Trust us, wait for the report, we'll fix it.
Ivan Yiu says in his post on Jim Elve's Group Election Blog:
If the scenario is that in which an entire government was complicit with kickbacks to party supporters and hanger-onners, then the government will indeed answer to the ultimate jury, the Canadian electorate. Until such time, those interested in true democracy and transparency should wait for the results of the three parallel investigations into this matter.
No matter what the cause though, opponents and supporters of the government alike would, I'm sure, urge the investigative bodies to bring their inquiries to conclusions about cause as rapidly as possible, and to recommend that appropriate steps will be taken to prevent its recurrence.
Great - we'll let the Mounties - an organization now implicated in two inquires - investigate this?
The public inquiry will not likely provide information to the electorate in time for the general election - and yet Ivan criticizes the opposition parties - "as much fiction as fact is being thrown across the floor of the house"?
The opposition parties, and journalists, have been bringing this mess to the public's attention for several years and if anything, have underestimated the extent of the waste and corruption.
Yiu also claims “All it takes is one rogue middle manager, civil servant, or minister.“ I'll let other's take that position on:
Paul Wells says:
Now on to Martin. He claims he did not know what was going on. This may actually be true. But consider what that would have to mean. This program began in 1997. Its ethical vices were built into its design. It sprayed tens of millions of dollars around Martin's province at a time when Martin's entire political future rested on his credibility as a steward of the public dollar. Every reporter in Quebec knew something stunk. For years, every major public event in Quebec carried a Canadian flag paid for by the federal government, at a massive premium. Daniel LeBlanc's fantastic reporting on the scandal in the Globe and Mail began in 2000 and spiralled upward in frequency at the beginning of 2001. Martin did not leave Cabinet until 2002.
So one of the questions facing Mr. Justice John Gomery is: What heroic feats of contorsion would have been required to keep a finance minister, vice-president of the treasury board, and senior Quebec minister from knowing what was going on?
Andrew Coyne:
And we are supposed to believe that no one knew anything about it? That the Finance minister, one Paul Martin, knew nothing about it? That Pierre Pettigrew, the political minister for Quebec, knew nothing about it? That Lucienne Robillard knew nothing of it? That Denis Coderre knew nothing of it? It was all just Alfonso Gagliano's doing?
But then, that is no more incredible than the government's pretense that, because the number one man for the past 14 years has been replaced by his number two, it is somehow a "new" government, entirely unconnected with the last one, notwithstanding the presence of 15 ministers in the current cabinet who were also members of Jean Chretien's cabinets.
Colby Cosh:
It is perhaps worth recalling who the members of the Gagliano committee were (though others may have served--the list dating to January 2001 is the oldest I could find): Vanclief, Gray, Anderson, Goodale, Tobin, Copps, Manley, McLellan, Rock, Robillard, Dion, Duhamel, Bradshaw. Strikes me as a rather distinguished bunch to be placed under the leadership of a oleaginous trimmer like Alfonso, but ugly work always finds its way into the hands of ugly men.
Chantal Hebert:
The Quebec federalist network is a tightly knit clan. As in every family, very little happens without everyone eventually getting wind of it — especially when it continues, like the sponsorship program, over so many years and on such a costly scale.
In time, Canadians will have to choose between believing that Martin — who cultivated every Liberal grassroots connection in sight during his multi-year bid to unseat Chrétien — existed in a bubble when it came to his own province, or deciding that looking the other way is appropriate behaviour for a would-be prime minister.
John Ibbitson:
And here's the question that, politically at least, could trump them all. Paul Martin has lived his adult life inside the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party. It helped get him elected leader. Does he want us to believe that he knows nothing about the unseemly ties between the Liberal government and certain advertising and communications firms in that province?
Had he no idea at all what was going on? No doubt Mr. Martin is hoping that he will not have to answer these questions right away. The Prime Minister has adopted an aggressive -- and convenient -- strategy of referring what could be called the legacy embarrassments to various arm's-length investigations: The Arar case, the CSL contracts. Now we have an inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal.
