A great post at Gin and Tonic that peels away the layers of misrepresentation by Paul Martin about the powers of Justice Gomery – that ” Only he can cut through the partisan politics. Only he can tell us what happened and who was responsible.”
Well, it turns out that he can’t. He’s not actually permitted to do that under his terms of reference. Go read the whole thing, and then raise some hell with your national news broadcaster of choice. Ask them why they haven’t called Martin out on this?
h/t Strongworld.
BTW – does anyone have an email for Robert Fife?

Bono fans boo Paul Martin. He’s working hard to make up for that, though. Today he’s in Winnipeg and Regina, making spending announcements #80 and #81 – of the week. About 6.3 billion worth, when you tack on Buzz Hargroves budget amendment.
BTW – if you want to track how quickly Paul Martin, Jack Layton and friends are shovelling your money away, bookmark this page… today’s entries:

Over local radio a few minutes ago. I’ll update this post as I find links (or see them posted in the comments)…
National Post;

An advertising executive told the Gomery inquiry much of his $2.7 million in sponsorship income was based in part on false bills requested by program boss Chuck Guite. Paul Coffin’s scathing indictment of the one-time bureaucrat emerged on Wednesday as Justice John Gomery lifted a publication ban on some of Coffin’s testimony at the sponsorship hearings.
Gomery’s ruling helped shed light on a lengthy trail of falsified paperwork and inflated bills for several files, including Jean Chretien’s Clarity Act on Quebec separation.
Coffin singled out Guite and the bureaucrat’s assistant, Huguette Tremblay, in a scheme to bill taxpayers for maximum, pre-set production fees that were paid regardless of whether his firm did any work.
He said Guite asked him to bill for hours worked even though Coffin’s firm didn’t keep time sheets.
Coffin, who has been charged with 18 fraud-related counts arising from the sponsorship program, testified that Tremblay’s role was to press him to send in bills at the end of each fiscal year to meet his production budget. But he said the decision to create fake bills was his alone.
“I billed this way from Day One, unfortunately,” Coffin told inquiry counsel Marie Cossette, referring to the date of his first sponsorship contracts in 1997.

Macleans has more details.

Communication Coffin earned nearly $86,500 in commissions for a Clarity Act publicity campaign even though Coffin said he did little more than transfer bills to the government from subcontractors.
He said the stream of bogus bills began to flow from the first day his firm was chosen as part of a select group of Montreal ad agencies charged with managing sponsorship files in 1997.
[..]
Coffin’s testimony is consistent with financial statements indicating sponsorship middlemen nearly always billed the maximum under the catch-all category “production costs and professional honorariums.”
Coffin and fellow ad man Jean Lafleur have both said Public Works officials approved, and even encouraged, the massive fees each agency took for managing $250 million in sponsorship deals from 1997 to 2003.
In many cases the middlemen couldn’t say what they did to earn the fees. Sometimes they billed for entertaining clients at hockey games or simply passing along paperwork and cheques. Coffin himself admitted he sometimes billed taxpayers for work done by his wife, who was not on his payroll.
Documents also show Coffin’s production fees were sometimes up to three times the value of his sponsorship contracts.

Coyne has a post revealing that“the funny business in federal advertising contracts wasn’t restricted to Quebec-based agencies, or national unity”. Nope – it was for a campaign to promote an agreement for increased spending for health care.

Warren Kinsella made quite the assertion yesterday.

“This is true. He is correct. Thank you.”

What was he confirming to be the truth?

WINDSOR, Ont. (CP) – Prime Minister Paul Martin says anyone found culpable in the sponsorship scandal should be punished severely but he doesn’t believe his predecessor, Jean Chretien, knew anything about it.
“I don’t believe that the former prime minister was knowledgeable,” Martin said Tuesday.

