Publication bans on explosive cases don't mean much if you're outside the country, but media outside a country often lack enough interested readers to care. The blogosphere is changing that - and now we're seeing that change in Canada over an explosive political issue. Captain's Quarters:
"A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called “sponsorship scandal” – tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers."
A snap election is indeed possible. The Liberals have some big choices ahead of them, and so do the other political parties - and somehow, blogs look set to be right in the middle of it all. Time for a little bit of background from a Canadian, so our American readers can understand exactly what's going on. There are a few key wrinkles here that won't be obvious otherwise.
Entangled: Quick Scandal Update
An important note the Captain missed - the $250 million Sponsorship Program was concentrated in Quebec, where it was used to undermine the separatist Bloc Quebecois. I'll note for the record that I don't really have an issue with that aspect of it, though the Bloc sure does; they're Canada's 3rd largest federal party. The rest of Canada probably wouldn't care either, expect that [a] over $100 million of those funds were given out to Liberal Party friends for what was literally no work; and [b] rumours persist that a lot of those tax dollars found their way back to the Liberal Party's coffers via kickbacks from funding recipients.
Hence AdScam. For our U.S. readers, a good rule of thumb is that anything to do with Canada (population, economy, etc.) is multiplied by 10 to get an equivalent American scale. As you can see, we're talking significant dollars here.
Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance.
The amount kicked back to the Liberal Party is not yet clear, but should be traceable in principle given election finance disclosure requirements. Unless, of course, it turns out that those were broken too.
- As Captain's Quarters notes, see the blog Small Dead Animals: The Roadkill Diaries for some excellent background on the case.
- Wikipedia's entry is also quite good.
- SDA:TRD also has a roundup of reactions from the Canadian blogosphere.
- Though I have to say, the ultimate link roundup has to be the one at Bound by Gravity.
Who Dunnit: The Ban, The Blogs & The Politics
The Gomery Commission's inquiry is ongoing, but some of their efforts are under a publication ban. Back to Captain's Quarters:
"Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications.
That's because these individuals are on trial. Their testimony is under publication ban in order to allow them to testify, without prejudicing their ongoing trial. At least, that's the idea. This has been done before in Canada, most notably in the trial of serial killers Paul Bernanrdo and Karla Homolka where photos, movies et. al. of the young girls they raped and murdered were put under ban to spare the victims' families. It's considered legal here, for a series of reasons that I won't get into. Let's just accept that it's possible to order a publication ban on certain kinds of quasi-judicial proceedings here in Canada.
This is where the blogs come in. This is also where some pretty heavy-duty political calculations come in. Captain's Quarters:
"The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record."
The scandal was a factor in the 2004 Federal election, too, and probably contributed to the Liberal Party's loss of their majority government. They're currently in power by the thinnest of margins [135 seats, now down to 132] (Hat Tips: readers Carleton Alum & Canadian Conservative). Just to create a tie, the NDP [Canada's socialist party, 19 seats] and 2 independents must support the Liberals, since the Conservative Party [99 seats] and seperatist Bloc Quebecois [54 seats] can vote against to create a 153-153 tie. The Speaker of the House, a Liberal, would then vote if necessay to break the tie - but in this case, it may not be necessary since the No-Confidence motion would have already failed to pass. See below for more details re: how all this works.
This makes for a pretty unstable government, because if the major opposition parties plus right-wing and electorally secure independent MP Chuck Cadman ever see an advantage in bringing down the government - it's gone.
A damning report from the Gomery Commission that showed massive corruption at the Liberal Party's highest levels would be a pretty opportune time for everybody, don't you think?
So far, the publication ban has muted coverage of the scandal, and given the Liberal Party of Canada the ability to "create their own trial scene". They even had the power to call a snap election before any reports could be released with the juicy details - something they recently threatened to do over the gay marriage issue.
Now, all that is changing. Enter the blogosphere.
Enter Captain's Quarters, a Minnestoa-based blog with a friend in the right place. The Captain has just published the gist of a key witness' testimony re: the Liberal Party of Canada's massive political corruption operation, payoffs, rumoured Mob ties, and all. Captain's Quarters is under no obligation to respect a Canadian legal ruling about Brault's testimony, and once it's out, anyone can link to it. Enter NealeNews.com, self-consciously patterned after The Drudge Report (vid. Outside the Beltway).
