a total of $838,000 in misspent funds in our own province during the 1980’s;
– Lorne McLaren, former MLA: 3� years.
– John Scraba, former communications director: two years, $12,000 in restitution.
– John Gerich, former cabinet minister: two years, $12,264 in restitution.
– Michael Hopfner, former MLA: 18 months, $56,000 in restitution.
– Eric Berntson, former Saskatchewan deputy premier: one year; resigned Senate seat.
– Ralph Katzman, former MLA: one year, $100,000 in restitution
Source CBC archives.
Of course, unlike most of those listed above, Paul Coffin isn’t a politician. In fact, no politicians at all have been charged in the Adscam debacle, nor has there been any investigation into broader questions of inappropriate political acquisition of public funds outside of Gomery’s narrow mandate – despite the fact that the triggering event for the Governor General’s audit was a whistleblower complaint by Public Works employee Alan Cutler – who in 1995�questioned a $15,000 a month retainer that Paul Martin’s Finance Department was attempting to push through on behalf of his personal leadership campaign team the firm Earnscliffe.
Of course, the same provincial NDP premier whose party has flogged the “Devine” corruption horse in every election race since, had no problem at all endorsing the faltering minority government this spring. Apparently, Calvert suffers no twangs of ethical hypocrisy in standing shoulder to elbow with corrupt federal Liberals – so long as the cheques keep coming.
Reminscent of an old W.C. Fields joke, Lorne Calvert has established what he is. You can’t blame Saskatchewan taxpayers for wondering if there’s a secret price list.
Lowen the partisan revisionist thrills us with this disinformation: “Sinc Stevens never went to jail. In fact, he was never even charged criminally.
Two sets of judges for Liberals, and two sets of facts for Conservatives. ”
Any equivilency between the Stevens case and the undeniable one against Coffin is purely a matter of the failings of your public school indoctrination…or a matter of personal fabrication. My senses tell me you were still shitting yellow when Sinc Stevens was turfed from the Muldoom machine.
Well, if I had known I was debating an aspiring Ryan Seacrest I would have gotten out a lot earlier.
Mike, you’ve committed the same mistake as everyone else above you. You’ve assumed that Coffin got off light, and then inferred a Liberal bias in the justice system, without demonstrating that his sentence was below the average. It’s just bad reasoning, and while it may confirm your biases it doesn’t make your point.
David: The only “Canadian court” is the Supreme Court. It generally doesn’t hear mid-sized fraud cases.
WL: read above. I was responding to Colin’s claim that Sinc went to jail. He did not, and he was not charged criminally.
Peter – Exactly! – one small fish out of the hundreds implicated as being involved in the Gomery enquiry – not a great record to be proud of considering this has been on-going for almost ten years – maybe you are proud, I’m not and I don’t need to know about any precedents to help me make up my mind.
Bobby: I am glad you are more honest about not being intellectually honest than most people on this site. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
Peter sees no wrong with the judgement and that’s just dandy isn’t it? Another Eastern Liberal apologist who is more than likely hoping to get in on a little kickback action himself. Awfully glad to hear you left Alberta though, good riddance.
Steal from the people. Go to Jail. GO Directly to Jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $3 Mil. or Patronage.
This goes for Conservatives, Liberals, NDP. You don’t want to seem like your apologizing too much for the crimes of the 1980s…
Kelly: I’ve actually said I thought it was light. The point is, I can’t be sure, because I just don’t know the average. It’s about intellectually honesty.
BTW, the only money I’ve ever made in politics has been working for Conservatives.
Peter
Tony: glad to see you studied law at the University of Monopoly.
Why does anyone have to prove that Coffins sentence is the average or below?? The man stole 1.5 million and is basically walking. Yet a farmer is not allowed to sell his own wheat and goes to jail for doing so. You dont see anything wrong with that Peter?? You cant see any glaring contradictions?? Who appointed these judges??
Can we now say that the precedent has been set and that Guite and others will be spared jail also??
