November 1, 2005

Open Thread: Gomery Report

With the Gomery report now in the hands of Librano Spin Central, it's just a matter of hours before the public gets a refresher course on testimony the blogosphere has already hashed and rehashed over the past months. That's probably a good thing.

(Speaking of spin - it's important to note that the decision to send the report to Paul Martin in advance of its release to Parliament was by the direction of, who else? Prime Minister Paul Martin - not Justice Gomery.)

If the past is any indication, the national media will seize upon a few quotable quotes and recycle, analyze and dissect those to buy time while they wait for the first poll results to come in - with the usual cast of Harper critics on "standby" should it appear the Conservatives are climbing in the polls.

This thread is for your Gomery related comments, trackbacks and links. I'll try to update this post during the day, as work permits. For that reason, I'll leave it at the top of the page until Wednesday.

(Speaking of which, it's been a long day in the paint booth, so don't expect much more from me this evening.)

Canadian Conservative sees a lose-lose situation for Paul Martin - because the "Little Guy From Shawinigan" isn't going to take the fall for this without a fight.

Where's Belinda?

Paul Martin, Jean Lapierre and Scott Brison are holding press conference at 1 PM to respond to the Gomery report, while Reg Alcock and Jean Lapierre are scheduled for another press conference at 4 PM .

From a CPC media release;

According to media reports, Martin last night met with a handful of select ministers, including Treasury Board President Reg Alcock, Public Works Minister Scott Brison, Transport Minister Jean Lapierre and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. (Toronto Star, November
1, 2005). Oddly, while the Transport Minister will be attending both press conferences and other ministers have been involved in shaping the Liberal government's response to Gomery, no mention is made of Belinda Stronach, the minister supposedly responsible for responding to Gomery's recommendations.  Why is Stronach not involved in the response if she is the minister who is supposed to be responsible for this file? 
[emphasis mine]

The Globe and Mail claims to have inside info on the contents of the report.

Ottawa — Former prime minister Jean Chrétien will get hit with a finding of blame by Mr. Justice John Gomery today, but Prime Minister Paul Martin will not, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Among those receiving a negative finding alongside Mr. Chrétien will be former bureaucrat Chuck Guité, former minister of public works Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal fundraiser and Chrétien supporter Jacques Corriveau, and Mr. Chrétien's long-time chief of staff, Jean Pelletier.

Does this mean Canadians can expect consequences, such an official investigation and punitive action against whoever leaked the contents? Or, will everyone just assume this is the same old, same old - the powers that be at the Globe stepping up to the plate to help Paul Martin pre-spin the report to blunt its edge?
Tough question, both organizations being equally trustworthy.

Looks like Gomery came down harder on Chretien & Co. than anyone expected, or at least, than the talking heads at CTV expected - a relief, in view of concerns that he'd soft pedal the report because of the restrictions of "Paragraph K" in preventing laying of blame.

I'm not going to attempt to live blog any of this. But I'll point you to an article by Greg Weston that puts the Gomery report in context - and reminds the reader of the two heroes of Adscam, and of how this inquiry only touched on the massive and long-standing Librano reward system in awarding of advertising contracts across goverment.

If there's anyting lacking from The Gomery Report, it's a sub-title: "Tip Of An Iceberg".

Listening to CTV right now, Gomery is stressing this point. Good job, sir.

LaFlamme is talking about the consequences for whistleblower Alan Cutler. Not one word that it had nothing to do with Sponsorship - that he blew the whistle on Paul Martin awarding an improper contract to Earnscliffe.

Report is here

A brief summary at Darcey's.

"Gomery Pyle" takes a kick at Warren Kinsella.

Also - a very good roundup at Robot Guy. Stephen Taylor was at Chretien's press conference heckling? That deserves a post of its own.

Posted by Kate at November 1, 2005 9:01 PM

A Sad Gomerymas day for Canadian Conservatives from
The Gomery report is out and there really isn’t any news that will cause the Martin Government to collapse. In fact, Martin was specifically exonerated in the language of the report. There’s several important lessons to be learned from what, in t... [Read More]

Tracked on November 1, 2005 1:26 PM


Remember one thing - justice Gomery is a *Liberal* judge.

This whole sequence of events has been carefully scripted.

Posted by: Toronto Toty at October 31, 2005 9:37 PM

If Gomery does lower the BOOM on Cretien I wonder if our only hope may be that Cretien lowers the bigger BOOM on Martin weather outright or from behind the scenes in the next election whenever that may be, hopefully sooner rather than later.
It's a good thing Cretien and Martin are in the same party as it would be a shame to spoil two parties.

Posted by: capt_bob at October 31, 2005 9:39 PM

Whitewash-nobody goes to jail, no money gets recovered, humungous LEGAL FEES paid by the taxpayers to defend the reputations of criminals!

Posted by: dave at October 31, 2005 9:56 PM

What matters are Gomery's soundbytes. Martin's dopes will spin the media dupes; Harper can wax monotonous to glazed-over eyes; but the networks can't avoid playing the most damning soundbytes from Gomery's verbal report over and over. Will he directly implicate Martin? If he does, it's all over for the Libs. Will he throw Chretien under the bus and spare Martin? If so, the Libs will be breathing easy.

Posted by: NCF TO at October 31, 2005 10:09 PM

Chretien will not take down Martin. At the end of the day, he's a good liberal, and taking Martin down would be bad for the party.

Besides, Chretien has already won...regardless of what Gomery says about him, Martin has already ensured his legacy as a weak, ineffective, bumbling PM. He can't win a majority and will be gone soon after the next election. Chretien doesn't need to do anything to torpedo Martin, it's already been done.

Chretien has already picked his fight, and it will be with Gomery, not Martin.

Posted by: john g at October 31, 2005 10:32 PM

John, what you said makes perfect sense but a girl can still dream, can't she? ;->

Everywhere I keep hearing the same rhetoric that the LIEberals have so successfully spun: can't trust any of them, the devil stuff, all the same/no better. Harper and his crew had better make sure they are heard right up until the next election and that their POLICY is being heard. Most don't have a clue about the political reforms being proposed and WHY they really would be different. Loudly, a million times, promise Canadians that they will look into all departments at every level with full audits and have everything out in the open, just what the naive public keeps saying! The general population can be such dullards sometimes.

I like most of their policy, happen to think that it's great, if they will just make themselves heard louder - hold it in town meetings, 60 languages, go on the offensive instead of defensive.

I am sure that Gomery will not be that explosive but an election is still coming, time to prepare.

Posted by: Anne (mad in Ontario) at October 31, 2005 10:57 PM

" He can't win a majority and will be gone soon after the next election."