Enter, too, a whole swarm of Canadian and American blogs. Under normal circumstances, few Americans would care. These aren't normal circumstances, however, and when your enemy stumbles, it's news. This cross-border interest is driven in part by policies and casual anti-Americanism that have made the Liberal Party of Canada an enemy target to half of America's political spectrum (not to mention a few monied interests associated with the other half).
If you're a Liberal, that fact is very bad news.
I expect persecution and even prosecution of some Canadian bloggers by the Canadian government. The people who brought us the election gag law that prevents groups other than political parties from advertising during elections can be expected to remain true to form. As long as U.S. blogs are publishing the details, people can't be faulted for pointing to them - and CTV News in Toronto is already driving traffic to Captain's Quarters.
Which means that as long as there are willing leakers, the publication ban is almost meaningless.
Once that blog-driven dynamic starts picking up momentum, the Liberal Party of Canada will have lost control over the staging of their trial and the timing of their political calculations. Those are pretty big losses, to say the least. They will force some big decisions from the Liberals very soon, about which more later.
So what made a politician like Paul Martin ask for this kind of grief in the first place? As is so often the case, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
The Dividing Line: Why Martin Investigated His Own Party
"Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)"
Paul Martin was a senior official in the Liberal government - in fact, he was the Finance Minister for most of Prime Minister Chretien's tenure (think Clinton's tenure, plus most of W.'s first tenure).
So why would Martin be so interested in a financial inquiry now that he's Prime Minister?
The root of it is that Paul Martin had been nursing leadership ambitions for a long time, and Canada has no term limits for Prime Ministers. Jean Chretien needed Martin in order to keep the confidence of Canada's business sector, but he also distrusted him - and for various reasons, the Martin and Chretien factions of the Liberal Party have disliked each other for a long time. Then came Martin's stealth takeover of the party, which finally brought the issue to a head in 2003. PM Chretien was forced to choose between stepping down and calling a party leadership convention, or having one forced and being voted out. He stepped down, and the results were predictable.
With Paul Martin now sitting as the elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party sitting with a majority of seats in Parliament, Paul Martin was now Prime Minister.
That's right. He was automatically Prime Minister. Without an election. Parliamentary systems can work that way.
Back to Martin, who now had the job he had always wanted. He also had a LOT of enemies within his own party, however... and an ace card, of sorts. You see, most of his high profile party enemies and flacks were very close to PM Chretien. Which meant they were eyes-deep in the $100+ million Sponsorship Scandal.
Canadians knew that Martin and PM Chretien never got along, and that the monies were spent by ministries outside the Finance Minister's direct control. The only thing that could have linked him into the scandal would be participation in a cover-up. So he listened to an old political adage, and "hung a lantern on his problem." As Hardball author and TV host Chris Mathhews notes:
"It is always better to create your own trial scene than to let someone else rig one up."
Actually, holding the inquiry offered Martin the prospect of a doubble-whammy: [1] distancing Martin from the scandal through forthright action now that he was in charge; and [2] letting him fry a lot of bigwigs in the party who were his political enemies anyway.
In Canada's 2004 Federal Election, this approach seemed to work. The scandal's impact was felt, but it was contained. An ideologically sympathetic media also did their bit, of course. It was a dirty campaign by the Liberals in all respects - but hey, that's politics.
Which brings us to Prime Minister Martin's current high-stakes decisions.
Dance on a Volcano: The Liberals' High-Stakes Options
Had Paul Martin and the Liberals won a majority government in 2004, there is no mechanism for accountability in Canadian politics. The inquiry would have been ended early, with votes forced through in Parliament on a party line basis as necessary. The media would dutifully highlight the "inconclusive" findings, the brouhaha would fade with the minor punishment of some convenient scapegoats, and the issue would almost certainly be a non-starter by 2008-2009.
Unfortunately for the Liberals, they didn't win 155 or more seats in 2004. Which means the scandal is still with them - and like some 'B' movie blob monster, it may be growing beyond their ability to contain.
