1
   

"We were basically at war trying to save the country."

 
 
caprice
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 07:22 pm
This is Canadian politics, not 'Merican.

Just givin' you yanks a heads up. Razz

I can't believe the testimony of this Guité guy regarding the whole sponsorship scandal. What a load o' crap! Giving money away to "save the country"??? If I'd have been there at the time I would have found it difficult to stop myself from laughing out loud.

Quote:
Guite admitted bending rules in 2002 testimony

CTV.ca News Staff

In testimony released Friday, former civil servant Chuck Guite admitted to bending the rules of the federal sponsorship program in an effort to keep Canada united in the face of the Quebec separatist threat.

Guite's confidential testimony -- given on July 9, 2002 -- was supposed to remain confidential for three years, but he waived that right through his lawyer.

In the transcript, Guite -- who held the title of executive director of the Communications Coordination Services Branch of the Department of Public Works -- told the committee why the federal sponsorship program was born prior to the Quebec sovereignty referendum in 1995.

The federalist side won by only about 50,000 votes.

"We were basically at war trying to save the country," he said.

With Canada's fate hanging in the balance, Guite said most rules were followed, but admitted he bent the rules "a little bit" in his efforts to keep the country together.

He said authorization to bend the rules came from the Privy Council Office. The Privy Council is the head office of the public service and is a branch of the Prime Minister's Office.

Guite handled advertising and sponsorship transactions for the Public Works Department.

In the testimony, he admits to regular meetings with now-disgraced former Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano, as well as Gagliano's deputy. However, Guite declined to say who, if anyone, served as liason between the Public Works Department and the Prime Minister's Office.

'War' led to program's secrecy

Guite said the veil of secrecy around the program was intended to keep information out of the hands of separatists.

"When you're at war you drop the book and the rules and you don't give your plan to the opposition. You don't leave your plan of attack on your desk," he said.

"I phoned the guys in Montreal - the media people - and I said, 'What's your inventory?' They said, 'Oh, it's about $8 million worth of outdoor advertising that's available.'

"I said, 'I'll buy it.' And the guy at the other end of the phone said, 'Pardon me?' I said, 'I'll buy it.'"

CTV's Mike Duffy said Guite's testimony paints him as a patriot, not a criminal.

"Chuck Guite is not at all ashamed of what he's done," Duffy said. "In fact, he thinks he's a hero."

Guite also said no one told him to use Montreal ad firm Groupaction, and that he retained them because of their good work during the referendum campaign.

The shadowy nature of the sponsorship program was exposed two months ago by Auditor General Sheila Fraser, whose blistering report sparked a wave of public outrage.

Guite's 2002 testimony was the result of an apparent fraudulent triple-billing incident by Groupaction. But Guite dismissed that, saying he had approved additional expenses after the cost of the project was initially underestimated.

He also related an anecdote to display the scope of the federalist ad blitz during the referendum.

Now retired, Guite is scheduled to appear before the committee again around April 22. He is currently vacationing in Arizona and New Mexico.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Paul Martin promised he would not call a federal election before Guite appeared before the committee. That would delay an election call until at least the end of April, meaning Canadians could go to the polls no earlier than May 31.

Also Thursday, Liberal members of the Public Accounts committee used their majority on the committee to out-vote the Opposition and push through a motion to make Guite's testimony public.

Earlier Friday, before the testimony was released, Toronto Liberal MP Dennis Mills said it would show that Guite took responsibility for the sponsorship mess and exonerate Gagliano of political meddling in the program.

"Everyone in Canada realizes that (Guite) ran the file and what he has to say is critical. And that process will begin today in detail," Mills told CTV's Canada AM.

However, the release of the testimony did not please the Opposition, who accuse the Liberals of using Guite as a handy fall-guy ahead of an anticipated election campaign.

Conservative MP Jason Kenney told Canada AM on Friday that "it appears(Guite) might have taken the fall."

NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis was equally skeptical.

"I don't believe for a minute that there's anything but this committee being used for the Liberals' pre-election purpose and to help clear up their tarnished reputation going into an election," she said.

Mills denied the release of Guite's 2002 testimony was political maneuvering.

"I think the important thing that Canadians should know is that the Prime Minister, Paul Martin, has said to Canadians we are not going to the people until we have all the X-rays on this file and people are held accountable."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,663 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 07:29 pm
More than usual pork-barrelling to marginal electorates?
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 07:33 pm
Meh, sponsorship scandal notwithstanding, Martin will win the upcoming election easily.

Canada is far too liberal to hand the riegns over to that ultra-right ideologue Harper.

IronLionZion said it, April 2, 2004 - mark my words.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:04 pm
Easily? I don't think he's going to win it easily, if at all. Harper is a maroon as far as I'm concerned. There is, however, another party, albeit an underdog party. The NDP. They have never had a Prime Minister though. Maybe now is the right time! Very Happy

dlowan: Not exactly pork-barrelling. The government had this stupid idea of advertising "Canada" to the province of Québec after the referendum in '95. (A close vote between remaining in Canada or becoming a sovereign nation.) And from what I understand, the crux of it is that several companies received outrageous sums of money to essentially hand over a cheque. Why the government needed a middleman to hand over a cheque is beyond me, but these companies benefitted financially. Apparently there were other situations aside from the Québec advertising one where money was distributed too. Quite the mess!
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:16 pm
caprice wrote:
Easily? I don't think he's going to win it easily, if at all. Harper is a maroon as far as I'm concerned. There is, however, another party, albeit an underdog party. The NDP. They have never had a Prime Minister though. Maybe now is the right time! Very Happy


...and the NDP nominee is?

In any case, by the time your chance to vote Martin out arrives - probably sometime in late May, if I'm not mistaken - the sponsorship scandal won't pack the same punch it did a couple of months ago. He will win. Easily.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:21 pm
Although it would be great to see the NDP in power, i doubt they have the electoral strength to accomplish it. The thought of the New Democrats in a coalition with the "Progressive Conservatives" is laughable. Absent the Tories, there is no conceivable scenario in which the NDP form a coalition which would survive. Even were they to briefly win, it would be Joe Clark all over again.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:25 pm
Jack Layton is the leader of the New Democrats in Canada. He's hoping to become member of parliament in my riding. I'm really really really looking forward to this upcoming election.

It looked like Jack had a decent chance here until about 3 days ago, when his big transit 'issue' got taken care of by the Federal and Provincial Liberals. It doesn't really feel like that was a co-inkydink. Jack's a passionate speaker, very charismatic, comparatively young (not that tricky next to Martin), seems a lot smarter than the New Conservative option, somewhere between not ugly and handsome. It still has potential to be an interesting race.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:27 pm
Canada will never vote an NDP prime minister. The NDP have a horrible track record as of late in BC, Sask and Ont. The liberals will win the election handily. Not in the prairies of course, but most definatly in the east.

Ceili 4/2/2004


although...I think our deputy PM, Anne McLennan is toast.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:28 pm
ILZ, the Liberals have been wibbly-wobbling all over the map for at least the past year. Nothing is going to come to them easily. Martin is hated by a lot of Liberal insiders, so there's a split right in the party itself.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:31 pm
ceili, with Ed Broadbent, Mayer Arer's wife, and possibly Stephen Lewis running in Ontario, Ontario is not guaranteed to go wildly Liberal next-time round. Layton's pulling some interesting candidates together. People who are just simply - respected. Also, some people are starting to think of the experience of the NDP provincial government with some misty fondness - the P.C's made a much worse mess, and the Liberals are having trouble figuring things out.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 08:47 pm
ehBeth wrote:
ILZ, the Liberals have been wibbly-wobbling all over the map for at least the past year. Nothing is going to come to them easily. Martin is hated by a lot of Liberal insiders, so there's a split right in the party itself.