I hope so JQ. But I fear otherwise. Martin and his media enablers have a two step plan:

1) Plaster the whole mess all over da liddle guy. Yeah, Chretien won't like it. But what can he really do? Launch some kind of arcane legal action against Gomery? Maybe. Have his supporters rage on their blogs at Gomery and the Martinettes? Certainly. Will anyone pay attention? Briefly.

2) Deliver a pro forma apology for some sort of vague mishandling of the scandal and declare Adscam history. Then give lots of earnest speeches about how "traumatic" this has been for Canadians and how we all need "stability" so we can "heal". "Stability" will, of course, be achieved by returning M. Dithers to Ottawa with a big thumping majority.

Posted by: Bart F. at October 31, 2005 11:12 PM

As I see it, Gomery can have only 1 of 3 possible comments on Martin's role in AdScam:

Incompetant: Was Finance Minister but didn't know where 100-250 million in tax dollars was going.
Anything under a billion was just chump change.
Ignorant: Was completely out of the loop as Chretien played this one close to his chest.
Didn't know and didn't ask.
Involved: Senior Minister AND from Quebec, must have known what was happening. Chretien left this little bag of flaming doggy doo-doo on the steps of 24 Sussex as a housewarming present.

Posted by: David Simpson at October 31, 2005 11:25 PM

Forget, I think, about Gomery being a liberal. His letter to the opposition leaders today wasn't because he is a "good Liberal" but because he's tired of being used as an excuse. "Wait for Gomery" "We'll have an election after Gomery" "blah blah Gomery blah blah" and the final "I'd give you a copy BUT Gomery said no" - Gomery called bullshit.

His wife says the report won't hold any surprises for people who watched the testimony. many did? I know I didn't start paying attention until I was told I shouldn't (Brault). So how many Canadians have been waiting, anxiously (because PMPM said to) to be spoonfed the results?

It will be interesting, no doubt.

Posted by: Candace at October 31, 2005 11:28 PM

I'm sure the as usual the conservatives will
"snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at October 31, 2005 11:42 PM

Or the Liberals will
"dampen dissent via cheap populist anti-Americanism, constant anti-Conservative slander, and continued promises of a multi-culti-socialist utopia (that never seems to get any closer to reality)."

Posted by: NCF TO at November 1, 2005 12:05 AM

We will see how Pravda (CBC- Cry Bitch Complain) handles it. Usually they get Keith Boag , the wannabe entertainment host to analyze the performance rather than the substance. He will gleefully report that Martin mounted a stinging guffaw at the results, that Anne McClelland stawartly defended the actions for the good of Canada, and Peter Mansbridge will smile back in agreement , all the while the substance of 250 million taxpayers dollars shuffled to the back of the deck.

Posted by: cal2 at November 1, 2005 12:09 AM

forgot to mention the latest - 350,000 immigrants a year requested. boy that is a lot of Governor General candidates as we know we cant grow them at home.
meanwhile polls indicate that 80% of Canadians dont trust the immigration policy. more than want the oil industry nationalized, even when they are interviewing them at the pumps.

another propaganda by ommision , courtesy of your self indulgent taxpayer funded Cry,Bitch Complain network. add the $3000/veiwer/yr directly to the cable bill of the viewers and see how many would watch "Trudeau" or "DaVinci's Inquest" or its current rehash.

Posted by: cal2 at November 1, 2005 12:16 AM

The Gomery report is meaningless as it relates to votes, save Quebec. The ELB's will still vote liberal.

Posted by: AsISeeIt at November 1, 2005 12:28 AM

The message has been clear that the liberals will
once again win in the east and still be around
for another endless trip.
Canadians do not care about politics, they are
lazy and not informed and do not see any reason
to change anything, after all, the conservatives
could be worse!
Democracy? Don't make me laugh, when a leader
has been shown he has to step down and he
just says "no" where does the democratic
part come in?
NO, he will be here for some years, just hope
he is not a pig like the former prime minister
and won't leave until someone in the liberal
party gets him out. That is how we get our
Canadians get what they deserve, a corrupt
government, a socialist government and one
day we are going to be sorry we left this
disaster to our grandchildren. They will pay
the price for our lack of courage and
interest. As long as the government pays for
what they think we need, we sit on our duffs
and accept it.

Posted by: cjg at November 1, 2005 1:35 AM

Gomery Report PART 1:
Who did what ...and when. To me this is THE REAL REPORT.

Folks, this is the one that the election should be called on.

Not PART 2, where preventative measures are suggested. Just more puffery that the politicians will ignore. As they did in the first place!!

Posted by: eastern paul at November 1, 2005 1:38 AM

The Liberals are promising tax breaks; no doubt as part of an election campaign. But part of the spin has been that the Liberals are waiting for the fallout from Gomery. Please Canadians scream blue bloody murder. If nothing else, this will give us a bigger tax break. Something even the know it alls around TO can grasp.

Posted by: jason at November 1, 2005 2:24 AM

I cannot see Martin pinning the blame on Chretein. Even Paul knows Jean still has as many friends in the party and in Ottawa then he does, and his teflon suit is way more slippery than Paul's version. If anyone is to take the fall it will be the Gagliano's of the party or some beaureacrat. I agree no money will be paid back even if it is taxpayer money to begin with. Suffice to say Paul Martin will be "mad as hell" at whoever ripped off the Canadian people.

Posted by: wade at November 1, 2005 6:03 AM

There's a third factor at play here.

Because Martin adamantly promised he would get to the bottom of it, there better be somebody doing a perp walk. That means a sacrifice must be made of a high profile liberal name.
If not then Joe Sixpack is gonna look at this whole exercise as being done just for the benefit of Paul Martin and Paul Martin alone. If the sacrifice is Chretien or one of his gang, then the knives come out. If nobody in the liberal party gets hung out to dry, Martin will look guilty just because this looks like a whitewash. It would be Martin saying "see nothing went wrong, no money was mis-spent, we saved Canada".
After the over the top rhetoric Paul Jr. likes to spout off about how he called an inquiry and he was mad as hell, he can't just turn around now and say, "well, whatdaya know, at was just nothing after all".
Nope, Bucky has to find a scape goat, and it has to be one of his own if he wants peace in the liberal party. Unfortuanately for him to do that, he would feed anomosity within his own ranks sowing the seeds of distrust. The entire PMO staff, cabinet, and caucus would be looking over their shoulders, and any leadership aspirant would be looking for an opening to oust the sitting leader.

Posted by: gimbol at November 1, 2005 7:01 AM

Liberal Government Given the Report 12 Hours Ahead of the Opposition & Media.

The Gomery Report was supposed to be a transparent and independent process aimed at cleaning out the rot and restoring some level of credibility to the process of government in Canada. Mr. Justice Gomery just compromised himself and his process by releasing the report to the Liberal machine 12 hours ahead of the Opposition.

