The Globe and Mail is out of the box with the Brault testimony.
There is almost too much to absorb in one or two readings. For all that we have heard about the depth and routine nature of the criminality, it is worse than I thought. This part jumped out at me;

In September, 2001, Mr. Brault needed something from Mr. Morselli.
“You’re asking a lot of me. I do what I can. You said `If I can help, I’ll do it’,” he said he reminded Mr. Morselli. “I challenged him.”
He told Mr. Morselli he needed to delay the bidding for a contract with the Justice Department.
He said Mr. Morselli called a few days later and asked him to his office, in an east-end industrial park. As he went in, he saw Mr. Mignacca leaving.
He said Mr. Morselli asked for $100,000 in cash. “It’s $100,000 and your problem is solved,” Mr. Brault said he was told

The scandal broke before the payments were complete.
If true, it means that Minister of Justice and Attorney General Irwin Cotler’s office has been compromised by the very people it is supposed to be investigating. It does not matter to what extent or in what manner. What we do know is that none of his officials or department employees have been charged or publicly implicated – so it is not unreasonable to suspect that there are individuals there who are still playing for the other team.
In this light, every move by the Justice Department in prosecuting (or not prosecuting) individuals involved in the corruption must be highly scrutinized for any whiff of conflict of interest or the setting up of tactical legal roadblocks, unless and until the Minister addresses the accusation and demonstrates that his officials have been thoroughly investigated for any role in the affair.

Via radio news:
Gomery has announced a partial lifting of the ban on evidence, noting something that has been clear to anyone reading accounts – most of his evidence doesn’t incriminate those who have been charged, but both the Chretien and the current Martin Liberals.
Heh. Local talk radio host John Gormley is already spilling the details. You go, Metrosexual!
That the testimony that directly implicates those who face fraud trials is remaining under ban is a provision that I think is acceptable, and I will do my utmost to respect it, and ask my commentors to do the same.
And finally, a big thankyou to the talk radio stations here and across Canada who featured efforts and risks taken by bloggers and sent traffic flowing to our sites. Talk radio and the blogosphere are a natural fit, and we’ll both benefit if we can find ways to enhance the relationship.
In the meanwhile, I’m just looking forward to taking it easy for a few days. I plan to sit back and let the pros take over the real job of reporting on the testimony, so we bloggers can go back to our day jobs – keeping watch for the “spins of omission” soon to come from the usual suspects, once the realization settles in that The Natural Governing Party is in serious trouble of being supplanted by Extremist Conservatives.
One final thought.
Ed Morrissey of Captains Quarters should be nominated for the Order Of Canada.
(A more practical suggestion in the comments – go hit his donation tip jar, which you’ll find at the left side of the main page of his site).

Canada’s Liberal Party is in danger of losing its base.
Greg Weston. Sun Media;

The biker gang’s Toronto chapter is so peeved at the PM that it has adorned its website with a doctored photo of Martin, decked out in a bandanna, over the caption: “Pirate of Canada.”
What got the bikers’ leathers in a twist was Martin’s odd statement that the federal Liberals should not be tarnished by the “activities of a very small few who may have colluded against the party.”
The bikers fumed to us by e-mail yesterday, saying: “The government thinks it’s fine to blame every Hells Angel for the actions of a few … What a country this used to be. What a hypocritical pile of #&$* it is becoming”.

Via Political Staples.

“Pirate of Canada” isn’t such a metaphorical stretch – see my SDA post on Paul Martin’s Canada Steamship Lines and the unusual exemption that the Barbados recieved when Canada closed offshore tax loopholes rules. In Paul Martin’s government “blind trust” means wearing a patch over one eye.

Ed Morrisey is waiting for Justice Gomery to decide whether or not to lift the publication ban (in response to the decision to set back Brault’s trial date to June). If it isn’t lifted, an update on testimony is forthcoming.
The US media is starting to take notice. The New York Times is picking up the scent. I assume federal agents will be stationed at the border to intercept any NYT copies with banned information.
John Tabin at The American Spectator;

If you’re a Canadian, be advised: Your government doesn’t want you to know what lies herein. If you’re a blogger in Canada, you may actually get in legal trouble for linking to this column.

