Chretien's Legacy

Justice denied

This is just mind numbing.

A new poll released yesterday shows that, by a margin of two to one, Canadians are more likely to finger Martin -- not Chretien -- for being solely responsible for the sponsorship mess.

How do you define "perverse"?

Notwithstanding that Martin was Finance Minister during the high water of the sponsorship program, it was Chretien who ran the ship of state with his death grip firmly on the rudder. It was Chretien who initiated the sponsorship program. It was Chretien's thugs who administered the program in Quebec.

So why is Martin, and not the Shawinigan Strangler, taking the heat?

Chretien has kept a low profile, limiting his explanation to an appearance before the Gomery inquiry during which he defended the sponsorship program as a necessary element of his government's efforts to fight separatism in his home province. He added, however, anyone who broke the law should be held accountable.

Martin has toured the country and said he was as offended as anyone else by the scandal. He also appeared before the inquiry, saying he wasn't aware of the details of the sponsorship program and insisted Gomery should be allowed to get to the bottom of the scandal.

The critical question asked by political observers has always been whether Martin would pay a political price for the transgressions which occurred under the Chretien government's watch.

Ironically, the poll shows it's Martin -- not Chretien -- who is paying the price.

"Canadians see Prime Minister Martin talking about it, answering questions about it, and trying to manage it," writes Nanos, "so they see it as his responsibility more than Chretien's. And Chretien's not talking."

So by simply keeping both sides of his mouth shut, Chretien has successfully (to date) dodged this bullet.

If Chretien escapes getting tagged, it will be thanks to the legendary short memory of today's voter in the television era. A classic case of justice denied. Let's hope Justice Gomery doesn't deny Jean his rightful place in Canadian political history when he writes his report.

I smell a rat.....

Upon hearing the news today that Chretien was giving up the ghost on his court challenge to replace Justice Gomery, I was somewhat perplexed. After all, isn't the Shawinigan Strangler a self-professed street fighter who is not afraid of a fight and doesn't back down easily?

Why, after so much effort and noise, has he decided to back off now?

Is there something that we Canadians are missing here? Why does this just not fit?

I smell a rat.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

What a difference a day makes in politics.

Yesterday Stephen Harper was bearing down on the Liberals full bore. Today, Belinda Stronach has taken the wind out of his sails. Martin has pulled the proverbial rabbit out of his hat and may be ready to conclude his magic act on Thursday. All he has left to do is deal with that weasel Kilgour. (Just add that to the bill, OK Paul?)

But the neglected angle to this dramatic development has to be the personal one. What will become of Belinda and Peter MacKay now that Martin has had his way with her? The report in the Globe and Mail today was terse but revealing:

By Monday evening, Ms. Stronach and Mr. Martin were working out a deal over dinner.

After that meeting, she called deputy Tory Leader Peter MacKay, to whom she had been romantically linked, and told him what had happened.

Mr. MacKay was gobsmacked, said one of his confidants. He picked up the phone and broke the news to Mr. Harper on Tuesday morning.

Gobsmacked?

A Wild Rose by any other name ......

We haven't seen much of the western separatists recently, but the surge in separatism in Quebec generated by Chretien's sponsorship scandal appears to bringing these guys out of hibernation.

Bob Mills, Tory MP for Red Deer, said some of his constituents are contemplating separatism and may have no other choice should the federal Liberals win the next election. Mills confirmed his constituents are again musing about separation:

"You hear that. You hear ... 'How could they continue to elect criminals?' That's the step right now. What might happen later, who knows."

Congratulations, Jean. Your place in history may yet include becoming the father of several contiguous countries!

Guess which party the majority of recent judicial appointments donated to?

If you guessed Liberal, welcome to a penetrating glimpse into the obvious.

Remember last month when Paul Martin vigorously defended the process for naming judges, after testimony at the Gomery inquiry suggested the appointments were used as payoffs to Liberal lawyers?

Well, apparently more than 60 per cent of recent federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan in the last five years donated exclusively to the Liberal party in the three to five years before their appointments.

