Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Positive Exposure | Main | Greatness, personified, squared »

Friday, April 01, 2005

There is something going down at Gomery

via Whatittakestowin comes this video of Mike Duffy on the publication ban at the Gomery Inquiry.

Apparently some big stuff came out of it the last couple of days. Mike Duffy reports, via MP Peter MacKay, the Bloq Quebecois is preparing to introduce a non-confidence motion based on the Gomery testimony. Buckle-up baby!

PoliticalStaples

Posted by Greg Staples on April 1, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83458320069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference There is something going down at Gomery:

» Canadian Election On Horizon? from small dead animals
The testimony at the ongoing Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship program, in which money was poured into Liberal friendly advertising agencies and possibly rerouted back to party coffers has reportedly heard "devastating testimony" over the past two da... [Read More]

Tracked on 2005-04-02 7:40:00 AM

» Canadian Election On Horizon? from small dead animals
The testimony at the ongoing Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship program, in which money was poured into Liberal friendly advertising agencies and possibly rerouted back to party coffers has reportedly heard "devastating testimony" over the past two da... [Read More]

Tracked on 2005-04-02 9:08:20 AM

» Good News from Canada! from Spicedsass
I don't know if American readers have been following the sponsorship scandal here in Canada.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2005-04-02 11:28:43 AM

» Canadian Election On Horizon? from small dead animals
The testimony at the ongoing Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship program, in which money was poured into Liberal friendly advertising agencies and possibly rerouted back to party coffers has reportedly heard "devastating testimony" over the past two da... [Read More]

Tracked on 2005-04-04 12:25:38 AM

Comments

I am trying to find what I can on this (without breaking the law) and I am posting in on my blog as I find it. Even MP Solberg is speculating over at this blog.

Posted by: Greg Staples | 2005-04-01 6:10:11 PM


Is anybody from the US reporting this? Like they did the Homolka trial.

Posted by: Cascadian | 2005-04-01 6:43:20 PM


Well, just as I wrote on my own blog, I don't think it will be too long before we start hearing whispers about the nature of the damning testimony. If the news is already out that there is something, the rest of it won't be that far behind. ie) The cat is already out of the bag.

Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2005-04-01 6:51:12 PM


An election call would probably put an end to the Gomery Inquiry. Somalia Inquiry redux.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-04-01 8:32:42 PM


Go back to the CTV link. Robert Fife is now predicting a Conservative Gov't as a result of all of this. What could possibly be this big?

Posted by: Greg Staples | 2005-04-01 8:56:13 PM


Whatever it is, it would have to strip the narcotized Ontario voter of his perplexing love of serial liberal abuse, and so offend Quebecers (who, along with Alberatns and other Prarie dwellers were the only ones to show any collective intelligence in the last election) that the longstanding liberal "buy votes and play the regions off against each other" plan would be rendered useless. Oh to dream, an electorate exercise its franchise intelligently, fully informed of the issues. It would have to strip the mainstream canadian press of their ability to scare voters with disingenuous portrayls of a conservative government (no small task). I speculate its some kind of explicit instruction to pay off the Libs and which may involve organized crime, simply because only that seems to be able to fracture the rotten but pretty solid "feedback loop" stasis of canadian politcs (ontario proving no intellect whatsover, engineers a liberal win with <35% of the vote, the press carrying water for their liberal buddies by lying and distorting).

Well, what could it be - I suspect it is linked to major figures in the current government, such that the old "it was done by the last batch of brigands, not us" argument of Mr. Dithers will fall flat on its face.

To pull the pin on the grenade of this minority gov't must present such an opportinuty to capture votes of disgusted and SUDDENLY ACTIVE canadians that it has to be done...

AND then what - anybody want to speculate that liberal corruption is far more extensive than you've been lead to believe, and that the sunshine a new government portends will really reveal the liberals for what they are (and were)?

Any body think the paper shredders will be working overtime soon?