Posted by: Lost Budgie at November 1, 2005 8:06 AM

$550,000$$$$$$$$$ Only $550,000? BS & lies. Is this not a confession of money stolen from Canadian taxpayers; looting/pillaging of the Canadian tax base; a systematic fraud/kickback scheme; money laundering & etc. CTV News says it is a kickback scheme for the benefit of the Liberal Party. Where are the criminal charges? All planned and carried out by the Chretien/Martin Librano$. Throw the bums in jail.
Down with the Liberal Party, AdScam Martin, Jack Layton & all the socialist gangsters. >>>>

Later today the Liberal Party will announce a slew of financial measures intended to prove that they've cleaned up their accounting and punted those members involved in a kickback scheme.

Liberal spokesman Steven MacKinnon said there's already been a "sweeping reform" of his party's administrative practices and if Gomery finds that funds were funnelled into Grit coffers, the cash will be quickly returned. CTV News said the Grits have already prepared a $550,000 cheque and that the party will announce a new code of conduct.

Posted by: maz2 at November 1, 2005 8:19 AM

This country has become a big fat, lazy socialist joke...Watch the average feeble, enabling pea brain Canuck vote (If there's no hockey game at the same time) for the "Devil they know" (I used 'they' because I want to stay far removed from fouls)...If we give the Libranos another majority I hope the rest of the world pays attention and we become a standard "late night" talk show farce.

I love this country but hate what it has become.

Posted by: metalguru at November 1, 2005 8:30 AM

Look for the good in the Gomery report, it will affect Quebec voters and hopefully they vote for the Bloc and Parti Quebecois in even larger numbers. We as Western Canadians should also be supporting the Parti Quebecois in every way possible. What if? What if a legitimate Western wing of the PQ and Bloc was set up to raise funds for the next elections, both federal and Provincial in Quebec. Think about it, not only would we have a direct say, for a change, but it would be tax deductable. Once the door is opened by Quebec leaving the Weat would then have a real say in it's future. pierre the pig's constitution [ the Quebec and legal full employment act] is history and then we have real choice, STAY or LEAVE, ON OUR TERMS..

Posted by: AsISeeIt at November 1, 2005 9:30 AM

If theres a delay how come the globe have it on the front page? DId gomery send it to them thinking they were the liberal party?

Now what was the name of the guy from earnscliffe who Paul Martin tried to put on Govt payroll illegally that started the whole thing rolling?

Posted by: DrWright at November 1, 2005 9:33 AM

This moment in history will turn on the strategists, not the politicians. The Tories have every single gift that can be handed to them vis a vis Adscam, but what's got people engaged is the income trust debacle. So Scott Reid and EArnscliffe are armed and ready, but the Tories have to surpass their efforts. The ad campaigns featuring Stick Chick up and shrieking at the Librano$ from the Tory front pew,condemning Adscam and other misappropriation of funds, should be a huge feature. It's down to the backrooms here. Martin hasn't the intelligence to fight this battle himself, never mind credibility or integrity. Harper is TOO intelligent, credible and decent to engage the an electorate who appreciate street thugs like Cretin. Spin away, folks. This battle is up for grabs.

Posted by: Iron Lady at November 1, 2005 9:33 AM

I suspect Canadians will get a massive dose of MSM ass kissing Paul Martin for months on end. And it all starts today. Watch teletubby on CTV and Newman on CBC closely.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at November 1, 2005 9:41 AM

Not just PMPM; I caught Mike Duffy ass-kissing Alfonso Gagliano of all people this morning, saying crap like "nobody worked harder at promoting Canada in Quebec", "he went to lots of events in Quebec waving the Canadian flag," and the richest, "he always had a cheque for $5000 or $10000 to hand out at these events". Yeah, Mike, of OUR DAMN MONEY, you Librano putz!

Good thing there was nothing heavy in arms-reach or I might've needed a new television. What a sickening sycophantic display.

Posted by: Ian in NS at November 1, 2005 9:58 AM

Where's BS? Belinda Stronach? She's busy taking the sheets off the beds; the sheets are needed for the lap dance tables at Sue City. Head of security; what's dat? Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Stronachs sued by ex-cop
Federal cabinet minister Belinda Stronach and her dad are being sued by a former cop who claims their giant Aurora firm unfairly dumped him as its head of security. Full Story

MP tears strip off fed policy
The Liberal government is "complicit" in the trafficking of women with a visa policy that fast-tracks foreign strippers and lap dancers, a Conservative MP charged yesterday.

Posted by: maz2 at November 1, 2005 9:59 AM

She's not there for lack of being able to think on her feet.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at November 1, 2005 10:00 AM

Interesting thread, though I've been reading variants of it for months. Let's try to put some perspective on the situation. Variants of 'adscam' will keep happening -- we have a long history of political 'scandal' in this country, and we are not unique. In addition, misuse of public money is common to all parties that have held power, either federally or provincially. People (particularly the sorts that tend to self-select into political careers) cannot be in close proximity to the 'cookie jar' without reaching in from time to time. Let's also remember that the actual dollar amount we're talking about with 'adscam' is small change, relatively speaking. Is this really our most pressing national issue? Is this even really a 'scandal'? I suspect it's just a natural consequence of politics.

For an undoutedly more interesting expression of similar points, see Des Morton's piece in the June issue of Policy Options:

Posted by: Elizabeth G-G at November 1, 2005 10:36 AM

Well that was a lot of wait for nothing.

Posted by: steve at November 1, 2005 10:38 AM

Hands up those who believe Martin exonerated? High fives in Liberal quarters. Anybody who watched the inquiry knows that Martin was treated with kid gloves and outright deference. Cretin's ego will force him to tell the truth.

Posted by: Iron Lady at November 1, 2005 10:41 AM

A clip on talk radio a few days ago got me thinking - it was of Chuck Guite repeating over and over "I don't remember ...I don't recall".

I suspect that there's enough footage of Paul Martin during his testimony claiming ignorance "I didn't know... I had no idea ... no, sir ... I don't recall..."for a similar "made for campaign advertising" opportunity for the Conservatives to employ, if they have their wits about them.

Posted by: Kate at November 1, 2005 10:41 AM

This report is pretty much what was expected, now will PMPM allow the Auditor General unfettered access to all Crown corps, ministries, departments, agencies, branches and the so called "Private Foundations"? Probably not, because they still have lots to hide.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at November 1, 2005 10:43 AM

The Conservatives have overplayed their hand on this. Exageration and hyperbole are CPC stock in trade and it is going to be their undoing.