Interviews with well-connected members of the legal community, including Liberals, a search of news data bases, and Elections Canada political contribution records, establish that in the past five years a majority of the 93 lawyers who were appointed to the Federal Court, the Ontario Superior Court, and the Courts of Queen's Bench of Alberta and Saskatchewan had associations with the governing Liberals.

More than 70 per cent of those appointed since 2000 to the Ontario Superior Court by Cotler and his predecessors, Anne McLellan and Martin Cauchon, donated money only to the Liberal Party of Canada. Forty of 56 lawyers gave just to the Liberals...

...The situation was similar in Alberta. Seven of the 13 lawyers (54 per cent) appointed to the federal bench in 2000 or later donated solely to the Liberals. None of the lawyers appointed donated solely to the Conservatives...

...High-profile Liberals appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench included John J. Gill, co-chair of election readiness in Alberta for the Liberals in 2004; Vital Ouellette, who ran unsuccessfully for the provincial Liberals in Lac La Biche-St. Paul in 1997 and 2001; federal Liberal candidate Bryan Mahoney, who lost twice to Conservative Myron Thompson in the riding of Wild Rose; and Liberal fundraiser Marsha Colleen Erb, Calgary co-chair in 1999 of the exclusive Laurier Club, where membership is based on donations of $1,000 or more to the Liberal party. Erb was appointed by her friend, then-justice minister Anne McLellan...

...11 of the 17 judges appointed to the trial level of the Ottawa based Federal Court were found to have ties to the Liberals.

So what happened to Chretien's famous promise to clean up the Mulroney patronage machine? Its looking more and more like part of Jean's legacy includes making Mulroney look like a piker by comparison.

This is not to say that you have to be a Liberal to be a judge. But it can't hurt.

To paraphrase an old saying: "Not all horse thieves are Liberal, but all Liberals are horse thieves."

Has the Liberal disease now tainted judicial appointments even in Alberta?

From today's Edmonton Sun:

Lawyer donated to Grits before judicial posting
By KATHLEEN HARRIS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

A Liberal-friendly lawyer who was called to the bench six months after helping run the Grit Alberta campaign also pitched in financially to the party.

John Gill, who served as co-chair of the 2004 federal campaign, was appointed judge of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in January.

Elections Canada records show he made donations to the Liberals in the last few years, including $763 in 1998, $828 in 2000 and $340 in 2003.

Gill's former law firm, Edmonton-based McCuaig Des-rochers, also gave thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberals, records show.

The NDP has raised concerns about the appointment on the heels of high-profile work on the federal campaign, but Gill declined to respond to the concerns.

"I can't comment," he told Sun Media.

"Sorry, I can't talk about it.

"That's part of the job - you don't talk about things. I've got nothing to say about it, basically."

Allegations of political interference in the judiciary have been swirling after Benoit Corbeil, a former president of the Liberal party's Quebec wing, suggested several lawyers who volunteered their services in the 2000 campaign were named judges in return.

In the Commons yesterday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper demanded an investigation in the wake of revelations the Liberal party had "corrupted the system of nominating, vetting and appointing judges."

Susan McGrath, president of the Canadian Bar Association, said the majority of candidates called to the bench are exceptional. But she said the process could be made more credible if the government selected names only from the pool deemed "highly recommended" by the independent advisory committee.

Chretien and Corriveau -- fairweather friends?

Chuck Guite's testimony became public today. Among the many interesting tidbits was this assessment of Chretien's relationship with Jacques Corriveau.

Guite claimed that he was constantly being told to help out the Libranos such as Corriveau by steering huge contracts their way. Accused of exploiting a personal relationship with former prime minister Jean Chretien, Corriveau has denied the two were close.

During his testimony, Guite said that in 1994, then-public works minister David Dingwall told him a different story.

"If you ever meet someone in bed between Jean Chretien and his wife, it'll be Corriveau," recalling Dingwall's remarks. "His comment was, you'll look after him."

Somebody is lying. Gomery's job just keeps getting harder and harder.

Truth in advertising...

Why did the (Canadian) chicken cross the road?

CalgaryGrit posted this humourous look at the age old question:

Paul Martin: “Let me be perfectly clear: I am going to get to the
bottom of why that chicken crossed the road, come hell or high water!”