Good ol’ U of M… go Fighting Community Chest! still a better law school then Univ. of Saskatchewan :p
You see, Mike, the reason why you may want to know the average is because you cannot say he got off lightly if he got the same sentence as everyone else for similar crimes. It’s just about making good judgements and comparisons. If you assume he got a lighter sentence because he was a Liberal, but you cannot demonstrate it, then you are not thinking, but instead being a partisan hack.
Here’s the whole point: I am not a big fan of the Liberals. I just like some comparative evidence before I cast wild accusations. It’s called using your brain.
I am sure we can all agree to that, Tony.
Tax Revolt! Tax Revolt! Tax Revolt! now goddamit!!!!
Ok Peter using your logic I now say that anyone who steals 1.5 million should not go to jail. Simply because I dont have a basis for comparison. And you accuse others of not using their brain.
Mike: It would be similarly unfounded to say that Coffin got to heavy a sentence (if that’s what you were trying to say above). What’s your point?
Thanks Peter.
I’m not sure about a tax revolt… what exactly would that solve? Sure the TransCan around Swift Current could fall into even greater disrepair, but we’d only end up hurting ourselves… What if we just stop treating white collar crime by a slap on the wrist and/or a month or two at Club Fed.
A quick google of penalty for fraud in Canada says fraud over five thousand the max penalty is ten years in jail. Coffin defrauded 1.5 million. I am more than justified, as is everyone else on here, in saying that he got off light. and Peter you are full of shit.
Peter – you seem to equate “fairness” in the sentencing of Coffin with what was done in other similar cases. The point that I, and others, seem to be trying to get into your head, is that we don’t need the justice system to tell us what is fair and what isn’t. I don’t know what the definition of fairness is, but I sure do know unfairness when I see it. Try thinking for yourself and stop obfuscating on the facts. The RCMP did receive money from the Sponsorship program. The RCMP did not use the money for what it was intended and put it in a secret bank account. The RCMP apparently investigated themselves and to my knowledge, no-one was held accountable. If you know different I’d appreciate hearing it. If this isn’t an involvement at least in ADSCAM, what is it?
Wow. Peter asks a legitimate question and everyone gets their backs up. I’m kinda surprised.
Folks, I am just as upset that Coffin didn’t get prison time as anyone else, but Peter’s inquiry is totally legitimate. How can we claim Coffin got off light without some comparative data? Yes, the max is 10 years and minimum is a kick in the a$$, but in order to say Coffin was given an easy ride we have to know the average penalty meted out for such fraud under the Canadian system. Outside of this we are all drawing conclusions based on our own judicial ideals.
Now, I’d *like* to see Coffin thrown in the slammer because I think his fraud deserves it. *In my mind* he got off light. And, admittedly, part of my belief that he got off light comes from my prejudice towards the Canadian justice system, which in my opinion does not give appropriate penalties for crimes. But with respect to precedent in Canadian law I really don’t know if that is the case, and as Peter says, nobody will until someone can offer some proof of an average penalty meted out by the Courts.
At the same time, I don’t know if anyone has the time to gather such statistics. I surely don’t. Nevertheless I’d be interested in hearing the number and hopefully someone can scrounge the information together for all of us.
In the meantime, can we just admit that Pete has a point?
Or, is it that so many people have their hands in the public cookie jar, and that judges think to themselves, “where for the grace of god go I… or my relatives… or my friends!” It may just be a matter of all the liberal appointed judges making sure that when they or their friends or family get caught, wrist slaps are all that go around. Hmmmmm… this is sounding like the former CCCP all the time… Looking at it from western Canada it’s just typical for the Canadian East Bloc.
Funny how I make one post in anger and Peter hijacks an entire thread.
Peter throw your moral relativism and other shit out the window and admit that if you, me or anyone else here so much as cheated on our taxes we would face jail time.
Notice Radwanski was let off lightly too. Geez those liberal connections keep popping up.
Save your sophistry and give your head a shake. Of course I’m pissed off. Svend was also spared a prison sentence. Try stealing a ring tonight. Tomorrow take it back to the jeweler and I bet you still get brought up on felony theft charges.