Paul Martin states that he doesn’t “believe” Jean Chretien “knew anything” about the corruption in the sponsorship program.
Warren Kinsella, staunch Chretien ally – the same Warren Kinsella who, as chief of staff for Public Works Minister David Dingwall, sent a memo advising the deputy minister to hire Chuck Guite – goes a significant distance further, by declaring that belief to be “correct”.
Now, think about that for a moment.
As close as he was to his former Prime Minister, Warren Kinsella has never claimed psychic abilities. Nor has was he at Chretien’s side 24 hours a day, listening in to every telephone call made and taken. No facts have been brought into evidence via Gomery or anyone else that have exonerated Jean Chretien. Quite the opposite – as the testimony continues, the scandal edges ever closer to the PMO.
At this stage of the investigation, the ability to state without qualification what Jean Chretien knew or didn’t remains the domain of a privilaged few – those who had a unique perspective on the money laundering scheme.
I’ll leave it to the reader to ponder what that perspective might be.

Paul Martin was on John Gormley Live this morning – briefly. He’s learned to fill airtime with drawn out repetition to put off speaking to callers or facing new questions.
Early in the interview, he acknowledged that even with the support of Jack Layton, his government’s fate rests on the independants in parliament. Gormley did pin him down on one question, though – if the NDP demands for $4.6 billion in spending on social programs and the environment were valid, why wasn’t the spending in the budget in the first place?
Martin replied that the NDP extortion was “simply an acceleration of the existing liberal government agenda” that adding it to the budget now was just “bringing it forward”…
Then – he added that the $4.6 billion “won’t be spent unless we can be assured that at least 2 billion in debt can be brought down”.
I wonder if Jack Layton knows this?

Greg Staples is running the numbers, now that both Kilgour and Cadman have announced they’ll vote to defeat the government;
Liberal + NDP + MP Parrish = 151
Conservative + Bloc Quebecois + MP Kilgour + MP Cadman = 155
As he notes, even with two Conservatives too ill to travel, it renders Jack Layton’s attention seeking ploy irrelevant. Damian Brooks makes a good point in the comments – with so many prominant Libranos heading down the gangplank and hoping to swim to safe diplomatic and patronage posts, how many back-bench Liberals will abandon ship?

I hear the train a’comin’
Comin round the bend
Ain’t seen the sunshine since
I don’t know when
But I’m stuck in Ferndale Prison
Time keeps draggin’ on
And I hear that lonesome whistle
I hang my head and moan.

“Rex Murphy: The story goes around that at the next day’s caucus meeting — Mr. Chretien, I, my judgement, ah, wasn’t the most hospitable witness — but that you were supposed to be leading a cheer for Mr. Chretien the next morning in the caucus. That’s been reported widely and a number of people have called in here today. (a) Did you? and (b) If you did, why did you do so?
Paul Martin: No, I, I think — first of all, you, I think you understand as well as I do that, that there’s nobody at those caucus meetings except Members of Parliament, so anybody reporting on them is reporting, you know, second, third, fourth-hand. Ah, but fundamentally, ah, what happened is that, that caucus, ah, ah, did react, ah, to the fact that a former prime minister had just testified, and that’s a very very rare occasion to testify in front of a commission such as this. And that was, that’s what, that’s all that happened, there were a number of issues discussed, but they, they just simply said: former prime minister testified. I mean, the fact is that I testified as well, and, and ah, I took it very very seriously and I think that we would all take it very seriously under those circumstances. It fundamentally comes back to this — integrity in public life requires I’m telling the truth.”

He’s made a believer out of some people.