Posted by: Al at November 1, 2005 10:45 AM

Al must have gone to Lie-beral spin camp.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at November 1, 2005 10:46 AM

Gomery has entered the Canadian lexicon-synonymous with whitewash.

Posted by: GOL at November 1, 2005 10:47 AM

"Let's also remember that the actual dollar amount we're talking about with 'adscam' is small change, relatively speaking."

Elizabeth, are you seriously attempting to whitewash this issue based on the fact that it was a small amount of the GDP? Previous governments under Mulroney have been severely taken to task already by the electorate. Sorry, I'm not a Ph.D candidate or a politician but I don't care if it has been going MUST STOP NOW I don't want Canada to become an Italy where payoffs dictate who gets government business.

Even worse to a federalistic, this has turned Quebec federalism into something dirty...a sleezy backroom manipulation scheme to win (or buy) the minds of Quebeckers. Gosh, its SOOOOO nice to hear you talk of our hard earned tax money as a cookie jar waiting to be robbed.

"Is this really our most pressing national issue?"

That along with the Quebec separatist sentiment that directly resulted from this sleeze seems to be pretty damn important! Go back to your calculator and tell us that this is less than 0.1% of our GDP.

Posted by: Brian C. at November 1, 2005 10:47 AM

Let the white-wash begin. A quick scan of msm says St. Jean and St. Paul are squeeky clean. That was the out come Gomery was paid to come to.

Posted by: Tony at November 1, 2005 10:47 AM

"Listening to CTV right now"

Why aren't you watching Fox? Oh right, because Faux News doesn't give a crap about Canada and you rubes hollered for it instead of a Canadian tv channel with a conservative lean.

Posted by: Robert McClelland at November 1, 2005 10:51 AM

Liberals announce Judge Gomery to be appointed to the senate.

Posted by: ferrethouse at November 1, 2005 10:54 AM

Anybody interested in body language note the tension in the delivery of anchors and hacks alike? They ain't buying this, and it shows. How long they can sustain the facade of acceptance is unclear, but there's no mistaking that despite what they're editors/owners are telling them in regard to spin, they can't mouth the words with any conviction. More and greater fallout to come, I suspect.

And Elizabeth, it's not and never has been about money. It's about integrity. You must be a Liberal or you'd have known that.

Posted by: Iron Lady at November 1, 2005 10:59 AM

So, PM was finance Minister when this all happened but because nobody could recall if his fingers were personally in the till, he is vindicated? Sorry, that will not cut it. Leadership (a foreign term for lieberano$)means that you are responsible for your department, group, squad, whatever, for everything that happens, good or bad. You bask in the glory and take blame for the defeat, period!

Sadly, it seem that "Teflon Jean" gave Martin his Teflon suit along with the office of PM. I'll bet ya he is sorry about that, eh.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at November 1, 2005 10:59 AM

Quote from teh report:

"The LPCQ (Liberal Party of Canada Quebec) as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the
misconduct of its officers and representatives."

SO, Martin isn't responsible, the whole Liberal party is responsibl;e.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at November 1, 2005 11:09 AM

I held out hope that Gomery would have some balls. I couldn't be more disappointed. He had a glorious opportunity to ignite a call for serious reform of our completely un-democratic system; instead, he became a spineless Liberal Party accomplice. Proving himself as big a coward as PMPM, he wouldn't even take questions from the press. "Read my report...the whole's all important...all 50,000 get to it, Canada..." Yeah, right. He's just ensured NO ONE will read the report, handing over control of the spin to CBC, CTV, and their handlers in the PMO. What a joke.

Posted by: NCF TO at November 1, 2005 11:13 AM

This is the magic bullet folks - nothing more to see here. Two words - Warren Commission.

Posted by: Les Mackenzie at November 1, 2005 11:18 AM

No surprises really.

Chretien and a few close allies get blamed.
Martin and the LIberal party get of scot free.
No one will do any time, no money will be repaid, nothing really will be done at all and the majority of Canadians won't know or care.

Did anyone really think the Gomery Inquiry was really going to get to the bottom of things?

Posted by: table at November 1, 2005 11:21 AM

Its like we are watching reruns of "Yes Minister" everything costs the taxpayer money. whether its stolen by the libs or the lawyers it doesnt matter.

As always with these inquiries and the spindoctor lawyers after, this isnt over yet. and by the time its finished the $hit will be spread far and thin enough to be looking like brown lacquer. No lib will be touched.

Posted by: cal2 at November 1, 2005 11:28 AM

Justice Gomery has a trained legal mind. It is important, therefore, to parse the precise and very narrow words he has chosen to communicate his message. In this regard, see page 430 of the Fact Finding Report for the keystone which the Liberals will rely upon in the next federal contest.

The particular phrase reads: "On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility for the maladministration of the Sponsorship Program to any other Minister of the Chretien Cabinet...Mr. be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct."

A proper, legal reading of these phrases leads to the following, critically important result:

No legal conclusions are offered by Justice Gomery regarding the veracity of statements by Martin to the effect that he knew nothing about the existence of the so-called program. Hence, Martin cannot rely upon this part of the report to support his contention that he did not know about the existence of the program or about kickbacks. Martin can only affirm that Gomery did not find him responsible for the mismanagement of public funds under the SP.

The polling question is not whether or not Martin was responsible for the theft. The proper question is whether or not Martin is telling the truth about his knowledge of this fact. Stated otherwise, was Martin wilfully blind? And did Martin benefit, in any way, from the theft of monies from ordinary Canadians?

Posted by: MGK at November 1, 2005 11:30 AM

Interpereting legalese like this is beyond the capacity of 99% of our journalists, let alone the population at large. Gomery knows this, too. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he put the word "exonerated" in that paragraph.

Posted by: NCF TO at November 1, 2005 11:35 AM

Martin is a pathologocal liar:

And if this isn't proof enough, here's more on an unrelated topic:

The man makes my skin crawl....I'm going to take a shower now

Posted by: tulip at November 1, 2005 12:00 PM

So Martin is innocent because he "couldn't" know.

If this contention has any validity, then he also couldn't know where to cut spending and realocate tax dollars to successfully "slay the deficit" (another Martin contention). He was just lucky, a victim of circumstance.

Thats the reason why the facade of St Martin the innocent won't hold for long.

Its down to who is gonna do the perp walk.

Bucky better get somebody real soon before the MSM story of "Is Martin incompetent" grows legs.

Posted by: gimbol at November 1, 2005 12:23 PM

From south of the border it looks like the only people that are trouble are those who were already "outed" by the leaks earlier in the year. Granted, the Gomery Report is not a criminal investigation, and finding of blame isn't the same thing as saying someone is a crook...but I find it odd that the people that Gomery put the hammer on were those who were already publicly shown to _be_ below reproach.