If your connections are no good and you dont go to jail you prove your point. Now off to the jewelry store fuckface.
Yeah, what Colin said or go forth and fornicate thyself. Either way, Peter you are an idiot.
Zero to 10 years/2 = 5 years. That’s average isn’t it? The max and min are there for a reason. $1.5 millions fraud doesn’t sound too average to me but if it is then Coffin should be doing time, say 5 years.
Steal $1.4 million. Get caught. Pay back $1.0 million, say sorry and avoid jail. Light or heavy sentence, what’s the average, etc. etc. – who cares? Crime does pay in Canada.
peter,
your question is about the relative nature of the sentence in relation to the crime is important and should be explored by journalists with access to that sort of information. However, the absolute nature of the sentence is also important. The “grounding” meted out by the judge serves, it seems to me, to undermine the judicial process in a couple of ways. Firstly it seems too light in view of the crimes committed (a subjective view based on absolutes i admit) and it does not seem to take into account Coffin’s lack of cooperation with the inquiry.
Secondly, it will hardly increase the chances of other conspiritors cooperating in hope of avoiding stiff punishment.
There sure are a lot of people who don’t like it when friends of the Liberal Party of Canada illegally line their pockets with millions of taxpayer dollars.
But Peter Loewen, whenever you pop up on Kate’s site, you counsel people to calm down, and think more clearly, more like you, rather than being so critical of the Liberals.
You have expressed, clearly and repeatedly, on this post and in the past, that those who post here lack your general sense of wherewithal and good judgement. If only you were willing to add that certain little something which is a prerequisite for such persusasive self-authority as you wield: An opinion on criminal malfeasance.
Just for the record — it will just take a second — what’s your opinion on such Liberal malfeasance as, say, the money-laundering scheme which took place in the Liberal party? And could you please grace us with a comment or two on the LPC’s blatant vote-buying attempt, caught out so very fulsomely on tape?
Thank you very much.
Without getting into the meat of this already lengthy thread – Peter, if you check the post, there are no less than 6 cases of politicians found guilty of misappropriating funds, who spent jail time – for stealing far less.
Peter, although I have not found any definitive answer for your question I did find the following.
This site shows stats on fraud cases and sentencing but does not go into the dtails. It does show that the vast majority of fraud cases recieve probation as a sentence. statcan
This page shows the stance the Canadian government supposedly is taking in regards to fraud. Canada Justice
More dissapointing stats here
And then I found this case of a 71 year old man charged with defrauding the Canadian government. It is a little more complex. I will let you decide for yourself it was justified as far as sentencing goes. CNW.
Justice does not only need to be served. It must also be percieved.
I would be a fool to expect fairness, equality, protection or consistency from our courts. In working for over 30 years for social services and probation, I have been to court with many children and women. It’s a harsh crap shoot every time. There are no slam dunks.
What bothers me about Mr. Coffin’s sentence is that it wasn’t one act of theft but an ongoing criminal enterprise over many years.
Wow. Amused divides the maximum penalty by two, gets five years, and tells me that that’s the average. Actually, it’s just half of ten. And I’m the idiot?
Tim, thanks for those stats, it’s a start. And, Bobby, I agree that the sentence doesn’t seem fair. As I said above, I thought it was light. But, fairness has to at least take into account what happended to others, and if others have not received jail time for similar crimes, then Paul Coffin shouldn’t, even if he is a Liberal. If the ultimate reason one thinks he should go to jail is because he is a Liberal, then one’s moral reasoning is no better than the Liberals.
Let me say this: when I first read Jean Brault’s testimony I was so angry I was nearly unable to teach a class I had the same afternoon. I was in the United States at the time, and had to explain to some of my students afterwards why I was in such a foul mood. And, honestly, I felt quite embarassed to be a Canadian at that point. In short, I was emotionally repulsed by the sponsorship affair.
