Apparently, voicing the same opinion as Jack Layton and Gille Duceppe – that Tim Murphy committed an offense under the Criminal Code in suggesting that rewards would come the way of certain Conservative members if they were to abstain – can get you sued;

Andrew Coyne is being sued by the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Tim Murphy for libel. There’s no other details on exactly what Coyne wrote that was so libelous, but I’m guessing it’s the column in the National Post that directly accused Murphy of breaking the law. Coyne has not put the column up on his site as he usually does, and his site has shut down comments and has had no new content added for a couple of days. Something’s happened; it may be the thuggish hand of the Liberal Party, or it may be a bad case of stomach flu.
Debbye Stratigacos of Being American in T.O. and I feel that the Prime Minister’s office should not be able to shut down the questioning of their ethics with legal threats and have decided to post the column. Because of copyright issues, we’ll both post just half of it. If Andrew Coyne requests we take it down, we will, but for now, here’s the first part of the offending column.

Debbye has more.
Correction According to this Globe & Mail piece titled “Layton joins call for probe into MP’s allegations”, Murphy is “considering” suing Duceppe, too.
Now, why not Jack Layton, do you suppose? Or is he granted “immunity” so long as he remains a member of da Family?
update
Coyne explains why his comments section has been closed. It’s a reminder of why I asked a couple of days ago for folks here to keep it in check. It’s one thing to get pissy – indeed, I think that having a place to allow readers to let off steam is an important function of blogs – it’s quite another to piss in your own bed.
another update: My presumption that Coyne was “voicing the same opinion as Jack Layton and Gille Duceppe” is inaccurate. (The original quote at Autonomous Source has updated as well).

I can’t download this, so am trusting London Fog that it’ s as advertised;

GOPinion “has obtained an exclusive unreleased recording of a conversation between British Columbia MP Gurmant Grewal and the Canadian Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Tim Murphy. We cannot yet confirm the authenticity of this tape.

It’s 8.2 megs.

Globe And Mail. (Conservative MP Germant Grewal and Tim Murphy, Paul Martin’s Chief of Staff);

