I cannot believe the way that Minister Scott Brison was spinning things in this interview with Mike Duffy (link on the right). Minister Brison was shameful in to trying to bring National Unity into play to try to hide from the truth.
Update: Minister Brison is interviewed again on Canada AM. Thank you Beverly Thompson. I paraphrase - isn't this issue the money stolen from Canadian taxpayers.
(In defending federalists and getting to the bottom of the issue) "We are serving the people of Canada well and also the goal of a united Canada, I think quite well."
..."the cause of federalism is being victimized in some ways by this unfair attack...defend all Quebec federalists and move forward to build a stronger, united Canada."
..."the Liberal Party could have been victimized by people trying to use the Liberal Brand to raise money for other purposes or could be victimized by the unfair tarnishing of their reputation by the handful of a few...we are a party that stands for a strong and united Canada... the Bloc has their agenda, they want to tear the country apart - the Conservatives better be very careful who they support on some of these matters because if the Conservatives run willy-nilly to support every allegation what they're effectively doing is playing into the hands of the Bloc who are strongly opposed to federalism, who have a vested interest in destroying the country and tarnishing all Quebec federalists. If the Conservatives want to play that game they are playing directly the kind of separtist game that is damaging to the country."
With all due respect Minister Brison the separaist movement was dead, absolutely nowhere until this issue came up. If it raises its ugly head again it is as a direct result of (alleged) Liberal actions. This is shameful.
Let me bring in former PM Chretien's own testimony at the Gomery Inquiry.
...By the year of 2003, support for Canada and Quebec had increased substantially from where it was in the immediate aftermath of the Referendum. In the fall of 2003, 65 per cent of Quebeckers were satisfied with their federal government.
What changed Minister Brison? Whose fault is that Minister Brison?
And as for protecting federalists, Minister Brison implies that only Liberals can support and be supported by Quebec federalists. Back to former PM Chretien's own testimony.
...We have to be very careful about labels. In Quebec, there are basically two types of advertising agencies; those who are "separatist friendly" and those who are "federalist friendly".
"Federalist friendly" agencies tended to support the Conservatives when they were in power and the Liberals when they were in power.
The Liberal Party's interests and Quebec federalists interests are not one and the same.
...I am firmly convinced that our national unity strategy was necessary and right. Were some mistakes made in everything we did? I am sure there were. After all, we are all human.
This is the Liberal national unity strategy. If the separatists can use this to advance their cause it is on you. It was your "mistake". You are, after all, human.
...The single most important priority of every Prime Minister since 1867, has been to preserve the unity of the country. We all may have been criticized at some time or another for our approach to national unity, but in the case of the unity of Canada, every Prime Minister from Sir John A. MacDonald to myself have always put our country first.
If the separatists can use the
Sponsorship Program to advance their goals then the Liberal-Government didn't do a very good job in meeting their "single most important priority". To now say that only this Liberal-Government can protect national unity is shameful.
Let me insert some of MP Monte Solberg's comments on this here.
...Chretien, in traditional scoundrel fashion, defended the sponsorship program on patriotic grounds. Martin broke virgin territory when he revealed that actually the Liberal Party was victimized by the, uh, (mumble this part) Liberal Party. Who knew?Better call victim's assistance. We need counselling for those charming, but victimized, scamps in the Liberal Party. You see, when they scammed the public they also scammed themselves, because now the public is mad at them. That's why they are victims! It 's perfect Liberal logic.
Jim Travers brings more to the table on the argument in todays Toronto Star.
...Jean Chrétien, a self-styled little guy who never backed down, made his career as a separatist-fighter. Now in his search for truth, Mr. Justice John Gomery is on the way to inadvertently redeploying the former prime minister as the independence movement's doomsday weapon.
...While other newspapers have done some fine investigative work exposing the Quebec sponsorship scandal, the Star alone has for years been telling readers that there is more to this story than patronage gone berserk or kickbacks to the party in power.
Columns published in this space back in 2002 — and periodically since — argue that Liberals took a system they inherited from Brian Mulroney's Tories and fine tuned it until federal advertising, polling and communications contracts worth millions were being used to pay the party's bills in Quebec and beyond.
...What matters most now is not who knew what or when it was first published. What's important is that there are gapping holes in Chrétien's wrap-it-in-the-flag excuse that while rules may have been broken and a few millions stolen, saving Canada was worth it.
...For those who care more about the country than the party, the consequences are ominous. Strategists are already connecting the dots that lead from another strong Bloc Québécois election result to leader Gilles Duceppe's expected defection to the Parti Québécois, then to the anticipated defeat of Premier Jean Charest's unpopular Liberal government and, finally, to another referendum.
Instead of crushing separatism, the Chicago tough-guy tactics used on Chrétien's watch have given new life to a cause prematurely judged to be on life support.
...After a dismal, scandal-related performance in the province last June, and with no prospects of an early Quebec recovery, Liberals can no longer claim legitimacy as the province's federal voice.
More on the "victim" meme is found in the Winnipeg Sun by Maria McClintock.
Prime Minister Paul Martin painted the Liberal party as a victim in the $250-million AdScam scandal yesterday, prompting howls from the opposition that he's more worried about Quebec Grits than Canadian taxpayers. The claim ignited a heated exchange between the PM and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper who accused Martin of having "gall" to take such a stand.
As always, Norman Spector is on the case.
...If anything, yesterday’s testimony was more devastating than last week's, as the muck--in the form of large sums of money--is coming ever closer to the heart of the Liberal Party in the 1990s.