But ultimately, I don’t want to let anger or disgust cloud my reasoning. Indeed, I think the reason why so many people on this site sound so absurd is because they just won’t think things through. Think about this: I just asked that people establish empirically that Coffin was treated with favouritism before they suggested that our whole judiciary was corrupt. It’s not a high standard to meet, and it’s a reasonable request among democratic citizens. Instead, most of you call me a Liberano, or make silly circular arguments, or basically just slobber all over your keyboards. It’s unbecoming, and it’s unconvincing. Call me an idiot if you wish, but come back to this conversation in a year and see who sounded more rational and thoughtful.
Not sure what happened to that last link regarding the 71 year old.
it should be
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/on/press/2004/2004_jul_20_e.htm
To be frank Kate; I don’t care if you steal $1,000, $10,000 $1.5 Million or $500 Billion. You’re defrauding the people and betraying their trust and confidence. I don’t care if your a member of the Liberals or NDP or Conservatives … you should go to jail.
“You see, Mike, the reason why you may want to know the average is because you cannot say he got off lightly if he got the same sentence as everyone else for similar crimes.”
Hey Scott Brison er uh Peter.
He got off way to lightly.
Canada has never had anyone steal admittedly 1.5 million tax dollars through a kick back theft scheme created by our own sitting governemnt to steal an election before. So you’re just going to have to give us a little time to come up with the research you absurdly demand.
Fool!
Summerize?
Lefty teacher Peter, Thank you for acting the foil in this thread. It made for interesting answers to things I didn’t know.
Mike looked something up and proved Peter to be ..uh *Full of it*
Collin suggests, Peter hijacked the thread.
Ebd asks for evidence from Peter.
Tim provides more solid rebuttal..
Steve points ot that Coffin’s crime is an ongoing series, not a single event.
Peter then deducts, ignoring all the conntra – evidence supplied against his argument, that he will not allow anger to cloud his judgement.
That all those who produced evidence *will not think things through*, and so sound absurd, and should not think in circles.
Peter, you may not realize it, but you are somewhat frustrating in your blind denial of concrete fact.
I could come back and read this again in ten years and It’s likely you will appear as you are now. Entirely without any rational.
You show unbecoming disrespect for someone trained as a teacher to suggest absrdity and slobbering over keyboards.
You suggested the label of idiot may be applied to yourself, but name calling never solved anything, as you probably know.
Interesting debate Peter, if very much lop-sided. Quite a let down though, when you can not lend any evidence to your views.
Sorry Peter, due to your slurs and providing nothing of value to your side of the debate, I am forced to grade you with a failing mark.
Next time, if you can contain your anger,
refrain from slurs, and provide at least some evidence for your contentions, you may earn a better grade. TG
The outrage arising from the “slap-on-the-wrist” given to Coffin by the Librano$’ judge is described here:
“Fairness, or justice, has its roots for Trivers in the determination to see that other people are not cheating us, and taking favours without giving anything in return.”
http://www.rapp.org/url/?SBSLFRZ6
Anyone who writes an apologia for those who are cheaters are lacking the gene of fairness and justice. The family through which they have evolved are, like their idols, miserable, self-loathing, and cheaters as are Coffin, the Judge, and the Librano$.
Cheaters will be side-lined, written off, and will suffer the fate coming to the Librano$: extinction by the voters of Canada. Come soon, O, happy day.
Down with Cheaters.Down with Coffin and his ilk. Down with the Judge. Down with Librano$$$$
New name, but same old, same old….
Ottawa scraps TPC for new subsidy fund
….Ottawa says it’s scrapping Technology Partnerships Canada, although the federal government’s MOST CONTROVERSIAL CORPORATE SUBSIDY PROGRAM will be REPLACED with a SIMILIAR FUND designed to do many of the same things.
Industry Minister David Emerson said yesterday that the new fund, to be called the Transformative Technologies Program (TTP), will also aim to help encourage private sector research but will be MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT than its embattled predecessor….