Murphy: [unintelligible] …best for you and best for us, in a way that allows everybody to feel comfortable, and also allows everybody to feel principled, and I think to be principled. Both.
So, I was kind of thinking about that and I talked to Ujjal last night and again this morning, just before I came, which is why I was a few minutes late.
I apologize.
Grewal: That’s OK.
Murphy: What I think… what might be the easiest thing to do, and see what you think about this, because we have the vote tomorrow night, and if the government doesn’t fall, it’s not the only vote we may have to face. My guess is that when you look at issues like supply, final votes on the budget, opposition days, there could be as many as eight votes between now and the end of the session which could bring the government down, right?
Obviously, each one of them will be a nail-biter right to the end, and obviously, the two votes that you and your wife represent are the way the House is made up now, matter a lot, or can matter. There are, just to be honest, as I think I told you yesterday. There are other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemma that you face, and are musing, so �
Grewal: [unintelligible] many?
Murphy: I don’t want to, in the he same way I don’t want to do anything that, I don’t want to�
Grewal: [unintelligible]
Murphy: If I’m to honour your trust, I have to honour others.
Grewal: Definitely.
Murphy: So, I hope you don’t take that wrongly.
Grewal: Absolutely not.
Murphy: So I think the way to make it work, and the way that allows us the freedom�as you can tell. Right? Just to be blunt, right?
I think it’s a bad idea, truthfully, to have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade. Because I think anything that [unintelligible]. I don’t think it’s good if anybody lies. So if anybody asks the question well, was there a deal, you say, ‘No.’ You want that to be the truth. And so that’s what I want, is the truth to be told.
Secondly, though, I mean obviously it’s an important decision for you and your wife and I understand that you want to ensure that you can continue to contribute. Both of you. So, I understand that.
And, as I said, people who make decisions like this in a principled way are people who ought to and deserve to continue to contribute. So how do we square that circle?
Grewal: Okay.
Murphy: So one of the proposals I have is this, that, tomorrow’s vote is, let me phrase it in the abstract. If two members of the Conservative Party abstain from that vote… don’t vote against their own party, right? Don’t have to.
But equally don’t vote to bring it down tomorrow night on the two/ I think there’s two key votes. And that can be done on the basis… those members can do it, on the basis, well, you know.
Look, my riding doesn’t want an election. Doesn’t want one now. Thinks it’s the wrong time to do it. But equally, you know, to vote the opposite way is to vote against the party I’m a member of, the leader of the party, and I’m not prepared to do that.
But I don’t think an election’s the right thing � I don’t want to say that won’t create some…
[interjection by Grewal, unintelligible]
… some flak, but it keeps freedom, right? Allows someone to go back home in the right circumstance and it also allows someone an opportunity, right? So if there is an abstention. If someone then, though, in my view, if someone then abstains in that environment, who has exercised a decision based on principle, it still gives the freedom to have negotiating room.
On both sides. Both going back home � then it’s actually the freedom to have discussion is increased if someone has made a decision that doesn’t preclude any options based on principle.
Then you can come and say, “Well look…” � then you can have an explicit discussion. And then in that environment, you know, a person can say, “Look, I obviously abstained, and that created some issues, and now I’m thinking hard about.”
You can say, “I’m thinking hard about what’s the right thing for my riding and the contribution that I could like to make.”
Then we can have a discussion that welcomes someone to the party. And then in that environment we know if those two votes continue to vote, either the one vote switches, or one switches and one abstains, or both abstain, from now until the end of the session the government will survive, right?
We know that. And then we get through to the end of the session, right?,
And then, if one person wants to switch and make the contribution, then that makes a lot of sense.
If the other wants to switch and then serve until an election, or some time in advance of that, and then… and then… and then… you know, something would look to be done to ensure that that person…
[…]
Murphy: All of which is to say, that in advance of that, explicit discussions about Senate. Not Senate. I don’t think are very helpful, and I don’t think frankly can be had, in advance of an abstention tomorrow.
And then we’ll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that with some freedom.
And I think what that allows is negotiating room for you, in either direction.
You can easily, say, “Look. Yeah, you know, if you don’t like it, you can stay home, stay back with… where you are. And if you do like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move. Now look, I don’t expect, you to react to that right now. Think about it. Please talk to Ujjal. Ujjal knows this is the discussion I’m having with you. Please feel free, and say, you know, he knows. And then, if that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something happening.
(Pause. Grewal starts to speak. Murphy interrupts.)
Well, I have talked to Volpe, already. So �
Grewal: Is he manageable?
Murphy: Yes.
Grewal: What happens is�..[unintelligible] you know how we came together. There are some common friends. He approached me. [unintelligible]
Murphy: No, it’s a bit… it’s the same. I understand. Sorry. Please accept, I understand completely. It’s much like Belinda, where there is a third party who is independent of both sides. You didn’t approach, we didn’t approach.
Grewal: They did approach me.
Murphy: The independent party played the role, like we didn’t approach, you didn’t approach.
Grewal: [unintelligible] End of tape

So, where is our media? Where is the discussion about the possible conspiracy to commit a criminal code offence?
You know, in between those debates about how “scary” “hidden agenda” Conservatives are to “mainstream Canadians”?

Gagliano is attempting to join the the legal action launched by Chretien to have Gomery removed.

Perspective matters.

clarification – the trust fund proportion is indicated by a red dot in the expanded view. You may have to increase your text size to see it. (My apologies to colour blind readers about whom I thought after selecting the colors.)

The Librano Election Sign Generator

While the media titters about events of the past 24 or so hours, few seem to have noticed that Paul Martin has quietly withdrawn his commitment to calling a post-Gomery election.
April 21, 2005

I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission’s final report and recommendations. Let Judge Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say.