From the leaks earlier Pelletier, Guité, Gagliano, Tremblay, and the LPCQ were all
suspect. Quail gets blamed for not ferreting out the rats, Martin gets a clear pass, and Teflon Jean is shown as a easily fooled leader.

But even the LPCQ gets a pass because the entire kickback scheme is laid at the feet of Brault, Corriveau and Morselli...again all people that were mentioned in the leaks and thus in the press. Otherwise it is simply an "institutional failure". Not one other person in the LPCQ knew what was going on?

I can't help but think of where Nixon would be if he had appointed one of the Committee to Re-Elect the President lawyers to investigate the Watergate break-in. Perhaps the same spot Martin is in with the Gomery Report.

I think this is why such investigations either need to be made with a truly independent authority or they need to be transparent. The Warren Commission indeed.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 1, 2005 12:23 PM

Gomery's so over now. Ding. Round over-Martin wins. Take a week to scream, then what? Don't forget to use Libranos, Lieberals, and lots of $$$$$$$. You may be right, but can you win anymore?

The average voter wants active legislating government, not obsessive bean counting.

"As the next federal election draws closer and closer, perhaps Tory leader Stephen Harper should consider jumping down off of his ideological high horse to take a quick look at what the NDP is doing. While the opposition parties clearly have a role to play in criticizing government, there’s also the little matter of drafting legislation. Conservative MPs have been quick to echo the Big Six peanut gallery in condemning the lack of action by the Liberals on a number of issues, but have offered very little in the way of policy alternatives of their own. The smoke from the Gomery reports will eventually blow away, undoubtedly leaving the Liberals at least somewhat blackened in the process. If the Tories want to have any chance of dethroning them, they’d best follow the NDP's lead and come up with something more than mud to sling and fingers to point."

~ Maisonneuve Magazine Media Scout 1/11/05.

Elizabeth is right. This is nothing compared to not governing. "Is this really our most pressing national issue?"

Posted by: steve at November 1, 2005 12:30 PM

I thought Harper was going to burst into tears. The dope looked like someone had run over his dog. When is someone going to be honest with this lackwit and tell him it's time to develope a little policy.

Posted by: Don at November 1, 2005 12:40 PM

"Martin Sends Report to RCMP"

Can you say" I cannot comment on an ongoing RCMP investigation."?? I thought you could.

This "Gomery Report - The Musical" is more choreographed that South Pacific.

"There is nothing like the blame..." (to music)

sorry, too much caffine today.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at November 1, 2005 12:43 PM

"Elizabeth is right. This is nothing compared to not governing. "Is this really our most pressing national issue?"

Granted the lack of leadership by the Liberal Party is another issue. However, Elizabeth mocked our federal system by characterizing them as people who can't resist leering at an irresistable cookie jar, which is our public purse.

"I suspect it's just a natural consequence of politics. "

If we can't take our federal system seriously, why should separatists?

Posted by: Brian C. at November 1, 2005 1:10 PM

Ho Hum Anything new today? Business as usual in ottawa.

Posted by: AsISeeIt at November 1, 2005 1:11 PM

Memo to Smilin Jack:

That you sound you hear is the clock and your 15 minutes are just about up.

While Pauly drags you or your Health critic off to yet another "disappointing" meeting to accomplish nothing (still/again), Harper has issued you the ultimatum, are you in support of this corruption or are you not?

So come the newxt election debates, you can point to you accomplishments on Health Care in conjunction with the Liberals, hollow promises all, but you can't target their mismanagement(See Turner, John circa 1984).

You see Jack, when you try to pretend to be the country's leader, sooner or later you have to make a decision and that time is now.

Posted by: Ken at November 1, 2005 1:18 PM

Does anyone know if it is possible to sue the liberal party in small claims court for the money they stole? It wouldn't pay in finacial terms but it would chew up a lot of Liberal time and money to have to defend thousands of small lawsuits.

Posted by: Virgil at November 1, 2005 1:28 PM

say it with me "Class Action Lawsuit"

Posted by: Les Mackenzie at November 1, 2005 1:44 PM

Check out this morning's 'toon over at AWM. The CPC should be reciting it from now until election day.

And to think they called "da little guy" the Teflon Don. He's an amateur compared to Paulie.

Paul Martin and his Librano pals remind me of the old American adage of "If it's good for General Motors, it's good for the USA". Up here, just substitute "General Motors" with your choice of:

The Liberal Party
Any non-Alberta/anti-Alberta entity
The UN
Maurice Strong

...and replace "USA" with "Can-uh-duh".

Posted by: Eskimo at November 1, 2005 1:50 PM

While you can't sue the government directly, I think if you singled out a politcal party directly, you may have a case for a class action.

I can picture it now, the Liberals would be forced to declare, "You can't sue US, because WE are Canada. The natural governing party".

Posted by: Eskimo at November 1, 2005 1:53 PM

I suspect Layton will hang on as long as he can because he has not got two terms in him. He sees this as his only opportunity to imprint his vision of (left) Canada, and he's not going to let a thing like ethics and corruption stand in the way. Chretien due up at 3:30 EST. Now this will be worth the price of admission.

Posted by: Iron Lady at November 1, 2005 1:59 PM

You've got to remember that a lot of people involved in this thing practice "amorte". Remember, we're dealing with a lot of gangsters and racketeers here.

We learned about this whole deal because some civilians who were being shaken down testified even though some of them were frightened about doing so. However, after the civilians have testified you run out of civilians. Then you've hit a firewall because the only people left to testify are players.

Many of these players are not concerned about our rules. For example, it took 3 or 4 trials to bring down John Gotti. The mob would bribe jurors, threaten jurors, and so forth.

All the real players have something on each other. So if one player decides to rat out another player, he realizes that the player he rats on can rat him out. It's all one big system of mutually assured destruction. It's like the blackmailer who is aware that others can blackmail him. You keep your mouth shut, keep the business going, and keep your superiors happy.

Some people have likened this to Watergate, but I would say it's more like Tamany Hall. And you have to realize that the racketeers are in bed with gangsters who would not hesitate to knock someone off if it became necessary. Look what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

In the final analysis, maybe some fall guys will be designated to take the hit. The Librano$ do not have the capacity, the desire, or the intention to investigate themselves. You know the old Zen saying, "a knife does not have the ability to cut itself; an eyeball does not have the capacity to see itself."

Once you start dealing with the players you get nothing but stonewall.

