Last week I commented on how the Liberals presented CPC tax-cuts. The liberal spokesman was as loud and confident (shall we say cocky) as you expect from a representative of a 13-year government. With the Gomery inquiry heating up this confidence has definitely been shaken. In fact it looked like Scott Reid has seen a ghost (or is that a skeleton?).
Don Newman: The liberals are feeling more heat today over the sponsorship scandal. The Conservatives say the latest testimony at the Gomery inquiry proves money intended to promote national unity in Quebec was used instead to pay for Liberal party expenses.
...Do you want to have a rebuttal first before, then we’ll go around the table?
Scott Reid (LIB): Well, I think it is very serious testimony we heard. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise. The real question is where do you take the kind of thing? I think, to be fair, the things that the other parties are asking for, if you look at it, have been delivered. We need to ensure that Justice Gomery is able to reach a conclusion. This is one days testimony. Let’s see how that stacks up with the rest of the facts. The recovery of the funds, should there be funds that were inappropriately used. We’ve appointed a special legal council to just that. We’ve taken this seriously. We’ve put in place the measures that will allow the truth to be found and corrective action to be taken. So I understand how serious this is but I think we have to be careful to let the commission do it’s work and let the processes in place unfold.
Geoff Norquay (CPC): Well, this just provides confirmation to what we have suspected and what many Canadians have suspected all along. And that it that there is this very closed circle here, a very interesting loop, between public dollars to the sponsorship program to the Liberal ad agencies, back to the Liberal Party. I find it interesting that Scott continues to make this argument that we should wait for Gomery. Frankly, I think it is wonderful for us Don, that you want us to wait for Gomery. The real issue here, absolutely, the more this goes on, the more this goes on without a response from the Liberal Party, without an owning up to reality to the truth and without taking steps to put this terrible theft of money behind them, the better it is for us and the worse it is for them. So Scott please continue with that policy.
SR: Geoff it is unsurprising that you would reach the conclusion that all these things occurred. The Justice has not reached that conclusion. We did hear damning testimony. We heard concerning testimony. We don’t know if it’s true. We don’t know how it stacks up. We do know this, Paul Martin, at the expense that you’re talking about, has put in place a process that will allow the truth to be found. The chips will fall where they may and we have done the right thing and we’ll do the right thing but don’t prejudge the outcome.
Don Newman: Let me bring in Claude.
Claude St. Hilaire (BQ): I find it refreshing to see how things fall to pieces because we have said from the very beginning, we knew all that, but now it’s kind of “fun” to say the least to hear in the commission. Like Scott said let’s see what the commission – let Gomery do his work and we’ll see the end result.
DN: How far do you think the testimony went? Because my understanding, and I wasn’t there, but I read it in the Globe and Mail today was that, when this person came abd complained that he hadn’t been paid for the election work they said well ok we’ll do some sponsorship work and you’ll get paid that way. And that is where it stopped. Is there a loop where that money comes back again?
CS: Yes. Well the testimony of Mr. Gagliano is not over at this time. (cross-talk)
DN: Well I understood. What I understood
CS: Well he got it back from the sponsorship. So he probably got a commission by doing some work.
DN: Oh yeah…no, no, he made money from the sponsorship program. I don’t disagree with that. I am not sure then where the money goes after that. It appeared to me that maybe it went in his pocket…anyways.
Jamey Heath (NDP): I don’t where the money went after that either.
DN: But, but, there has been an implication that it came back into the Liberal Party and, and we certainly don’t think that Mr. Corriveau and that, he probably got some work, because he had done work
on election campaigns. Advertising agencies, this will not surprise anybody around the table, sometimes that happens.
JH: Well yes. The question is, it will be interesting to see if all of it (cross-talk)
DN: I don’t know what he did. I don’t want to get in trouble for that. I am just saying that is how far I understood it, anyways your turn.
JH: I think there are a variety of questions yet to be answered. Some of those are what relationship were there in terms of the elections act? I mean there are spending limits in the elections act. Was this a part of a scam to get around those limits in essence to hide some of the costs of an election campaign? If so that would be very serious. We know already that the Liberal Party has taken some of the money through the ad agencies by way of political contributions. None of that money has been returned. How can you on one hand say you are mad as hell and this was a great tragedy - on the other hand say that, as leader of a party that has taken money, as part of whatever plan from the very ad agencies in questions and not give any of it back to the taxpayers. We know that that occurred.
(cross-talk)
SR: Hang-on. You don’t know what the facts are. You’re filling in blanks and we don’t know. How much money Jamie? From whom? We’ve appointed…a couple of days ago we had the Conservatives arguing by God, turn Heaven and Earth to ensure that Justice Gomery remain in place and that the commission does it’s work and that is exactly what we did. Remember we appointed it. Now follow your own advice. Let it do it’s work. You want to halt testimony suddenly and say now this is it.
GN: Is there an echo in here? Who is talking about halting testimony?
SR: Well, suddenly you’ve raced to a conclusion. You are political opponents. It is natural that conclusion that you will want to draw is the most nefarious possible. What we have said is, if there is money that is been ill it’s going to be gotten. If there is truths that have not been revealed they will be out.
CS: It was perfectly known that Mr. Corriveau was the Liberal bagman so what did he do with the money I don’t know. But he had a job to perform what he did with that we don’t know.
SR: And that is what Justice Gomery will find.
GN: Next to Jean Carle it does not get much closer to Jean Chretien than Mr. Corriveau. He is family as far as the Chretien legacy, dynasty, dynasty are concerned.
SR: Be very careful, be very careful Geoff. You are talking about a former Prime Minister. He has not testified. No one mentioned Jean Chretien’s name today. Let’s let the work go.
GN: Well, all I am saying Scott is that if I was in the Prime Ministers shoes I would want to be taking action now to clear the Liberal Parties name because everyday there are deeper and stronger and more pervasive allegations coming out and this is damaging to your party.
DN: What would you have done since you are giving Scott advice anyway.
GH: OK, first I would provide a full accounting of what sponsorship money found its’ way back to the Liberal Party. We don’t know that, we don’t know that.
SR: Come on Geoff, that is the work of Justice Gomery and Council Gauthier. That work is taking place. That work is being conducted. There has been audits in the Party. Justice Gomery is doing his work. Mr. Gauthier has been doing his work. We’ve put in place all the corrective measures.
JM: We do know some facts. We do know that the ad agencies in question gave money to the Liberal Party, it is on the public record, we know that as a fact. We know that the Auditor-General has said there were massive problems, we know that Justice Gomery has agreed with her. We know that the leader of the Liberal Party agrees with her. Yet there is no sign of contrition on the facts that we know.
SR: No sign of contrition, no sign of contrition? We appointed a commission here, said that if there were things done wrong here we will correct them.
JH: What we are witnessing here it the rot of a party that thinks it has a divine right to govern. That is exactly what this is about.
SR: You know, be honest. There was a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do here and the right thing to do was to set up an independent judicial commission and get to the bottom of the matter, to find the facts and to take action. That’s happening. You guys want to have the outcome prejudged in the way that is as negative as possible for the government.