The publication of Brault's testimony by Captain's Quarters has to be seen and understood in this light. The blogosphere is about to face its first big Canadian test.
As I noted above, I fully expect legal harassment and prosecution of some Canadian bloggers for breaking the publication ban if the leaks continue. That's a given, and it may already be in progress. Since the American blogosphere will keep covering it amidst today's polarized Canadian-U.S. relationship, however, it really won't matter. This cat is truly out of the bag. Which brings us to the Liberal Party's choices:
- Snap election. The Liberal Party can call a snap election very soon, hoping to attack the Conservative Party with an even stronger dirty-tricks campaign. The goal is to win a majority before any more incriminating details leak out, or the scandal blows completely out of control a la Dan Rather, Trent Lott, Eason Jordan, et. al. The anti-American card would certainly be played in this scenario, as part of the Liberals' ongoing efforts to cast the Conservative Party as "un-Canadian". The risk is that if the Liberals don't win a majority, they're right back where they started - with an unstable minority government, an even more hostile United States to the south, a scandal report still pending, and an even more enraged opposition.
- Stick to the Plan. Paul Martin can decide to ride this out, gambling that if the report comes out and he indicts enough of his enemies, he can put enough distance between himself and his Party to convince enough people that he has taken action to clean up the mess. "You may not trust my party," he'd be saying, "but look - you can trust me."
This is not completely far-fetched. It could work, especially given a Canadian media corps who generally dislike the Conservative Party and treat them accordingly. The risk, on the other hand, is a 'perfect storm' scenario: the revelations become very noxious, the Liberals lose any control of their dissemination and timing thanks to blogs et. al. circumventing the bans, Martin can't indict anyone yet becuase the formal report isn't out, and it becomes impossible for Canadian voters to stomach a continued mandate for the party. Once that become clear, a No-Confidence motion in Parliament forces an election and it's curtains. The socialist NDP would probably prefer not to do that, because the Conservatives would likely form a government if the Liberals fall - but neither do they wish to immolate themselves by backing the Liberals on a confidence vote about a scandal this big, and they're very likely to lose that vote even if they do stick with the Liberals. Too risky; they'd vote no-confidence. Fortunately for the Liberals, there's still one option left... - Take a leaf from Chretien's Playbook. When it became clear that Martin had control of the Liberal Party, Chretien was doomed. Rather than leave immediately, however, he publicly set a date for his resignation near the end of the year. This gave him control over the timing and agenda of his exit, and made it pointless for Martin to use his power to force what was already inevitable by date certain. It also gave his supporters time to find an anyone-but-Martin candidate if they could (the best they could do was Canada's equivalent of Barbara Boxer, who lost the leadership convention in a landslide; Martin loyalists then stacked and won her riding's candidate nomination just before the 2004 election, leaving her out of politics).
Under this 3rd scenario, Prime Minister Martin publicly steps up and promises firm action within 30 days of the Gomery Commission's report being released. This could give the NDP a political fig-leaf to resist no-confidence votes ("give inspectors time to work"), sway an Independent, and even take some traction away from the Conservatives as revelations continue to come out. Of course, Canada's other 3 parties could also decide that the relevations do give them enough traction, and the NDP could decide that the fig leaf and downside were outweighed by an electoral upside. Like it or not, this who dunnit could all blow up on the Liberals anyway; the key domino is falling, and they're just in too deep.
Right now, it's all in limbo. Opposition parties have been counting out the time, while the Liberals keep thinking there must be some other way. My guess is that Paul Martin will begin with Option #2, then shift to Option #3. Will it be enough, or is his misunderstanding the genesis of some big changes? Stay tuned - because the blogosphere, reporting from behind the lines drawn by countries and judges, will probably play a big role in determining the answer.
Like it or not.
--- UPDATE ---
I've kept on digging, and done a lot of thinking. If I thought this ban was complete b.s., I'd raise my middle finger, note that our server is in the USA and our readership is international, and dare them to try bothering us. But if these individuals whose testimony is under publication ban are already facing criminal charges, they deserve the best we can give them for a fair one.
FYI, Colby Cosh explains some of the legalities of the ban, and what the considerations are. Yes, I still believe the ban is futile and will remain so as long as leaks are happening, for the reasons noted above. Which means the ban will likely crumble. Even if it doesn't, this cat really is out of the bag, and all of the consequences I've noted still apply.