Posted by: Greg (outside Dallas) at November 1, 2005 2:01 PM

Regarding PMPM's supposed reparations, IF and I do mean IF he actually follows through on them. I still say too little too late. Trust is gone, I heard some one ask if the shoe was on the other foot and it were Conservatives involved in a scandal of this kind would Albertans flock enmasse towards the liberals as an alternative? I say perhaps not willingly but they certainly would throw the crooks out, in fact what we did to the legacy of Mulroney was for a lot less than a scandal of this kind.


Posted by: Daryl at November 1, 2005 2:07 PM

One sure has to bend over backwards to see the bright side.

Paul Martin begins restitution at 1.4 million or something like that, just on short term memory here. Exact numbers don’t mean much anyway. It just gives an indication of the colossal gall of Martin and the Libranos.

I thought a beginning down - payment may have been a pledge to liquidate Canada Steamship Lines and return the proceeds to the public purse.

This was to be only a beginning jesture whereby a flood of other Libranos would follow Paul’s example, sell assets and mortgage homes and return the ill gotten funds to Canadian general revenues.

I’m struggling with this paltry 1.4 million. Should we collectivly laugh at this? Is this a joke?

Just the missing HP/Compaq computers for DND comes to 146 Millions of dollars and that is only one of 100 scandals.

Perspective Paul please! Perspective! TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 1, 2005 2:11 PM

A moment ago, I said "amorte". Obviously, I meant "omorte" (the code of silence).

A lot of people seem to feel that somehow big Pauli "the Little Guy" Martin can go down. Would someone please explain to me how The Little Guy can go down? He was Chretien's bookkeeper. That's like saying that he was the mob's bookkeeper. Both he and Gagliano were mob bookkeepers.

Martin had something on Chretien because it took a long time for Martin to get Cretien to relinquish power. And on the other time, Chretien had something on Martin because it took a long time to decide to go. And Gagliano has a lot on both of them and they both have a lot on Gagliano. And nobody wants to mess with Gagliano's people because they fully understand what he is capable of. And for all we know Martin and Chretien have the same capacities.

When Belinda crossed the aisle you could easily see that ethics, morality and good government stop at the Librano$ party coffers. If they're capable of engineering Belinda's spectacular defection, they obviously have no qualms about pulling whatever they need to when it becomes necessary.

At the moment I just don't see how The Little Guy can go down.

Posted by: Greg (outside Dallas) at November 1, 2005 2:35 PM

Notice the first words out of the Liberal spin machine were "I'm not to blame!" And these folks are going to fix the system and ensure it "never happens again." My friends it is happening again and again. If the Auditor General could truly investigate this cycle and culture of corruption, we would see this truly as the tip of the iceberg. BTW, notice Liberals have inserted "fully" in front of exonerated, implying no blame or accountability whatsoever for Mr Martin. Justice Gomery used specific language - actual culpability and carelessness. What about wilful ignorance. It was common knowledge this program was being manipulated politically way before Alan Cutler and Sheila Fraser blew the whistle.

Posted by: Phil at November 1, 2005 2:37 PM

That's "omerta."

Posted by: Paul Wells at November 1, 2005 2:42 PM

Gomery said Martin as FM was exonerated. Layton is busily pointing out that Martin has merely continued where Adscam left off with Dingwall, Eggleton, Fox, etc. Sounds like he might be ready to join Harper and Duceppe in pulling the plug, unless it's all for show. But even Jack isn't that good an actor. And watching the Liberals on QP, there isn't much joy radiating from that part of the House. Maybe a bombshell to come from Chretien and Gagliano. This certainly isn't over, and nobody except the media appear to be buying Martin's exoneration. Maybe Gomery's remark about being the sole author wasn't so much the Mulroney camp as Liberal strategists lending a hand with the editing.

Posted by: Iron Lady at November 1, 2005 2:55 PM

Hey Paul - why don't you see if you can get Macleans to devote a cover story to Allan Cutler, and the price he paid for blowing the whistle on the Finance Dep't and their Earnscliffe Fund?

Let's see what you're made of....

Posted by: Kate at November 1, 2005 3:00 PM

In a section Justice Gomery writes that "Martin … is entitled, like other ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct."

Gomery also praises Ralph Goodale for quickly shutting down the sponsorship program when he was appointed minister of Public Works. Goodale became Finance Minister when Martin became Prime Minister.

Posted by: asdfg at November 1, 2005 3:08 PM

The PM may have been out of the loop on the Adscam criminal free-for-all, but for the Liberals -- as well as the CBC and other Liberal media -- to describe Martin's ignorance of his own party's culture as an outright exoneration of the Liberal Party is an assault on common sense.

It's as if a pirate ship, which has been on a rampage for years, is finally captured and boarded; a fellow named Martin emerges, squinting, from a cabin below, to proclaim, with waving finger, that he personally had been below deck, unaware, when the lawless activities took place, and that therefore the ship and it's crew must be released and allowed to continue on, but this time with him at the helm.

Well, how about a few well-place blasts below the waterline instead?

Posted by: EBD at November 1, 2005 3:46 PM

Way to go! Kate. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 1, 2005 3:47 PM

"carelessness or misconduct" more like gross incompetence.

He was finance minister - the only man signing the cheques, so to speak, how did the PMO even get this money without his knowledge. It's been a very disappointing day ....

Posted by: sheila at November 1, 2005 3:47 PM

Jack needs to join the call for an election. Waiting until the spring will kill him... he'll not be able to beat the Liberal spin machine. They'll take all the credit for any NDP deals, and he knows it. So tell Jack to join the election call. Do what I did. Pick up the phone.

From their website:

Contact Us
Canada's NDP
300 - 279 Laurier West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9

Phone: 613-236-3613
Toll Free: 1-866-525-2555
Fax: 613-230-9950
TTY: 1-866-776-7742

Posted by: Christian Conservative at November 1, 2005 3:59 PM

The Liberals in Question Period today reminded me of a man saying: "Hey, don't give me such a hard time, I've stopped beating my wife."

Or as Khrushchev might have put it after his 1956 speech critical of Stalin's "cult of personality": "Hey, it was all Stalin's fault, the Communist Party is just fine".


Posted by: Mark Collins at November 1, 2005 4:05 PM

It should be a cover story, how Allan Cutler's ethical tendencies resulted in his career being "permanently sidetracked" while those who diligently ignored criminal malfeasance received promotions and extra remuneration, and how, after Cutler took some information to the "internal audit branch" at Public Works, he was told by Guite that he would be declared "surplus".

I suspect the same thing would happen to anyone at Macleans -- what with its Ontario circulation figures -- who would make an issue about what the Liberals did to such truth-tellers as cutler. It would be like poking the boss in the eye with a stick.

And no one wants to be declared "surplus".

