• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Adscam/ Gomery Inquiry/ et al

Why do we keep electing these people?

  • Stupidity

    Votes: 15 55.6%
  • No guts

    Votes: 12 44.4%

  • Total voters
    27
Where to place the blame:

Quebec? No.

Ontario? Partially, for refusing to do anything about the problem.

Club Auberge Grand Mère? Definitely!
 
It's a shame they didn't give the right to charge them. & look at Chretien notes when he was PM Now that be a political junkie dreams come through
 
In the news this morning:

Gomery testimony spurs election buzz

Scott Stinson and Paul Vieira, with files from Ian Bailey
National Post, with files from CanWest News Service

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Federal political party leaders are said to be holding emergency consultations this weekend after allegedly shocking new testimony at the sponsorship inquiry raised the spectre of a non-confidence vote that could hasten the fall of the Liberal minority government.

Sources said the Conservatives will discuss strategy and the possibility of a vote after learning the Bloc Quebecois may table a non-confidence motion to capitalize on Gomery Commission testimony that is said to be damaging to the Liberals.

The new testimony before Justice John Gomery cannot be revealed due to a publication ban, but it is said to be so damning that the Bloc would consider toppling the government in hopes of sweeping Quebec, where the sponsorship inquiry is closely watched, in the resulting election.

Conservative and NDP officials would not say publicly yesterday whether they are preparing for an election, but both parties do not want to appear as though they are eager for a vote.

Geoff Norquay, a spokesman for Conservative leader Stephen Harper, said talk of an early election was "nonsense," though he did note that last week saw some "clearly interesting developments" at the sponsorship inquiry.

James Moore, a Conservative MP from British Columbia and the transport critic, said speculation about an election was "news to [him]."

"However, I have heard that things are getting worse and worse for the Grits on this front," Mr. Moore said.

"This is the stuff of which authors make a lot of money," said one senior Tory insider, commenting on the latest Gomery testimony.

An opposition MP, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "I've heard some of the Gomery stuff and if it gets out ... it won't go well for [the Liberals]."

The Canadian Press reported yesterday that Liberal MPs with safe seats were asked to contact neighbouring ridings where the party needs help organizing local campaigns.

"Our election readiness went up 20% today," an unidentified Liberal MP told The Canadian Press.

One senior Tory, who asked not to be identified, said yesterday that much of what happens in the coming week will depend on some key court rulings.

Lawyers for former chief executive of Groupaction, Jean Brault, former advertising executive Paul Coffin and Charles Guite, the former senior civil servant in charge of the sponsorship program, will be in court to ask that their criminal trials on charges of fraud and conspiracy be put off until September.

Mr. Brault began testifying before Gomery on Wednesday, while Messrs. Coffin and Guite are scheduled to do so later this month. Justice Gomery has sealed their testimony so that it does not prejudice their criminal trials, but if those court proceedings are moved to the fall a media lawyer will ask the sponsorship judge to rescind his ban. Such a move could mean the allegedly damaging testimony could become public by Wednesday.

However, a senior Liberal organizer well acquainted with the party's election plans said a snap election isn't on its radar right now.

"It is not really in the interst of any of the parties to force an election right now."

The organizer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not aware of any potential impact the secret Gomery testimony may have on an election call.

A senior Conservative strategist also said the election machine has not been kicked into high gear: "There are lots of rumours, but my bat phone hasn't been ringing."

However, The Canadian Press quoted the Tory justice critic as suggesting changes could be afoot.

"All I can say is that given what was said [on Thursday before Judge Gomery], the political landscape may be changing quite rapidly," Vic Toews said.
© National Post 2005
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=942bf60a-31c3-4583-9b37-99f08cffded8
 
I noticed PMPM is looking a little ashen the past few days.
 
Check these sites out....

The news story on the broken publication ban is at:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/04/04/981625-sun.html


Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog or the Canadian news site that promoted it or providing the blog's Internet address could lead to a contempt charge.