I believe Martin when he says he deeply respects Gomery. I believe he showed his respect when he led the Liberal caucus in a standing ovation for Jean Chretien’s display of open contempt for Gomery. I believe Martin wants no stone left unturned. I believed that when he ordered Liberal MPs to shut down the Public Accounts Committee’s investigations last year, before the last election. I believe if the Liberals get a majority government again, they wouldn’t shut down the committee again, or interfere with Gomery, as they have with other inquiries.
I believe Martin when he says he’s glad that Sheila Fraser, the auditor general, issued her report. I believe Liberal MPs and spin doctors were acting without Martin’s approval when they personally attacked Fraser.
I believe Martin when he says he was happy to fire Alfonso Gagliano. I don’t think it’s odd that last summer he recorded a video birthday greeting for Gagliano, saying “I wish I could be there Alfonso. You may be a terrible golfer, but you’re a tremendous political leader. Congratulations.”

Heh.

“I didn’t have to call the commission. I could have done what most politicians would do – just try to avoid it,” he said. “I just feel so strongly about the integrity of the political process that I was prepared to run the risk of damaging my own political prospects.”
Martin, who asked for more time in office during an address to the nation Thursday night, said he received “tons” of advice telling him not to have the inquiry – to “hide this thing” and to “put it under the rug.”

A startling admission from a Prime Minister who has not yet announced any mass firings or ejections from his party or caucus.
So tell us, Mr. Prime Minister – Who are these people? What are their names?”

As Gomery begins to hear testimony from Chuck Guit� and Paul Coffin, Captain Ed is gearing up to report on it.

Politicians will know the specific testimony of the two witnesses at the end of each day, if not almost in real time. Some media sources will watch and hear Guit� and Coffin tell everything they know about Adscam and the politicians who profited most from it on live TV feeds that they will be barred from rebroadcast. The only people left in the dark will be those Canadians who have seen their money stolen by the people they trusted to wield power lawfully.
As part of the ‘imperfection’ mentioned tangentially in the Montreal Gazette, I had hoped that the brouhaha over my publication of Brault’s testimony would have convinced Justice Gomery of the folly of publication bans. Apparently not. If my original source can get me reliable information on the testimony under the ban, I will republish it again here.

Stockwell Day has been asking the right questions.

In question period yesterday Stockwell Day, Official Opposition Foreign Affairs Critic, asked “Mr. Speaker, Maurice Strong, long time Liberal, long time mentor of the Prime Minister, long time business associate of the Prime Minister and companies such as Canada Steamship Lines and Cordex, has suddenly resigned his post at the United Nations. To date the government has refused to stand up and answer questions about the Iraqi oil for food scandal at the United Nations. Canadians are wondering why the Prime Minister will not just stand up in his place and state categorically that there has been no implication of Canadians or Canadian companies in the UN oil for food program. Where does this all end? Why will he not just stand up?”
Day has been asking questions related to any possible Canadian involvement in the Oil-for-food-scandal for several months, all with no response from the government.
“We want to presume innocence on these matters,” said Day. “However the government’s peculiar silence only leaves the questions hanging in the air”

And, in other Canadian related Oil-For-Food developments, Paul Volcker’s investigation is coming apart at the seams;

Last night, in the most explicit criticism so far directed at the report, Robert Parton, one of the senior investigators, told a lawyer involved with the Volcker inquiry that he thought the committee was “engaging in a de facto cover-up, acting with good intentions but steered by ideology”.
The lawyer, Adrian Gonzalez, told The Sunday Telegraph that he believed the committee, headed by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was determined to protect the secretary-general.
According to Mr Gonzalez, Mr Parton felt that the committee had effectively divided the body of evidence relating to the oil-for-food scandal into testimony that it did want to hear, and testimony that it did not.

H/t – Paul Tuns.
(More on Maurice Strong here, if the name is new to you.)

Everything you ever wanted to know about Quebec Superior Court Justice Claudette Tessier-Couture, but didn’t know to ask….
…and the guy who promoted her.
More here. Talk show host and lawyer John Gormley tore the media a new one on Friday, on their coverage of this. He argues that the corruption isn’t in the appointment of Liberal party supporting lawyers, but in what those individuals knew. If they had any knowledge of illegal activities, that’s a big, big problem, and they have no business on the bench.
(I think it’s also a problem if their pro bono work wasn’t declared to Elections Canada as a party contribution.)