May 17, 2005;

Ms. Stronach will assume responsibilities for democratic renewal and will help guide the implementation of the recommendations that flow from the Gomery Commission’s final report.

Thankyou. Now we return you to regularly scheduled Belindarella programming.

Colby Cosh;

The lede here–that this move pushes the constitutional crisis which began last week into full-scale red-alert mode–hasn’t just been buried, it’s been taken out and shot. It is arguable whether Stronach’s defection is a “blow” to the Conservatives in either the short or the long term. What’s not arguable is that the delay imposed last week on a formal non-confidence vote in the House of Commons has now–with the balance of power in the House teetering on the razor’s edge–visibly become a banana-republic power tactic.
[…]
The whole point of the tradition that the confidence of the House will be tested at once, upon the government’s defeat in a supply-related division, is to prevent exactly the sort of shenanigan just perpetrated. Martin has used the delay he imposed unilaterally to purchase the services of a disaffected Conservative leadership candidate–one, it bears noting, elected by her constituents as a Conservative. (She’ll be in charge of “democratic renewal”, says Martin–never let it be said the man lacks a taste for irony.) “I am not sure,” Bliss concluded, “that Canada has ever had such a serious parliamentary crisis.” There can be no doubt about it now. If the Liberals win Thursday’s confidence vote by virtue of Stronach’s presence on the government benches, we will continue to have a government openly acknowledged to be illegal by most if not all of the major constitutional authorities in the country.

Via Damian Penny, who has a collection of pithy reaction.

A reader sent this to me, noting the sanitization of language. Though, “sanitization” doesn’t really do this Toronto Star item justice – a dripping propoganda piece by “immigration and diversity(?)” ‘reporter’ Nicholas Keung. The ‘scare’ words are worth a drinking game of their own – why, there’s even a dead baby!

Hope fades for plan to aid illegal workers

Hope fades…

Plan by the Liberal government to legalize up to 200,000 workers could die

200,000 workers could die…

A plan to legalize thousands of undocumented workers in Canada’s underground economy would be in jeopardy if the Liberal minority government falls as a result of a non- confidence vote on Thursday, says Immigration Minister Joe Volpe. The Toronto MP has already signed off on a final draft of the long-anticipated “regularization” plan, which is now “in the queue” for the cabinet’s feedback and approval – provided there isn’t an election call.
The issue leaves in limbo many of the 100,000 to 200,000 undocumented workers living under the radar in Canada, as well as employers facing shortages of the skills some of them bring.

Initiating the “skill watch” … at this point in the article, Canada has a shortage of skilled labour….

“We’re bringing things closer to a point where some decisions could be made.” Juan Sierra, a construction-union outreach worker, said he has fielded calls from hundreds of undocumented construction workers since Conservative leader Stephen Harper vowed publicly to bring down the Liberal government in mid-April.

Hundreds. Panic in the streets.

They’re worried the plan to legalize their status in Canada will go down, too. “They are really freaked out by the prospect,” said Sierra, of the Labourers’ International Union of North America. “Their hopes were so high because Volpe has promised that this is a priority for the government. If nothing happens, their hopes would be destroyed totally.”

(Harper = “Go down. Worried. Freaked out. Destroyed”. Volpe = “Hope”)

Vilma Filici, president of the Canadian Hispanic Congress […] fears a Conservative government could dump the plan as, he says, the Tories tend to view undocumented workers more as security risks than as potentially valuable contributors to Canadian society.

(Fear Conservatives. Note that the security risk is a “Tory view”, compared to the “non-partisan” description of illegal immigrant as “valuable contributor”.)

Daniel Castro, his wife and their two teenage sons from Argentina are among those living in limbo. The family arrived here in early 2001 and had their refugee claim rejected last May. Together they earn $6,000 a month, which they take in cash. Savings are stashed under a mattress because they’re afraid to keep a bank account. They don’t get to know neighbours because they move every few months to keep ahead of immigration authorities.