[Edited to remove link to US website article that has violated publication ban.   We don't want to see Mike with a contempt charge]
 
For clarity, here's some more detail on the publication ban:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968705899037&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Bloggers point way to banned Brault evidence


MIRO CERNETIG
QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

MONTREALâ ”Bloggers are using the Internet to get around the publication ban put in place by Justice John Gomery, which prevents publication of politically explosive testimony heard in the sponsorship inquiry.

At least two Canadian Internet sites, one well known to many who follow Canadian politics, have posted links to a conservative U.S. Web page carrying a 900-word synopsis of what was said in the hearing last week.

Canadian news outlets have been temporarily ordered by Gomery not to publish, broadcast or post on the Internet any testimony from Jean Brault, former president of Groupaction, the Montreal ad agency which earned millions of dollars in federal contracts.

Asked about the controversial move to offer links to the U.S. site, one Canadian Web operator responded: "No comment."

Brault, former bureaucrat Chuck Guité and ad executive Paul Coffin are due to appear in court May 2 on fraud-related charges involving the $250-million sponsorship program. Gomery ruled March 29 that media reports of their evidence so close to trial could make it difficult to find unbiased jurors.

The restriction could be lifted as early as this week, however, because Brault and Guité have asked that their criminal trial be postponed until September, a delay that could decrease the effect of the media on jurors.

[and, some more info from McG]:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/04/04/981625-sun.html

The American blog, being promoted by an all-news Canadian website, boasts "Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open" and promises more to come. The owner of the Canadian website refused to comment yesterday.

Inquiry official Francois Perreault voiced shock at the publication ban breach, and said the commission co-counsel Bernard Roy and Justice John Gomery will decide today whether to charge the Canadian website owner with contempt of court.

Sun Media lawyer Alan Shanoff said publishing the name of the blog or the Canadian news site that promoted it or providing the blog's Internet address could lead to a contempt charge.
 
mo-litia said:
Check these sites out....

The news story on the broken publication ban is at:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/04/04/981625-sun.html


[Edited to remove link to US website article that has violated publication ban.   We don't want to see Mike with a contempt charge]

True, true! Of course, if you read the article there is a certain phrase in quotation marks that will lead you right to the suppressed testimony via Google.   If accurate, the stuff is pretty shocking.

Rick_Donald said:
  Why do people keep saying that even if the Conservatives did win the election that they would be just as bad when you haven't even given the Conservatives a chance since the 80's?....
  And before you start bashing Mulroney's conservatives remember that the economic winfall that the 90's Liberals enjoyed was a direct result of policies put in place by the Conservatives(NAFTA, GST) that the Liberals, I might add, promised to eliminate but didn't. Now Martin has the nerve to claim responsibility for the boom of the nineties. Give me a break. Let's not forget the White Paper on defence that was started but eventually abandoned due to political pressure from opposition. This was a very real thing that could have occurred if the Canadian public had have been more optimistic and supportive. But everyone wanted to hang Mulroney and his Conservatives over the GST and Nafta (which turned out to be a success.)
Furthermore the New Conservatives are not the Progressive Conservatives of the past but an entirely new party that has never been given a chance to prove itself. So save your prejudgments for the other two parties.
  That's it, I'm done now.

Don't stop, I think you're just geting warmed up!   The real question to be asked here is just how complacent the Ontario voters are the next time we get a chance to go yo the polls. (Soon...vote of non-confidence, anyone? ;D)   I know Ontario is generally happy to wallow at the Liberal trough, but even the most die hard Fiberal must feel some anger at the way our tax dollars have been stolen from us.

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
She also explained how the Montreal Impact soccer team received almost $150,000 in sponsorship funds during the 1998-99 indoor season.

A similar request by the Edmonton Drillers soccer team was rejected, with the government claiming no funds were available.