Posted by: EBD at November 1, 2005 4:10 PM

You have an employee in a position of trust. You come home unexpectedly and catch him slipping out the back door with your big screen tv and your cd player and collection. Checking around, you find that your family silver and china, your wine collection and many other valuables are missing. They deny, deny and deny that they have taken anything. In fact, they will bring in their brother, the local parking attendant to complet a full investigation. The investigation goes on and determines that the employee was merely cleaning behind your entertainment centre and had to move the TV and cd player. And, how dare you, without actual evidence, accuse them of stealing the silver, china, etc. And,"by the way, give us our key back; we have work to do..."

Posted by: Wayne at November 1, 2005 4:15 PM

Cutler > Alboim > Earnscliffe > Finance Canada > AdScam Martin.
The other 6 documents are here:

Whistle blown on Earnscliffe "scheme" in '95 >>>

Document 7: Jan 29, 1996 memo from Cutler to Elly Alboim of Earnscliffe.

"Dear Mr. Alboim:

"This is written to confirm that Earnscliffe Research & Communications is being requested to provide communications strategy and communications advice on policy issues as follows:

"Client: Finance Canada
"Estimated Expenditure: $246,100.00 GST included."

In a postscript, it should be noted that over eight years later Alboim still works at Earnscliffe and was recently rewarded a contract worth up to $20,000 to provide communications advice regarding the upcoming federal budget for Goodale at finance. >>>

Posted by: maz2 at November 1, 2005 5:00 PM

Vary gratifying to see a growing focus on Whistle Blower legislation and the great values it will bring to Government and Corporations in Canada.

Not only is this WB recognition gaining here in the Arena of Canada's best blog site, and I admit we are still a small and specialized community, [just being real], but also on the MSM, namely the CBC of all places.

Today, during a noon hour conflab and phone-in with Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffi, the value of Whistle Blower Protection was discussed and the program ended again on the note of how important Bill C-11 really is.

Check archives (sorry, I always let people improve themselves by doing some work), at:
73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 1, 2005 5:06 PM

This is only the beginning of the beginning - "Tip of An Iceberg" is about right. It's a political Chinese finger trap - the more PM tries to wriggle out from Adscam etc., the more he'll cast aspersion on other major Libs past & present - but facing prosecution they'll be happy to drag him right back in. Even if the RCMP isn't on the level, it ain't that bad.

Not to "toot my own horn", Kate, but I just wanted to share my American-living-in-Canada feelings with you nice folks, especially as all my instincts about this affair have been correct since I was still engaged and in Texas, packing to move to Alberta, 15 months ago. So hope you don't mind me inviting folks over to my blog to share "Gomery: Before the deluge" and "Some reality on Chretien and Martin". Thanks.

Posted by: Meg Q at November 1, 2005 5:16 PM

P.S. Don't be too hard on Mr. Justice Gomery - re: the Prime Minister, as we say at home, if you don't want to hang a man yourself, sometimes all you have to do is give him enough rope to hang himself. (See my remark about Chinese finger trap above.) I think they say something similar out here in the West, perhaps Mr. Martin should have spent more time out here.

Posted by: Meg Q at November 1, 2005 5:19 PM

Any indication as to whether Elections Canada is going to launch an investigation into the Gomery reports allogation that the Liberal party contravened the Elections Act.
I believe that having a major political party deregistered and liquidated would be just the thing to ensure this kind of corruption never happens again.

Posted by: mike at November 1, 2005 5:46 PM

Didn't another North American politican say" I am not a crook"?
As for Wells getting Mac-Lean's to do a story on Cutler.... not unless our Lucky 17 turn their Lotto 649 winnings over to the Liberal Party.. if you get my drift.

Posted by: old squid at November 1, 2005 5:47 PM

Quebec will save us by voting for sovereignty next referendum. But, rather than giving them special status to keep them associated with Canada -- something the Libranos will readily agree to -- ROC should insist that all provinces have the identical special status. This should result in a much reduced role for Ottawa, which will have to turn back tax points to all of the provinces, and curb the feds' ability to bribe together a viable constituency out of a disparate, Canada-wide electorate. Bring on the Swiss model under which the feds can only do what the cantons agree to pay for, accountability is clear, and few people even know the PM's name.

Posted by: John at November 1, 2005 6:03 PM

Chretien was in fine form. Fingered Martin insomuch as they both knew what the Treasury told them, and the Treasury, with Martin as VP, didn't report any problems. With it going to federal court, say goodbye to any more talk about Gomery, and any chance of an election until the judicial review is finished. Who says Chretien and Martin aren't friends?

Posted by: Iron Lady at November 1, 2005 6:10 PM

Back to the idea of sueing the Liberals, could I sue the liberal candidate in my riding? If he recieved benefit from liberal campaign ads or funds from the Liberal party, would that open up any avenues to sue to wear these pricks down a bit? They're going to be short of funds with their donations being well down, not to mention they won't have the Adscam money to pay for the next election campaign. If nothing else it would keep them busy and cost them money. It would also look good in a headline to have a pile of small claims court lawsuits or a few large class action suits against the governing party. Who knows, having the local candidate spending his time and money to defend himself in court might discourage a few from running again.
Squeeze enough of these rats and maybe one of them will sing.
It might discourage a few liberal 'volunteers' as well, if there is actually such a thing.

Posted by: virgil at November 1, 2005 6:28 PM

Maybe not a bad idea, John. "Confederation" as such didn't work for us Yanks (I mean pre-1788, not the 1860s Southern variety), but perhaps stricter "confederalism" would be better for Canada than the current "federalism". I've definitely been thinking so the last few months as I've been learning about Canadian govt & politics. Would make not just Quebequois, but everyone, happier, I think.

Posted by: Meg Q at November 1, 2005 6:40 PM

I'm not a lawyer, though I play one on the internet... my guess is that any attempt to sue the Liberals in small claims would be best done by those who have a tax receipt for a Liberal donation in their possession.

Posted by: Kate at November 1, 2005 6:52 PM

Chretien and Martin pointing fingers at each other again doesn't change the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada is comprised of lying, cheating, stealing theives who deserve to rot in a jail cell for all of their remaining days on this planet. From the smallest of grants to the as yet unaudited and unexplained $9 Billion Dollar Private Foundations(so called). There are so many scandals ready to break that the Lie-beral's will never be able to explain it all away. Their mouth's remind me of manure spreaders, don't stand to close you might get some on you.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at November 1, 2005 7:19 PM

It doesn't matter if Martin is supposedly "exonerated" by one report. The Liberal Party, regardless of leadership, is well-known now to Canadians as being corrupt to the bone. Particularly due to the evidence of Gomery and what the report itself says.