If - and I stress if - inner party splits prove to be a problem, I'm sure the possibility of losing the election will provide sufficient motivation to put thier differences aside, at least untill the election is over. The firing of Chretien loyalists will go a long way towards fostering party unity, too.

I'm hedging my bets on a landslide liberal victory.

All the information I've come accross indicates its a two horse race between Harper and Martin. Sure, Martin may be slightly wounded by the sponsorship scandal, but pitting him against Harper is like pitting a poodle against an Arabian stallion.

Its hard to keep track with Canadian politics because there are just so many parties. The two main conservative parties - the Alliance and the ???? - merged a while back, I remember. I thought that move effectively turned it into a two party system like the States, with a couple of fringe parties.

I think I would have heard about Layton and the NDP if they posed a significant threat. It makes me wonder though, are there many other political parties with life still in them? Where does the NDP place in the pre-election polls? Anybody?

I'd like to keep more abreast of Canadian politics. I'd also like to see more Canadianness in American politics. Your health care system, for example, should be replicated over here....
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 09:06 pm
Our healthcare system wouldn't exist without the NDP and it's predecessors, ILZ. When I consider what's happened on the east coast, as well as Ontario, lately, I wouldn't put any money on any particular political outcome. Auto insurance issues had major parts in three elections that I can think of without blinking. Who knows what's really going to take fire on a federal level.

My preference, as always, would be for a minority government. That's when sensible things happen, or at least things that make sense to the general populace.

The firing of Chretien loyalists is NOT leading to party unity. I think Martin has badly underestimated the general public's negative reaction to this.

You've also got to keep in mind that the loyal opposition is not the NDP or some version of the conservatives. It's the Bloc Quebecois. If some other party doesn't make a dent in Quebec, it's unlikely anyone will have a massive landslide. I don't much like the Bloc, but they've kept the Liberals on a bit of a leash.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 09:16 pm
Where does NDP fall in the political spectrum? Left? Right?

How are they polling right now?

Keep in mind, however, that I've already hedged my bets with Martin, thus precluding any possibility of a NDP victory, since I am IronLionZion and my name is synonymous with the Truth. I'm prescient like that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 09:32 pm
Well, as Miss ehBeth is on her way to slumber now, i'll give a brief answer. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation started in the prairies in the 1930's, and was founded by socialists--it was considered then to be very leftist. It began in Calagary, and its program was outlined in the "Regina Manifesto," in 1933. Socialist parties had been organized among farmers, who were suffering far worse than farmers in the U.S., and among miners and factory workers--but most did not survive. When the fragments were amalgamated into the CCF, it was transformed into the New Democratic Party. A Canadian history which i have read (one published in Canada) describes the Saskatchewan NDP government (in 1944, i think) as the first socialist government in America. Although the "taint" of socialism has left them, and they have gotten more "mainstream" acceptance, they have never managed to attain national majority. They continue to be a significant player in national politics, although historically, they have done better in the west than in the east. As a note of interest with absolutely no bearing on the subject, Neil Young's father was a life-long NDP politician.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 09:41 pm
By the by, for "Progressive Conservatives" (Tories) think, moderate Republican. For the Liberals, think centrist Democrats. For the NDP, think Eugene Debs and the American Socialist Party. There is no equivalent in American politics for the success of the NDP. New Democrats were such a strong influence in the Prairies that even when they did not capture provincial governments, the Tories, who had long considered those provinces as strong-holds, co-opted their political base by offering social welfare programs. By the 1950's, the Tories in the west had been successful enough that Diefenbacker came out of the Prairies like a whirlwind to take over the national government at a time when "the smart money" was predicting the demise of the Tories--probably due to the "east-no-centric" views of the major media outlets of that time. To compete with the NDP, the Tories in the west had to really make nice with the peasants.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 10:59 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
...and the NDP nominee is?