That’s some kind of limbo. Any readers here from Canada Revenue Agency who can fill us in on what a family of four has to earn to take home $72,000 a year?

When eldest son Walter was robbed of his pay at gunpoint near Jane St. and Lawrence Ave. W. last summer, the 18-year-old didn’t dare go to the police. “Our life is between work and home, but we are grateful when we see everyone home in one piece at the end of the day,” Daniel Castro said. “We pray the family will still be together the next day.”

Their lives are typical among those in the underground economy, who do jobs Canadians often consider undesirable, particularly in construction, the hotel and hospitality industries, domestic help and general labour. They don’t qualify for social assistance or employment insurance, and if they get sick they pay for care out of pocket.

Gone are those paragraphs of the past when illegals were sought after “skilled workers” .

They literally live their lives out of a suitcase …

Q: How many undocumented workers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: Don’t be stupid. They’re too tiny to lift a lightbulb.

Authorities sometimes sweep down on construction sites, where undocumented workers help fill a shortage of skilled workers.

Skilled, unskilled, skillled… my head is spinning….

A string of broken promises by Volpe’s predecessors, who never seemed to stick around long enough to deal with the issue…

Odd, that.

“We just want to live a normal life, but it appears that Canada thinks that it is easier to keep people like us illegally here in the country than to deal with the issue head-on,” said Luis Vargas, 43, who came from Mendoza, Argentina, in 1988. “Every time you have a new minister, they always say they will help. But all they want is some cheap labour for the economy. They want to give us no benefit.”

But wait! It gets better – this skilled unskilled undocumented worker who lives in a suitcase, keeps thousands under his mattress and fears for his life, owns a construction company;

In fact, Vargas, a failed refugee claimant, has been a successful construction subcontractor in Canada since his arrival and hired three others: one undocumented and two with refugee claims still active. His company makes about $150,000 a year. …

What is the number for Revenue Canada, anyway? Ready now… here it comes ….

All 29-year-old Martin wants is a better future for his 2-month-old daughter. Her birth followed a miscarriage that, in addition to the emotional toll, brought a hospital bill of $4,500.

A dead baby and no medicare! Holy crap! Does it get any better than this for a Star “reporter”?

Martin, another Argentine afraid to be identified, said undocumented migrants are not “jumping the queue” in the usual sense, since most would never qualify under the immigration points system, geared as it is toward immigrants with higher skills or money to invest.

All of you teeming, law-abiding, queue respecting masses, yearning to be taxed…
You’re going about things all the wrong way. Why are you patiently awaiting your legal fate under Canadian immigration policy, when you could just flush your passport down the airplane toilet and begin a new life in Canada as an skilled unskilled Liberal voter?
Offer ends soon.

The Canadian Wheat Board has announced initial payments for board grains “have been increased”. As curious as the unexpected windfall is the payment date.

The CWB today announced that 2004-05 initial payments for wheat, durum and designated barley will increase effective May 18, 2005.
The increase in initial payments for wheat and feed wheat will be $15.00 per tonne. In the case of durum, the increase will be $30.00 per tonne, except for No. 5 Canada Western Amber Durum, which will see an increase of $10.00 per tonne. For designated barley, the increase will be $13.00 per tonne on two-row and $15.00 on six-row.

(What else is going on May 18th… somebody help me out here…)
Previous dates:
2004 – May 13 (just prior to June 2004 election)
2003 – May 19
2002 – Mar 21
2001 – June 25
2000 – Feb 17
1999 – Feb 25
1998 – April 23
As cynical election ploys go, this one is especially egrarious – to help the Liberals gain a few farm votes the “arms length” Wheat Board is throwing the grain producers’ own money at them – pre-payment for grains they are legislatively mandated to sell to the CWB. The overpayment will be dealt with later in the year, when final payments are “adjusted” to claw the pre-election bonus back.
hat tip – John Gormley LIve, 650 CKOM Saskatoon

The Liberals claim to be putting ($8 – $9 – $10?) billion into security. Really? Where are the new cops?

