Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Everything you need to know about Gomery in three minutes

VICTORIA - OK, you’re busy and easily depressed in these darkening fall days, and so have skipped much of the Gomery coverage.
Here, in 650 words, is what you need to know, starting with the basic findings.
First, you were ripped off. Tax dollars you paid in good faith were wasted, stolen and directed to the Liberal Party and its friends. The Martin government has acknowledged $57 million was siphoned off through fraud, but much of the $330 million spent in the sponsorship scandal was squandered on dubious projects of little value.
Second, Gomery clears Paul Martin and the current cabinet. The program was secretive and run from Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s office. Martin, despite his cabinet posts and political network in Quebec and across the country, was out of the loop.
Third, Gomery blames Chretien and his circle. Chretien’s office ran the program without proper oversight, and his friend Jacques Corriveau siphoned $8 million from various contracts, kicking back some of the money to the Liberal Party. “The prime minister and his chief of staff arrogated to themselves the direction of a virtually secret program of discretionary spending to selected beneficiaries,” Gomery found.
Fourth, the whole program was based on the notion that the interests of the government and the Liberal Party were one and the same. Fighting separatist sentiment in Quebec - using tax dollars - meant strengthening the Liberal party, not the Canadian government.
Those are the important findings. The details are sordid and discouraging, the cast large and disreputable, and the lack of honesty before the inquiry appalling. But you knew most of that.
The question left is what happens now.
Martin and company want you to forget about it. That was the old gang, and they are the new, improved Liberal Party.
That seems a tough sell. Martin have moved quickly to set up the Gomery Inquiry and end the sponsorship program once he was in power. But newspaper stories about the scandal, which should have sparked his interest, started appearing in 2000. He didn’t act for three years.
Despite the leadership change, Canadians have reason to be skeptical about what the Liberals have learned. One underlying theme in the evidence was the divine right of Liberals. The people involved were convinced that the party had the right and responsibility to govern, and a duty to win elections even if it meant fund-raising fraud.
And they were convinced that they had a right to rewards for their good work, at the taxpayer’s expense - an inflated contract here, a gift from a supplier there. Being a Liberal party brought an entitlement.
It’s hard to see that those fundamental beliefs have been altered. Martin appoints Francis Fox to the Senate; Pierre Pettigrew flies his chauffeur off to Europe; friendly law firms get government work across the country. David Dingwall is rewarded with a patronage appointment to the Mint, and snappishly reminds MPs that he is “entitled to his entitlements.”
Voters are left with a tough choice in the coming election.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper will try and argue that re-electing a Liberal government is condoning corruption. If there are no consequences for what Gomery called a depressing story of waste, greed and misconduct, then voters would be saying they accept that level of behaviour.
It should be a strong argument. But the Conservatives’ remarkable failure to connect with the priorities of Canadians means that it may well be ignored.
Except in Quebec. It is not much of a stretch for Bloc Quebecois supporters to argue that the Liberals cheated and attempted to steal two federal elections in Quebec. The sponsorship program used tax dollars to support the party, and funneled cash directly to the campaign effort. It has the feel of the kind of fraud seen in psuedo-democracies in the Third World.
Liberals seemed cheerful at the Gomery findings this week. Canadians should just be depressed.
Footnote: Chretien’s decision to demand a review of the findings in federal court is a body blow to Martin. Chretien not only will keep the issue alive as the election nears, but argue that the sponsorship waste was just business as usual in Ottawa, a damaging message for the Martin campaign.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tut, tut, Paul, your biases are showing! You discuss the Conservatives and the Bloc as though they were the only alternatives to the Liberals. Why not the NDP?!

Jack Layton's NDP has certainly connected with the values of most Canadians. And while the other three parties are busy playing political tag, Layton has been quietly leveraging his small stake in Parliament, playing whatever cards fall his way to further the cause of health and child care -- i.e. to do the business that we sent them all to Ottawa to do.

In dollar terms, the NDP's recent platforms have been in the same ballpark as the Liberals and Conservatives in recent years (and certainly no less fiscally conservative than the Bloc) which addresses the major barrier that's kept them from being serious contenders in the past.

And unlike the Conservatives & Liberals, they tend to be more concerned with entitlement in terms of citizen rights, rather than their own.

The NDP has a chance to make significant gains, although no doubt they will have all the forces of the "entitled" establishment arrayed firmly against them. The media will continue to pound it into our heads that what is good for the establishment is good for us plebs, thus helping to prop up the very corruption that you breathlessly report.

Anonymous said...

...How rude! I should have begun by mentioning that I thought the rest of your column was very well done. Many will appreciate the 3-minute synopsis.

Anonymous said...

The biggest news from the report: Despite all of Gomery's good tidings - Harper and his western separatist cronies can't climb out of their rut in the polls.

Anonymous said...

One can only hope that the quebecers will be so pissed off they will hold another referendum and WIN.

Horny Toad

Anonymous said...

Why do I keep thinking of the BC Liberals when I read Gomery's description of Chretien's conflation of partisan advancement and public good? (c'mon down, Terasen gas)
Or the lack of transparency? (hey ho, changes to the Freedom of INformation and Privacy Act that put security walls around ever more information...not to mention the slash and burning of the FOIPP's budget)

Or the cronyism that infected so many civil service appointments?