Stephen Harper: “I am going to consult with Canadians to see why they think the chicken crossed the road. Only after I have listened to Canadians will I be in a position to judge whether or not this chicken crossed the road.”

Jack Layton: “I’m not here to talk about the chicken. I’m here to talk about making Parliament work. A Kyoto plan, clean air, post-secondary education, these are the issues Canadians care about, not some chicken.”

Gilles Ducceppe: “The chicken crossing the road is a sign dat fe-dee-RAW-lism is broken.”

Scott Brison: “Let Judge Gomery report and then we will know for certain why that chicken crossed the road.”

Belinda Stronach: “It’s about growing the economy…sorry, what was the question again?”

David Herle: “Let’s call an overpriced inquiry into why the chicken crossed the road, paying particular attention to any information that could damage the Liberal brand. Then we can truly differ ourselves from our predecessor.”

As we get fleeced today...

Today, as we all send our tributes to the castle on the Rideau in Ottawa, would it not be more efficient to simply cut out the middleman and pay it directly to the Liberal Party?

Or better yet, just take your money and burn it. There is a good chance that you'll have as much benefit from this as from sending it to the Feds.

And you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Jean - le crocodile désolé

To weep crocodile tears is to pretend a sorrow that one doesn’t in fact feel, to create a hypocritical show of emotion. The idea comes from the ancient belief that crocodiles weep while luring or devouring their prey. However, crocodiles can’t cry, because they have no tear ducts—they would be useless in an animal that spends so much time in the water. The eyes can produce secretions to moisten the lids if the animal is out of the water for a while, but these are hardly tears.

So it is with the reptilian Jean Chretien, who on April 29 made his first public statement on the Adscam furore since he testified at the Gomery commission in February.

Chretien said that he was "sorry", but only "if mistakes were made":

Recalling his appearance before the Gomery inquiry, Chretien said: "In my statement, I said I was sorry if mistakes were made and I said I have to take the full responsibility of what's good and what's bad when you're the prime minister."

"And I said if mistakes were made, these people have betrayed the nation, betrayed the government and myself and (through) due process, if found guilty, they should be punished," said Chretien, who was in Philadelphia to accept an award from a U.S. gay-rights group.

And that was basically it.

But you don't get the real picture unless you watched the video footage of Jean crying his crocodile tears it was instantly evident that he was very reluctantly mouthing the words. He was hostile, abrupt and terse. His body language screamed "f*ck you"!

At the same time he again defended the sponsorship program, saying it was "good for the country."

Yeah. And for a lot of Liberals.

Paul Martin is "Mad as Hell"

Paul Martin says he's mad as hell that his liberal party stole millions of dollars from the taxpayer.

Now to make up for it, he's travelling across the country (on your dime and for the second time) to prove just how upset he is.

Check out his tour here.

Martin's fantasy collides with the ugly face of reality

Some richly deserved credit for Chretien's accomplishments

Finally, Chretien is starting to get the recognition he so richly deserves. Today's Edmonton Journal carried an editorial ("Let's not forget Chretien's place in Adscam mess") castigating the "little guy from Shawinigan" for letting Martin twist in the wind by refusing to take ownership of his true legacy now coming into full bloom.

In his last years as prime minister, the rap on Jean Chretien was that he worried too much about his legacy. On the contrary, it turns out his true fault was not worrying about it enough, or at least more effectively.

Yes, the ineffectual Paul Martin may lose his government in the sponsorship scandal, but the former prime minister will lose his political honour, and his post-referendum Clarity-Bill reputation for ending the perennial threat of Quebec separation.

And because he's quietly letting Martin take the fall for his mistakes, and because he has helped create the best "winning conditions" Quebec separatists may ever enjoy, Chretien deserves more attention today for the mess, and all the mud history may care to throw.

Five or six years ago, many thoughtful Canadians in English-speaking Canada looked on the plain-speaking "petit gars" from Shawinigan with grudging affection, and wondered why so many Quebecers turned their noses up at him. Today, faced with a daily serving of evidence of a sleazy, gang-like culture among Quebec Liberals under his leadership, we realize it was Quebecers who instinctively had it right, and the rest of us who were gulled by this flawed old-school pol and his broken English.