Posted by: Iescaped | 2005-04-01 9:34:13 PM


If this portends a minority government crisis and fall, how can they justify maintaining the gag order? (not that it would ever exist in the first place in a functional democracy).

Does anyone think the liberals are plotting an election without allowing the public to be informed of the extent of their misconduct?

Oh wait, they did , last time, after unambiguous promises to the contrary.

Without hyperbole - if the revellations are really so damning, then this would really be Canada's last chance at a functional democracy (to turf the bums out BECAUSE they hide corruption from the public).

And then the truth would finally out...

Posted by: Iescaped | 2005-04-01 9:56:38 PM


:Come quick Watson, we must solve this mystery of the “devastating testimony”

:But how? It’s under publication ban ?

:By asking a few elementary questions -first who gave this testimony?

:Well those charged with criminal offenses

: And do you really think, at this point in the game, they’re going to rat out the entire operation? Why there’s not so much as one plea bargain in place and in fact they seek to delay the trial. I think we can assume it has nothing to do with kickbacks and the like.

: But Holmes ! What if it was SELF SERVING testimony. Suppose they said something like “ we thought those contracts were legit ...it was only after the AG came a’ calling that we realized we were being used as dupes in a highly sophisticated slush fund scam”

: And would you trigger an election over self serving testimony ? Is this “devastating testimony” so damaging that the people will forgive you for calling an election so soon and reward you by kicking the bums out and giving their seats to you.

: Well the BQ seem ready but the rest seem to posture.

: So we can conclude that the “devastating testimony” is not all that harmful to TROC (as kickbacks would be ) but rather something that would really be outrageous to Quebec only. The BQ, having no stake in TROC, don’t have to worry about being blamed for a meaningless election as long as they can destroy the Liberal brand in Quebec and take their seats for years to come.

: By George I think I’ve got it - someone took a meeting in which some high ranking Liberal(s) said some nasty things about Quebec

: Who really knows Watson ? Until we see the official transcript who really knows. One thing is certain - this is truly a scandal for Paul Martin in the ancient sense of the word.

: How so?

: In Greece, back in the day, scandal would translate to “trap”. PM can not stage manage his own gov’t collapse while this odor lingers ( maybe as long as a year before the ban is lifted). He can not sit around doing nothing until the ban is gone or he might as well legally change his name to Dithers. If he wants to get anything meaningful done he’s going to have to cooperate much more with the opposition.

: Brilliant Holmes !!

--apology to Sir ACD

Seriously though, to paraphrase a well known Prof., the “ political use of [ this particular] judicial resource” is both disturbing and very costly.

Posted by: nBob | 2005-04-02 2:15:29 AM


Yes, this from Instapundit:

WILL THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FALL? There's a scandal, kept quiet by a publication ban. But some people, Kate McMillan reports, are publishing anyway.

More here:

The possible collapse of the Liberal minority government is once again a hot topic on Parliament Hill, fuelled by reports of explosive new testimony at the sponsorship inquiry.

Although exact details of the testimony cannot be revealed due to a publication ban, there are reports its disclosure would prove so devastating that Paul Martin's Liberal minority could fall if it became public.

Watching developments in Ottawa Friday night, CTV's Mike Duffy says the capital is buzzing with speculation the opposition will confront the Liberals with some of that testimony next week.

"It's probably going to be raised here on Monday by the opposition," Duffy told CTV News.

"Because MPs have privilege on the floor of the House of Commons it is conceivable that the Bloc Quebecois could get up and run some information from behind the closed doors" at the Gomery inquiry, he said.

A publication ban. How . . . Canadian.
posted at 11:31 PM by Glenn Reynolds Permalink

Posted by: Jabba the Tutt | 2005-04-02 5:02:01 AM


Joe Watch: He is over at AC Coyne spreading the Stalinist propaganda.

Down with the Liberals, PM Dithers, & in with the Conservatives.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-04-02 7:29:30 AM


The only thing going down in the Gomery Inquiry is the entire Liberal Regime. Thank God.

Maz2: what things would you like Harper to do when he gets into power?