In the end, here's what it boils down to for me: common citizenship means we accept implicit responsibilities and obligations to each other. I may think Brault is scum, but I still owe him my protection as a fellow citizen.
So... I've named the blog in question for our international readers, and as a matter of simple courtesy to attribute the quotes. There's always Google, and I believe the American blog Outside the Beltway mentioned above may have a more direct route. I have removed the links to material in this article that might violate the publication ban directly - and that is truly the best we can give Brault et. al. in the Internet age.
I will leave it up to the consciences of my non-Canadian team-mates re: whether they wish to follow my lead, or to cover this for their audience. Unlike me, they don't owe Brault et. al. anything.
What do you think of that approach, and why? Use the Comments section and tell us.
I believe the corruption revealed by the evidence
so far needs to be published far and wide. For too many years have the politicians of both parties been dipping into the pork barrel. Too much political cronyism. It seems the area that
profits the most is the highway between Ottawa and Montreal and the area around the last prime
minister's riding.
We out here in BC can only marvel at the extent of this crookedness.
Which is a pretty amazing statement, given how wacky and oftimes shady BC politics can be. But I'm with Ben 100% on this.
Joe,
FYI
The combined NDP and Liberal votes are not enough to override the combined Bloc-Conservative vote in the House. The NDP is not needed to defeat the government.
Always good to see another Carleton alum.
Ah, I had forgotten Martin's principled and admirable tossing of that madwoman Carolyn Parrish [Ind - Mississauga-Erindale, ON], whose mission seemed to be the single-handed ruin of Canada-US relations via her bigoted anti-American comments in public and support for terrorists. She was kicked out of the Liberal Party Caucus, and now sits as an independent. Given his slim margin in Parliament, that was a gutsy move because it places her beyond Canada's strict party discipline.
For non-Canadians, here's how defeating a Canadian government works:
The House of Commons may attempt to bring down the Government by rejecting a Motion of Confidence or by passing a Motion of No Confidence. Either would require a majority, which is 155 votes in a full house (155/308).
I did a quick double-check. Sources seem to indicate that a motion of No-Confidence must affirmatively pass. If anyone knows different, however, tell me here because it changes the rest.
Regardless, my fellow Carleton alum is correct - even if the Liberals (134 seats) and NDP (19 seats) are all present and voting together, they can still go down to defeat (153-154). This requires the cooperation of the Conservatives (99 seats) and Bloc Quebecois (54 seats) and any one of 2 Independent MPs plus the support, abstention or absence of another.
There's Chuck Cadman [Ind - Surrey North, BC], who was forced out of the nomination by a power play in his riding association but won his riding handily as an independent (see comments #28 and #30 for more, and thanks Deaner & Cam!). He'd probably vote to end the Liberal government, secure in his ability to keep his seat. He doesn't like them anyway.
Left-wing nutbar Ms. Parrish can be absent or abstain at that point and nothing changes - or she can support the Liberals, and deadlock the motion, and cause any attempt to dissolve Parliament to fail (154-154). Note that her odds of retaining her seat in another election as an Independent candidate are very low - so we can probably place her with the Liberals on any No Confidence vote. But she is a complete loose cannon with an inflated sense of herself, and her MP pension is vested already anyway, so you never know.
If both Independents abstain, the motion also deadlocks (153-153, 2 abstentions) and Parliament is not dissolved as far as I know.
Needless to say, a Conservative + Bloc + NDP vote sinks the Liberals under any circumstances.
Nothing worse than being in a situation where there are two regional parties: the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and the Conservatives representing the reactionary and pro-American West and one unelectable party - the NDP and and to have an election forced upon you by malefeasance on the part of the government. Welcome to the third world!
Rob
If the Conservatives represent the West, that means the Liberals don't. Which would make the Liberals... wait for it... a regional party. Wouldn't it now?
The truth is, there are currently no parties in Canadian politics with any serious strength across the nation. They are ALL regional parties - the only question is one of degree.