Habamus Rodentum updates information on the hand that feeds the RCMP headquarters in Montreal and the federal tax centre in Shawinigan. Here’s a teaser – Liberal bagman Joe Morselli’s Buffet Trio, plus secret bank accounts and shredded invoices at the RCMP.
Here’s a bit of historical perspective (September 2000) to bring readers up to speed;

Organized crime mobs are targeting Parliament and other Canadian institutions in an attempt to spread corruption and political instability, says the new head of the RCMP.
During a remarkably candid news conference, Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli said yesterday that criminal groups are focusing on Parliament, the courts and other institutions with the aim of “destabilizing” the political system.
“For the first time in this country, we are seeing signs of criminal organizations that are so sophisticated that they actually are focusing on destabilizing certain aspects of our society,” said Commissioner Zaccardelli. The commissioner is a 30-year veteran of the RCMP who was previously the force’s deputy commissioner in charge of the fight against organized crime.
“That’s a real threat to us. There are criminal organizations that target this destabilization of our parliamentary system.”
[…]
Commissioner Zaccardelli’s startling comments were reminiscent of controversial statements made by former RCMP commissioner Norman Inkster in the 1980s.
Mr. Inkster told a Commons committee more than two dozen MPs were under criminal investigation. He refused to name the MPs, and only a handful were charged in subsequent years. It was later learned some of the investigations were routine inquiries following complaints.

A very long time ago, two people close to me confessed they were involved in lower rungs of organized crime. I had met each independantly and completely by chance while in college – and they were in different organizations. This was when I first learned that there were organized crime figures elected to parliament.

see here and here.

Defence Minister Bill Graham was wrong!

“We cannot invade Sudan. It requires United Nations action … it requires political as well as military and aid matters” – May 6, 2005

Canada can invade the Sudan after all!

Canada said on Friday it would go ahead with plans to send military advisors to Sudan’s troubled Darfur region despite Khartoum’s insistence that it did not want the troops to enter the country.
Martin spokeswoman Melanie Gruer said Canada needed the approval of the African Union for the troops’ deployment rather than that of Sudan.
‘It’s up to the African Union to get Sudan’s approval’

Oh. So it’s up to the African Union to do our invading. Well, that’s more like it…

“There is no change to the plan. We will send what we said we were going to send,” she said.

Yeah – or we’re going to get those other guys to make you let us.

Yesterday on Saskatoon radio’s John Gormley Live, Finance MInister Ralph Goodale responded in a grave, lowered voice when a caller challenged him on the just-announced assistance to the Darfur region of Sudan. She accused him of buying the vote of independant MP David Kilgour, who has been publicly demanding action in the Sudan as his price for supporting the government.
Goodale told listeners that there had been a year of planning leading up to the announcement that 100 troops and another $170 million in aide were going to the Sudan. Indeed, this had been a top priority of the Liberal government for months and any suggestion that the package had been hastily arranged to secure David Kilgour’s vote was ridiculous – “Clearly this plan for Darfour was not devised in the last week or two.”
Reuters;

Sudan has rejected a Canadian plan to send military advisors to the troubled Darfur region, saying Ottawa had not consulted Khartoum on its plan, the Sudanese embassy said on Friday.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin announced on Thursday a C$170 million ($136 million) aid package for Darfur, where thousands of people have been killed and two million displaced in a bloody civil war. Martin also said Canada would send up to 100 military experts to help a African Union force in the region.
In a press release dated Thursday, the Sudanese embassy complained that Khartoum had not been consulted in advance about the plan.
“(We) would like to affirm that the unwavering position of the Sudanese government … is categorically rejecting (sic) any deployment of non-African military personnel in the Darfur region.
Any logistical and financial support is most welcomed,” said the release, which was sent to Reuters on Friday.
“It is to be as well stated that any future efforts or plans on Darfur should be worked out and finalized with the satisfaction and full approval of the Sudanese government.”
No one from Martin’s office or the Canadian foreign ministry was immediately available for comment.