…James Rajotte, industry critic for the Conservatives, said the changes are just a “cover-up” for a program plagued by scandal. In a sense, he added, the changes are a step backward, in that there will be less emphasis on repayment. “It’s more corporate welfare.”…
…John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the changes will mean more public money will be wasted. “It’s an exercise in rebranding.”…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050921/RTPC21/Business/Idx
Well, at least someone is on the same line as Peter … via NealeNews …
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=11aef652-e6be-41e4-b841-21cf7c6d8042
A small portion thereof …
“It’s not as though the Criminal Code or judicial precedent precluded him from slapping Coffin with jail time. The maximum sentence for fraud over $5,000 is 10 years in prison. The Crown asked for 34 months.
Of 11,577 fraud convictions meted out in 2003 (the last year for which statistics are available), 3,972, or roughly one-third, led to jail time. Because Statistics Canada doesn’t compile rich detail about Canadian fraud sentences, it’s impossible to know the scale of these cons or the criminal backgrounds of their perpetrators. Such factors naturally affect sentencing.”
I think the question has morphed from the initial “was the sentence too light”. We all agree it was, from a personal concept of fairness. Peter’s question seems to be more oriented towards the root cause “is the judicial simply enforcing the norm, or is it corrupt?” We won’t know if it is corrupt until the average is brought forth, although there have been several examples given both in the initial post an in the thread that *seem to indicate* this is a terribly light punishment, there are more than likely several examples of punishments from the other side of that coin.
The judgement will be aviailalbe shortly from here: http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ (an English translation is available once it is posted), so we can all see the logic behind the sentencing.
JustAnotherJaybird
Hey Loewen:
You made the challenge a ways back in this thread asking to provide something to prove that Coffin got off light.
Well how about WC farmers being jailed for selling their own wheat without involvement of the CWB. (yet Eastern Canandian farmers can sell their wheat anywhere). By this standard, Coffin should have been given life!!
Apologies to anyone who may already have brought this one up ( I didn’t have the time to read the whole thread)
According to Peter’s “benifit of the doubt/I need more proof” diatribe, Coffin could be standing over a bludgeoned dead person, holding a blood dripping knife, be played an instant replay of the murder from the security camera, yet he’d still want to “send it to committee” for further study before he made up his mind.
Is he a prime candidate for the government payroll of make-work or what?
I’ll bet he’s a teacher. (And union rep. for his school)
Tulip:
I think you, like others, think that the plural of anectdote is data. It’s not.
Here’s my point: you cannot look at his sentence in isolation and say whether it was fair or not, especially not when judgement is clouded by anger.
As I’ve indicated, my suspicion too is that he got off light. But, to prove this, we have to know what similar charges dictate on average. As the Windsor Star indicates, only about a third of fraud charges result in jail time. But they have no more hard data, especially on how restitution mitigates sentence length. And cherrypicking other cases just doesn’t do it.
I realise everyone here is very upset about Coffin. Fair enough. But intensity of emotions is not what determines whether something is true or not. What matters are the facts, and the best facts are those which are most unbiasedly collected and as similar to the case at hand as possible. All I’ve asked is that people present them before jumping to conclusions. No one has. Thus, the question of the fairness of Coffin’s sentence remains unanswered. It’s as simple as that.
The Windsor Star is trashing the Librano$$$$$$. Think of Paul Martin, Sr., late father of AdScam Paul Martin,Jr., who sat in parliament for decades : Was the seat not Windsor? Nell Martin, Jr’s mother, shared the power with Martin, Sr.
There is light being focused on AdScam Martin by the Windsor Star. Let the light turn to heat & the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$ shall surely shrivel to dust.>
Coffin case: The wrong sentence
Windsor Star
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
For bilking taxpayers of more than $1.5 million with deals shadier than a palm grove, disgraced ad man Paul Coffin will serve hard time on his sofa and the speakers’ circuit. He’ll traverse the land lecturing students about, of all things, business ethics — a topic he’s no better equipped to speak about than Jack the Ripper is about lovemaking.