As for living in the 3rd World, I'd think that being able to get away with funneling hundreds of millions of public dollars to your friends for no work, then receiving it in kickbacks, while stifling public discussion of the issue, is a far more reliable indicator of 3rd world status than the potential loss of power by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Obviously, Rob's milage varies somewhat. But in his screed, you can see the likely Liberal talking points if they take my Option #1.
The head counting is a little more complicated than it has been made out to be.
First of all the Libs don't have 134 votes, they can only count on 132.
Lawrence O'Brien the former Liberal MP from Labrador died a few months ago and has not been replaced.
And secondly the speaker of the House (another Liberal) only votes to break a tie.
Ah, the blogosphere is wonderful. Thanks, CC... corrections going up.
This is only a start Joe.
I have a bit up on the Canadian connection to Volcker and the Oil for Palaces scandal
Actually Joe, Canada's Barbara Boxer was a reference to Sheila Copps, not Carolyn Parrish (Parrish is what, Canada's Cynthia McKinney? Barney Frank? La Cicciolina? Help me out here...)
Here's more on Copps (wow, for someone who prided herself on being a political street fighter, was she ever outmaneuvered):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Copps
The Conservatives should blow the whistle and force the election.
This may be the one time in 10 years that the Canadian press will actually cut them a break and bite the hand that feeds them.
They need to pick up 15-20 more seats to get to 120 because the Liberals will definitely lose 25 to 35 seats and be the second party when this sh--finally rolls down on them
My only comment is: excellent writing you people, keep it up! I'm from southeast BC and while I believe in the right to a fair trial, I also see the Liberals using the various rules to keep the public from knowing the truth. I think we should give up on jury trials for public cases like this.
thanks again,
Bill
>>The House of Commons may attempt to bring down the Government by rejecting a Motion of Confidence or by passing a Motion of No Confidence. Either would require a majority, which is 155 votes in a full house (155/308).
I did a quick double-check. Sources seem to indicate that a motion of No-Confidence must affirmatively pass. If anyone knows different, however, tell me here because it changes the rest.<<
Actually, in the parliamentary system a government can be brought down by the majority of those voting against an important government bill. The theory is that if the government loses a vote on a bill vital to its agenda, such as a budget, it has lost the confidence of the parliament. This is tantamount to a vote of No Confidence andunder constitutional convention the government must resign.
Formal Motions of Confidence and No Confidence work slightly differently. From my understanding a Motion of Confidence can be introduced as a stand alone motion by a government or it can be introduced in response to a Motion of No Confidence. In the latter case the Motion of Confidence supersedes the Motion of No Confidence and a vote would be taken on the Motion of Confidence.
In both cases, should the governing party lose the vote on the Motion of Confidence the government must resign. As well, as you correctly state, should the opposition introduce a Motion of No Confidence and that motion be carried the government must resign.
Sadly, the one person who should go to the slammer and won't is Chretien. I'd love to see him eat his autographed golf balls.
As an American I've always wondered why English Canada doesn't do the right thing; quit treating Quebec like a harp seal and join the US. That way Ontario would counterbalance the yaboos in Texas, BC could cancel out Mississippi, etc., and the world would be spared another cowboy like Bush that you guys complain about so much.
I think you're thinking like a gun controller: "If a freedom can be abused, ban it."
Why not assume that your fellow citizens will give Messrs Brault et al fair trials out of the fairness and moderation Canadians pride themselves on? Is Canadian civic virtue so fragile that it has to be protected from occasions of sin?
Screw the ban: "Tell the truth although the heavens fall."
Cowtown (#13), thanks for confirming that - OK, confidence motion must either pass or fail as applicable, on a majority of those present and voting.
Tim (#10), you're right. Canada's Barbara Boxer was Sheila Copps - don't you Californians wish you could say "was" too! - and Cynthia McKinney is indeed our best matchup for Carolyn Parrish.
Al (#14): I'm told the golf ball poutine is highly recommended. Gotta really boil those Titleists, though... they're pretty chewy. Mind you, if those are the only balls you end up eating in the slammer, you've gotta count yourself money ahead.
The part that I don't get is why people in Quebec should be miffed by any of this; if anything I would expect them to feel flattered by all the (additional) pandering and influx of cash into their economy (or whatever part of it remained there). After all, they've been wheedled and serenaded in similar ways for decades. Or does the 'fault' in this case lie in the discovery? TIA for any clarifications.