From www.lecornichon.qc.ca
(A lot of readers have been sending me this sort of stuff – I’d love to use it all, but my bandwidth fees are starting to creep into the “uh-oh” range…)

Considering the mea sorta culpa nature of Paul Martin’s speech last night, did anyone notice what he didn’t say?

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 [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say…

Here is the phrase missing from the speech:

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 [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. If Judge Gomery finds that I am guilty of wrongdoing or negligence in the awarding of contracts, or was involved in any cover-up, I will resign. And then the people of Canada will have their say…

There. That sounds much better.
I wonder why it wasn’t included?

I’m certainly not a neutral observer, but I think Stephen Harper just kicked Baghdad Paul’s ass around the corner.
(And Jack Layton… wants clean air. And bicycles! And mittens for poor children! And a brain, if he only had a brain..!)
Oh.. I’ve been meaning to mention this. In all the Liberal yattering about “wait for Justice Gomery to report”, has everyone forgotten that “ordinary citizen” Chretien has had his case fast-tracked in the Federal courts to have him removed?

Just got home from a day in the paint booth. The radio at Unique is tuned to classic rock – nice to be insulated from news for a few hours. Insulated from Adscam, though, I was not. It was a topic of discussion on the shop floor.
Here’s an observation that should make Liberal party operatives’ blood run cold – some of these guys didn’t bother to vote in the last election. Most don’t follow currrent events. At lunch, the TV is turned to Speedvision much of the time.
They’re following Adscam.
And this, from “man on the street” interviews on local radio while driving home; “..the fact that he’s going to be on at 7 o’clock eastern time, 5 o’clock here….. he doesn’t care if anyone in the west is even listening to him. I mean, who’s he speaking to? “
Indeed.
I’ll be updating this post as I go surfing about – and drop your own links in the comments, if you wish.
Coyne is a fabulous read, as usual.
Heh. Rex Murphy;

Reading accounts of how Ottawa poured money into ad campaigns that sought to save Canada by advising Quebeckers on how maintain fishing rods, I was delighted to learn that the commission had played some of these radio spots for which so many millions were fire-hosed into Quebec advertising firms. Remember, according to Jean Chr�tien, this was a “fight” to save Canada, that it was, according to Scott Brison, the Liberals’ high-profile convert, “a war.”
Read closely. It’s a peculiar war that savages the enemy with the likes of this: “If the inside of the guide ring is scratched, if the line has been exposed to the sun for too long or if it was in contact with insecticides, there’s a good chance you could seriously shorten the life of your fishing line. Which is why you should check your line and change it at least once a season.”
Well, if I were an ardent separatist, burning under the imperial boot of Ottawa, and haunted by the dream of a independent nation of Quebec, that would pull me up short. Copy like that would have me jump from Hotspur to Hamlet in a trice. Maybe even half a trice.
I can see it now: “Is my guide ring scratched? How come the PQ or the Bloc never engage with my tackle? Do they care if my ‘line’ has been exposed to the sun and insecticides? Clearly, they do not. Avaunt, separatism. I am now voting federalist.”

I’m so tired of feeling like a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, it’s not about to go away for some time. As Andrew Coyne puts it, the birdies are starting to sing, and it’s getting uglier and uglier

Benoit Corbeil, fingered by Jean Brault as one of the more importunate Liberal bagmen hitting him up for funds, has begun to talk. In an interview with Radio-Canada he “denies” Brault’s charges, even as he concedes he did ask him for $50,000 — $15K of it in cash — to pay off various Liberal operatives.
More important, he says the same shadowy network of senior Liberals controlled both the raising of funds for the party and the awarding of government contracts. And he states unequivocally that everyone in the Quebec wing of the party knew about it. Everyone.
And then there’s this shocking (ie completely unshocking) allegation: The same network controlled the appointment of judges. During the 2000 elections, the party had a stable of about 20 big- time Montreal lawyers working for them for free. Or perhaps, not quite for free: Several of them were subsequently rewarded with judicial appointments. The same practice applied, he says, with regard to accountants and engineers — and, of course, advertising agencies — all of them “volunteering” their services to the party in hopes of winning contracts.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

