Liberals threaten to sue Tories over 'crime' smear (Canada)

The Liberals threatened to sue the Conservatives yesterday after Tory leader Stephen Harper accused the Liberal party of "breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime."

Mr. Harper made the accusation during debate on the Conservative motion to topple the Liberals by a vote that is to take place Monday evening.

Within hours, Prime Minister Paul Martin's director of communications, Scott Reid, fired off an e-mail to reporters to fight back.

"We are collecting all transcripts of what was said by Mr. (Peter) MacKay, Mr. (John) Reynolds and the rest of the Harper truth squad. If they have repeated outside of the chamber Mr. Harper's false smears, we will take every action necessary to force them to retract and tell the truth," said Mr. Reid.

Mr. Reid noted Justice John Gomery's report on the $250-million sponsorship scandal exonerated the prime minister and his cabinet in his findings.

With just three days left until the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Quebecois officially pull the plug on the minority Liberal government to send Canadians to the polls likely on Jan. 16 or 23, tempers are hot and mudslinging is the order of the day. It signals the beginning of what is expected to be a long -- possibly 56 days -- and ugly campaign.

Although MPs have protection from legal action for anything they say inside the House of Commons, they are potentially vulnerable if they repeat something libellous outside the chamber.

Conservative campaign boss John Reynolds and Tory MP Monte Solberg, speaking outside the chamber, defended Mr. Harper's harsh-hitting assessment of Liberal involvement in the sponsorship scandal.

"He did not clear the Liberal party of being involved in organized crime," said Mr. Reynolds, referring to Judge Gomery's report.

When specifically asked if Mr. Harper was suggesting the Liberal party is involved in organized crime, Mr. Reynolds responded:

Mr. Solberg said Mr. Harper was referring to the Gomery report "and those aspects that dealt with laundering money."

"It was clear in the Gomery report that there was suggestions that some of this money was laundered through organizations who are regarded as organized crime."

Although Judge Gomery's report spoke about a kickback scheme using taxpayers' money that was funnelled to the Liberal party, it exonerated Mr. Martin. The Liberals say there was no mention of organized crime in the 686-page report.

In another dust-up, Mr. Reynolds called Immigration Minister Joe Volpe a "sleaze bag" outside the Commons after Mr. Volpe attempted to embarrass Conservative MPs in question period when he rhymed off some of their hefty travel expenses in the House.

"I think the Liberals will all be very nasty (in the upcoming campaign)," said Mr. Reynolds. "You saw what they were doing in the House today. Mr. Volpe is a sleaze bag and ... put that across very well in the House of Commons today. I would imagine that's the kind of campaign he will want to run in Ontario. We'll fight back very hard."

Mr. Volpe wasted no time firing back at Mr. Reynolds, pointing to his $138,000 travel tab as proof he is a high flyer who enjoys the fine life on the taxpayers' dime.

"The mudslinger just finally got some of it on his own and didn't like it. He spent $138,000 last year travelling. What does he do -- travel by luxury jet everywhere, drink champagne, slug down a little bit of caviar?"

According to the official public accounts record of MP expenses, Mr. Reynolds spent $180,514 on travel last year and Mr. Volpe spent $56,235.

The Tories immediately issued a press release noting that on top of Mr. Volpe's travel tab, he charged another $49,015 to his department for ministerial travel, including an expensive dinner of pizza and wine.

"Oh -- methinks they protest too much -- poor dear little delicate little children," quipped Mr. Volpe.

Meanwhile, the Liberals yesterday announced initiatives totalling $2.7 billion. That's on top of the approximately $16 billion announced in recent days and does not include the cash to be doled out today to fight native poverty.

Privately, some Liberal MPs have told CanWest News they are "embarrassed" by the slew of last-minute frantic spending initiatives and fear this could undermine Mr. Martin's reputation as a sound fiscal conservative. Mr. Martin has already said he intends to run on his economic record -- how he turned a $42-billion deficit into a surplus for eight years running -- the best record of the G7 countries.

Liberal MP John McKay, parliamentary secretary to Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, rejects any suggestion that his government is spending irresponsibly and says all the spending initiatives except two -- money to fight native poverty and cash for farmers -- were accounted for in last year's budget and the recent fall mini-budget.

"I know people are trying to spin that story that we are spending like drunken sailors, but all this is accounted for," said Mr. McKay.

Note: whatever one may think of him otherwise, Deputy CPC Leader Peter McKay is a former Crown Prosecutor.

Are the federal Liberals a 'gang'?
If the shoe fits ...

Written by Link Byfield
Monday, 11 April 2005

Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, charged last Tuesday that a "parallel" group operated at the highest levels inside the Liberal party during the years of the sponsorship scandal (1997 to 2001).

On Thursday, Conservative Peter McKay called it a "criminal conspiracy."

Paul Martin replied to Duceppe, "If there is an isolated group who did wrong, it will be punished. No one in this country is above the law."

It would be nice to think so.

We should divide the cast of characters in the sponsorship drama into "Higher-ups" (ministers, ex-ministers and mandarins) and "Lower-downs" (mid-level bureaucrats and ad agency executives).

It is now beyond dispute that Liberal government Higher-ups "broke every rule in the book" (to quote our auditor general).

For example, they suspended the standard anti-fraud policy which requires that payments for services not be approved by the same person who ordered the services.

The program operated for four years before the government reported its existence to Parliament, and then only after the scandal broke.

Almost no records were kept of sponsorship spending details. Large fees and commissions totalling $100 million were paid for services of little or no value. Detailed contract awards were made by ministers and political staff. The normal civil service line-of-command was routinely by-passed. No written goals for the sponsorship program were ever written, and no value-for-money audits ever performed.

(For a well-documented survey of the Chretien government's many, many scandals, read the book by Paul Tuns, "Jean Chretien, Legacy of Scandal," available from www.freedompress.ca.)

However, even though various Higher-ups did all of the above, none of it is necessarily criminal. Breaking government guidelines does not amount to breaking the Criminal Code.

Three of the "Lower-downs"--one bureaucrat and two ad execs--were criminally charged last year with multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy.

It is very difficult to prove criminal fraud. Nonetheless, the police think they can convict three of the Lower-downs. The first trial, that of ad agency executive Jean Brault, is set to begin in June.

You need so many details to prove a fraud charge, however, I doubt the police could ever get the Higher-ups with anything like that.

Fortunately, they don't need to.

Section 467 of the Criminal Code says that any three or more people who cooperate to break the law constitute a "criminal organization." It's called the "gang law."

They don't need a group name. They don't even need to know each other. They just need to be working a system together which has as one of its objects commission of crime.

Anyone who knowingly allows or helps a "criminal organization" to commit a crime commits a crime himself, punishable by five years' prison (section 467.11[1]).

The Code states that the Crown need not prove that the accused knew of the specific nature of the crime or who did it.

If any Lower-downs are convicted of fraud, then charging some of the Higher-ups under this new section of the Criminal Code should be like shooting fish in a barrel. All that matters is that they knew what was going on, and (by act or omission) allowed it to proceed.

Keep section 467 in mind as more sordid testimony spills out at the Gomery inquiry.

Attorney-general Irwin Cotler may soon face a hard choice between loyalty to his friends and loyalty to his oath of office.

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.