Zeke,
If you're a sovereigntist Quebecker, the fact that it's money coming in is outweighed by the fact that the "traitors" are spending it to try to destroy you.
Which is fine by me, really - but many Quebeckers are at least sympathetic toward sovereignty, and take the idea rather poorly. On a more cynical note, outrage also offers the seperatists political advantage, electoral rollback potential at the federal & provincial levels, and potentially the destruction of a couple of their political enemies' pet ad agencies.
Not hard to see the point, once it's put that way. Some even have a problem with the corruption involved.
Fabulous summary of a complex, convuluted and exceedingly odiferous scandal!
Having finally superceded the publication ban by reading the material online (thank you Bloggers everywhere!), the new information certainly does suggest that the Liberals may find themselves in serious difficulty however Martin may still be able to paint much of the events as a byproduct of Chretien's governance.
The other aspect of this is that this sounds to me (and believe me, I hate to say it) like the fairly typical party graft (writ a little larger then normal) that seems to be part and parcel of Canadian politics. The Liberals have been comfortably in power for 15 years, mainly due to the collapse and fragmentation of the Conservative opposition, so they have taken full advantage of that fact to pad their party coffers and the pockets of their friends and supporter with contracts and patronage.
Chretien and his pals are past masters of political patronage and hidden kick-backs. Did you ever wonder how someone who spent 40 years in public office (and Canadian public office don't pay that much...) amassed a personal fortune of millions?
Surprise, surprise, this is nothing new - it dates back to John A MacDonald and the railway. It is also not a Liberal party exclusive activity as there is still court actions winding away on the remains of the Conservative Mulroney government's legacy with Aerobus contracts etc.
What the situation cries out for is the need for hugely stronger oversight capabilities on party spending, the rewarding of government contracts and the gray areas of campaign finance....and as an added bonus a far more limited usage of publication bans. I understand that the current ban is in place for specific reasons related to criminal trials in Quebec but I strongly suspect that the sanctity of the trial is the least of the reasons for the ban being in place.
Maybe this will be a wake-up call.
It's pretty much public knowledge i.e. the link to an AP/Yahoo story
covering all the testimony. You don't need more than that to tell you what the story's about.
The Liberals can't bottle this up and the very fact they are thinking about it tells you everything you need to know about their arrogance in even trying.
If the Gomery Commission wanted the three to have a fair trial, they would have called for the testimony to be given in secret. Ironically, they could have used to exact same reason - to ensure a fair trial. That they didn't suggests that they did not anticipate the accused would implicate the Liberal party so thoroughly and convincingly.
The publication ban is an attempt to contain the damage by shifting the argument to free speech and whether the three would have a fair trial when the issue ought to be whether the three should be given immunity in exchange for their testimony against the Liberal party. Canadians pride themselves on fairness. How fair is it to overlook the possible criminal actions of a political party by even suggesting that these three ought to go on trial at all if they are willing to provide evidence of wrongdoing by the Liberal party machine?
"As for living in the 3rd World, I'd think that being able to get away with funneling hundreds of millions of public dollars to your friends for no work, then receiving it in kickbacks, while stifling public discussion of the issue, is a far more reliable indicator of 3rd world status than the potential loss of power by the Liberal Party of Canada."
Might also be a reliable indicator that you are in Chicago.
Good posting, keep up the good work.
Given the intrusion of the US government and the Canadian government into the "freedom of the blogosphere: - simple free speech issue, maybe another solution is called for.
Remember the gambling boats anchored just beyond territorial limits? Offshore radio?
How about a Blogosphere hosting boat in international waters registered in some third world dump nation?
Or is some sort of peer-to-peer technology appropriate?
Nil illegitimus carborundum.
The sponsorship scandal has not really been uncovered due to Paul Martin succeeding Jean Chr굩en. It has been uncovered by a scathing report by the Auditor General Sheila Fraiser who found that there were contracts and transactions made without trace or without respecting any rules.
This report made such an impact that it led to the current Gomery Commission, which is unveiling facts after facts. All the puzzle's pieces are falling into place.