Remember the words of Jean Chretien - who, along with many other Liberals, will still defend this use of Canadian's taxes:
"I will not apologize to any Canadian," Chretien said. "With the circumstances that we were in in November of 1995, I had to make sure that the presence of Canada was to be felt in Quebec."
"Perhaps there was a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process. It is possible," Chretien said.
"But how many millions and millions of dollars that we have saved to the country because we have re-established the stability of Canada as a united country!"
Funny that Jean didn't campaign in 2000 on this great achievement - how much money did we spend for each vote in the next referendum in Quebec?
Paul Wells gives his opinion of the effect of this:
The fault is Jean Chrétien's. It will not be cheap entertainment for reporters and opposition MPs to try and establish Paul Martin's link to this mess — that question is important too. But nobody should forget that this mess began within months of the 1995 referendum, as part of a national-unity strategy that took precedence over every other function of government. The rot started at the top.
It is not only illegitimate to use "national unity" as an excuse for what happened: it should be deeply offensive to every Canadian. The unity of a good country is not reinforced when its government runs the country like a pig sty. Shame on anyone who tries to argue otherwise.
There is something else that upsets me very much about this. Every redneck francophobe in the country will roll his eyes as news of this mess gets out, and say: "Well, you know, this is what always goes on in Quebec." It was the responsibility of Quebec ministers first of all, and of Jean Chrétien more than any of them, to resist the temptation to hose tens of millions of dollars into the pockets of regime cronies in Quebec. Jean Chrétien strengthened the hand of Canada's bigots with what he did. He can never live that down. I would be hiding in China too today, if I were him.
Thanks Jean - a united country - united in their disgust of the Liberal playground that is our government and crown corporations.
Let's not, as Ivan says “slow down for a second, take a deep breath, and take a more careful look at these matters.” The non-appointed civil servants of this country deserve more from these partisan, appointed leaders of our agencies, corporations, and departments. Let's show the government and politicians that Canadians demand professionalism, honour, and honesty from their elected officials.
If the scenario is that in which an entire government was complicit with kickbacks to party supporters and hanger-onners, then the government will indeed answer to the ultimate jury, the Canadian electorate. Until such time, those interested in true democracy and transparency should wait for the results of the three parallel investigations into this matter.
No matter what the cause though, opponents and supporters of the government alike would, I'm sure, urge the investigative bodies to bring their inquiries to conclusions about cause as rapidly as possible, and to recommend that appropriate steps will be taken to prevent its recurrence.
Great - we'll let the Mounties - an organization now implicated in two inquires - investigate this?
The public inquiry will not likely provide information to the electorate in time for the general election - and yet Ivan criticizes the opposition parties - "as much fiction as fact is being thrown across the floor of the house"?
The opposition parties, and journalists, have been bringing this mess to the public's attention for several years and if anything, have underestimated the extent of the waste and corruption.
Yiu also claims “All it takes is one rogue middle manager, civil servant, or minister.“ I'll let other's take that position on:
Paul Wells says:
Now on to Martin. He claims he did not know what was going on. This may actually be true. But consider what that would have to mean. This program began in 1997. Its ethical vices were built into its design. It sprayed tens of millions of dollars around Martin's province at a time when Martin's entire political future rested on his credibility as a steward of the public dollar. Every reporter in Quebec knew something stunk. For years, every major public event in Quebec carried a Canadian flag paid for by the federal government, at a massive premium. Daniel LeBlanc's fantastic reporting on the scandal in the Globe and Mail began in 2000 and spiralled upward in frequency at the beginning of 2001. Martin did not leave Cabinet until 2002.
So one of the questions facing Mr. Justice John Gomery is: What heroic feats of contorsion would have been required to keep a finance minister, vice-president of the treasury board, and senior Quebec minister from knowing what was going on?
