Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Gomery's report on the Sponsorship Scandal
According to the report three main factors that caused or contributed to the problems with adscam were:
• the unprecedented decision to direct the Sponsorship Program from the PMO, bypassing the departmental procedures and controls which the Deputy Minister of PWGSC would normally have been expected to apply and enforce;
• the failure of the Deputy Minister of PWGSC to provide oversight and administrative safeguards against the misuse of public funds;
• the deliberate lack of transparency on how the Program was initiated,financed and directed.
On the former PM and his chief of staff, Gomery said:
There is no evidence or indication that Mr. Pelletier was in any way involved in Mr. Corriveau’s kickback scheme, or that he knew about it, although itwould have been more prudent for him to investigate the general suspicions that he says he communicated to the Prime Minister when, according to his testimony, he had a “hunch” that there was something not quite right about Mr. Corriveau. However, the absence of any evidence of direct involvement in Mr. Corriveau’s wrongdoing entitles both Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Chrétiento be exonerated from blame for Mr. Corriveau’s misconduct.
But they are to be blamed for omissions. Since Mr. Chrétien chose to run the Program from his own office, and to have his own exempt staff take charge of its direction, he is accountable for the defective manner in which the Sponsorship Program and initiatives were implemented. Mr. Pelletier, for whom Mr. Chrétien was responsible, failed to take the most elementary precautions against mismanagement.
There is ample evidence of an appalling lack ofpreparation for the introduction of a new program involving the discretionary disbursement of millions of dollars of public money by Mr. Guité’s organization, without supervision or guidelines. What Mr. Chrétien and Mr.Pelletier should have done in 1996 was what Mr. Goodale did in 2002.
To me the Gomery Report was a disappointment. It did not punish Chrétien or Martin effectively. Yes, Chrétien is getting flack but he was not put down as the head honcho of the scandal. It blames Chrétien for not creating safeguards for the program and for letting it run amuck and having the program used for shady purposes. It does not say that he got money from the scandal or even that he was involved in it at all.
Instead he neglected his responsibility over the program. That is what I get out of it anyway. Dear ol' Paul is the innocent guy who knows nothing and inherited the scam from his predecessor according to the report. He is, as are other ministers, free from blame because "he knew nothing". Who would have expected that?
Maybe he did not know anything. That point has been brought up. Maybe, beyond all belief, he was not involved in Adscam. But, that is not the only smudge on the Liberal partys’ name. Techscam, Gun Registry, and Immigration issues are all issues that have happened, (or continued), under Martin's reign.
On a side note, I obtained a copy of Pricewaterhouse Cooper's audit of Dingwall's spending and have some info on that at YoungConservative if anyone is interested.
Politics are bound up with law, and law is a plodding mechanism at the best of times, or the worst of times as with Air India.
People like these two in positions of leadership always enjoy a great forgiveness for wrong doing.
This is simply the nature of leadership. Richard Nixon was spared and even Saddam gets the most reasoned and fair respect.
Yet there should be a real penalty for both Jean and Paul. The size and scope of their ongoing thefts are colossal and most of it nothing to do with holding Quebec to Confederation.
Hotels and golf courses for Jean. CSL contracts and Earnscliff deals for Paul and fortunes spent in Liberal campaign advertising for both in order to maintain their grip on power.
Robber barons to be sure and even Conrad Black comes and goes with impunity. He, Enron thieves and Martha Stewart steal retirees security monies and get token penalties.
What these people do is extremly vicious for seniors and they deserve to be SEVERELY spat upon. TG
However on Dingwall, his expense account is reflecting some rather unique usage of taxpayers money. I am sure you didn't catch this expense.