The Shotgun Blog
« Globe & Mail: Religious Conservatives need not apply | Main | Blogging for Dollars »
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Intro & Guité on Earnscliffe
First of all, I'd like to thank Ezra Levant for inviting me to blog on The Shotgun. I am a libertarian-minded Quebecer from Montréal named Laurent Moss (despite my Anglo-sounding last name, I am a pure laine francophone; I can trace back my ancestors arriving in Québec City around 1620) I am also blogging on my bilingual Le Blog de Polyscopique.
Meanwhile, it looks like Chuck Guité is expected to make embarrassing revelations on the favouritism that Earnscliffe, the firm that ran Martin's leadership campaign, enjoyed at the Department of Finance. This was known as early as 1995 but was not publicly revealed:
CTV News did research in 1995 over the deal between Earnscliffe and Finance, but concerns over a potential lawsuit prevented the full story from going on air. In an interview that was not broadcast, Mr. Guité said that Finance issued contracts without going through proper channels -- until he caught them.
Indeed, the TVA television network obtained memos from the Public Works Department including one from July 24, 1995 which said (link in French) about seven contracts awarded to Earnscliffe:
None of these contracts have been awarded in compliance with cabinet guidelines. This is unacceptable.
Another memo from Chuck Guité, four days later, claimed the Department of Finance awarded contracts without bidding above the allowed amount.
This looks like a fine intramural squabble between Finance and Public Works on whose cronies get to be rewarded.
Posted by Laurent Moss on April 20, 2004 in Western Standard | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345e874a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Intro & Guité on Earnscliffe:
Comments
Glad to have you aboard Laurent.
It would not be surprising if the same sort of no-bid contracting was practiced at Finance. but it would be damning as it ties direct to Martin.
What I am wondering about is whether the Canadian public will actually "get" what is wrong with this. To date the Adscam business has been explained as 100 million dollars missing. Which, while it has lots of headline value, is not what has actually happened.
FinScam is another degree more subtle. Too subtle for the media? Or the public?
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-04-20 11:59:58 AM
Will the result of all these scams be less state corruption, or will it be more subtle corruption? Is the only pragmatic answer less government?
Posted by: Tony | 2004-04-20 12:58:44 PM
Thanks for the welcome Jay!
Jay and Tony, I think I can see where you're getting at -- that cronyism is simply the tip of the iceberg of a system where government spending is apportioned according to the lobbying power of various special and regional interests. This was Andrew Coyne's point (here: http://andrewcoyne.com/Archives/2004_03_21_andrewcoyne_archive.html#108008229033305300) and I think he is right.
Posted by: Laurent | 2004-04-20 2:36:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.