Andrew Coyne:
And we are supposed to believe that no one knew anything about it? That the Finance minister, one Paul Martin, knew nothing about it? That Pierre Pettigrew, the political minister for Quebec, knew nothing about it? That Lucienne Robillard knew nothing of it? That Denis Coderre knew nothing of it? It was all just Alfonso Gagliano's doing?
But then, that is no more incredible than the government's pretense that, because the number one man for the past 14 years has been replaced by his number two, it is somehow a "new" government, entirely unconnected with the last one, notwithstanding the presence of 15 ministers in the current cabinet who were also members of Jean Chretien's cabinets.
Colby Cosh:
It is perhaps worth recalling who the members of the Gagliano committee were (though others may have served--the list dating to January 2001 is the oldest I could find): Vanclief, Gray, Anderson, Goodale, Tobin, Copps, Manley, McLellan, Rock, Robillard, Dion, Duhamel, Bradshaw. Strikes me as a rather distinguished bunch to be placed under the leadership of a oleaginous trimmer like Alfonso, but ugly work always finds its way into the hands of ugly men.
Chantal Hebert:
The Quebec federalist network is a tightly knit clan. As in every family, very little happens without everyone eventually getting wind of it — especially when it continues, like the sponsorship program, over so many years and on such a costly scale.
In time, Canadians will have to choose between believing that Martin — who cultivated every Liberal grassroots connection in sight during his multi-year bid to unseat Chrétien — existed in a bubble when it came to his own province, or deciding that looking the other way is appropriate behaviour for a would-be prime minister.
John Ibbitson:
And here's the question that, politically at least, could trump them all. Paul Martin has lived his adult life inside the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party. It helped get him elected leader. Does he want us to believe that he knows nothing about the unseemly ties between the Liberal government and certain advertising and communications firms in that province?
Had he no idea at all what was going on? No doubt Mr. Martin is hoping that he will not have to answer these questions right away. The Prime Minister has adopted an aggressive -- and convenient -- strategy of referring what could be called the legacy embarrassments to various arm's-length investigations: The Arar case, the CSL contracts. Now we have an inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal.
Remember the words of Jean Chretien - who, along with many other Liberals, will still defend this use of Canadian's taxes:
"I will not apologize to any Canadian," Chretien said. "With the circumstances that we were in in November of 1995, I had to make sure that the presence of Canada was to be felt in Quebec."
"Perhaps there was a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process. It is possible," Chretien said.
"But how many millions and millions of dollars that we have saved to the country because we have re-established the stability of Canada as a united country!"
Funny that Jean didn't campaign in 2000 on this great achievement - how much money did we spend for each vote in the next referendum in Quebec?
Paul Wells gives his opinion of the effect of this:
The fault is Jean Chrétien's. It will not be cheap entertainment for reporters and opposition MPs to try and establish Paul Martin's link to this mess — that question is important too. But nobody should forget that this mess began within months of the 1995 referendum, as part of a national-unity strategy that took precedence over every other function of government. The rot started at the top.
It is not only illegitimate to use "national unity" as an excuse for what happened: it should be deeply offensive to every Canadian. The unity of a good country is not reinforced when its government runs the country like a pig sty. Shame on anyone who tries to argue otherwise.
There is something else that upsets me very much about this. Every redneck francophobe in the country will roll his eyes as news of this mess gets out, and say: "Well, you know, this is what always goes on in Quebec." It was the responsibility of Quebec ministers first of all, and of Jean Chrétien more than any of them, to resist the temptation to hose tens of millions of dollars into the pockets of regime cronies in Quebec. Jean Chrétien strengthened the hand of Canada's bigots with what he did. He can never live that down. I would be hiding in China too today, if I were him.
Thanks Jean - a united country - united in their disgust of the Liberal playground that is our government and crown corporations.
Let's not, as Ivan says “slow down for a second, take a deep breath, and take a more careful look at these matters.” The non-appointed civil servants of this country deserve more from these partisan, appointed leaders of our agencies, corporations, and departments. Let's show the government and politicians that Canadians demand professionalism, honour, and honesty from their elected officials.