Coffin’s punishment is a disgrace. It trivializes defrauding the government and renders Canadian justice an oxymoron. The Crown has rightly threatened to appeal. It should pursue that option with vigour, demanding Coffin spend time behind bars.>>>
Windsor Star: Editorial!!!!http://www.rapp.org/url/?2S3VFP4F
Eskimo: Coffin’s guilt and the fairness of his sentence are two different things. You know this. There’s no question he’s guilty. He himself has admitted this. What is at question is whether his sentence was fair. So to speak, the jury is still out.
I’m actually a graduate student. When I am not doing that, I work for a conservative pollster or on conservative campaigns. I’m no teacher, and I’m no union rep. But nice try.
By the way, good for you for restraining yourself from making another homophobic remark. Well done!
I think the leftie liar loewen should hang right next to coffin and the PMPM as soon as possible.
And that is from the neck until DEAD!!!!!
Nice try, “FREE”. If you are an opponent of Kate’s, and of conservatism, have the guts to come out and say so, rather than pretending to be a supporter. Pathetic, really, but I guess that’s the best you can do.
Librano$ plead: Not Guilty.
Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
CJAD
Brault, Guit� still maintain sponsorship innocence
Globe and Mail – 1 hour ago
Montreal � Jean Brault and Chuck Guit�, two key figures in the sponsorship program, are continuing to maintain their innocence in the face of fraud and conspiracy charges. The two men have reiterated their …
Guit�, Brault plead not guilty CBC News
Judge in Brault, Guite case hopes for delay in Gomery’s first … Macleans>>>
I see Peter Lyin’ now claims that he knew all along that Sinclair Stevens was not a criminal.
So why did he suggest that Stevens got off more lightly than a serious proven criminal like Coffin? As if we have to ask.
Actually, Peter, I kind of enjoy seeing you around here. It’s my tax dollars at work, isn’t it? Oh, right, you’re a “student”, I see, and a “Conservative”. And not a lying piece of shit at all, nothing like it, right.
Time to call me a homophobe now, Peter, after all personal attacks are just not appropriate and so you’d better make some. Maybe call me a racist while you’re at it. Actually I don’t think you really have much control over what you say, it’s all just duckspeak.
Kate just got a big boost from a favourable story in the Toronto Sun. Anyone who then came to this thread–at least the later posts–would probably be repelled and wonder what the Sun was thinking about in mentioning this blog in a family paper.
Mark
Ottawa
September 19, 2005. Another “first” for Canada, proudly brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada.
On this date, Canada became the first Nation to ever “Jump the Shark”.
http://www.jumptheshark.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
Peter, in response to your comment: “As I’ve indicated, my suspicion too is that he got off light. But, to prove this, we have to know what similar charges dictate on average. ”
I disagree. I do not believe that we have had enough cases where there has been systematic fraud on this scale which would mean that we don’t have enough judgements to define an “average”. In fact, at this point I can only think of one (Anita Koo), and she was never brought to trial as she skipped the country and was recently reported as dead by suicide.
However, I am sure that we can all agree that, for sheer magnitude of scale, Coffin’s fraud is in the upper 10 percent of this type of crime.
If that is the case, then certainly it would make sense that the punishment should fit the scale of the crime.
His punishment in no way reflects the magnitude of the crime.
We, as a country, have jumped the shark.
AS:
A bit harsh. I think its the opposite Canada as a nation is so far from reaching its potential.
I can only conclude that judges and juries in many parts of Canada will not give out harsh punishment to people guilty of political corruption, because so many people identify with the bandits and not with the victims. If you have a government job, or you’re on welfare or EI, or you’re a student, or working for a crown corporation, or you work in a company kept afloat by tax dollars, then you see yourself as being on the team which is *against* the taxpayers – or rather, you see yourself as being against a mythical group of rich, greedy and culturally bereft people who obviously have more money than is good for them.
All of these people are stupid suckers in the end – because except for the elite at the very top of the pile who can basically write cheques to themselves (party leaders and the kingmakers and top bagmen), the inhabitants of a nation which is built on self-robbery only get poorer and poorer. Canada has indeed jumped the shark, and the worst part of all is that this horrific and expensive sitcom is the only thing on the tube, and it’s on 24-7-365.