That’s media speak for “hiding under their desks with the lights off”.
Via MK Braaten.

Jim Duff, for Canada Free Press;

Gomery watchers have grown accustomed to hyperbolic descriptions of the various testimonies, but as someone who spent the past year interviewing Alfonso Gagliano, Beryl Wajsman and others for a book, I can honestly say nothing surprised me until this past week, when former PLCQ director-general Ben�it Corbeil told the commission that whenever the perennially cash-strapped Quebec wing needed money, a call would be made to John Rae, executive assistant to the office of Power Corp. chairman Paul Desmarais. According to Corbeil, Rae would then call Banque Nationale president Andr� B�rard to ask that the party’s line of credit be increased. In three years, PLCQ’s debt soared from $30,000 to more than $3 million.
Why would a senior advisor to the chairman of a publicly traded corporation, a trusted confidant of both Jean Chr�tien and the current PM, make a call to a bank president on behalf of the Liberals’ Quebec wing? Which hat was Mr. Rae wearing when he allegedly made those calls? One has difficulty believing this service was in exchange for access and influence, given that the LPCQ’s president at the time was Fran�oise Patry, whose day job was � and is � serving as administrative assistant to Power Corp. chairman Paul Desmarais and his wife Jacqueline.
Was Mr. Rae acting on behalf of Power Corp. in guaranteeing the Quebec wing’s line of credit? That would beg the question of why one of Canada’s largest financial-services conglomerates was acting as a guarantor for a political party. If so, did Power Corp. make a declaration of this liability to shareholders or list it for tax purposes as a donation in kind?

Greg Staples has this anecdote this morning.

About 3 o’clock yesterday afternoon, there was a sort of muffled roar — it was the kind of noise you hear a block or two away from a construction site — that echoed within the Guy-Favreau complex here, where the Gomery inquiry has its Montreal home.
For a few seconds, the place fell silent, as though a roomful of ears were cocked.
In the witness box, Daniel Dezainde leaned into the microphone and said, “Don’t worry — I have no car parked here.”
It was funny, and everyone laughed.
But as a metaphor for just how far the Liberal Party of Canada has fallen, it was impeccable.
Mr. Dezainde, an eminently respectable lifelong Liberal and the former executive director of the Quebec wing of the party, was making a little joke about a car bomb, and everyone understood immediately that the humour lay not in the absurdity of the remark, but rather in the unsettling truths it contained.

The communications director for the Conservatives was just interviewed on local radio. According to him, Liberal operatives were phoning around BC last week trying to dig up details on “how sick” the two Conservative members really are. Now, the calls are being placed to try to find out if Darrel Stinson is actually scheduled for surgery.

Just in case there was any remaining doubt.

MK Braaten is looking for someone who can translate French to English, to get at some Gomery testimony that seems unusually slow making it out of French only mode.
update He’s run it through an online translator, but I imagine he’d still appreciate a second opinion. Odd Corbeil testimony – you should go read it, anyway.