By the way, the Liberal Party was crumbling under debts in the 90's and early 2000's. They spent too much for their campaings and were close to bankrupcy (that was not known at large though, at that time). So this ad scandal is the way they found to get themselves out of this hole they created just to get to power and to keep it.
The government will now win on this issue. The internet moves way too fast for them to control, and that is the beauty of it. Unless someone is being hurt (and in all honesty, how is the information from this testimony really going to hurt anyone? Do they honestly think they are not going to be able to find suitable jurors for the criminal case now?), I see no reason for this type of government interference on the basic human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I can only hope this will lead to even greater scrutiny of the Liberal government. Who knows, we might even vote the Liberals out of office next election.....
As a canadian, I wish I could move to the US. Nothing but wimps up here.
One small correction - Chuck Cadman wasn't "too conservative for the conservatives" - in most cases, he would be pretty-middle of the Tory road. His riding association was overrun by a new political entrant who campaigned to get the Tory nomination - that is, he signed up and then bused in a load of friends, relatives, and assorted others and won the nomination meeting. Cadman was ticked, in part because he believed that sitting MPs should not have to face such nomination fights, and he decided to run as an independent. He is personally popular in the riding, and this little dust-up probably made him more so. You may have been thinking of Randy White, who made some comments that played directly into the Liberal's election campaign strategy of painting the Tories as scary mouth-breathing rednecks with a "hidden agenda."
Cheers,
Dean
This is probably the best round-up out there right now. Good work.
#4 Joe Katzman:
If memory serves, the attempt to jettison had nothing to do with Cadman's extreme conservatism - he was more in the "Red Tory" frame. In fact, he was almost a Canadian version of a "RINO" - except on matters of Law and Order, where he was a fierce critic of lenient sentencing. IIRC, his son was killed and that was what galvanized him to run for the House.
#41 Deaner.
LOL. Quicker on the draw than I, I guess...
The intent of the media ban, to preserve an unbiased jury, strikes me as very odd. This especially applies to posts on the internet.
As I understand things, this was a public hearing, so the only thing this "ban" tries to do is limit the number of people who get access to it. In this way the chances of the accused receiving a fair trial are increased.
I assume (knowing nothing about Canada jury selection practices) that the lawyers for the defense would have some ability to not accept someone who had a good chance of being biased. Thus it would be the lawyer’s, and possibly the trial judge’s, duty to ensure that the jury pool was unbiased to the best of their ability.
So while a question like "do you often attend public hearings?" would cause far fewer people to answer yes than a question like "do you often read online blogs?" fundamentally they are the same thing. Some people, no matter how large a group, will know about this, while some will not. Even if this was broadcast 24/7 on all types of media, there would still exist some people who either did not hear about it, or willfully choose to ignore it. (as Penn and Teller would say, Elvis didn't do no drugs)
I have tried to see the point of your moral stand Joe, but I just can't bring myself to agree with you. If the jury selection is unbiased, then it will result in an unbiased jury pool. Your choice not to directly publish any of this information will have no affect on that.
If you add in the very strong possibility of these snap elections, then I would make the claim that you are morally wrong (or at least not behaving as a "press") by not doing all you can to publish this information.
Unless of course you are honestly worried about getting sued, in which case I can totally understand the reluctance to publish so as to avoid legal troubles. You claim that you are not concerned about that aspect of it though, so I am left unpersuaded.
In any case, thank you for the additional background on how things stand.
#45 chadeo:
Of course, it is important to have an unbiased jury pool - but this is a hearing, not a trial. The decision to impose a publication ban on this process smacks of political protection.
Joe,
I am simply in awe of your ability to summarize a very complex situation in such a thoroughly readable fashion - Bravo.
I also think, as a Canadian, that sometimes it is best to err on the side of discretion when it comes to publishing all details in a pre-trial period. While I'm a believer in a free press I'm equally fond of fair trials. Like you I have no doubt that the full story will come out and the voters will have the final word.
This is not to suggest that the blogs should be somehow curtailed - far from it.
Let our neighbours curious natures reign supreme while we, perhaps naively, put our faith in the courts and the ultimate good sense of the Canadian electorate.