My list:
1) end Kyoto.
2) end gun registry
3) end anti-American philosophy - force previous regime to apologize to President Bush and the American people for it.
4) end the CBC, NFB and ALL cultural funding
5) end relations with Cuba and North Korea.
6) create AND implement realisitc military plan
7) No same-sex marriage without referendum.
8) Award NYC Mayor Giuliani with Order of Canada (the British and others have done the same).
9) end Canadian cultural content laws, and especially ban on US satellite dishes and radio services. This will eliminate the fiction of Canadian culture once and for all.
10) bring in an independent auditor to see if Canada really has been running surpluses. I don't trust those rich people.

Anything else?

Posted by: Scott | 2005-04-02 9:14:41 AM


Scott, don't forget we need to pull our ambassador out of Iran and sanction them. Someone needs to stand up for the Kazemi woman.

Posted by: ld | 2005-04-02 9:23:14 AM


ld: why not Syria while we're at it?

Posted by: Scott | 2005-04-02 9:26:08 AM


Somebody, somewhere must have posted the details of what was heard at the inquiry yesterday. It's got to be out there. Someone with access to a server in Zimbabwe or some place like that could not have much to fear by posting it, I'm sure. Send out the internet minions with arm-loads of keywords to scour the darkest corners of the internet. Perhaps one of the jihadist websites would be kind enough to post the details. What would they care? They're already being hunted down by the CIA and FBI. What's a few mounties on their ass for violating a publication ban? They'd probably enjoy outing a supposedly principled democratic Western government as a bunch of lying, corrupt, decadent infidels, don't you think?

Posted by: Homer Bombeck | 2005-04-02 9:28:09 AM


I'll take that question Scott,on behalf of the CPC:
1. Implement that coyote thing - daddy's industries are safe

2. Plow more $$$$

3. Draft C. Parrish - we need the big tent

4. Plow more $$$$$

5. Plow more $$$$$$$

6. Consult M.Srong on military

7. Same sex - big tent

8. Award Order of Canada to Fidel and Kim

9. Uhhh - ask Daddy

10. Have Daddy hire S. Fraser as CFO Magna something or other.

11. Get hair done, meet Pete for lunch

Sincerely yours: Belinda S.

Posted by: mr | 2005-04-02 9:41:16 AM


How about repealing the "Clarity Act" and replacing it with a Secession Act, where provinces can secede at any time, without anyone's permission but that of their people. If 50% + 1 vote in favor of independence, then they can leave in peace.

That would put pressure on Ontario and the Feds to keep their greedy hands off the resources of others.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-04-02 10:22:45 AM


So the "bombshell" might be raised in Parliament, and Canda will see the uglyness of its government, right (if it was not long ago already apparent)?

BUT you'll never know it unless your in the spectator's gallery, because the press will not be able to report it because of this ridiculous and thoroughly undemocratic gag order (AND it is not necessary to protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial, that's just pretext - you'd have to take a pretty dim view of the public, assuming its tried to a jury, or the judiciary to accept that - ie dimmer than you ought to view the liberals) .

And so the government might fall if the BQ withdraws support and the tories don't prop them up(all indications are that the matter is so explosive its quite possible).

Then What? the dance of the 7 veils gomery inquiry continues, and we have an election with a gag order preventing the liberal lacky press from even putting their most pro-liberal gloss on the news, you'll get to cast your vote as informed about the corruption of the govt and libs as you were last time (ie not at all, although the odor is powerful).

Or we might see, in the spirit of Jean, termination of the inquiry as long as the gag order can be maintained.

So - speculation time - what's so explosive? DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU LIVE IN FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY? Can you call yourself informed with a straight face?

Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-04-02 10:31:46 AM


I'm sure many of the talk radio stations will have question period live on Monday. You can pretty much count on QR77 out of Calgary having it, so you can listen on the computer and not rely on the MSM to update you.

