· Columns · Essays · Links · News · Feeds · Tunes

February 12, 2005

My Saturday column

Here is what we are asked to believe. We are asked to believe that Jean Chretien, having created the sponsorship program, having personally secured funding for the program out of the so-called “unity reserve,” having personal authority over every request for funds from that allocation and having been warned in writing by the Clerk of the Privy Council that he would thus be personally responsible for every grant made out of those funds, should accept no personal blame for anything that went wrong under the program. We are asked to believe that, although the program was critical to achieving “the unity of Canada … my number one priority,” he had no knowledge of and indeed took no interest in the way the program was run because “I’m not a micro-manager”; that, in particular, he had no knowledge that a company controlled by Jacques Corriveau, a close friend and former vice-president of the Liberal Party, had received millions of dollars in sub-contracts under the program, nor that, prior to receiving these commissions, he had complained to Mr. Chretien’s closest political advisers that he had not been paid for work carried out in the 1997 election campaign, nor even that he had contributed thousands of dollars to Mr. Chretien’s personal election campaign. We are asked to believe this, notwithstanding Mr. Chretien’s demonstrated penchant for “micro-managing” on behalf of friends in search of federal funds. It was, after all, in those same post-referendum years when the sponsorship program was in its heyday that Mr. Chretien somehow found the time to make repeated phone calls to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada on behalf of the proprietor of the Grand-Mère Inn, the serial fire-victim Yvon Duhaime, who was mysteriously granted a loan for which he was ineligible. And Mr. Duhaime was hardly the only friend of Mr. Chretien’s to benefit from federal largesse. For example. there was Claude Gauthier, a long time friend and political contributor who was awarded a $6-million CIDA grant on which he was ineligible to bid, and who was later given a $1.2-million “job creation” grant for a company in bankruptcy proceedings, after Mr. Chretien’s officials intervened. We are asked to believe that Mr. Chretien was so insistent, when it came to federal advertising and sponsorships, that “all the rules, regulations and guidelines had to be followed,” that he appointed Jean Carle, then his director of operations, to police it. That would be the Jean Carle who has admitted to having later participated, as vice-president of the Business Development Bank, in a scheme to launder $125,000 in sponsorship funding to a Montreal film producer through the Bank. But perhaps that was his only lapse. We are asked to believe, likewise, that Mr. Chretien was so concerned to remove any partisan taint from federal advertising practices that he assigned the task to David Dingwall, his first Public Works minister; and that Mr. Dingwall and his executive assistant, Warren Kinsella, were so seized with non-partisan zeal that they went to unusual lengths to ensure Chuck Guité was put in charge of the program. Mr. Guité has testified that Mr. Dingwall explained his decision to keep him on, notwithstanding similar activities on behalf of the previous Conservative government, with the words: “You won’t rat on them, you won’t rat on us.” We are asked to believe that neither Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, nor Alfonso Gagliano, Mr. Guité’s superior as minister of Public Works, though they met regularly with Mr. Guité, and though they admit to having offered “suggestions” as to which projects should receive funding, and though several witnesses and dozens of documents attest to their having closely directed the program in every respect, took no part in deciding how the funds should be allocated, ie through which advertising agencies. We are asked to believe that the politicians responsible for a program that was conceived in secret, that appeared in no budget document, that was never divulged to Parliament and of which even cabinet ministers were unaware, should have been surprised to learn that bureaucrats answering to them were allocating millions of dollars in secret, without invoices or receipts. We are asked to believe, last, that Paul Martin did not know about the existence of the unity reserve until 1996, three years after he had been named Finance Minister; that he did not know what it was used for, ie sponsorships, until some years after that; and that he did not know about the abuses that went on under the program until some years after that. And yet, ignorant as he was as to either the purpose or results of the program, he immediately signed off on the Prime Minister’s request for funds, without question. We are asked to believe that Messrs. Chretien, Pelletier, Gagliano, Carle, Dingwall, and Kinsella acted at all times throughout this affair out of an impartial devotion to the public good; or that if they did not, Mr. Martin had no clue that anything untoward was going on, and no reason to suspect it. That is what we are asked to believe. Do you?
Links to this post:

18 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous:

wonderful and right.

brian

2/12/2005  
Blogger Matt:

No I don't - except for Kinsella, he's a friend, or this is all good fun, or something. Cheers!