I give him a hat-tip for this article from Don Martin of the National Post.
...Jean Brault doesn't look much like a canary. But the former Groupaction ad agency president is singing like one at the Gomery inquiry into the scandal, now providing incendiary insights about Liberal party sponsorship shenanigans that remain temporarily suppressed under a faltering media publication ban.
...He eagerly violates the first commandment every lawyer gives to their clients, by almost offering more evidence than requested by inquiry legal counsel, seemingly oblivious to any grief his words could cause in his upcoming criminal trial.
His testimony is filled with small details that defy fabrication. He remembers a particular washroom visit, he remembers the colour of a certain envelope, he remembers which person collected what sort of hats.
...Brault's testimony provides cold comfort to the curious federal Cabinet minister who wrote me yesterday wondering if it would cause a backlash against his party outside of Quebec (absolument).
...Brault's testimony is so deadly, the Liberals can't risk an early election without being blown off the map in Quebec, which would include the loss of Paul Martin's own seat to enemy hands. His party still needs many months of damage control to reverse what will surely be a throw-the-bums-out mentality.
Further, John Ivison of the Post.
...Make no mistake, Liberals across the country have cause to be nervous. Many Canadians will interpret the new testimony as proof that the sponsorship program was not so much designed to save the country, as to save the Liberal party. The current ministry has done a poor job of blaming its predecessor for any ethical shortcomings -- perhaps because there was still a degree of overlap -- and now it may be too late to disassociate themselves.
...cross-examining Brault in order to discredit his testimony can hardly be anyone's definition of an arm's-length inquiry and the party risks being seen as resorting to desperate measures in an attempt to cover its tracks.
...Martin's gratuitous comments suggest that the Liberals would prefer to limp to the end of the year before going to the polls, although one strategist yesterday suggested that, if they could engineer it so that the Conservatives take the blame for triggering an election over the budget implementation bill currently before the House, the government should take the plunge before things get any worse.
Harper would clearly prefer to wait until Justice Gomery reports before precipitating an election but he might be tempted to go to the polls if the Bloc Quebecois tabled a vote of no-confidence after Brault's testimony is released. The alternative would have him propping up the government and then risk seeing the public's anger cooling.
Kate McMillan introduces the newly interested in some donations to the Liberal Party from the strangest places (Zoos!?)
The Globe and Mail interviews someone of interest. Are we allowed to say who yet?
Apparently we are not, as reported in the Toronto Sun by Stephanie Rubec.
...CANADA'S attorney general is probing possible breaches of a publication ban set up to protect explosive testimony at the AdScam inquiry. Justice spokesman Patrick Charette said federal lawyers are looking into the Internet sites reproducing excerpts of Montreal ad exec Jean Brault's testimony and providing a link to a U.S. blog featuring more extensive coverage of the hearing.
"We have to decide what the best course of action is," Charette said, adding federal lawyers could charge Canadian bloggers and website owners with contempt of court or suggest AdScam Justice John Gomery issue warning letters.
How does Jane Taber's article fit into this? Sneaky, don't say the name of the blog but give enough information for a 5 year old to find it using Google.
My site has been linking to media reports on the issue which must be fair game. Really, how could it not be?
And we should not forget about this either. I guess the testimony must have been biased as well, eh?
...Former prime minister Jean Chrétien's legal challenge of the federal sponsorship inquiry will get a speedier than normal hearing in Federal Court.
...Judge Gomery is due to deliver a preliminary report in November. If Mr. Chrétien is successful in his challenge it could disrupt that timetable.
The former prime minister took his case to court last month after Judge Gomery refused to step aside voluntarily.
Paul Wells has awaken
from his slumber to offer this...which is worth the wait.
...The prime minister's new talking point is that there must not be an election until Judge Gomery has had a chance to report.
(pause)
That's right. What he should be saying is that there must not be another election until Judge Gomery has had a chance to report. I test-ran this line at dinner last night and everyone kept beating me to the punchline. The prime minister is engaged in energetic self-parody.
Update April 6.
Hat-tip to Norman Spector for this from the National Post.
...What makes the Brison spin all the more offensive is that it suggests he is more interested in shifting responsibility than accepting it -- no matter how appalling the revelations concerning Liberal officials and bagmen. What Mr. Brison and the strategists writing his scripts seem not to have realized yet is that this is an extremely serious matter for both the Liberal party and the country as a whole. They cannot make their problems go away with spin, or by painting their opponents as bogeymen. This time, Canadians simply won't fall for it.
One would have thought that Mr. Brison might have followed the lead of others within his party, and indicated a willingness to take responsibility. We would urge him, and other Liberals, to do so. No more attempts to blame opponents for a debacle of their own making. No more specious appeals to national unity. No more claims their party was the real victim, suffering at the hands of a few rogue ne'er-do-wells. And no more efforts to differentiate between "Chretienites" and "Martinites" -- not when wrongs were committed under the noses of all government members.
The only way for the Liberals to atone for their sins -- and in the process win back the trust of Canadians -- is to clean out the rot within their party. Paul Martin has already made an admirable start by sticking by Judge Gomery. But once the inquiry has released its findings, the Prime Minister will need to do more. In particular, he will need to purge his party and his government of every person found to have abused the public trust, and set in place strict oversight provisions to ensure that such an outrage can never happen again.
It may not be enough to rescue the Liberals' re-election hopes. But it will serve them -- and the country -- better than Mr. Brison's cynical spin. …
Looks like we are on the same page.