Posted by: ld | 2005-04-02 11:00:34 AM


So yer say’n it’s okay to trample on someone's fundamental right to a fair trial if it’s politically expedient/advantages to do so ?

Here’s the spin : Self Serving Testimony v. Trample Fundamental Rights - Which do you think will be more scary to the voter?

Are you sure you wanna do this just now ?

Posted by: nBob | 2005-04-02 11:05:38 AM


I've always wondered why the BQ didn't run a few candidates in Alberta and Newfoundland.... on their promise to separate.

Posted by: Kate | 2005-04-02 11:13:55 AM


"what things would you like Harper to do when he gets into power?"

Shut down all programs that aren't federal jurisdiction.

Determine what role the Canadian military should play and fund it properly.

End all business subsidies.

Foreign aid only goes to countries that have freedom of expression and religion, equality for men & women and rule of law.

Work with other democracies to start an alternative to the UN and then leave the UN to the thugocracies.

Find and deport all those ordered deported.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-04-02 11:39:36 AM


"Shut down all programs that aren't federal jurisdiction."

Good idea.

"Determine what role the Canadian military should play and fund it properly."

Excellent.

"End all business subsidies."

Had not thought of that - excellent.

"Foreign aid only goes to countries that have freedom of expression and religion, equality for men & women and rule of law."

That would effectively eliminate the need for a foreign aid budget. Brilliant!!!

"Work with other democracies to start an alternative to the UN and then leave the UN to the thugocracies."

Nah, the UN is basically harmless thanks to President Bush. Besides, it doesn't cost much.

"Find and deport all those ordered deported."

Since that would affect the Grotesque Toronto Area most, it's a good idea.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-04-02 12:13:49 PM


"Bob'n and weaving" - what sillyness. The entire point was that public disclosure of testimony is not likely to render impossible a fair trial, you should 1 ) have greater faith in your fellow canuck's impartiality and 2) the justice system's ability to limit, discern and exclude biased jurors (challenges for cause, peremptory challenges, changes of venue, etc).

In highly political matters such as this, the real purpose of the ban on publication is to protect those other than the accused (the political elite whose corruption is now in issue, if the precise details remain concealed). These accused, as contemptible as you might find them if you viewed them as craven power hungry members of the liberal elite, are best served but greater public scrutiny on their trials. Why? Since those they threaten wield control over their prosecution (directly and indirectly) and if their former confederates (friends) are now intersted in seeing them discredited and silenced, the most effective means they bear is through the criminal and civil justice systems. THUS the need for greater scrutiny to see if they are being scapegoated and the true / higher order bandits escape.

It seems the liberal elite has already cut the accuseds loose - its now a game to try and pin it all on them, while binding themselves to "reform" to prevent such re-occurences (the corruption facially, but in reality they are more interested in protecting against exposure of the corruption)that are never really delivered (ie look at the veneer of whistle-blower protections your political gods just enacted - it is so fundamentally flawed as to be useless where it counts and that's no mistake).

You will not know the truth about the depth of any Lib's ineptitude, vice and corruption until a new government takes over. Gomery is an exercise in damage control by the government.

Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-04-02 12:13:58 PM


SEchappe-
I could go on about not being able to take the 5th and still protecting the fundamental rights of silence and non self incrimination and blah blah rights blah blah rights ....
And you’ll come back with blah blah right is protected blah blah right is .... And I’ll come back with blah blah

And if an election is forced PM will likely say - it’s self serving and shouldn’t be believed , and even if true we got rid o’ those bad apples and which would you rather risk a few bad apples or a gov’t that thinks nothing of your rights blah blah blah ... and Harper will come back with the people have a right to know blah blah blah and what was actually said at the inquiry will soon be forgot.

>Gomery is an exercise in damage control by the government.

You got that right. All I’m say’n ( see below) is that PM seems to be in a bit of a trap. Since he’s the one who’s spent 60+ mill of our money to wind up there why not sit back and enjoy the irony that “the biggest show in town” has to offer rather than risk being no further ahead than you are now ?