2/12/2005  
Blogger kaqchikel:

Good to have you back in the blogsphere, Mr. Coyne!

2/12/2005  
Blogger rightwinger:

I believe the whole thing reads like an episode of the Sopranos, especially after the old Don, Jean tries to bully the judge, even invoking the name of the judges daughter. Gomery was smart enough not to react and give Don Jean another out. I suppose Warren, the consiglierie was disappointed about that.

2/12/2005  
Blogger ET:

Isn't there something else that we are also asked to believe? That 'showing a flag' will stop a separatist agenda dead in its tracks.

Is this is Canadian scientific discovery? Can it be exported to other troubled political areas of the world? Shouldn't we inform Spain that all it really needs to do, to prevent Basque separation desires, is to wave the Spanish flag in front of their eyes? What about the Russians and Chechnya? How come these countries don't know about this fantastic Canadian scientific discovery of preventing any and all separation desires merely by waving a flag in front of their robotic eyes?

Or- was it really a money laundering scheme, paying taxpayer money to those ad firms, not for waving flags, but for work done by those firms in Liberal ridings, to ensure that Chretien would win the next election.

2/12/2005  
Blogger Kathy:

temporary or not, will you be getting an RSS feed? Please?

2/12/2005  
Anonymous Joseph molnar:

Having watched a good deal of the Gomery commission testimony my sense is the one who most respected his "oath" to truth telling was Jean Carle.

2/12/2005  
Anonymous Anonymous:

You make a compelling case against Cretien, but less so against Martin. It is not hard at all to imagine that Cretien and his inner circle cut Martin out of the loop, especially if issues of secrecy and "who can you trust?" were of central importance. In fact, if Martin knew more than he has said he knew, surely he has enough political enemies who are on the hook for this affair who would not hesitate to bring him down with them. No, it seems entirely believeable that Martin knew nothing of the whole program.

But suppose you are right and Cretien knew an awful lot more about what was going on than he admits to. Unless someone stands up and points a finger at him it will not matter at all. As Judy Sgro learned, in politics the suggestion of guilt is enough to bring you down, regardless of the reality. So if your case against Martin had the strength of your case against Cretien (which it does not), then Martin and the Liberal party would be in the hot seat. But Cretien is now truly "yesterday's man." Pointing out what is plausible or even reasonable to assume can't hurt him now. Anything short of concrete evidence of wrongdoing that would lead to criminal charges will slide off his back now.


DW

2/12/2005  
Anonymous Anonymous:

Nope, I don't.

Kinsella is a charming antagonist and vindictively partisan thug; he is certainly guilty of not harbouring an "impartial" devotion to the public good. He doesn't even know the meaning of the word. Right or wrong, he will go to any length to protect his man. If it's true that he ("don't source me") actually brought Judge Gomery's daughter into the public fray to politically undermine the Commission of Inquiry, then he is responsible for much more than malicious behaviour.

I am sick to death of these people making a mockery of these proceedings, I am sick to death of their deliberate attempt to undermine the reputation of honourable servants (i.e., the Auditor General), I am sick to death of them trivializing the corruption that obviously took the taxpayers for a major fleecing.

This thing is going to get dirtier before it ends. As Andrew said, it's all we got to fix the system and so it will be worth every penny that it costs, a cost that some Liberals even seem to be worried about funnily enough. Where were they when a $100 million was being frettered away. Where was their anger then?

MJS

2/12/2005  
Blogger Christopher:

It's not surprising but quite sad that so few reporters have been asking these questions. I would have thought the the bold investigators of the fourth estate would be eager to show that they can't be mislead by performances. Yet this is one of the first columns I've read this week which went much beyond wasn't Jean Chretien so cool.

