[kimmy]

The government is going to sue some of the ad-firms to recover money.
CTV: Gov't to sue ad-firms to recover $10 million

That they're going to do this might result in some good PR. On the otherhand, it might remind people how mad they were about the sponsorship program in the first place, when most people seem to have forgot it or gotten over it.

I think the fact that they're going to court over this is also a reply to those Liberals on the inquiry who'd been trying to argue that the the money wasn't really mis-spent, that Sheila Fraser was in no position to assess what return the program got for the money that was spent, that the government must have gotten some value in return for the money that was given to the ad-firms, etc. If any of that were true, we probably wouldn't be seeing the government taking this to court, would we? No, I don't think we would.


But to me, the more interesting development is one mentioned towards the end of this article:
Toronto Star: Gomery inquiry notes

Quote

Yesterday, officials at the commission of inquiry said Gomery was receiving expressions of support from across Canada in response to an accusation by a lawyer for former prime minister Jean Chrétien that the judge had lost his impartiality.

About two dozen Canadians sent emails to the commissioner saying he has their full support and questioning Chrétien's motivation, said inquiry spokesperson François Perrault.

David Scott, who represents the former prime minister at the hearings, on Tuesday said remarks Gomery made to the media before Christmas showed that he had already reached conclusions about the causes of the problems that plagued the sponsorship initiative. Scott said Chrétien, who is set to testify next month, is considering going to court to have Gomery removed from the commission.

"People are saying in the e-mails, `What's Chrétien got to hide?'" Perrault said.

Lawyers are smart guys. I'm sure that Mr Scott knows that if he wades into this on Chretien's behalf, it creates the impression that Chretien has something to hide; I doubt it's something he'd do lightly, which to me says that Chretien *does* have some kind of personal stake in what's going on. After months and months of nothing from the Gomery inquiry, it looks like things might start to get interesting.


-kimmy

[August1991]

Kimmy, I don`t know what to say, really.

At this point, the Sponsorship Scandal has become boring. This is exactly what PM PM wanted. More convoluted accusations and counter-accusations will make it even more boooooring.

I think this was Nixon's original strategy with Watergate. (In Sep 72, he congratulated Dean for apparently smothering it.) No doubt many political scandals die such a death. I think the Sponsorship Dossier (as Jean Lapierre would say) is now more or less closed.

I may be wrong but I too think this scandal is no Dracula. It ain't coming back, except maybe in Quebec. The Tories have no traction. The NDP are either clueless or closet Liberals.

Yet.

If I can make a prediction, I'd say Canada is slowing coming to some kind of dénouement (in Quebec terms, about 40 years or so in the making).

Evidence of this "impending unknotting"? The past federal election shows that the federal Liberal Party can do no wrong. We have no opposition party to choose.

Why? Quebec.

Quebec's obsessive internal division has now infected Canadian federal politics. The result is that the absolute worst the Liberals can do is win a minority.

Many voters in Ontario (and elsewhere in Canada) don't want to hear or know about a sponsorship scandal. They fear that the fall of the Liberal Party is the collapse of Canada as they know it.

They are not far wrong.

[Shakeyhands]

perhaps if there were an alternative to the Liberals eh August? Sounds as though you are alluding to a lack of a good choice to an alternative is the Liberals fault?

[I miss Reagan]

The liberals are brilliant at maintaining power. They'll morph into, or at least project an image of exactly what they think Canadians want in a government. Then they'll govern the same as they always have. And with such a sympathetic media, how can they ever lose.

[kimmy]

Well, "Da Little Scom-Bag from Shawinigan" has gone ahead and done it. As threatened, Chretien's mouthpiece, David Scott, has indeed filed papers demanding Judge Gomery recuse himself, and failing that, challenge Gomery in federal court.

Globe 'n' Mail: Chretien's temper-tantrum


Not surprisingly, the 3 opposition leaders have called on the Liberals to stand firm in support of the inquiry, with Jack Layton being particularly blunt (in manner that would do MapleSyrup proud) :

Quote

"If [Prime Minister Paul Martin] waffles and offers a half-assed defence on the Gomery commission instead of standing behind it, then he deserves to be punished," he said from his own caucus retreat in Montebello, Que.

"I don't think that most Canadians feel like wasting time on an election right now but if he feels he can push this off into judicial-appeal oblivion with impunity, then he's got another thing coming."

And not surprisingly, Marting is still pretending he's in China.

So, what's Chretien's motivation? What's the point? What's in it for him? What's his angle, anyway? This column reflects on Jean Chretien, the man, the myth, the legend, and speculates on what might be on his mind...

Globe 'n' Mail columnist: At heart, Chretien is just a prick

Quote

If Judge Gomery is going to write a critical chapter of Mr. Chrétien's tenure, they can at least question the fairness of the portrait.

"If nothing else, I think it's probably fair to put it on the record that the person who is judging the process appears to have made up his mind on some issues," one Chrétien loyalist said yesterday.

It's a pre-emptive strike, and by implication an admission that Mr. Chrétien and his circle of still-loyal supporters don't like the way -- they think -- the Gomery report will shape up.

Is this about the all-important "Chretien legacy", then? It seems to me that Chretien will most likely be remembered for graft more than for anything achieved during his tenure (except for eliminating the deficit, but most view that as Paul Martin's achievement, not Chretien's.) Going to legal war against the Gomery commission is not likely to change the perception of Chretien as a man who presided over graft and swept it under the rug whenever possible. In fact, it's likely to make his image worse: not only did he preside over corruption and attempt to hide it from public view, he also tried to shut down the inquiry. Other than the most devoted Chretien devotees could believe that this improves his optics?

