Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Martin gets no advice,he is the fall guy for the l


Recommended Posts

If Paul Martin had not been in such a big hurry to boot Chretien out of office, this could have been all Chretien's baby. I don't feel sorry for Martin at all even though it was not his mess.

I'm just waiting to see if they conclusively tie any of it to him. (And no, not just rumour or innuendo like the Harperites like to base their decisions on.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really 'oping dat "De little guy from Shawinigan" does de "jail-time" over dis. But I'm not do de optimistic t'ing for dat, you know?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Paul Martin had not been in such a big hurry to boot Chretien out of office, this could have been all Chretien's baby. I don't feel sorry for Martin at all even though it was not his mess.

That remains to be seen just who's mess it is. Martin was finance minister and as such bears some responsibility for the lacking accountability of ensuring the money was used for the purposes approved.

Howeve, basing any conclusions on the leaked information of testimony of someone charged with fraud is very poor intelligence. The USA based much of their intelligence on the claims of someone charged with embezzlement and look where it landed them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, caesar. You keep saying that it's just rumours, and just one guy's testimony. You seem to think Brault is the only guy who's testified in this whole inquiry. But you're completely in denial. There's been LOADS of damning testimony already from lots of other witnesses that isn't covered by the publication ban.

-kimmy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear kimmy,

Caesar has a point: charges, accusations and testimony (and sometimes evidence) mean nothing if you don't get a conviction. Just ask Brian Mulroney or OJ Simpson. Martin bears a lot of responsibility because of his tenure as Finance Minister.

Martin is in a bit of a quandry on this one though, for if he says..."I have no knowledge whatsoever of how monies were spent when I was in charge of Finance", he will either look like an incompetent boob or a liar. If he says he knew about the sponsorship contracts, he will look like a crook.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin is in a bit of a quandry on this one though, for if he says..."I have no knowledge whatsoever of how monies were spent when I was in charge of Finance", he will either look like an incompetent boob or a liar. If he says he knew about the sponsorship contracts, he will look like a crook.

But officer! I had no idea gambling and prostitution was being run out of my living room! I hardly ever left the den except to take a pee!

Link to post
Share on other sites
That remains to be seen just who's mess it is. Martin was finance minister and as such bears some responsibility for the lacking accountability of ensuring the money was used for the purposes approved.

Actually the finance ministers bears no more responsibility in this matter than most other cabinet members. Once the budget is set, the finance minister is not part of how it gets carried out. That's Treasury Board and the individual departments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. With an entity with tens of thousands of employees and dozens of departments all with multi-million dollar budgets, it's not sensible to think that the Finance Minister would have detailed knowledge of how each department is spending its money. Particularly when such extensive measures appear to have been taken to make it look as though ad-scam grift was legitimate expenses.

Another thing that makes me kind of skeptical that Paul Martin had detailed knowledge of what went on: I kind of doubt whether he'd have been so adamant about a public inquiry if he had known how bad things actually were. I don't doubt he was sincere in wanting to be accountable... I just don't think his enthusiasm for the truth would have extended all the way to political suicide.

-kimmy

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's Treasury Board and the individual departments.

Hey who was the Treasury Board chair? Martin

Hey what province does the PM hold his seat? Quebec

As one of the most senior ministers Martin would have had many interactions with all the folks implicated. They were the movers and shakers in the Liberal Party. They would of had to have been to deliver on the promises.

Did he know I don't know, but he should have?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed.  With an entity with tens of thousands of employees and dozens of departments all with multi-million dollar budgets, it's not sensible to think that the Finance Minister would have detailed knowledge of how each department is spending its money. Particularly when such extensive measures appear to have been taken to make it look as though ad-scam grift was legitimate expenses.
That's possible. What is NOT possible, is that Paul Martin, giant Liberal political operator from Quebec, with a legion of followers and rabid supporters feeding him information on Chretien and his followers would not have heard of a program which even the news media and BQ had been talking about for several years before the AG was called in.
Another thing that makes me kind of skeptical that Paul Martin had detailed knowledge of what went on:  I kind of doubt whether he'd have been so adamant about a public inquiry if he had known how bad things actually were. I don't doubt he was sincere in wanting to be accountable... I just don't think his enthusiasm for the truth would have extended all the way to political suicide.