Posted by: nBob | 2005-04-02 1:33:23 PM


Guys can we save the victory laps until after an election.

Believe me nobody would be happier than me if we got rid of the Lieberals BUT thats not gonna happen unless the news is distributed to the canadian populace unfiltered by Lieberal affilliated journalists. So how can that be done with a publication ban in place?

Its pretty obvious we cannot rely on a canadian journo to reveal anything, and frankly I would be suspect of any report due to their bias. So can an American journo or American-based journo (David Frum, Mark Steyn are you listening) report if they or an assistant attended the hearing? Are there any ex-pat canadian bloggers that would have access to the hearings willing to blog -I would have thought that this is one story where you could "make your name" like Drudge did with the BJ Clinton-Lewinsky story.

In the abscence of any of the above I will attempt to listen to QR77, though I have grave doubts that our elite would allow freedom of the press to get in the way of some world-class butt covering.

Only in canada eh?

Posted by: Cascadian | 2005-04-02 2:08:37 PM


nBob - even if you subtract the Blah Blah Blah material from your comments, they really betray no clue about the limits on this inquiry.

For instance, Gomery cannot make findings of criminal wrongdoing. Witness can refuse to answer citing a right against self incrimnation (you have a version of the 5th - its the absence of the rest of the Amendments in express form, not notionally, that really hurts). That's real. But use of earlier statements not for their truth but to impeach, that's also real.That's why witness' counsel would be expected to be all over questions that could generate an answer that might haunt him. AND SO, if he made statements, I don't think it should be so casually dismissed as you seem to do. That's why they tell yo to shut up - you never know what will be used agianst you, not necessarily for its truth, but to impeach...

ALso, the evidence might have been documentary - how is anyone to know with this ridiculous gag order?

But your earlier statement that seemed to indicate the testimony ought to per se be viewed with suspicion / as unreliable given its origin in the inquiry (see "What if it was SELF SERVING testimony. Suppose they said something like “ we thought those contracts were legit ...it was only after the AG came a’ calling that we realized we were being used as dupes in a highly sophisticated slush fund scam”)The AG certainly did not "come a calling" to these private firms. But the statement you construct is pretty self incriminatory, the antithesis of self serving.

Well, dream on I say, just ignore the likelihood of checks for nothing recipients as unknowing. But even then, so what? You can judge credibility upon whther someone's interested in the matter etc, is a serial liar, whether the statement has the ring of truth or air of reality...ad infinitem

But it sounds like the explosive testimony is possibly self-incriminatory in respect of the witness - imagine it went like this "I kicked back funds received to the liberal party by the following actions {list of conduct]" - that's self incriminatory, but I would think it would be credible precisely because its self incriminatory (people should not be expected to lie when what they say can be used against them, if they utter it knowing that, its probably the truth). So don't be so dismissive if on the oddest chance, that proves to be the testimony.

BUT maybe it was something like this, just speculation of course, but imagine it went something like this "[place name of current or former liberal big in here] is a secret equity partner in my advertising firm"). That would not be self incriminatory unless he's facing charges of conspiracy or the like, right? And as far as i know, they aren't charged with conspiracy, possibly for the simple fact that its expected you indict the co-conspirators who aren't squeeling (the BIGS). BUt it ought to be credible because it is neutral, it neither helps nor hinders the witness and he presumably was in a postion to view it...

So your rush to dismiss whatever was said betrays nothing more than you don't like the ugly truth about the nature of your government that's being revealed, likely because you voted for them. Fine - enjoy your S&M. A strong pluraliy of canadians don't but can't change it given the flaws of the cdn federation.

And while I think Gomery is an exercise in damage control, its the best there is right now to reveal some of the rot at the core of gov't. I'll take it, at least until we can install a new government to really open up the vaults to scrutiny. The fact that we don't have check and balances on gov't execuctive authority and a compromised pliant judiciary is the source of this imperfect response. So be it. We can change that in the future, by secession (if the tyranny continues) or internal reformation (if the libs fall from power).

