Posted on 04/01/2005 10:51:55 PM PST by Pikamax
Election chatter grows amid talk of devastating Gomery testimony
Alexander Panetta Canadian Press
April 1, 2005
Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien arrives back at his office following lunch in Ottawa Friday. New testimony at the Gomery inquiry, that cannot be revealed because of a publication ban, is considered so devastating that it has political parties discussing the possible collapse of the Liberal minority government and an election call. Chretien was Prime Minister during the time of the sponsorship scandal. (CP PHOTO/Tom Hanson)
OTTAWA (CP) - Explosive new testimony before the sponsorship inquiry had political parties banging their election drums Friday and discussing the possible collapse of the minority Liberal government.
The new testimony at the Gomery inquiry cannot be revealed because of a publication ban but is considered so devastating to the Liberal government that it has all parties looking at election scenarios.
As opposition parties eyed a possible election call with mounting enthusiasm, one Liberal MP with a safe seat said he was asked Friday to contact neighbouring ridings where the party needs help organizing local campaigns.
But officials in the Prime Minister's Office said no such instructions had gone out and insisted any election call would be the fault of the opposition.
All parties avoided speculating aloud about the likelihood of a spring campaign, and their silence was about more than just fear of violating the publication ban.
Nobody wants to appear eager for an election campaign now because once the writ is dropped, the government and opposition parties plan to blame each other for dissolving the minority Parliament.
The blame game began quietly Friday as the various actors accused each other of hankering to pull the plug.
"Our election readiness went up 20 per cent today," said one Liberal MP, who asked not to be named.
The accepted wisdom that the opposition Tories and NDP don't want an election since they're still less popular than the Liberals has been turned on its head by the steady stream of revelations before the inquiry headed by Justice John Gomery.
The Bloc Quebecois has sounded most willing to fight an election, and could easily topple the government if supported by the other parties in a confidence vote this month.
But the Liberal MP predicted the minority government would survive the spring because, he said, the parties will likely strike a deal on a critical budget vote.
Conservatives warned privately, however, that even if the budget bill passes this month, another legislative tool like a non-confidence motion could be used to trigger an election.
Nobody would say that publicly.
The Tory justice critic, well aware that the punishment for violating a publication ban includes possible jail time, had little to offer.
"All I can say is that given what was said yesterday (Thursday before Gomery) the political landscape may be changing quite rapidly," MP Vic Toews said.
That changing landscape was evident as Prime Minister Paul Martin and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper both spent the day in British Columbia, which will be a key battleground in any future election campaign.
Both men refused to be drawn into speculation when asked whether Thursday's testimony would be grounds for an election.
Before making any decision, Harper and his officials must first find out when the publication ban will be lifted on testimony delivered Thursday by Montreal ad executive Jean Brault.
The ban could theoretically be lifted at any time but depends largely on developments in Brault's own criminal-fraud trial.
Lawyers for the former Groupaction boss appeared in a Montreal courtroom asking that his trial be delayed until September. A decision is expected next Wednesday.
The NDP accused the Liberals of planning to orchestrate their own defeat in Parliament so they can rush into a campaign now, before additional revelations come before the sponsorship inquiry.
By loading the budget bill with a Kyoto accord measure sure to be opposed by the Tories, Martin is trying to force his own defeat, said an NDP strategist.
"The government is precipitating its own demise," said one NDP strategist.
"If Paul Martin had not played games with Kyoto, there would not be a problem.
"This is not the opposition parties ganging up on Paul Martin. This is Paul Martin playing funny games."
Martin and his closest aides held meetings and conference calls Friday to discuss the budget bill and sponsorship fallout, sources said.
They would not comment on speculation they might strip down the budget bill to remove the Kyoto component, which involved broadening the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
But they were preparing to blame Harper for any writ drop in the near future.
"The Canadian people do not want an election," said Martin spokesman Scott Reid.
"The government does not want an election. The only leader who has spoken about the possibility of an election is Stephen Harper."
The Liberals were also preparing to insulate their leader against attacks that will inevitably flow from the sponsorship testimony.
Any sins committed happened under Jean Chretien's administration and cannot be linked to Martin, said one strategist close to the prime minister.
"You will not see anybody identified with the Paul Martin team involved in any of the accusations put forward," he said.
"Because that's not how the Paul Martin team works."
In another rehearsal of a possible Liberal election theme, the strategist said Conservatives could end up killing the Gomery inquiry if they topple the government.
The inquiry and its daily attacks on the Liberal reputation should be suspended during an election campaign, he suggested.
But one inquiry official diputed the notion that the inquiry would automatically shut down because of a writ drop.
"Only a government decree would put an end to the commission," said Gomery spokesman Francois Perreault.
"Until that time the commission will continue - whether or not there's an election."
"Our best is none too good."
Thanks for the ping!
Correct. I have identified about 60-65 seats that are 'safe' for the Liberals. There are about 10-13 in Atlantic Canada, 13-16 in Quebec, 27-32 in Ontario, 2 in Manitoba and 4-5 in British Columbia, plus 1 of the 3 Arctic seats.
