I’m so tired of feeling like a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, it’s not about to go away for some time. As Andrew Coyne puts it, the birdies are starting to sing, and it’s getting uglier and uglier
Benoit Corbeil, fingered by Jean Brault as one of the more importunate Liberal bagmen hitting him up for funds, has begun to talk. In an interview with Radio-Canada he “denies” Brault’s charges, even as he concedes he did ask him for $50,000 — $15K of it in cash — to pay off various Liberal operatives.
More important, he says the same shadowy network of senior Liberals controlled both the raising of funds for the party and the awarding of government contracts. And he states unequivocally that everyone in the Quebec wing of the party knew about it. Everyone.
And then there’s this shocking (ie completely unshocking) allegation: The same network controlled the appointment of judges. During the 2000 elections, the party had a stable of about 20 big- time Montreal lawyers working for them for free. Or perhaps, not quite for free: Several of them were subsequently rewarded with judicial appointments. The same practice applied, he says, with regard to accountants and engineers — and, of course, advertising agencies — all of them “volunteering” their services to the party in hopes of winning contracts.
I’m afraid to ask if it can get any worse… like, when was Gomery appointed?
I think ‘contempt of court’ is about to take on an entirely new meaning…
Liberals number 1 hit song; ‘ Ive come undone’
The Gomery Comission is not a court, ( of law)- nothing said to that comission can be used later as evidence in criminal proceedings. And yet in spite of that, they are still not telling the truth. Not all of it, not yet. (It would be cheaper to move this thing to another country, because I would not trust it to appear in a court of law, here. If the whole purpose of this, is to discourage others- forever more- from doing this kind of shit- howzabout moving it to, say-Syria? Or- Saudi Arabia?
The commission may not be an actual court, but they are under oath so can still be busted for perjury (actually, with the statute of limitations, that might be all that some of these guys get charged with), which I understand can have a fairly harsh penalty.
Am I the only one that feels stuck in a really bad Ludlum novel?
Hey Candace! That’s MY line (Ludlum) and you thought my imagination was working overtime as I recall! (lol – ok, I was thinking of switching to LeCarre anyway.)
Here’s an extract from the Parliament of Canada Act which unequivocally says what happens to any member of parliament who can be shown to have directly received one dime (or in theory ANY consideration -even free lunch!) from the contractors and consultants et al.
Although the prescribed penalty appears to be small, the implication is that their pension could be severely reduced if it were to be proven that they had been ineligble to sit as MPs, then their precious pensions could be correspondingly reduced. Also, the last line could be called the taxpayer’s faint hope clause.
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
PART III – HOUSE OF COMMONS
DIVISION B – CONFLICT OF INTEREST
34. Where a person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, personally or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holds, enjoys, undertakes or executes any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, the person is not eligible to be a member of the House of Commons and shall not sit or vote therein.
DISQUALIFICATION:
35. If any member of the House of Commons
(a) accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work, that, by virtue of this Division, renders a person incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in, the House of Commons, or
(b) knowingly sells to the Government of Canada any goods, wares or merchandise, or knowingly performs for the Government of Canada or for any of the officers of that Government any service, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be paid,
whether the contract, agreement or sale is expressed or implied and whether the transaction is single or continuous, the seat of the member is thereby vacated and the member’s election is thenceforth void.
PENALTY:
36. (1) Any person who, by this Division, is declared ineligible to be a member of the House of Commons or is disqualified from sitting or voting therein or, having been duly elected, is disqualified pursuant to section 35 from continuing to be such a member or continuing to so sit or vote, and who nevertheless sits or votes in the House of Commons or continues to do so, shall forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars for each day on which the person so sits or votes.
Recovery of PENALTY
(2) A sum forfeited by any person under subsection (1) is recoverable from that person by any person who sues for it in any court of competent civil jurisdiction in Canada.
Sorry to be off topic, but a friend of mine says he saw Sheila Copps on CNN on Tuesday. She said some interesting stuff. Anybody know anything about this?
It was not only senior Liberals who were onto this and taking advantage of it- THOSE links, will be even more shocking, ( when they come out).
The Block knew about it, too- why are they talking about this now? Is it because they now see SEPARATION within their grasp, ( even if it means being expelled from Confederation?)
Kate, does this mean that if there are any criminal charges laid, that the trials will all be held in Quebec?
Tell me again why we should’nt elect judges. I always thought we should but some people went to great lengths to tell me why not.Do the people that are against elected judges have an agenda or do they just want to protect themselves against such a time as now ?
Personally I’ve always thought electing judges was creating a conflict right at the get-go. Politicians (i.e. people who seem to be willing to say & do anything to get, and remain, elected) are not high on my “trust” or “integrity” list. A judge SHOULD, I would think, have integrity & be trustworthy.
