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.)
Jeancula

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…)
The Missing Sentence
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?
First Reaction
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?
Shop Talk
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.”
Martin Addresses Nation
|
Sponsoring The Judges
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.
Honest Ralph Goodale
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.
My Fellow Canadians
Open That Door Right Now Young Liberal
Andrew Coyne is reporting that the earlier reports that were denied by the Liberals were true after all. Well, that fits a pattern, doesn’t it?
And yes, it does appear that the Liberals have put off passing the budget implementation bill until then, notwithstanding earlier denials. Wonderful: a government that is too afraid to put any bills before the House, for fear they might come to a vote. They’ve more or less barricaded themselves in their offices.
Be sure to go from there to the main page – Coyne has lots of juicy stuff today, including the identity of Kinsella’s “mystery caller”.
Bananada*
David Frum, in the New York Times;
Luckily for the Liberals, the Conservative Party split into warring factions in 1993. Consequently, the Liberals were able to return to power that year even though they won only 37 percent of the vote.
Almost everything that Jean Chr�tien did as prime minister over the next decade can be understood as an effort to reverse his party’s long-term problems. He edged to the right on economic issues in the hope of appealing to middle-income voters alienated by Mr. Trudeau’s economic mismanagement. He veered leftward on social issues in the hope of finding a new constituency among wealthier Ontarians and Quebecers. After 9/11, he struck anti-American and anti-Israel attitudes that he hoped would resonate in isolationist Quebec and among certain immigrant communities.
And it was presumably for these same reasons that Mr. Chr�tien set in motion his kickback scheme. As Liberal strength in Quebec has decayed, the Liberals have found it more and more difficult to hold together an effective political organization in the province. How do you sustain a political party without principles or vision? Sometimes you do it with graft.
[…]
Unlike their supposed analogues, the Democrats in the United States or Great Britain’s Labor Party, Canada’s Liberals are not a party built around certain policies and principles. They are instead what political scientists call a brokerage party, similar to the old Italian Christian Democrats or India’s Congress Party: a political entity without fixed principles or policies that exploits the power of the central state to bribe or bully incompatible constituencies to join together to share the spoils of government.
As countries modernize, they tend to leave brokerage parties behind. Very belatedly, that moment of maturity may now be arriving in Canada. Americans may lose their illusions about my native country; Canadians will gain true multiparty democracy and accountability in government. It’s an exchange that is long past due.
(The column requires free registration.)
(* – I first spotted this at London Fog, but have since learned it was coined by Paul Jan�)
Bananadian update – “Fred” and Andrew Coyne have informed me that the first known appearance of “Bananada” was on March 18, 2004, at Andrew’s blog.
Martin’s Get Out Of Jail Free Card
Captains Quarters has several posts on the testimony coming out of both Gomery and the Commons accounts committee. I’d suggest you just head over and start at the top, though I’ll provide a few key exerpts as appetizer;
The Sponsorship Program bought advertising at ten hunting and fishing shows from Gaetan Mondou for $100,000, who discovered yesterday that the man who bought them, Luc Lemay, told the government that they had cost over $1.8 million. The difference disappeared into the pockets of Jacques Corriveau, longtime pal of Jean Chr�tien and a man who doesn’t even fish.
[…]
…the two inquiries now have started to air testimony that demonstrates Martin may well have participated in the same schemes as his former boss as well as parallel corruption supporting his chief of staff’s boyfriend.
It’s these developments that pushed the Liberals into the desperate move of blocking Harper from controlling Parliamentary business on Opposition Days as scheduled yesterday in order to gain time to recover …
And this, which should the opposition members should start trying to hammer home; that Martin’s delays have engineered the perpetrators a free “Get Out Of Jail Free” card by pushing the investigation past the absurdly brief 18 month statute of limitations.
Weston believes that much more promise may come from an independent financial audit from the same forensic accounting team that plumbed the depths of the Enron scandal. Insiders have told Weston that after going through the financial records of everyone involved in Adscam, including the front businesses and the subcontractors, the bagmen and the recipients of their cash, and of course the Liberal Party, they have a good idea who wound up with the lion’s share of the money.
They promise that the audit contains “pure political dynamite” — and that report will come to the Gomery Inquiry in the next few weeks. Canadians might even see some of the money returned, if it still exists in liquid form, but more likely will be tax-fraud charges that might survive the statute of limitations that prevent Adscammers from facing the consequences of their graft.