Their strongest regions are the West Island of Montreal and the City of Toronto except near downtown (LIB-NDP).
Realistically, barring the annhialation of the Fiberals, I can see the Conservatives getting 12-14 seats in Atlantic Canada, 55-63 in Ontario, 10-11 in Manitoba, sweeps of Saskatchewan and Alberta (42 total) and 24-27 in British Columbia, plus 1 in the Arctic (Yukon). That leaves them with about 145-158 seats, just on the majority line, with NO seats in Quebec.
That assumes about 20-24 seats land with the NDP and about 58-62 seats land with the Bloc Quebecois.
The best coalition in that case: maverick Liberals-in-name-only.
A break fro Captain Ed Morrisey:
Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open (Captain Ed prints Gomery Commission Leak)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1376471/posts
I concur...Dithers and the sewage caked Ditherals are going down this time....only a criminal or a masochist could support them.
My greatest fear is a minority Conservative government...it will be savaged unmercifully by the Kanukistan red media .
Although we Albertans are on friendly terms with America and in many ways we are ideological soul mates....we would prefer to become a Canadian free state. I worked on 2 Alberta separatist campaigns and the committed separatists are about 10% with 20% soft separatists. Another federal liberal raid like the NEP will propell the separation party into high gear...remember that dip shit Martin has Moe Strong ( UN) in his office and is determined to shove Kyoto down the oil producer's throats...there's war smoke on the horizon between the Ditherals and Alberta.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Amazing! The testimony implicates Cretin in the chicanery that took place. How does this judge expect such evidence to remain under seal?
Wow. I wasn't even aware of this scandal until I started reading this thread.
The liberals and lying leftist press in Canada seem to have a turnkey operation underway -- one arm doles out the campaign cash, while the other arm does its best to keep the lid on it all.
Anyway, I hope the conservatives can turn it all to their advantage. :)
IMHO if we really wanted to look at a system that was biased in the favor of personal accountability, we should take a page from the Founding Fathers and restrict voting rights.
if that pass, there will be a civil war between the Indians and Quebec government.
Anyone know what the big hoopla that was in the Gomery Inquiry that cannot be published? As a concerned Canadian I'd like to know.
A Former Liberal Supporter but now a full fleged dyed in the blue Conservative
As I understand it, the government didn't make a publication ban. They can't. I believe three of the witnesses who have been called to testify are facing criminal charges, and they've asked the judge to impose a publication ban until after their trials are over because they're afraid it'll prejudice their cases. The judge has agreed to institute a publication ban temporarily (while he thinks about it), but he's supposed to be likely to lift the ban this week.
a conservative government in canada? starring Stephen Harper as the android leader? Stockwell Day as foreign affaris cruitic? that's quite funny....and it'll never happen...funny how Bush loving, Fox watching hayseeds and wing nuts can clamour and shout about winning anelection when all the facts are not out...the only conservative votes that'll be forthcoming in any fed electionwill be a few from BC,all of the Alberta vote and a few from Ontario...the Conservatives in Canada are at best, laughable, even if the Liberals did go overboard with sperading cash around PQ in a fit of soverign desperation, they still have the experience and the will to stop the scary fundamentalist hayseeds...
you ought to re-phrase the "we Albertan's" when you talk of being friendly with the US...the only reason some Albertans are friendly with the US is that there are economic (oil) ties that, at this pointm, cannot be severed...the US is falling fast, economically and socially...kinda like the Roman Empire did and all other great civilizations...the US had their hey day, the 20th century, and like it or not, the reality of the 21st century is that China/Asia will be the place on earth that decides who eats first: China is now the big dog, not Bush and his right wing whack jobs....Alberta seperate? and do what? join the US where mounting federal debt is setting to boondoggle even Greenspan and bring the US to its knees in very short order? You're a funny guy. I think though, that it would be better if Alberta stays in Canada and stops selling our tar sand oil to China, who is busy buying up large amounts of the Canadian oil business....the Chinese are not stupid and they are not blinded or bound by cowboy tradtions..things change.
These at least are intelligent questions.
The principle of due process applies, but the mechanisms are different than those provided by the U.S. constitution. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Jean Brault's testimony cannot be used by the prosecution in Brault's upcoming criminal trial; on the other hand, he cannot refuse to answer questions put to him by the commission. An outright refusal to answer any questions would be considered contempt of the proceeding and could result in Brault being fined or jailed.
If this commission were taking place in the U.S. under U.S. law, Brault's testimony would have been over very quickly. After getting past name, rank and serial number, he probably would have one stock answer for every question: "On the advice of counsel, I am exercising my rights under the Fifth Amendment", or words to that effect. Even though Brault has been a co-operative, even enthusiastic witness, it would have been extremely foolish for him to admit his role in the whole affair if his testimony could be used to convict him.
As for the question of why a publication ban rather than having an in camera session, the intent was not secrecy per se (it's a public inquiry), but to preserve Brault's right to a fair trial by avoiding prejudicial reporting. The publication ban always came with an expiry date: the day Brault and Guite are convicted or acquitted.
Ever hear of Andersonville? (a.k.a. the fifth largest city in the Confederacy)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.