He's still a lucky guy, though, this Trudeau-era cabinet minister who cashed in for 10 years and three victories-by-default on the wreckage left by Brian Mulroney. Long after the point where Mulroney could do nothing but lie low and wait for Canadians to forget, Chretien in retirement still has a chance to redeem himself.

He could ask for his own six minutes on national television to tell Canadians the mess in Quebec is largely his fault, and that of a political culture that Martin has been doing his inadequate best to change.

He could apologize for stonewalling for years in question period, and for allowing the sponsorship program to continue long after the separatist passions had cooled and thus removed its only justification for existence.

He could admit what everyone else in the country knows, that his rivalry with Martin and his streetfighter instincts clouded his judgment on a matter tied to the national-unity issue -- the one subject on which Canadians have long memories and little forgiveness, as Mulroney learned before him.

The proud Chretien won't do this, of course. Making fun of his detractors and belittling their concerns (and ours) is more his style. Remember the golf balls he pulled out of his briefcase in his appearance before the Gomery Commission? But 'fessing up would be the smart thing, as well as the right thing, to do.

Until he "rolled the dice" on national unity, Mulroney had a significant record of achievement capped off by the two free trade agreements so central to Canada's prosperity today. The same could have been said of Chretien, under whose leadership the foundations for 21st-century Canadian prosperity were further cemented with the budget-cutting exercise in which his political support was key. But instead, we will remember grotesquely padded contracts that continued long after the threat of separatism had faded, and kickbacks to the Liberal party of hefty chunks of those tax dollars.

Perhaps Chretien fears to let Martin off the hook by taking the blame, when he truly believes Martin has brought his current troubles on himself by holding the Gomery inquiry. If so, he needn't worry. As the current polls loudly suggest, Canadians rightly hold the Liberal party as a whole responsible for the mess.

Martin can't escape from the fact he was finance minister when the sponsorship money was being approved and spent, and moreover, a finance minister with more power over the spending of other departments than many of his predecessors. He probably wasn't officially told the sordid Adscam details, but as an intelligent man and Quebec minister, he surely had an inkling -- and yet never caused a ruckus till he had the top job.

No, Martin will still have much to answer for, whatever responsibility Chretien decides to shoulder. It is how Canadians will remember him that Chretien should worry about.

Don't worry Jack, if nothing else the Liberals know how to make a deal

Now playing in Quebec....

From le Cornichon.

"Sorry" doesn't cut it

Paul Martin's televised plea for forgiveness and understanding just might hold some water.....

.....if he hadn't been the most powerful minister next to Chretien in Chretien's three governments.

...if he wasn't the person in charge of all the government's money.

...if he wasn't on all the most senior government planning committees for Quebec throughout the entire Adscam period.

...if he wasn't a Liberal MP from Quebec throughout Adscam's six-year run.

...if he didn't represent a riding in the city where most of the criminality is alleged to have taken place -- Montreal.

...if he didn't know almost all of the people involved, lunched with them, sent them greeting cards, sat shoulder-to-shoulder with them in cabinet meetings and on campaign strategy committees, bumped into them at fundraisers and social gatherings.

It is inconceivable that none of the scandal ever caught his eyes, unless, of course, he was wilfully blind.

Martin either knew what was going on, or should have. "Sorry" is too little, too late.

Chretien sabotaging Martin, the Liberals and Canada. Same old, same old.

I have this recurring image of Jean Chretien sitting back, rolling in the big bucks as a lawyer to top up his $153,641 parliamentary pension, and laughing at the stupid Canadian electorate who elected him with three successive majorities. In particular, he gets the biggest laugh from how how he continues to make Paul Martin's life miserable.

As Barbara Yaffee pointed out in a column printed in today's National Post, the sponsorship scandal was Chretien's creation which he spawned, nurtured and defended to the end, never acknowledging a scintilla of responsibility for any wrongdoing.

What's more, he is refused to distance his successor from the program, despite the fact that it would be in the Liberal party's direct interest to do so. Martin has stated he was out of the sponsorship loop; why won't Chretien back him up?