#47 Osprey:
The "good sense of the Canadian electorate" has given us the dominance of the Fiberals Liberal party. I haven't much faith as a result.
Deaner, Cam, you're right - I had them confused. I'll go note those corrections. Looking at his web site, he had come off as something other than he was.
He has my deepest condolences for his son, too. It's an awful, awful feeling. Especially on anniversaries. And it never, ever goes away.
Dean: "It is also not a Liberal party exclusive activity as there is still court actions winding away on the remains of the Conservative Mulroney government's legacy with Aerobus contracts etc."
etc is not a replacement for facts? And by court actions did you mean the public apoligy issued or the million dollar cash settlement? Trust me, if the Libs had something more than a left wing nutter selling a book for a lead on Muldoon they would have been all over it. They've had over 10 years for @$#% sakes.
The problem with this kind "they are all the same" logic Dean is that it gives Ontario and the Atlantic all the excuse they need to re-elect their beloved Libs even in light of this huge theft.
Dean: "It is also not a Liberal party exclusive activity as there is still court actions winding away on the remains of the Conservative Mulroney government's legacy with Aerobus contracts etc."
etc is not a replacement for facts? And by court actions did you mean the public apoligy issued or the million dollar cash settlement? Trust me, if the Libs had something more than a left wing nutter selling a book for a lead on Muldoon they would have been all over it. They've had over 10 years for phuhk sakes.
The problem with this kind "they are all the same" logic Dean is that it gives Ontario and the Atlantic all the excuse they need to re-elect their beloved Libs even in light of this huge theft.
ham-you-rabbis-law:
I wonder if Dean was thinking more of the CF-18 maintenance contract going to Quebec rather than Manitoba. That was egregious, and I still voted for them.
A cursory read through your links above does not include the work done on this subject heretofore by the folks at "Friends of Saddam". You will find enlightening tidbits here:
http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/cat_canada.html
two points - first the difference between the so called mulrony scandel and this one was that it did not involve hundreds of thousands of dollars and that no one in the conservative party - mulrony included - ever receive any types of tick backs. Second if the liberals force an election - which the canadian people do not want- they will pay for it. the likely hood is that they will lose the little number of seats that they have in québec and will likely lose seats in ontario. those two combined will produce a Conservative governement and the one thing liberals hate the most is to see this country runned by the tories.
One thing to note about our beloved left-leaning media in Canada is that they are either owned by the government (ie - the CBC) or are indebted to them for a good portion of their cashflow (the federal government being the biggest spender on advertising in our country). Think about that the next time you see full page ads for the "One Tonne Challenge" (the current adscam)and think about how objective that paper is about the Liberal government.
Robert
"If the Conservatives represent the West, that means the Liberals don't. Which would make the Liberals... wait for it... a regional party. Wouldn't it now?"
I've often thought that our (Canadian) system with multiple parties was better than the 2 party system in the US, but the danger of "regional" parties (or the perception thereof) is huge. And I don't know about the rest of you westerners, but I've always kinda thought the Liberal party was regional (and traditionally, aside from the rain-damaged west coasters, their support tended to end pretty much at the eastern Ontario border). The Conservatives are trying to shake the Reform dust from their feet (although the big stink over same-sex marriage makes me wonder if not just 1984 is upon us but perhaps the Handmaid's Tale as well?) to lose the "regional" tag. And how the Bloc Quebecois can be a "federal" party when it's main purpose (at least originally) was promoting Quebec sovereignty is aother example of a rather feudal system. But I still think it beats the US set up, because the guy (ok, Kim had it for what, 9 weeks or something?) heading the country is the guy leading the party that the majority (ok, highest percentage in some situations) voted for.
Maybe we just need to put some term limits in place - it seems that both the Liberals now & the Conservatives in the 80s prove the adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely." If memory serves me, Mulrooney's scandal centred around the last five years of his government, and the adscam started...well, halfway I guess? through Chretien's?
Personally, I wish Belinda could run the country -she's rich enough to not need any extra cash and has managed to successfully run a company (and if you think that's because of Daddy, you might want to do some research on how FEW second generation owner/managers are successful). How come the press never mention Harper's or Martin's choice of tie, but her outfits are considered news??? Oops, off on a tangent there...