I don't remember Martin being all that enthusiastic for an inquiry. What I remember is that he was forced into it, and used it more as a delaying tactic. He came off looking like Mr. Clean, and hoped to have the election over and done with before the inquiry started up. Remember the long lead time from when it was announced and when it finally began to hear witnesses? Perhaps he hoped he'd be in a majority by now, and could sacrifice a few minor players, chalk it all up to Chretien's corruption, and wash his hands of the whole affair.

He might still be able to do that, you know. He'd not mind at all if former Chretien loyalists were caught up in the adscam mess so long as he comes out looking like Mr. Clean, who called in the mounties and established the commision.

Yes, it's probably going to hurt them. But when the commision was called nobody seriously thought Martin was going to get anything but a strong majority in the upcoming election. If he had that majority he might even have closed it down by now. Remember those talking about how much was spent and for so little new knowledge before this latest "devestating" testimony? With a majority he might have been able to close down the inquiry, as the liberals did to other inquiries, and be done with.

It just hasn't worked out that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's possible. What is NOT possible, is that Paul Martin, giant Liberal political operator from Quebec, with a legion of followers and rabid supporters feeding him information on Chretien and his followers would not have heard of a program which even the news media and BQ had been talking about for several years before the AG was called in.

That's a very good point. I was just pointing out that the guy at the top of the budget does not sign every cheque or approve every expense. That argument gets used a lot, and I think it's false and innuendoriffic. It's like imagining that Bill Gates personally knows about it when Microsoft hires a new employee or buys some ad-time on a tv station in Florida.

Your point about the size and strength of Paul Martin's support is well taken, although I'm not sure what the breakdown of Martin's support in the party is in terms of Quebec caucus vs the rest of Canada. I do recall Martin turfing Stephane Dion, and possibly others, from cabinet posts when he took over as PM, and he had to bring in Lapierre as his Quebec point-man. It might be that PMPM just doesn't have the right connections in the Quebec wing of the party. We do know that the Party people who have been fingered so far are people with close ties to Chretien, and we know that Chretien and his loyalists had an intensely adversarial relationship with Martin. Perhaps somebody with more insight into Paul Martin's strength in the Quebec wing of the party could address this question. I'm sure that Martin knew something about what was going on, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that he had insider knowledge of the kinds of abuses that we're now finding out about at the inquiry.

You make very good points about Martin and the call for public inquiry.

-kimmy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of the liberals but I am inclined to think that Martin was not involved, Chretien is the guy behind it. However, Martin must have turned a blind eye to what was going on, as he must have been aware of something. My guess is he didn't have a choice as he would have been pilloried by the press for accusing Chretien of being corrupt, so, he kep his mouth shut.

Its time for a change of government, any party in power for that long needs to be cleaned out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a fan of the liberals but I am inclined to think that Martin was not involved, Chretien is the guy behind it. However, Martin must have turned a blind eye to what was going on, as he must have been aware of something. My guess is he didn't have a choice as he would have been pilloried by the press for accusing Chretien of being corrupt, so, he kep his mouth shut.

If he wanted to let the press know it would have been easy enough to arrange leaks. it would have been grossly easy to have isolated MPs who supported him make representations to media, on or off the record, on their own, or to have them demanding changes in closed caucus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's possible. What is NOT possible, is that Paul Martin, giant Liberal political operator from Quebec, with a legion of followers and rabid supporters feeding him information on Chretien and his followers would not have heard of a program which even the news media and BQ had been talking about for several years before the AG was called in.

Even through this channel, what would he know about the corruption? Would he know that a sponsorship program was going on? Yes. Would he know that it was shovelling money into ad firms? If anyone around him thought it mattered, yes. Would they know that no work was being done? Maybe. Would they know that a select few high-living prime-ministerial henchmen were carrying around brown envelopes of graft? I don't see how they could know that, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...