If anything, Chretien -- through his cynical testimony before the Gomery inquiry and his court challenge of the presiding judge -- has boosted public ire toward the Grits

Looks like Chretien is up to his old tricks. One can only hope that Gomery finds the evidence to stick it to him.

Just stating the obvious

Jean breathes new life into separatism

Rex Murphy has a rant pointing out the huge irony that Chretien's sponsorship program, whose only defence is that it was necessary to save the country from the separatists ("We had to save the country. The devil take the details.") has ended up lighting a renewed fire under that movement.

Since the election right up until this present day but especially since the hearings have been going on in Montreal, the testimony of the Gomery Commission has been commanding soap opera-sized audiences in Quebec, and with each day, the anger at the federal Liberals and by default, support for the Bloc has been increasing. Federalists in Quebec are now at a new low and Jean Charest is wearing a 70 per cent disapproval rating. It has reached the point where Quebec separatism, supposedly for so long enfeebled, decayed, passé, on life support is suddenly renewed. And whence did it get the vital transfusion?

From the increasingly bleak portrait of arrogance, mischief, alleged kickbacks, and sloppiness that are the unfailing hallmarks of the sponsorship program. In other words, the cause of separatism has found itself again, breathes new hope, holds a sword over the federal Parliament because of what? Because of the very program whose only possible defence was that it was necessary to save the country has re-awakened the most imminent dynamic of this country's disillusion. So the grand reckless architects of the sponsorship program have now this to consider: The only grounds on which the wretched program could even pretend to a defence, saving the country, is painfully exactly the opposite of what has actually been achieved.

If Canada goes through the anxious torments of yet another referendum in Quebec, let us all thank the great geniuses who let the contracts to paint the billboards, host the soccer games, and plaster the race tracks. They have given new life to Canada's national nightmare. Well done, folks.

Take a bow, Jean. Your legacy will endure for generations to come.

The pot calling the kettle black

So Alphonso Gagliano, the former Don of Chretien's Quebec Family, went on record yesterday predicting the end of Canada after Quebec separatists win the next referendum in the province -- and he says the country will have Paul Martin and his inquiry to blame. He said Martin has badly damaged the Liberal party in Quebec and predicts the Bloc Quebecois will "sweep" the province's 75 seats in an upcoming election.

"The next provincial election, unless there is a miracle, the PQ will win and they will call a referendum right away," Mr. Gagliano said. "And 'goodbye Canada.' This is the end, thanks to Paul Martin's leadership."

What a crock. If anybody has destroyed the Liberal Party and endangered Confederation it is Chretien and his rum-running self-serving pirates.

What an irony. Chretien's program purportedly conceived to "save" Canada ends up being the cause of its disintegration.

What a legacy.

Can Paul Martin pull the trigger?

Writing in the Globe and Mail (April 15, 2005, "Can Paul Martin pull the trigger?") former B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Gibson has put the proverbial cat among the pigeons. It's time to pin the tail on the donkey.

Harry Truman, one of the better U.S. presidents, had a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here." On all great questions within his area, he took responsibility.

Since Dec. 12, 2003, the same sign has been on the Martin desk. But before that? The buck stopped not "here," but there -- at the desk of one Jean Chrétien. That is where the Gomery train should arrive.

Prime ministers set the tone for their governments. These corrupt and sleazy dealings could never have happened unless the perpetrators sensed a certain laxity or tolerance at the top. Failings in accountability fall to a Prime Minister as well. And this could not be more certain than with respect to a program personally established by Jean Chrétien.

Mr. Martin made a mistake when he was sworn in. He should have at once made public the Auditor-General’s report that brought this scandal to the surface and referred it to the RCMP.

It couldn’t be tabled in Parliament as the rules require, Mr. Chrétien having cleverly shut it down days before. Never mind -- give it to the Speaker, give it to the public. Early disclosure is not a hanging offence. And the former PM would have been left carrying his own soiled baggage.

Mr. Martin can still make this argument, but will he? It would reopen a bitter civil war in the Liberal party. Never mind -- that war would be short, and then over. Lop off the rotten branch, then renewal. Either this, or risk an end as a footnote to history.