Ed has been interviewed by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and his efforts were the topic of the lead editorial at the Dallas Morning News, where they expressed concern that he may find himself the target of Canadian courts.
I hope the good citizens of the United States of America are letting up on the gas on those 75 mph Interstate highways – before the Canadian government gets wind of them breaking our speed limits.

Two posts which may or may not be related.
Colbert:

The Minister said staff in his Montreal-area riding office were approached by Maria Sicurella di Amodeo, who asked for help with her immigration file. Sicurella is the wife of Italian Cop Killer Gaetano Amodeo, who was arrested in Montreal in May of 1999. His name appeared on Interpol’s list of 500 most dangerous fugitives. Yet the Liberal Government granted him entry into Canada and permitted him to leave and return and even file for landed immigrant status after the Italian deportation order was requested.
Once his wife had successfully obtained landed immigrant status, she attempted to sponsor Amodeo for permanent residency.
Amodeo is affiliated with the Cuntrera mob family which had done business with Gagliano’s accounting firm before he was appointed to cabinet.
[…]
And I have already written about how in May of 1999 it came to light that Mr. Dithers had a connection to Connaught Labs and the Tainted Blood Scandal. He did not declare a conflict of interest when the issue of compensation was discussed a cabinet or when the heavily whipped vote was called in Parliament.
The toothless Ethics Commissioner Howard Wilson investigated and cleared Martin but key pieces of evidence had gone “missing”.
On May 18, 1999 the Montr�al offices of the Canadian Hemophilia Society were burglarized and items were stolen including documents that allege a link between Mr. Dithers and the tainted blood scandal.
On the very same day an Arkansas clinic owned by Michael Galster was firebombed and police found a gas canister near where Mr. Galster kept his records. Mr. Galster wrote the book “Blood Trail” which raised questions about the collection of blood from State prison inmates for sale to private labs like Connaught.

Now, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Sean tells us more about apparent discrepencies between the money allegedly “donated” to the Liberals and the Elections Canada record;

I counted twelve donations to the Liberals from Groupaction Marketing/Gosselin Communications between 1993 and 2004 for a total of $150,605.88 (data available here). While that sounds like a lot, I have reason to believe [cough cough cough] that the amount of on record donations to the Liberal Party should be much higher. There are three possible explanations for this. The first is that the Liberal Party of Canada has been filing inaccurate financial reports and is in breach of the law. The second is that Elections Canada has some whomping big holes in their data. The third, and possibly most likely explanation, is that I’ve missed something somewhere. I would appreciate it if other bloggers could take some time today and double-check my work. I’d like to see this followed up on as I’m smelling blood right now.

Debbye has excellent commentary on the controversy surrounding we alleged “ban breakers”.

I finally and completely understand why Canada has not produced a Dr. King or a Henry David Thoreau. Every blogger up here has only one decision to make: will you fight for liberty? This is an act of civil disobedience, not armed insurrection, for crying out loud. The threat to charge those of us who published certain links, such as the second post in a series about Jean Brault’s testimony before the Gomery Inquiry – The Martin Connection, must be met with only one response: Bring. It. On. I mean it. Let’s drop the gloves once and for all and get some earnest debate up here about liberty and inherent human rights.

To those Liberal politicians now staggering towards the realization that while they slept safely in the incestuous arms of the mainstream Canadian media, the citizenry was quietly bypassing the gatekeepers and taking control of information – and with it the fate of their political leaders – into their own hands, I can only offer this small consolation;

Time has been pretty divided today. Two trips to town, a family visitor, work, and posting when I can, plus making dog show entries and the work that theoretically pays the bills.
This has been the top breaking story of the day, apparently – Toronto
Sun’s Greg Weston

A MONTREAL advertising firm that received more than $40 million in AdScam sponsorship contracts paid huge kickbacks to both the federal Liberal party and the Quebec separatists, senior executives of the company have told Sun Media. “I remember seeing the cheques,” one former Groupaction executive said of payments to the federal Liberal party in Quebec.
The man spoke on condition that he not be identified until he testifies at the Gomery inquiry sometime over the coming weeks.