My take:

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at November 1, 2005 7:27 PM

The Liberal Party has a bad case of Gomeria - one which only be cured by voters

Posted by: stowaway at November 1, 2005 8:24 PM

Sure, Martin and Chretien publicly point the finger at each other, but neither of them charges the other with any indictable offense.

"It's his fault! It's his fault!" But nobody spills the beans. Because if one of them started spilling the beans, they would both go down and take a lot of others with them.

It's very easy to try to deflect the blame provided it doesn't threaten the other with any serious consequences.

Posted by: Greg (outside Dallas) at November 1, 2005 9:42 PM

Just as I called it..

Before this report came out, I pointed out that Gomery is a Liberal judge, appointed to this role by Paul Martin. (It's the first comment in this thread).

This is a carefully scripted performance. Paul Martin is lying to Canadians.

What a joke.

Posted by: Toronto Tory at November 1, 2005 10:06 PM

Toronto Tory, I recognize and agree with your rightful claim. *Just as you called it.*

That Paul Martin could be held innocent is simply beyond a kndergarden level of common sense and logic.

I then have to question the purity of Judge Gomery. Sorry if that seems sacrelidge or offensive but what other logical choice is there.

Does Gomery have some sort of devine faith in Paul Martin? The way people believe in God? Or, is there something to motivate Gomery here?

Paul Martin seems like a good natured grand fatherly type, but the Canadian ship crews he fired and replaced with Central American crews, don't think he is so kind.

Registration of Canadian S. L. ships in Barbados to avoid paying taxes to Canada seems less than a grandfatherly gesture.

I marvel at the political stupidity of these behaviours. CSL are no where near bankruptcy so he could have retained Canadian crews at least.

I also made a forcast of sorts in April /05 having to do with Whistle-Blower law and Bill C-11 referring then to Allan Cutler.

Today's CBC coverage featured Mr. Cutler and Bill C-11. He made clear that the bill as it now stands is ineffective. The public however are understanding how important it is and there is every reason to hope that BillC-11
will become properly beefed up before it becomes law. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 1, 2005 10:33 PM

One question that keeps coming up that I cannot find any answer to. Can the PMO actually issue lifetime bans to members of his own party? Even JC doubted Martin's authority to do this during his "most excellent performance". This looks to be just more BS spin from PMPM that the unquestioning MSM is more than happy to regurgitate onto Canadians. I can't imagine it's a decision that a leader of a party can make.

Submit a recommendation to the party president to ban someone on evidence of misconduct. I'd buy that. Unilaterally execute someone in your own party because "yer da boss" - I seriously doubt even the LPC charter allows for that. But then again, this is a third-world socialist political party we're talking about...

Posted by: Barnstormer at November 1, 2005 10:48 PM

if you think for a moment the Librano's don't have money to fight the next election you'd better think again ! where do you suppose the "Two Billion $$$$$" from the gun registry has gone to!!!!!

Posted by: Boarderbloke at November 2, 2005 12:26 AM

Belinda's absent voice is deafening.

Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at November 2, 2005 1:22 AM

Bryson's permanent smirk givs me the creeps, but he was on CPAC answering flack and providing nebulous but passable answers.

Belinda is a novice and would lose composure under impossible odds like these. Bryson, on the other hand has a thickened political skin and so is better suited to damage control. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 2, 2005 2:14 AM

It's blooming hard times without sponsorship cash

...While most Canadians associate the now-defunct federal government initiative with scandal, Mr. Bédard saw it as the lifeblood of Ottawa's Tulip Festival...
...Like other celebrations across the country, the Tulip Festival relied on annual federal grants. When the sponsorship program was suspended and then killed outright by Prime Minister Paul Martin's government, the spring festival lost $100,000 in stable funding...

Posted by: JM at November 2, 2005 11:17 AM

Has anyone noticed in PMPM's sound bites over the last couple of days he makes mention that the first day he was PM he cancelled the "ADSCAM" program, IF (big if) he didn't know anything about the program why was he in such a hurry to cancel it once he became PM? Any comments.

Posted by: Antenor at November 2, 2005 4:13 PM

That in fact, is false. He didn't cancel it until the AG brought down her report - two months after he was sworn in.

Also, I've heard that 7 of the 10 with "lifetime bans" from the Liberal Party weren't even members.

Posted by: Kate at November 2, 2005 4:32 PM

Ya gotta hand it to Cruton, though-storming down the sidewalk surrounded by media hacks, (looking really pissed off), and not a heavy anywhere in sight,(of the camera).
PMPM-on the other hand- has at least three apes, (closer than shit to a blanket)! The expression on his face, is....uh.....fear? (Ten bucks sez the Quebec Mob waxes him!) Can't wait to hear the Quebec RCMP's slant on that one.

Posted by: dave at November 3, 2005 1:42 AM

Re: Cancellation of sponsorship program: Wrong again. He did indeed cancel it at his first cabinet meeting on Dec. 13, 2002, the day after he became Prime Minister. You could look it up:

And if he "didn't know", why'd he cancel it? Because he has only ever asserted that he didn't know about the details of the administration of the program -- until it became a matter of public controversy with a series of Globe stories in 2001 and 2002. Therefore, by 2003, he knew. By 2003 there had been public audits; referrals to the RCMP; a moratorium on sponsorships announced (yes, in public) by Ralph Goodale; and major changes to the administration of the program. That's all a matter of public record too.

But the MSM gets everything wrong. Fortunately bloggers are infallible.

Posted by: Paul Wells at November 4, 2005 2:25 PM

So, Martin first learned the details of the sponsorship program the year before he was sworn in, when the Globe and Mail made it a "matter of public controversy".

If this is in fact the case, surely he deserves no credit for canning the program after becoming PM. What was the alternative -- party members exchanging cash-stuffed envelopes onstage at some CBC gala?

On the issue of infallibilty, Mr. Wells, bloggers are not only often wrong on points of fact, but are wrong so frequently that in the end the sheer additive force of these errors acquits the New Liberals of any malfeasance. Your point is well-taken.

Posted by: EBD at November 5, 2005 2:53 AM

In the words of Nancy Sinatra, (and you can all chime in on the chorus):
These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do.
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
Afterwards, you get to share an 8' X 10' cell with a tattooed dude who sez: "Hi, my name is Spike, Honey!" ("Of course I will introduce you to Warren.")

Posted by: dave at November 5, 2005 3:49 AM

MP backs plea for federal cash

Newmarket will ask Ottawa to help fund the Stickwood Walker project, Mayor Tom Taylor told dignitaries and media during a ground-breaking ceremony on the site Tuesday...a new on-site sign boasting the new home of Newmarket's state-of-the-art recreation complex.....Newmarket-Aurora MP Belinda Stronach promised to work hard to get the funding required...

Posted by: JM at November 7, 2005 1:07 PM