Well, they’ve been treating our money as though it was paper in their own political board game. I suppose we should have known there’d be a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card in the rules – after all, they wrote them.
Into The Pit
I was very hard up at one time – when I was living in Friar-street – and I used to frequent a house kept by a betting-man, near the St George’s Surrey Riding-school. A man I knew used to supply this betting-man with rats. I waw at this public-house one night when this rat-man comes up to me, and says he, “Hallo! my pippin; here, I want you: I want you to make a match. Will you kill thirty rats against my dog?” So I said, “Let me see the dog first;” and I looked at his mouth, and he was an old dog; so I says, “No, I won’t go in for thirty; but I don’t mind trying at twenty.” He wanted to make it twenty-four, but I wouldn’t. They put the twenty in the rat-pit and the dog went in first and killed his, and he took a quarter of an hour and two minutes. Then a fresh lot were put in the pit, and I began; my hands were tied behind me. They always make an allowance for a man, so the pit was made closer, for you see a man can’t turn round like a dog; I had half the space of the dog. The rats lay in a cluster, and then I picked them off where I wanted ’em and bit ’em between the shoulders. It was when they came to one or two that I had the work, for they cut about. The last one made me remember him, for he gave me a bite, of which I’ve got the scar now. It festered, and I was obliged to have it cut out. I took Dutch drops for it, and poulticed it by day, and I was bad for three weeks. They made a subscription in the room of fifteen shillings for killing these rats. I won the match, and beat the dog by four minutes. This wager was five shillings, which I had. I was at the time so hard up, I’d do anything for some money; though as far as that’s concerned, I’d go into a pit now, if anybody would make it worth my while. *
A spectator’s version.
Update – CTV has video links and a Mike Duffy interview.
I Did Not Have Lunch With That Man, Clarified
As I was just saying the other day, people send me the coolest stuff.

Yup
PDF
UPDATE A reader has a translation up
There Must Be Something About Public Works
..that causes their ministers to do weird stuff with money
The cabinet minister who has mounted the vigorous defence of the Liberal government over Adscam is himself snared in a nasty money dispute with his old Conservative riding association that prompted a complaint to the RCMP, Sun Media has learned. For more than a year, Public Works Minister Scott Brison has been asked to provide receipts or invoices to the King-Hants Conservative riding association to account for a $4,400 cheque given to him in 2003, while he was a Tory MP.
“It’s still not properly accounted for,” said Debbie Janzen, who sat on the board of Brison’s old Progressive Conservative Party riding association.
The cheque, which Brison assistant Dale Palmeter says was used to help pay down debts from his failed bid for the PC leadership in 2003, was made out to Brison on July 31 that year.
But it wasn’t cashed until Dec. 11 – the day after he defected to Paul Martin’s Liberals.
The money was deposited into Brison’s personal bank account in Wolfville, N.S., and the contribution does not show up on the list of contributors to his campaign.
I just happen to have a copy of that check. (click on it to enlarge)

People send me such cool stuff.
Monopoly On Martin
This is one great idea:
Because we all know how much the Liberal party likes envelopes stuffed with money, so we might as well help them out and all send one. But don’t forget to put a note in the envelope too, because you have to request something from them in return for your envelope stuffed with cash. From what we have been hearing, that’s how things work inside of the Liberal machine.
Help spread the word!
update: sorry! link fixed
Paul Martin Knew
“I have never had a lunch with Claude Boulay or anybody else to discuss the direction of contracts, directing contracts, intervening in contracts, that’s just simply not my style of politics,” he said, referring to the Montreal ad executive.
Asked if he had lunch with Boulay to discuss something else, Martin told reporters Thursday: “I can’t recall having had lunch with him since we formed the government.”
A long time was spent on crafting this answer…. and it shows.
Too many qualifiers. The safety valve: “recall”. “since”.
Paul Martin has just broadcast that there are skeletons in his closet.
This was not a man who had a question thrown to him from the blue. The details and personalities involved in this scandal have been on the public record for many months.
Paul Martin works closely with a team (teams?) of advisors. His people will have scoured every agenda book, every office record, every telephone log, to ensure that they are aware of any and every figure that Martin may have had contact with who is implicated.