Hmmm......yet another reason for western aalienation   This scandal could be the catalyst that kicks separation back into high gear out West. (Not that I'm advocating that   ::) )   Or, if the new government that we will likely soon get is SERIOUS about national unity, we'll have some badly needed electoral and senate reforms that will keep the majority of disgruntled Westerners reasonably happy with Confederation.

I'm sure glad all those transfer payments from my land of plenty went to a good cause.   :-X



 
mo-litia said:
...

... The real question to be asked here is just how complacent the Ontario voters are the next time we get a chance to go yo the polls. (Soon...vote of non-confidence, anyone? ;D)   I know Ontario is generally happy to wallow at the Liberal trough, but even the most die hard Fiberal must feel some anger at the way our tax dollars have been stolen from us.

...

There was an interesting little bit in the Economist a week or two back about so called dog whistle issues: those messages which are aimed at a well defined group and reach them without offending or even being much noticed by others.

One huge dog whistle issue in Ontario has been, for over 100 years but especially for the past 40 (Laurendau/Dunton, in '65, etc), that only the Liberals can manage Québec (a.k.a. keep Québec in its place).  Ontarians, despite the best efforts of Premier Dim Dalton McGuinty, are probably the lest 'regional' Canadians: most see themselves as unhyphenated Canadians, first, and Ontarians third or fourth.  Notwithstanding the fact that Québec no longer has much impact on Ontario's prosperity (it was Ontario's biggest market until the end of the '60s when Ontario morphed into what Prof. Tom Courchene (Queens) - http://www.queensu.ca/sps/faculty_and_fellows/faculty.htm - calls a North American Regional State), Ontarians still, quietly, almost silently, worry that Québec must be kept 'happy' and 'in' Canada.  Ontarians are willing to forgive the Liberals almost anything so long as Québec is an issue.  The Liberals must, as Trudeau did, actively persuade Ontarians that they (the Liberals) are in need of a rest and have lost control of Québec before Ontarians will vote them out.

If Québecers can convince that English national media, including the Toronto Star, that the Liberals have lost control of Québec then Ontarians will return something like 65 Tories, 20+/- NDPers and a bare 20 Liberals.  With 65 seats in Ontario, 70 in the West and 10 in Atlantic Canada the Tories can form a minority government.

A Tory minority will have to court support from one of:

"¢ A breakaway faction of fiscally conservative Liberals - a highly unlikely circumstance; Liberal Party discipline will remain strong;

"¢ The BQ - which is a leftish, pro-Kyoto, anti-military group;

"¢ The NDP and Greens - if they can develop and implement a strong green agenda; or

"¢ A Liberal Party which is too frightened to face the electorate again, for a while.

In any event, I think a Conservative government would affirm and maybe even expand the Liberal's $12.5 Billion/5,000 + 3,000 promise but I would not look for anything like $25 Billion and 15,000 + 5,000 which would be more realistic.

 
I, for one, am glad for the publication ban.  We should all be grateful that our political and judicial elite recognize that unlike them, we ordinary Canadians lack the moral and intellectual clarity to give Mr. Brault a fair trial after hearing his Gomery testimony.

From Instapundit.com:

Funny how our neighbors to the north lose their expansive view of international law when confronted with things like this:

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Unless, you know, it's embarrassing to people in power or something.
  Internal link is to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
 
Funny how the only way to get "real" news in Canada is to read expat canadians like Mark Styen or David Frum, or hope US blogs like Instapundit will carry something. At least this will start putting Darwinian pressure of Canadian MSM and journalists to actually start reporting, as opposed to mouthing Liberal propaganda.
 
I've never really thought of beneficiaries as victims ... the Western Standard put this under "April 4, 1974:
President Nixon calls in FBI to investigate possible fraud perpetrated against Republican party.
":

Liberals contact RCMP to investigate possible sponsorship-related fraud

1 hour, 40 minutes ago


BRIAN DALY

MONTREAL (CP) - The federal Liberal party, beset by allegations public money was funnelled into its Quebec wing, said Monday it has asked the RCMP to investigate the possibility the party was a victim of fraud.