Have read a brief comment that the PQ has denied this, but that it has made for some interesting exchanges during Question Period. Will update later, or you may pop any developments in the comments for me to pick up later.
correction In my haste, I originally typed “BQ” instead of “PQ” when I first wrote this. The distinction is important – the Bloc are the federal version of the provincial Parti Qu�b�cois.
Thanks for pointing this out in the comments and I apologize for the confusion.

A translation into French is now up at Captain Ed’s.

Edited exerpts from Hansard – From Question Period, April 5, emphasis mine. While I’ve edited out much of the debate, I do urge you to read the original, to establish for yourself the evasiveness of the government members in answering.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier–Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Gomery commission is revealing some surprises. The Liberal Party is apparently the victim of a plot hatched by a so-called parallel group. Public testimony alone shows the government story is not credible. It reveals that the Liberal Party is at the heart of the sponsorship scandal to such an extent that, in the past three elections, all Liberal candidates from Shawinigan to Outremont to LaSalle have benefited from tainted money.
Instead of being an accessory, will the Prime Minister demand that the Liberal Party reimburse the tainted money?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc must know that
supporters of all political parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Qu�b�cois, the Conservative Party and the NDP, are honest people devoted to their party, their country and their cause. It is important not attempt to tarnish the reputation of thousands of party supporters.
If one isolated group of people has done something inappropriate, it will be punished. We will see with the Gomery commission. The consequences will be felt by–
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier–Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier–Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if all the Liberal supporters were honest, why call in the RCMP? Perhaps he would explain that. It makes no sense.
The party was not infiltrated by a small group. The evidence is clear. The Liberal leaders at the highest level are involved. He was the number two in that bunch. There is only one thing to do.
[…]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-C�te-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to previous testimony at the Gomery inquiry, a number of high profile Liberals have been identified as being very active in the sponsorship scandal including Carle, Pelletier, Chr�tien, Gagliano, Corbeil, Morseli, Bard, Corriveau. The list is long.
My question is for the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister’s Quebec lieutenant. Are all these
people part of the parallel team he is trying to blame for the sponsorship scandal?
[…]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-C�te-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to shirk its responsibilities by separating the Liberals into the old guard and the new guard.
Has the Prime Minister already forgotten that he was the second in command under the old guard, that he was the finance minister, that he was the vice-chair of the Treasury Board under the old guard and that many of his current ministers were part of what he calls the old guard, that is, the same old gang?
[…]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval–Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when he established the Gomery inquiry, the Prime Minister himself stated that there was political involvement in the sponsorship scandal.
Today, in an attempt to distance himself from the past, he speaks of a parallel group, which supposedly directed the sponsorships. This is my question for the Prime Minister. Does he mean that the political direction behind the sponsorships came from a parallel group within the Liberal Party itself?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that this government, this Prime Minister, called for the inquiry that is now being carried out by Justice Gomery. We did so because we want answers, and because Canadians deserve answers.
Now the member is asking questions. His own leader has said that we want to have complete answers, which is why we need to wait for Justice Gomery’s findings.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval–Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to dissociate the Liberal Party from the sponsorship scandal. To accomplish this, he is trying to tell us that the Liberal Party has nothing to do with it, and is a victim. Yet the Liberal Party is at the very heart of the sponsorship gimmick, and we all know that.
How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that, the day after Jean Chr�tien testified before the Gomery inquiry, he welcomed him to caucus where he was given a hero’s ovation? If he wants to distance himself from all this, why did he find Jean Chr�tien so admirable the day after his testimony?

Continue reading →

I recieved this article today, with permission to republish. All the information is from sources that were publicly available prior to the publication ban on Brault’s testimony at the Gomery Inquiry.