2/12/2005  
Blogger The Monger:

Nice to see you back.

2/12/2005  
Anonymous Anonymous:

You, Kinsella and pretty much everyone blogging or writing about politics is probably the reason why so many of us don't bother voting.

Coyne, I think you'd vanish into thin air if it weren't for Liberal scandals.

2/12/2005  
Anonymous Bill Greenwood:

We got a little bit closer to the truth with Jean Carle acknowledging the money laundering aspect. We will get closer to widespread acceptance of the truth when more mainstream Canadian journalists start calling it a racketeering and money laundering scheme aimed at funneling taxpayers money firstly to the Liberal Party and secondly to friends of the party in return for their complicity and silence. When that happens, we'll be getting somewhere.

2/12/2005  
Blogger ET:

Yes - more mainstream media has to call Adscam for what it was - a money laundering scheme to pay for work done for the Liberal party to get Chretien re-elected.

What endlessly puzzles me is how the Canadian public can be so complicit in this money laundering. I mean that - complicit. The fact that they actually accept such a logical and empirical fallacy as the supposition that 'waving a national flag' in front of a separatist will end all desires for separation - means that they are complicit in the whole corrupt affair.
As I said - hey- what an invention. Let's export it to Spain and Russia. All they'll have to do to stop Basque and Chechyan separation is 'wave their flag' and zip- it stops. Incredible.

More blogs, more talk, and more mainstream media. Chretien is corrupt and why are Canadians allowing this?

2/13/2005  
Anonymous john g:

re: Martin

I believe that Martin knew about the sponsorship scandal, but not for the reasons that everyone else has published.

The argument "he was the finance minister, he must have known" is a fallacy, and I believe Martin when he says that the Finance Minister is not privy to how other departments manage their internal affairs. I even believe that Chretien would keep him out of the loop as much as possible for the Quebec strategy, given their relationship and differing opinions on how to mollify Quebec.

Where his story falls apart is that in the late '90s and early 00's, Martin had taken complete control of the entire Liberal party. His people were entrenched everywhere, in sufficient numbers to force Chretien out. He had a complete stranglehold on the party. This is the reason that he must have known what was going on. It could not possibly have escaped him. I'm surprised no one has picked up on this.

2/13/2005  
Blogger ET:

As John G. says - Martin probably knew what had happened by 2000. But, by then, the scam was 'done'; the loot had been taken.

If Martin blew the story, he would have taken down, not merely the Liberal Party but his own chances of becoming PM. Like Chretien, Martin also had one agenda - to be the PM. I think that he's not quite as indifferent to the country as Chretien is/was; he's not quite as corrupt as Chretien is; but - he does indeed have one dominant goal - his own position as PM.

That's why he did and said nothing. But the fact remains - the Liberal Party is corrupt. Bloggers have to keep on and on with this and force the MSM to comment.

2/13/2005  
Anonymous Anonymous:

Mr. Coyne, this was an absolutely beautiful column. bravo.

rhebner

2/13/2005  
Blogger Joe Green:

What I find most amazing about "right wing" "reporters" is how they have completely let down the country by failing to focus in on the real failures of Parliament. It does not function correctly and it failed to provide both a Government with a healthy respect for the Official Opposition, as well as an Official Opposition capable of governing.

The sponsorship scandal is not only a failure on the government side of the House, its also a failure on the Opposition side of the House to properly criticize government programs and conduct.

The fact is that the Separtists have really given the Government a "free ride" while the Opposition proved to Canadians that they were incapable of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time.

But then, there does not exist in Canada today a "right wing" "reporter" with the integrity to point out that it was Lyin Brian Mulroney that got us going down this slippery slope that nearly cost Canadians the country during the referendum. If anything, the Government of Canada arrived on the scene with far too little and far too late.

WE were saved by the Grace of God, not by the combined weight of all the politicians in Ottawa.

And its reporters like Andrew Coyne that are the ones who give politicians of all stripes a "free pass". For "access" I suppose.

2/17/2005