As I get time today I will add links to various reactions to the Gomery Report, both in the MSM and in the Blogosphere, whatever catches my eye.
Colby Cosh in the National Post boils the controversy into a simple statement,
...confusing the needs of the nation with the interests of one's political party.
...the entire Liberal cabinet of 1996 stands damned by the Gomery evidence. And that includes Prime Minister Paul Martin, whatever fluff Justice Gomery might hand out about "exoneration."
On Feb. 1 and 2 of 1996, the cabinet convened at a retreat to conduct a post-mortem on the referendum campaign and review methods of preventing a recurrence. This is the point at which the Liberals made a collective decision to make aggressive brand-building in Quebec a permanent
strategy; everyone at that table, including then-finance minister Martin, would have thought of Chuck Guite's name and accomplishments in this context. In the Attorney-General's submission to the Gomery Commission, that decision was described as a commitment to "increase the visibility of the Government of Canada mainly, but not exclusively, in the province of Quebec." And this is the ground on which the idea of the sponsorship program has always been defended.
But the actual cabinet minutes contain significantly different language. The report of the unity committee headed by Marcel Masse, which was presented at the retreat to the other ministers of the Crown, called for "a substantial strengthening of the Liberal Party of Quebec." It is extraordinary and offensive that such a thing should be uttered at a cabinet meeting of any kind, but we have not heard that Mr. Martin (or anyone else) made any objection. Is anyone really surprised that so much money should find its way into the pockets of Liberal cronies after an open call for the partisan "strengthening" of the Liberal party at the public expense?
As Gomery notes dryly, "It is an indication of the failure of some members of the government at that time to consider that any political party other than the Liberal Party of Canada could have a role in promoting federalism in Quebec." The Opposition has cited the minutes on the House of Commons floor, and demanded to know whether the Liberal "unity strategy" was a partisan sham, but so far the Liberals have deflected the questions on the grounds that they did not want to interfere with Gomery's work. Even Stephane Dion, a present-day minister who possesses both a rudimentary conscience and a possible path to the Liberal succession, has called attention to the 1996 retreat. "Looking back," he said last week, "I'm astonished that public servants would engage in these types of reflections, which pertain to partisan politics."
(h/t to Norman Spector for the second bit)
Andrew Coyne, also in the National Post
...If it were true that there were two Liberal parties, and that Mr. Martin were indeed not a part of the one in which he appeared to serve for the better part of a decade, that would be indictment enough
...Dozens and dozens of party officials were in on it one way or another, right up to the top of the provincial executive, to say nothing of senior members of the government. A reporter knew enough about the sponsorship program by 1999 to file an Access to Information request. But Mr. Martin, whose aides used to boast that he controlled every riding association in the country, did not.
...The public does not need to know, to form such a judgment, which persons broke which laws. It is enough to ask: How did it occur to so many people to do so? And, as important, how did they think they could get away with it? It wasn't only a "culture of entitlement" that was at work here. It was - is - also a culture of impunity.
James Travers is the Toronto Star thinks it is happy days for PM Martin, but he does make this statement,
...Gomery heard nothing that suggests Martin knew the program was corrupt. But it asks too much of taxpayers and voters to accept that he wasn't aware that federal contracting was both partisan and tawdry.
Those same taxpayers and voters will soon be asked to make an even more difficult choice. They will have to decide if a Liberal party compelled to repay a stolen million, a party that used that money to illegally tilt elections, is fit to govern.
In that context, Gomery's first report is devastating. Despite the current spate of rushed reforms, Liberals in power since 1993 perpetuated a partisan, corrupt contracting system that made friends rich and paid party bills.
That, at the end of the day, is the decision. Do you really believe that Paul Martin knew nothing about this program and that the very party that perpetrated this illegal scheme is fit to receive another mandate?
Lorrie Goldststein thinks they will get another mandate, from Ontario at least.
Try to imagine the Brian Mulonrey/Kim Campbell Conservatives surviving a political scandal of the magnitude of AdScam. Try to imagine the Mike Harris/Ernie Eves Conservatives in Ontario doing the same thing. Try to imagine them pulling this off if they had a minority government at the time. Try to imagine Canadian voters -- particularly Ontario voters -- trusting Conservatives to clean up a scandal this outrageous that Conservatives caused in the first place. The fact that it's impossible to imagine these things -- while the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals have, with yesterday's release of Justice John Gomery's report, successfully survived AdScam -- suggests an alarming fact of life in Canada. That is, that just as there is an emerging Republican majority in the U.S., sustained largely by voters in the deep American South, so there is also an emerging Liberal majority in Canada, sustained largely by voters in Ontario