The announcement at the sponsorship inquiry by party lawyer Doug Mitchell comes three days after ad man Jean Brault delivered inquiry testimony said to be devastating to the minority Liberal government.

"I have been directed by my clients to contact the RCMP to ask that they investigate the possibility that the party itself may have been the target of fraud or other harmful acts by certain individuals," Mitchell told reporters.

"Using inappropriate means to gain undeserved benefit . . . is, if proven to be true, criminal action, plain and simple."

The details of Brault's testimony, delivered Thursday and Friday, are covered by a publication ban. But the testimony was said to be so serious that all federal political parties were working on election scenarios.

The Liberals launched into full defensive mode Monday, seeking and winning full standing at the inquiry that allows them to cross-examine Brault and other witnesses. ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=737&e=1&u=/cpress/20050404/ca_pr_on_na/sponsorship_inquiry
 
What is going to be amusing is when the rationalizations begin to emerge to convince us that the costs and corruption are a small price to pay to maintain the unity of the nation and keep the vile social conservatives out of office.
 
What is amusing is the way the LIEberals are scurrying and casting about looking for scapegoats to pin their indiscretions on, to deflect the blame, before the SHTF, in the open press.

What will NOT be amusing is how many of the Canadian sheeple will buy it. :salute:
 
You can't make this stuff up:

"They have the gall to depict the Liberal Party as the victim of the sponsorship scandal," Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said as the daily question period got underway in the House of Commons Monday afternoon.

"Will the Government at least have the decency to simply admit that the only victim is the Canadian taxpayer whose money was stolen?"

[...]

Prime Minister Paul Martin replied to Harper by defending party workers.

"There are of thousands of men and women in Quebec and across this country who are dedicated to the Liberal Party and to their country," Martin said.

"Those members of the Liberal Party should not have to bear the rumours ... or the burden of the activities of a very small few who may have colluded against the party,"
he added, promising to defend them.
  I think he means "against" in the "funnelled $100 million taxpayer dollars to" sense.  :crybaby:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1112614081885_4/?hub=TopStories
 
Ahhh,
1148.gif
the spin has started
1148.gif


It shouldn't read "colluded against the party". It should read "colluded against the Canadian people" Guess he's trying to remove us as the victims and replace the LIEberals as the downtrodden masses.
1087.gif


BOHICA everyone!!
363.gif
 
Although there is a Canadian publication ban, unless the Liberals can turn off the Internet, our American cousins have come on board big time. I can't provide a link, in case the owner of this site gets into trouble, but if you google onto the bigger blog sites (first letter is "I", rymes with "pundit"), you can find lots of links to start.

Funny how our neighbors to the north lose their expansive view of international law when confronted with things like this:

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Unless, you know, it's embarrassing to people in power or something.

As Glenn Reynolds would say: Heh
 
a_majoor said:
Although there is a Canadian publication ban, unless the Liberals can turn off the Internet, our American cousins have come on board big time. I can't provide a link, in case the owner of this site gets into trouble, but if you google onto the bigger blog sites (first letter is "I", rymes with "pundit"), you can find lots of links to start.

As Glenn Reynolds would say: Heh

I went there earlier today and didn't all that much different than what the news media in Canada are indirectly alluding to.  ???
 
If even half of this is true and provable in a court of law...the mind beggars at the unmitigated gall of these people.

Actually, this raises a question.  How the heck would the Dept of Justice even begin to tackle something this big?  I can't think of a similar situation in Canadian history...

Can't wait for the publication ban to come off, so we can remove the crypto...



 
SeaKingTacco said:
Actually, this raises a question.  How the heck would the Dept of Justice even begin to tackle something this big?  I can't think of a similar situation in Canadian history...

Sir John  A?
 
Back
Top