The important thing is that the testimony be revealed so that cdns can judge whether their gov't is thouroghly a criminal enterprise or just occasionally so or not at all... So at 60Mil its a bargain. Its this GAG order which contributes to the thwarting your democracy.

Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-04-02 2:44:22 PM


SEchappe-
A witness has no right in Canada to refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self incrimination but anything they say can’t be raised in any other proceeding against them (save for perjury). Sometimes publication bans are required to make sure that concept is not compromised. If there is something uniquely in the terms of reference for Gomery providing a right of refusal he wouldn’t have needed to issue a publication ban.

Posted by: nBob | 2005-04-02 3:20:49 PM


To offer speculation (wink wink), a little matter of the New York and Montreal mafias, drug smuggling and its connection with the Liberal Party of Canada may be making an appearance on your local nightly news in the coming weeks, and even earlier if the Bloc or Conservatives raise this issue in Parliament on Monday. At least that's what I'm hearing. Up yours Gomery with your publication ban.

Posted by: Bobo | 2005-04-02 3:26:34 PM


Google: Gomery+Detroit

Returns a report from 30 March from the Biker News which gives a teaser "Hells" in the subject line. Not much more.

So we can speculate that the Hells Angels may be in some way involved.

I can visualize Hedy Fry and Bill Graham in leather but not biker leather. SCARY!!!! as the Lib media would say.

Posted by: Cascadian | 2005-04-02 3:47:11 PM


Well, I'm going to plunge right into election speculation. Robert Fife did it, so I thought I'd finish it off for him. LOL.

The NDP. They usually only do well when the Liberals don't. If the testimony is as significant as billed, this is their chance. If they don't make the kind of gains they want under these circumstances, they probably never will.

Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2005-04-02 5:19:22 PM


Freerepublic.com:


Go to Captains Quarters blog for stuff re $$$ & ...

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-04-02 6:15:00 PM


OTB claims to be mulling it over:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9893

Posted by: Chris Selley | 2005-04-02 6:22:13 PM


Actually, there is a misconception about the publication ban.

First, understand this: There is no "fifth amendment" in the Canadian constitution (written or unwritten).

The only time that Jones has the right to remain silent in court is if Jones is the accused. And if Jones decides voluntarily to testify, he has to answer *all* the questions put to him by the Crown prosecutor or even the judge.

This is the practical difference: If Jones is on trial, Smith has to answer the questions, even if they amount to a confession. The deal is that, because Smith's answers are compelled by law, they are not voluntary. Therefore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (not to mention basic fair play or common sense) provides that they cannot be used against Smith when *he* is on trial.

What this means for the Gomery inquiry is that Brault, Guite, et al., must answer all the questions (including the ones that tend to incriminate them) or face contempt proceedings.

But if the whole country hears, for example, Brault, confessing to the very crimes that he is about to be tried for, how can he get a fair trial?

Imagine the process of jury selection. "Oh, yes, like everyone else in Quebec, I've been following the inquiry, and yesterday I heard the accused confess under oath to the crime he's charged with today. But that's okay. I'll just expunge it from my mind." It doesn't pass the straight face test.

It should also be noted that the balance between "freedom of the press" and "right to a fair trial" is struck much differently in Canada (and most other places) than it is in the US.

That doesn't mean that either approach is right or wrong.

I know that the irritation of not knowning what Brault said last week is miniscule compared to the fear that some day *I* might be the one needing a fair trial.

Posted by: Jim | 2005-04-06 10:04:06 AM


I wonder if the Liberals will hire some cronies in Quebec to cover up the cover up. Then again, maybe their vast support by the elite inteligensia of Ontario will bring them back again to come up with even better and bigger scams for our tax payers. Being from the East Coast, I have to say that we also were stupid enough to fall for the Liberal propaganda. Oh yes, don't vote for Mr. Harper, he just might have a grain of honesty somewhere beneath his press generated negative image.

Posted by: Sandy Brace | 2005-04-07 11:20:53 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.