First an intro with Rawlco Radio (650 Saskatoon) host John Gormley, in which the issue of the confidence motions was raised. He gives the party line – “a majority” of experts back the government interpretation that they lost procedural votes only. (Would this be like the “expert” Liberal-friendly Ernst & Young audit selective review performed on Liberal Party books?)
Callers:
Dallas: On the spending spree – you’ve had 12 years to bring this, and you seem like pranksters – the guy with the 100 bill on the end of the fishing line, jerking the line away at the last minute. …throwing money around into the day care money pit.
Goodale: defending daycare, “can’t put that in the category of last minute”
Gormley points out most of the announcements have been last minute..
Goodale: They were already referred to in budget.
Gormley: So why reannounce them?
Goodale: just defining them… Pine beetles… extra assistance for mad cow… one thing that is new – arrangement with NDP, as I said before 3 principles that had to be adhered to.. a) no deficit b) debt reduction had to continue c) any spending would have to fit within the flexibility that we’ve got and on priorities preiviously identified. ed, health, foreign aid, environment. …. just changed the “profile” of spending.
Stephanie: Is Calvert getting an energy accord?
Goodale: We had good discussions, details to be worked out, not there yet. constructive point of view, he has a panel that will decide about the formula for future. Can work on eduction and environment in the meantime. We’ll keep working.
Stephanie: “That sounds like a no.”
Goodale: Issues are complex… you can’t scribble down a number on the back of an envelope… or you can get “serious:….
(Did he just say that? Back of an envelope? That’s going to come back to bite him.)
Gormley – Can Calvert get that now?
Goodale: “there’s work to be done… made progress… we’ve made terrific progress… $710 million in extra equalization.. ”
(Looks like we have to take flags down.)
Gormley – he doesn’t have an equalization deal yet.
Goodale throws decision making authority back to “the panel” and says he’ll will work on other things.
Joyce: “Government coffers must be already empty by now. How are you going to get the money back from that Liberal “take away”?”
Goodale is talking about surplus provisions worked into budget plan.. which isn’t what she was asking about… finally gets to Gomery.. two things: started proceedings to recover funds from wrongdoers. 19 legal actions to recover money. some given back voluntarily. (That would be the PQ, Ralph, not the Liberals).
New safeguards built into the system? (Who is he kidding? With the tightening of freedom of information and watering down of whistleblower legislation?) reporting of every contract on internet. (So what? Where is the cash filled envelope, judgeship reward program tracking system?)
Larry: Going back to opening remarks about the conduct in parliament – defending the Conservatives “hissy fit” – points out that they are entitled to be angry about corruption and government refusal to step down…. throws the “back of envelope” remark in his face – “Liberals use envelopes full of cash”..
Asks if Martin has been found to be wrongdoing, what happens then?
Goodale: Martin is clean. (Did anyone else mention he was specific about Gomery?)
Caller: “How many million in a billion.” He tells her 1,000. ” How many billions of taxpayer money to buy Librano votes? ” … She doesn’t want any political doublespeak … “All I want is a number.”
Heh.
Goodale: “incremental” amount just over 9 billion.
Cindy: “When you were minister of natural resources, were you aware of sponsorship program?”
(This sounds like a set-up …)
Goodale: No… Well, everyone knew the program existed. Didn’t know the wrongdoing.
(…. and it is.)
Cindy: “So why would an ad agency in Vancouver be responsible for sending a $50,000 advertising contract in Saskatoon.
Goodale: Well, this was the problem with the program… he began to investigate when he was in Public works. He suspended program, fired those ad agences.. etc… blah blah blah.
Gay Nor[?] – “See on SPAC we are now giving 170 million to Darfur. Where was Canada a month ago? You’re raping and torture these people all over again for one vote – for David Kilgour’s vote. Just to keep yourself in power.”
(These people are playing hardball.)
Goodale: lowers voice… serious now, relying on Romeo Dallaire.. Clearly this plan for Darfour was not devised in the last week or two.
(Clearly he’s full of shit.)
That’s it, and he’s gone. Next time he’ll learn to stretch out his answers even further than he did today. Stammering eats up valuable seconds. He’s not as good at it as Paul Martin, but he had his moments.
Gormley: and there were callers even “meaner than those ones waiting in the wings.” (Like me.)
Nice job, Saskatchewan!
( correction – Aaron Braaten tells me the Ernst & Young reference is in error – it was Deloitte & Touche and Price Waterhouse Coopers)
update – TZ also live blogged the interview.