Sorry if I stole your line, ed. But this really is feeling like a later Ludlum (you know, when they all became the same with name changes?). Although with the various technologies (damaged subs, damaged/outdated/useless helicopters, involvement at the highest levels of gov’t & police, we’re getting awfully close to a Clancy… but who’s the good guy, Harper???)
If he prorogues Parliament, though, ladies get some cash & keep it handy, here comes Handmaiden’s Tale…
Candace wrote:
“Personally I’ve always thought electing judges was creating a conflict right at the get-go. Politicians (i.e. people who seem to be willing to say & do anything to get, and remain, elected) are not high on my “trust” or “integrity” list. A judge SHOULD, I would think, have integrity & be trustworthy.”
Ah, the innocence and naivity of youth. If you think politicians “say and do anything to get” their jobs, you haven’t obviously haven’t seen a lawyer sucking up to a politician for an appointment to the bench. And always remember, these are LIFETIME appointments – once you’re on the bench, you’re there till you quit or croak. If the thought of putting potential judges through even a token public vetting makes you queasy, do a little homework sometime and discover for yourself how many failed Lieberal politicians subsequently get judicial appointments.
The same practice applied, he says, with regard to accountants and engineers — and, of course, advertising agencies — all of them “volunteering” their services to the party in hopes of winning contracts.
It applied to everyone, period. I used to be a partner in a small book publishing firm, and our local Liberal MP asked whether we could do layout work of one of the party’s newsletters for free. Later on, she’d look into grants or somesuch for us, of course. (We turned her down.)
Thanks for the “youth” assumption. Alas, I’m just naive…
Of course, I haven’t actually seen the sucking up required to get an appt as I don’t travel in the legal circles, but I get your point.
This will be and should be an Yves Lavigne best seller.
All the usual characters, minus the bikes, but with matching purple shirts and neck ties.
“What bothers me is that people should make any kind of insinuation that any appointment is based on any other considerations of merit. That’s what bothers me” — Irwin Cotler
Eh, I’m sure all those advertising contracts were ‘merit-based’ as well.
*cough*
Wow, we’d better get rid of the notwithstanding clause, or else there’s an unacceptable risk that some of the decisions of these judges will be overridden democratically.
One can feel tired about the conspiracy; however, those who carried out this pillage/theft & more of the Canadian tax base did not tire as they conspired to carry out their pillage.
We must as citizens carry this debacle to its conclusion: Resign, PM Martin and take your brigands with you: Resign, Now. Citizens, rise up and vote Martin & etc. out of office. Save our democracy, our country and our honour. Do not tire. Press on.
In with Honest Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
P.S. Re: Supreme Court & judges. Thank you, Randy White.
Just a sickening display of corruption and scandal all the while pretending that nothing is amiss with any member of parliament on the Liberal bench and that, they , of course, are lilywhite and have not been touched by this scandal. THEY are honest politicians who are there, although in a minority government, to conduct the affairs of state. THEY have done nothing wrong and defend the PM as being the one who has done all this work to get to the bottom of this corruption- perpetrated on these ‘honest’ liberals by those of the Chretien era. An era in which Paul Martin is inextricably tied, no matter who denies it.
Corbeil puts the lie to that as does Warren Kinsella ( like him or hate him) on Earnscliff in the Commons Committee hearing.
We need a wire brush alright, right down the Liberal side of Parliament.
And WHAT is with Jack Layton… prostituting himself to the highest bidder as though he has anything to negotiate with!
As for Electing Judges. Yes, of course we should be electing our Judges. Just as we should be electing our Senators!
Has anybody managed to get a list of recently appointed judges, and the political affliations of said judges??
I’d be interested to see the results of that. 🙂
I don’t know how many of you lot actually read the policy on accepting money for patronage. But it actually reads third party, as well as alone or with any other, it goes on to say that if they do this their seats in the house are immediately forfeit. In other words because the Liberal party of Canada itself received the money from the sponsorship fund, after it had been laundered by the ad agencies of course, all members elected are forfeit, immediately. Read it over and reflect on the evidence put forward in the gomery commision if neccesary let your own opposition members know about this. I don’t think I have missread this but it appears that we have an illegitamately sitting government in the house of commons.
Victims of fraud indeed.
I’m surprized you missed this bit Ed.
Daryl
“Has anybody managed to get a list of recently appointed judges, and the political affliations of said judges??
I’d be interested to see the results of that. :)”
No need for a list, Stan. Pretend your a judge and take “judicial notice” (see Vriend v. Alberta) that they’re all Lieberals.
Daryl, thanks for following up. What I’m REALLY curious about tho is whether being found guilty in the future could prevent them from getting full pensions. That would sure get their shorts in a knot.