“And, apparently, Ralph Goodale just said I was “poison” in the privileged environment of the House of Commons. Wow! Could it be that Mr. Goodale is upset that his infamous March 27, 1995 letter – you know, the one where he demands that Public Works grant, and I quote, “a sole source contract” to “The Earnscliffe Strategy Group” for $50,000, because “the primary consultant…is from Saskatchewan” – is now on the public record? The one that seeks a sole source for a friend of Paul Martin who, coincidentally, was already doing the work anyway? No, I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.”

Globe and Mail has this curious exchange.

“Why does the government not just admit . . . the Prime Minister abused the process to get contracts to his friends at Earnscliffe, to his campaign manager David Herle?” Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said. “Why does he not just admit that he got public money to his political associates?”
Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale jumped to Mr. Martin’s defence as opposition MPs chanted “where’s Paul” — a reference to the Prime Minister’s empty Commons seat. Aides said that Mr. Martin was meeting with foreign ambassadors and representatives after the government released its new policy paper on foreign affairs
Mr. Goodale insisted that an independent audit by accounting firm Ernst and Young in 1997 and the Auditor-General’s review in the 2003 had found no rigging of contracts. (Emphasis mine).

Ralph Goodale is lying – as former Public Works minister (charged with cleaning up the “mess”) the ignorance defence is not available.
When Public Works employee Allan Cutler blew the whistle in 1996 on what was going on in the procurement and contracting process, an internal audit did indeed turn up serious concerns and warned of dire consequences, both legal and political – yet the version released by Liberal-friendly” Ernst & Young had scrubbed those clean.
It didn’t escape the attention of Justice Gomery. CBC, Sept 2004;

There was mystifying testimony at the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal on Tuesday, when a 1996 audit was produced. The draft of the audit warned of dire consequences unless the problems were corrected. But in the final report those warnings were gone.
The audit of what was then the section of the Department of Public Works that administered advertising contracts, found recurring problems. Contracts were backdated, there was no evidence all potential suppliers were given the opportunity to bid, and bids weren’t always properly evaluated.
But in their final report the auditors from Ernst and Young summed up the situation by saying the rules were generally being followed.
Inquiry commissioner Justice John Gomery told the panel of three auditors that he was “mystified” by their actions. “You didn’t rewrite it, you watered it down,” he said. “Why did you water it down?”
The auditor’s draft warned the government to respond immediately or risk legal action and embarrassing public attention. It also suggested the government might not be receiving value for its money. Those points were taken out of the final version.
“Why were they dropped?” asked Neil Finklestein, the inquiry’s co-counsel.
“I do not recall,” said Deanne Monaghan, a partner at Ernst and Young.
Justice Gomery appeared frustrated. But neither Monaghan nor two former associates, Madeleine Brillant and Julie Morin, could recall the reasons for the changes.
The auditors also faced criticism for including a detail in the final version’s executive summary. They indicated there was no evidence of personal gain from any of the irregularities they found.
However, Monaghan testified that in order for that conclusion to be meaningful her firm would had to have done a forensic audit and it didn’t do that.
But Monaghan disagreed the audit was watered down. “On reflection and with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made it stronger. Certainly at the time we felt it was a reasonable conclusion, as far as the general assessment on the contracting policies. We felt we definitely did raise a red flag.”
It’s debatable whether the stronger language of the auditor’s draft report would have made much difference. The final report had little effect. The government expanded the advertising section into the sponsorship program and promoted the man in charge, Chuck Guit�.

The Ernst & Young “waterdown” is here
PACC Summary of Evidence.