---

Dear readers; You will not get this information in the local newspapers, radio or TV, or online. These editions will not cost you anything; we are not asking for any money, only for your time and attention. If you wish to be added to our list, and receive our editions via email until our new improved website is up and running, please email us at black_rod_usher@yahoo.com
The Black Rod – The origin of the Usher of the Black Rod goes back to early fourteenth century England . Today, with no royal duties to perform, the Usher knocks on the doors of the House of Commons with the Black Rod at the start of Parliament to summon the members. The rod is a symbol for the authority of debate in the upper house.
We of The Black Rod have adopted the symbol to knock some sense and the right questions into the heads of Legislators, pundits, and other opinion makers.

---

Today’s Topic: Gomery secrets not-so-secret
The country’s press was giddy all weekend from eating of the forbidden fruit.
Details of Friday’s testimony before the Gomery inquiry had leaked into the blogosphere.
Reporters whose eyes had glazed over weeks before at the glacial pace of the inquiry were suddenly frisky as puppies over information they couldn’t use because of a ban on publication.
The word used most often to describe the not-to-be-repeated evidence was “explosive.”
Rumours had the Bloc Quebecois anxious to force an election because they now figure they can sweep every seat in Quebec. The Liberals were said to be so scared they want to force the Opposition to bring down the government over changes to environmental regulations so that they could fight an election on Kyoto rather than Korruption. The Conservatives, as usual, were eager for an election while anxious to avoid an election.
The Black Rod was among the first to get wind of the story on Captain’s Quarters, the American blog that broke the story. And what, we wondered, was all the excitement about?
Sure the details are outrageous. But no more so that anything we’re heard for weeks now.
We suspect that its suddenly big news because the players are all ‘names’ in Quebec and the reporters can now describe the kickback scandal in human terms rather than by company names.
Imagine how electrifying it would be in Manitoba if an Inquiry found that, say, as an anology, adman Allen Gregg was being strongarmed by Liberal backroom boy Ernie Gilroy to make “contributions” to MP Reg Alcock and put stalwart Liberal footsoldier like John Angus on the payroll.
How the Liberal Party was funnelling money through its secret Sponsorship Program through Quebec ad agencies, and how some of that taxpayers money found its way into Liberal Party coffers, is being described day after day at the Gomery Inquiry.
But the Liberals were literally pouring multi-millions into the ad agency gullets and, according to the evidence, were getting it back in eeny meenie dribs and drabs. Why spend so much for so little. That’s the mystery. It defies reason, yet there had to be a reason.

Continue reading →

MacLeans;

Federal Court has put Jean Chretien’s challenge to the federal sponsorship inquiry on a legal fast track, in the hope of resolving the dispute before Justice John Gomery starts writing a final report.
The court agreed Tuesday to set June 7 for the start of hearings on the former prime minister’s claim that Gomery is biased and should be removed as head of the inquiry. By judicial standards, that’s speedy action for a case that was filed in early March. Government lawyers had argued that the matter deserved priority handling.

It helps to have friends in high places – even better when you’ve put them there.

If Jean Chretien cannot persuade Justice John Gomery to step down from the federal sponsorship scandal inquiry, the former prime minister’s appeal would go to a court led by a close personal friend, where three-quarters of the judges indirectly owe their jobs to him.
Of the Federal Court’s 32 judges, 27 were appointed during Liberal mandates, including 24 named during Mr. Chretien’s tenure as prime minister. Just four judges were appointed by Brian Mulroney, the Conservative prime minister from 1984 to 1993.
The Federal Court’s chief justice, Allan Lutfy, was appointed to the court in 1996 by Mr. Chretien and was elevated to head the court three years later.

Considering that the Alberta Liberal Party hasn’t won an election in that staunchly conservative province since the Triassic period, I’m surprised that it took federal Liberal Party corruption for their straggling descendants to ponder the obvious solution.
You’d think an unbroken record of electoral failure would have been enough of a motivating factor.
Update Leading contender news just in:

The Alberta “This Pig Is Wearing Lipstick Now” Party.