Jean knows the value of true friendship. About $250 million.

Corriveau receives the highest honour any Chretien henchman can aspire to

Chretien uses his balls to illustrate his legacy...

The noose tightens....

Slowly but surely, testimony from the Gomery inquiry is finding more and more links to Chretien.

Today, former Groupaction Marketing employee Alain Renaud said Chuck Guite, the bureaucrat who ran the federal sponsorship program in the 1990s, said Jean Chretien's office approved sponsorship deals later sullied by scandal. He confirmed an unspecified number of contracts crossed the desk of Jean Pelletier, the chief of staff to Chretien.

Renaud testified that Guite often said contracts would be approved only after getting the green light from the country's highest political office.

He also testified that he heard one of Jean Chretien's friends make a pitch directly to the then-prime minister for a culturally themed sponsorship contract.

Its starting to look more and more like Chretien was more hands on than he has been prepared to admit. This testimony is significant as it provides evidence of Chretien's direct involvemnt in the distribution of sponsorship monies, something he expressly denied during his testimony in February. And the more directly involved he was, the more likely it is that he knew of the abuse. However, that link has yet to be made. Stay tuned....

The Liberal Party: only professionals need apply

"I know nothing!"

Is there anybody in this country that still believes Jean Chretien knew nothing of the monumental abuse of public funds by the Liberals involved with the sponsorship program? Our former PM’s self-serving assertion he knew nothing defies reality and common sense.

1. Chretien has stated that the sponsorship program was of the utmost importance, as it was conceived in order to “save the country”. How could the man in charge of that country know as little about the program as he professes to?

2. Chretien comes from Quebec and prides himself on having the pulse of that province. How could his extensive machine there have no idea of what was going on?

3. Jean Brault, whose dramatic testimony at the sponsorship inquiry has rocked the country, donated $30,000 to Chretien's 1993 campaign in the hopes of landing future federal contracts. Surely Chretien would have taken notice of such a notable donor.

4. Chretien’s older brother, Gaby, solicited a $4,000 donation from Brault by agreeing to submit a false invoice. And Brault says he was brow-beaten into hiring Chretien's niece by a friend of the prime minister. Somehow, Chretien’s close relatives have a close connection with Brault, yet Chretien knows nothing about the millions flowing into companies owned by Brault and other Liberal loyalists?

5. Former Groupaction employee Alain Renaud said he had the ear of Jean Pelletier, Chretien's chief of staff from 1993 to 2001. Renaud said Chretien's one-time riding organizer, Michel Beliveau, was the point man between himself and Pelletier, a good friend of Chretien, whenever Groupaction sought more sponsorship contracts. In other words, Chretien's inner circle may have had control over sponsorship dollars now tainted by allegations $1.1 million was redirected into Liberal coffers. How could this salient fact escape the virgin ears of the man at the top?

Chretien’s sanctimonious denials are reminiscent of the self-serving mantra made famous by Sergeant Schultz, the fearful camp guard on Hogan’s Heroes, who knows what's going on but sees "nussink"!

Seargent Schultz and Chretien: separated at birth?

A Fleecing We Will Go

I found this witty little poem on PolSpy, a great Canadian political blog.

A Fleecing We Will Go

Chretien had a little scam
Little scam, little scam
Chretien had a little scam
His slush funds they did grow

And everywhere that Chretien went
Chretien went, Chretien went
And everywhere that Chretien went
The money it did flow

He gave it to his friends one day
Friends one day, friends one day
He gave it to his friends one day
Which was against the rules

Quebecers were so outraged
So outraged, so outraged
Quebecers were so outraged
No one treats them like fools

And so Paul Martin cast him out
Cast him out, cast him out
And so Paul Martin cast him out
But scandal lingered near

Angry voters milled about
Milled about, milled about
Angry voters milled about
‘Til Martin did appear

Where did all that money go
Money go, money go
Where did all that money go
The angry voters cry

Why I’ll have Judge Gomery tell you so
Have Judge Gomery tell you so
Have Judge Gomery tell you so
I’ll have judge Gomery tell you so
Paul Martin did reply

Why Chretien wants to remove Gomery