Perhaps this is closer to the heart of the matter:

Quote

It's true that Mr. Chrétien and his staunch supporters have always hated the Gomery commission -- from its very existence to its expansive scope -- and have never forgiven Paul Martin for calling it. Even yesterday, one senior Chrétienite said bitterly it's the stupidest decision that Mr. Martin has made, and "an albatross around this party's neck."

A public inquiry is just completely opposite to Chretien's style. How would Chretien have handled Sheila Fraser's report had it not been for his (fortuituously timed) departure from politics? I think we all know:

"Dis guy, he go to Denmark. Dat guy, he stay in Denmark. Dis guy, he go to de Senate. An' all of us, we say in de Question Period: I don' know not'ing about dat."

But despite his distaste for the process, Chretien is apparently excited about his scheduled testimony, which will be in a couple of weeks.

Quote

But more particularly, Mr. Chrétien is concerned that Judge Gomery just does not get history -- his history, the version that the former prime minister has all along argued was the "context" for the sponsorship program, and, by implication, the mitigating factor for its abuses. That, of course, was the knife-at-your-throat threat that Quebec separatism was going to tear apart the country.

Mr. Chrétien's loyalists say the former prime minister is looking forward to testifying at the commission to emphasize that context, which he feels has been lost in the testimony.

Yes, Mr Chretien is looking forward to taking the stand so that he can trot out the tired old "We had to save Canada!" pony again. Just as Dubya and the Republicans whip out "9/11! National security!" any time they need an excuse for anything, the Chretienites shout "Quebec referendum! National Unity!" when they need an excuse.



-kimmy

[August1991]

Kimmy, good post.

Quote

It seems to me that Chretien will most likely be remembered for graft more than for anything achieved during his tenure (except for eliminating the deficit, but most view that as Paul Martin's achievement, not Chretien's.)

The only legacy Chretien could possibly care about would the national unity thingey.

I haven't followed the Gomery inquiry too closely (I know Kinsella appeared recently) but I too am intrigued about Chretien's purpose.

I suspect that this is still part of the Chretien-PM PM feud and it concerns specifically the approach to Quebec. Chretien would like to see PM PM lose and someone else (Manley, Dion?) become leader. Why? To keep the Trudeau vision of Canada alive - Quebec as just another province.

Chretien's way of doing that is to raise a stink.

PM PM, on the other hand, has his mind focussed on getting a majority.

[August1991]

Gomery May Resign Tomorrow

Quote

The veteran judge listened to their arguments, said he would announce his decision early Tomorrow, then tucked a newspaper under his arm and trudged out for a walk in the snow.

"You'll have your answer tomorrow," Gomery said as he stepped out of the building.

Huh?

[Stoker]

Quote

There is also the smell of a payback by Mulroney loyalists.

Care to elaborate?



As an aside, I wonder what the prosepcts of an election happing are if Gomery resigns?

Could Harper and Duceppe find some ammo out of this to allow their respective parties to gain seat in any potential
election?

Though Canadians seem opposed to an election over SSM, would they be opposed to an election, in what could be ( or at the very least, spun) seen as Liberal obstruction of justice?

[Newfie Canadian]

Well, today's the day Chrétien testifies, barring a last minute attempt to avoid testifying (which I wouldn't put past him).
I had hoped never to see Chrétien on the national political scene again.
CTV Story

Quote

On Sunday, CTV News reported that Chretien's team will try to push the following:

-Canada was in a precarious situation after the 1995 referendum that was barely won by the federalist side
-He created the sponsorship program but didn't manage it
-He didn't know about any illegal activity, but if laws were broken, the individuals involved should be prosecuted.

[caesar]

Quote

Though Canadians seem opposed to an election over SSM, would they be opposed to an election, in what could be ( or at the very least, spun) seen as Liberal obstruction of justice?

Huh?????? obstruction of justice?????? If the man made remarks concerning the trials he should be removed. When one takes part in an investigation or trial in Canada; they are required to keep their mind open and their mouths shut

[kimmy]

Do you not feel that attempting to shut down the inquiry has the appearance of trying to obstruct justice? Do you not think that permitting the inquiry to be stopped would be a violation of one of Paul Martin's key campaign promises?


-kimmy

[Shakeyhands]

was the point not that the person who would be making the findings and recommendations had seemingly already come to a conclusion having yet heard all of the evidence?

I am having a hard time with that.

Would you want someone judging you that had made up their mind prior to hearing your side? Thats not even to mention making comments to the press.... Come on now.

[I Miss Trudeau]

kimmy, on Feb 8 2005, 01:37 PM, said:

Do you not feel that attempting to shut down the inquiry has the appearance of trying to obstruct justice? Do you not think that permitting the inquiry to be stopped would be a violation of one of Paul Martin's key campaign promises?


-kimmy

Of course they're tyring to shut down the inquiry. But the move from that to a claim of trying to "obstruct justice" is specious at best. The fact that Gomery appears to have made up his mind before hearing all of the evidence makes it very difficult to see how justice could be done by this inquiry anyway.
Gomery should have known better than to: i) speak to the press about an inquiry he is currently presiding over, and ii) reach decisions without hearing all of the evidence.

Gomery should be removed and replaced. If the inquiry can not reasonably be continued under a new judge, it should be terminated and a new inquiry started. Those who claim that it would be too expensive to start over, and thus Gomery should be allowed to continue, are the ones more deserving of the accusation of obstruction of justice.