When the question about Paul Martin’s lunch with Claude Bouley were asked in the House, he would have known instantly if there was truth in the accusation. A man who was completely out of the loop, who had no knowledge, would have known that his team had confirmed that. And he would have been able to state as much, without qualifiers.
He waited three days to answer, and then parsed his words extremely carefully. He waited because he couldn’t be sure if they had missed something. He stalled for a reason – they were checking their records.
He’s lying. He knew.
Keeping St.Boniface In Winnipeg
The Black Rod has been collecting federal sponsorship trivia – in Manitoba.
Canada’s National Ukrainian Festival was given $30,000 in 2001. However an access-to-information request showed that the festival had actually been awarded $34,500 by Public Works Canada.
Festival organizers were told that the other $4,500 was a commission to Compass Communications in Halifax. They were told to send a bill to Compass, but to make the bill out to Media/IDA in Montreal. The letter to the Ukrainian Festival was written by Pierre Tremblay, a very familiar name in the Adscam investigation.
Conservative MP Bill Casey asked the obvious question in the House of Commons:
“Does the minister have any idea at all why Public Works would tell a Manitoba organization to send this bill through one Liberal advertising agency in Nova Scotia and have it funnelled through another one in Montreal for an event in Manitoba to be paid for by Ottawa?
Did the government pay commissions to Media/IDA Vision in Montreal or did it pay commissions to Compass Communications in Halifax, or did it pay commissions to both of these Liberal advertising firms?”
He never got a straight answer. Nor has anyone.
Compass is owned by Tony Blom, a Liberal strategist who is also related to former Nova Scotia Liberal party president Gerald Blom.
Government records show it received $463,365 in commissions and more than $4.6 million for production costs related to events between 1998 and 2001.
The names Compass and Tremblay showed up again in documents surrounding sponsorship of the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg in 1999. Compass Communications billed $1.6 million in fees and commissions.
Objections were raised as to whether the sponsorship project met the government’s own rules. “Pay it,” said Tremblay, who overruled the naysayers.
NDP MP Pat Martin has invoices showing the Pan Am Games Society received $634,000. A letter dated May 1, 1999, from Games president Don MacKenzie to Blom indicates the group was expecting another $300,000 from Compass. He’s still wondering where that money went.
“I believe this sponsorship program blew way out of control,” said Pat Martin. “It appears to have turned into a cash cow. The abuse began immediately and the abuse extended it seems beyond Quebec’s borders at least to Halifax and now to Winnipeg.”
You can obtain a full copy of the article by email: Black Rod.
Prime Minister Perjuror?
Go West Young Librano!
Ordinarily, I would scarcely be interested in an obscure, failed Liberal Party candidate from the west (where using words “failed” and “obscure” when describing Liberals place one in jeopardy of literary redundancy). Different strokes for different folks, though. Don at All Things Canadian seems to think Jim Travers take is worth reading today.
If paying party workers with taxpayer dollars worked in Quebec, then why not elsewhere? In fact, way back in 2002 The Toronto Star reported that similar tactics were allegedly used coast-to-coast.
In Atlantic Canada, a fantasy federal contract is said to have paid a provincial Liberal campaign organizer. Out West, a prospective candidate’s salary was allegedly reimbursed through inflated advertising payments.
Neither case has been tested in court or heard by Gomery, who is narrowly focused on Quebec. And it’s also true there is little incentive to break what until now has been a circle of silence protected with all the ferocity of junkyard dogs.
Will Brault’s surprisingly candid revelations finally expose all that noise as just the yapping of those with much to hide?
Unfortunately, Travers is factually incorrect.
Unlike most people who write about dogs or use them as colourful metaphors, I have actually trained a few – including, once upon a time, a personal protection dog.
Good junkyard dogs don’t bark. They don’t act ferociously. A professionally trained junkyard dog remains sleeping in the sun while you approach his compound. He snaps at a buzzing fly in response to that stick you’re running against the fence. When the wirecutters come out, he sits up, sends you a direct gaze …. and scratches an itchy ear with hind leg.
Until you’ve breached the wire and crossed that invisible boundary into the region of No Possible Escape (also know as the World Of Hurt) there will be no indication whatsoever that you’ve awakened anything more dangerous than someone’s geriatric pet.
No, Mr Travers – junkyard dogs don’t yap.
Poodles do.