In any case, by the time your chance to vote Martin out arrives - probably sometime in late May, if I'm not mistaken - the sponsorship scandal won't pack the same punch it did a couple of months ago. He will win. Easily.


The leader of the NDP party is Jack Layton. Of what I have read about him, he seems the best candidate of the 3 parties.

As for the sponsorship scandal not having the same punch by the end of May, I beg to differ. Just when things seem to just start quietening down, something else crops up. Sheila Fraser keeps things hoppin' that's for sure! Very Happy

Easily win? It's not going to be an easy win. I think there will be some changes to his cabinet that don't come from him, that's for sure -- if he is the one to be elected. Right now I resent the fact he is even Prime Minister. After Chrétien retired, there should have been an election.

An easy win? It should be the toughest race he's ever had to endure.

IronLionZion wrote:
I'm hedging my bets on a landslide liberal victory.


You obviously ain't a Canajun.

Now to read the remaining posts...
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 11:45 pm
caprice wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
...and the NDP nominee is?

In any case, by the time your chance to vote Martin out arrives - probably sometime in late May, if I'm not mistaken - the sponsorship scandal won't pack the same punch it did a couple of months ago. He will win. Easily.


The leader of the NDP party is Jack Layton. Of what I have read about him, he seems the best candidate of the 3 parties.


What should happen has no effect on what is happening or what will happen. See: George Bush.

Although, after reading what others wrote in this thread and doing a little research of my own, I'm certainly liking the idea of an NDP government in Canada.

Quote:
As for the sponsorship scandal not having the same punch by the end of May, I beg to differ. Just when things seem to just start quietening down, something else crops up. Sheila Fraser keeps things hoppin' that's for sure! Very Happy


The Liberals have been rebounding, albiet slowly, but also surely, for a few months now. There is no reason to assume this trend will not continue.

In fact, as the Liberals make moves to remedy the situation, and as time takes some of the initial sting away, it is likely their rebound will accelerate, albiet haltingly.

The latest polls indicate the Liberals are now at 38%, with the conservatives trailing behind at 27% (despite the benifit of a recent convention and media attention that should have given them a boost), with all other parties limping behind.

Also, note that Paul Martin is still the favored Prime Minister in every province and territory in the nation.

Quote:
Easily win? It's not going to be an easy win. I think there will be some changes to his cabinet that don't come from him, that's for sure -- if he is the one to be elected. Right now I resent the fact he is even Prime Minister. After Chrétien retired, there should have been an election.


It is the nature of the media to make political races look closer than they are. It makes good TV. See: John Edwards.

I think there is much less of a race then people are led to think.

Quote:
An easy win? It should be the toughest race he's ever had to endure.


Again, should.

caprice wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
I'm hedging my bets on a landslide liberal victory.


You obviously ain't a Canajun.

Now to read the remaining posts...


Okay, maybe "landslide" was getting ahead of myself.

But come May, when my psychic abilities have been further confirmed by a Liberal victory, I am going to bump this thread and laugh at all of you.

Bwahahahahaha.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 12:01 am
IronLionZion wrote:
The Liberals have been rebounding, albiet slowly, but also surely, for a few months now. There is no reason to assume this trend will not continue.


What country are you livin' in?????

Oh yeah, the U.S. of eh.

'Nuff said. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 12:26 am
Uh, did you actually read the numbers I posted or the polls I linked?

Again:

The latest polls indicate the Liberals are now at 38%, with the conservatives trailing behind at 27% (despite the benifit of a recent convention and media attention that should have given them a boost), with all other parties limping behind.

Also, note that Paul Martin is still the favored Prime Minister in every province and territory in the nation.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2004 12:35 am
What would be so bad about quebec becoming it's own country? It may actually be a good thing for the rest of Canada since quebec has little in common.

This is just a question from an outsider. I don't know much about Canada beyond the entertainment world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "We were basically at war trying to save the country."
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:30:19