Everything you ever wanted to know about Quebec Superior Court Justice Claudette Tessier-Couture, but didn’t know to ask….
…and the guy who promoted her.
More here. Talk show host and lawyer John Gormley tore the media a new one on Friday, on their coverage of this. He argues that the corruption isn’t in the appointment of Liberal party supporting lawyers, but in what those individuals knew. If they had any knowledge of illegal activities, that’s a big, big problem, and they have no business on the bench.
(I think it’s also a problem if their pro bono work wasn’t declared to Elections Canada as a party contribution.)

From www.lecornichon.qc.ca
(A lot of readers have been sending me this sort of stuff – I’d love to use it all, but my bandwidth fees are starting to creep into the “uh-oh” range…)

Considering the mea sorta culpa nature of Paul Martin’s speech last night, did anyone notice what he didn’t say?

I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission’s final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say…

Here is the phrase missing from the speech:

I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission’s final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. If Judge Gomery finds that I am guilty of wrongdoing or negligence in the awarding of contracts, or was involved in any cover-up, I will resign. And then the people of Canada will have their say…

There. That sounds much better.
I wonder why it wasn’t included?

I’m certainly not a neutral observer, but I think Stephen Harper just kicked Baghdad Paul’s ass around the corner.
(And Jack Layton… wants clean air. And bicycles! And mittens for poor children! And a brain, if he only had a brain..!)
Oh.. I’ve been meaning to mention this. In all the Liberal yattering about “wait for Justice Gomery to report”, has everyone forgotten that “ordinary citizen” Chretien has had his case fast-tracked in the Federal courts to have him removed?

Just got home from a day in the paint booth. The radio at Unique is tuned to classic rock – nice to be insulated from news for a few hours. Insulated from Adscam, though, I was not. It was a topic of discussion on the shop floor.
Here’s an observation that should make Liberal party operatives’ blood run cold – some of these guys didn’t bother to vote in the last election. Most don’t follow currrent events. At lunch, the TV is turned to Speedvision much of the time.
They’re following Adscam.
And this, from “man on the street” interviews on local radio while driving home; “..the fact that he’s going to be on at 7 o’clock eastern time, 5 o’clock here….. he doesn’t care if anyone in the west is even listening to him. I mean, who’s he speaking to? “
Indeed.
I’ll be updating this post as I go surfing about – and drop your own links in the comments, if you wish.
Coyne is a fabulous read, as usual.
Heh. Rex Murphy;

Reading accounts of how Ottawa poured money into ad campaigns that sought to save Canada by advising Quebeckers on how maintain fishing rods, I was delighted to learn that the commission had played some of these radio spots for which so many millions were fire-hosed into Quebec advertising firms. Remember, according to Jean Chr�tien, this was a “fight” to save Canada, that it was, according to Scott Brison, the Liberals’ high-profile convert, “a war.”
Read closely. It’s a peculiar war that savages the enemy with the likes of this: “If the inside of the guide ring is scratched, if the line has been exposed to the sun for too long or if it was in contact with insecticides, there’s a good chance you could seriously shorten the life of your fishing line. Which is why you should check your line and change it at least once a season.”
Well, if I were an ardent separatist, burning under the imperial boot of Ottawa, and haunted by the dream of a independent nation of Quebec, that would pull me up short. Copy like that would have me jump from Hotspur to Hamlet in a trice. Maybe even half a trice.
I can see it now: “Is my guide ring scratched? How come the PQ or the Bloc never engage with my tackle? Do they care if my ‘line’ has been exposed to the sun and insecticides? Clearly, they do not. Avaunt, separatism. I am now voting federalist.”

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.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

“And, apparently, Ralph Goodale just said I was “poison” in the privileged environment of the House of Commons. Wow! Could it be that Mr. Goodale is upset that his infamous March 27, 1995 letter – you know, the one where he demands that Public Works grant, and I quote, “a sole source contract” to “The Earnscliffe Strategy Group” for $50,000, because “the primary consultant…is from Saskatchewan” – is now on the public record? The one that seeks a sole source for a friend of Paul Martin who, coincidentally, was already doing the work anyway? No, I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.”

Globe and Mail has this curious exchange.

“Why does the government not just admit . . . the Prime Minister abused the process to get contracts to his friends at Earnscliffe, to his campaign manager David Herle?” Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said. “Why does he not just admit that he got public money to his political associates?”
Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale jumped to Mr. Martin’s defence as opposition MPs chanted “where’s Paul” — a reference to the Prime Minister’s empty Commons seat. Aides said that Mr. Martin was meeting with foreign ambassadors and representatives after the government released its new policy paper on foreign affairs
Mr. Goodale insisted that an independent audit by accounting firm Ernst and Young in 1997 and the Auditor-General’s review in the 2003 had found no rigging of contracts. (Emphasis mine).

Ralph Goodale is lying – as former Public Works minister (charged with cleaning up the “mess”) the ignorance defence is not available.
When Public Works employee Allan Cutler blew the whistle in 1996 on what was going on in the procurement and contracting process, an internal audit did indeed turn up serious concerns and warned of dire consequences, both legal and political – yet the version released by Liberal-friendly” Ernst & Young had scrubbed those clean.
It didn’t escape the attention of Justice Gomery. CBC, Sept 2004;

There was mystifying testimony at the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal on Tuesday, when a 1996 audit was produced. The draft of the audit warned of dire consequences unless the problems were corrected. But in the final report those warnings were gone.
The audit of what was then the section of the Department of Public Works that administered advertising contracts, found recurring problems. Contracts were backdated, there was no evidence all potential suppliers were given the opportunity to bid, and bids weren’t always properly evaluated.
But in their final report the auditors from Ernst and Young summed up the situation by saying the rules were generally being followed.
Inquiry commissioner Justice John Gomery told the panel of three auditors that he was “mystified” by their actions. “You didn’t rewrite it, you watered it down,” he said. “Why did you water it down?”
The auditor’s draft warned the government to respond immediately or risk legal action and embarrassing public attention. It also suggested the government might not be receiving value for its money. Those points were taken out of the final version.
“Why were they dropped?” asked Neil Finklestein, the inquiry’s co-counsel.
“I do not recall,” said Deanne Monaghan, a partner at Ernst and Young.
Justice Gomery appeared frustrated. But neither Monaghan nor two former associates, Madeleine Brillant and Julie Morin, could recall the reasons for the changes.
The auditors also faced criticism for including a detail in the final version’s executive summary. They indicated there was no evidence of personal gain from any of the irregularities they found.
However, Monaghan testified that in order for that conclusion to be meaningful her firm would had to have done a forensic audit and it didn’t do that.
But Monaghan disagreed the audit was watered down. “On reflection and with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made it stronger. Certainly at the time we felt it was a reasonable conclusion, as far as the general assessment on the contracting policies. We felt we definitely did raise a red flag.”
It’s debatable whether the stronger language of the auditor’s draft report would have made much difference. The final report had little effect. The government expanded the advertising section into the sponsorship program and promoted the man in charge, Chuck Guit�.

The Ernst & Young “waterdown” is here
PACC Summary of Evidence.