A gutsy move
A gutsy move on the part of the Conservatives:
The Conservative government is mounting a legal challenge against the Liberal Party of Canada to reclaim some of the money funnelled to the party through the federal sponsorship program, according to a Montreal newspaper.
La Presse reported Thursday that the Tories are preparing to take the Liberals to court to recoup "all the dirty money," according to an unnamed source quoted in the story.
Gutsy because it is a decision that represents some risk for the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Party has already paid back $1.14 million to the treasury, saying this represents the sum total of money illegally diverted back to the Liberal Party by the various players in the Sponsorship Scandal.
I don't recall that any explanation has ever been put forward as to how the number was determined:
"We have not forgotten the $40 million in the sponsorship scandal that's missing,'' an unnamed Tory strategist told La Presse.
As always, there is a political calculation at work here.
If this was purely about the money, the government lawyers and the Liberal Party lawyers would meet and try to hash out a deal. Obviously, if it costs $5 million to mount a lawsuit and you net $3 million, it was a Pyrrhic victory. So numbers would be tossed back and forth, a sum agreed to, a cheque would be cut, and everyone would walk away.
The Liberals would demand, and get, a clause in the settlement that requires both sides to keep all details of the agreement absolutely confidential.
But is this just about the money?
There are two other motivations -- a high road and a low road.
Let's take the low road first. The government is after the money, but the Conservatives are after blood. The Liberals continue to slip in the polls. All the best potential leadership candidates have refused to run, leaving the field populated with newcomers and junior members. The other opposition parties continue to spend more time going after their fellow opposition Liberals rather than the government. A very public lawsuit, essentially a replay, in part, of the Gomery Inquiry, will add to the momentum. Momentum towards what? The death of the Liberal Party altogether?
It could happen.
In that case, a quiet settlement is the last thing the Conservatives want, even if it is in the government's interest.
The danger, of course, is that the Liberals could play it smart and make a legitimate and generous offer, with some evidence offered to suggest it is a fair number. If the Conservatives reject it and push for a lawsuit, it could be seen as a party using the powers of government to pursue purely self-serving political goals.
But then, thanks to the Liberals, that's why we're here having this debate in the first place.
Of course, the Liberals may not be all that smart, and in any case, they are broke, so maybe they can't make an offer. And offering any sort of evidence to show that the offer represents the true amount taken is dangerous because of questions that would be raised about why this was not revealed earlier.
Then there is the high road.
Accepting a quiet settlement along with a nondisclosure clause gets the Liberals off the hook. The message is sent that for the right amount of cash, a problem can go away. But cash is not the proper currency here. Political capital must be paid to make things right. One could argue that the Liberals have already paid that political price, but many would disagree. For many, it isn't enough that the Liberals lost the election. The Liberals must be utterly defeated -- many Liberals still think this is Conservative government represents a short pause before the Liberals return to their rightful place. The Liberals still see the Liberal Party as Canada's natural ruling party, and the Conservative Party as some sort of caretaker. A public and painful court case might disavow them of this view, which, ironically, will be a good thing for the Liberals in the long run.
Assuming the Liberal Party survives, that is.
A public case will also satisfy the public need to see justice done. A secret deal might make the most sense financially, but it's not always about the money. If the Liberals are allowed to scuttle out from underneath a lawsuit, the Conservatives could take a hit for letting it happen.
That's the downside of pushing the ethics thing -- sometimes it dramatically reduces your options, eliminating options that really aren't all that bad.
I did some research on this notion of a government taking a political party to court, by the way, and I can't find any examples that mimic the Canadian situation. That in itself might be a problem (back to that issue of a party using the government to do its dirty work). I did, however, find this example from 2003:
CAPE TOWN: The Institute for Democracy in South Africa is taking the country's five largest political parties to court in about two weeks. The group, also known as IDASA, wants to force them to reveal who gives them their money, even though South African law does not currently require political parties to identify their donors.
The Institute notes that South African political parties get some money from the government, and is arguing that the country's freedom of information law should therefore require the parties to reveal the rest of their funding sources.
The head of IDASA's politics program, Richard Calland said it is completely unreasonable to expect taxpayers to continue paying for parties' activities without knowing where they are getting the rest of their money. "Secret funding gives an opportunity for people who want to contaminate the political process by steering political parties, particularly those in government, in particular directions. We have been arguing for transparency in relation to this for eight years now, and regrettably none of the political parties have come to this particular conclusion that we have, and there has been a lack of action. We now feel that the only way to focus minds is to bring these legal cases against the five biggest political parties," he said.
The lawsuit targets South Africa's five largest political parties, including the ruling African National Congress, or ANC.
As far as I can tell, this lawsuit has not been resolved. Interestingly, the issue was the similar -- where is the money coming from? But even in this case, no one was alleging that any party was raiding the government treasury.
That sort of thing happens in tinpot dictatorships.
And in Canada under the Liberal Party, of course.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
We still quote the LPOC as stating they gave back $1.14M of taxdollars--but no one has seen the cancelled cheque, no one knows how this figure was arrived at--AND--since when does paying the money back absolve anyone from a crime? Is this Justice?
Then we have questions about the long gun registry--where did that money go--was it another slush fund for the LPOC--I doubt if adscam is any more than the tip of the iceberg--there has to be much more investigation into the money trails before we go after the LPOC over adscam--lets get all our ducks in a row first--then pull out the long guns and finish them off for ever!
Posted by: George at May 12, 2006 08:55 AM
Yes , it is a gutsy move.
As for the downside, it could be seen as a party using the powers of government to pursue purely self-serving political goals.
Who cares..?
That's exactly what Chretien did to Mulroney, and we have been living with the results ever since.
Hopefully, if history repeats itself, it will mean at least a dozen years in power for Harper and the conservatives.
The purely self-serving political goal of destroying your opponents political party, painting all as thieves......works for me..!
As it did for Chretien so many years ago..!
What goes around usually comes around.!
Posted by: William at May 12, 2006 09:02 AM
It really makes a person wonder. If this organization can be seen to be an organization for the purposes of collecting monies derived from criminal means, does that make it a criminal organization and a crime to belong to it?
Pat
Posted by: Pat at May 12, 2006 09:13 AM
There's $40 million missing. The arbitrary payment of $1.4 million is an insult. Rather than self-serving, the Conservatives must present the lawsuit as being on behalf of the people of Canada. Which it is. If the Liberals go bankrupt and disappear because of it, that's exactly what they deserve and justice will have been done.
They are criminals so hammer them, hammer them hard, so they can't ever get up again. Should be a priority for the new get tough on crime legislation.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 12, 2006 10:58 AM
Who we really need to go after is the leftist judges and airhead lawyers out to make a name for themselves.
How court costs and cases get over $10+ million dollars is beyond me, most of us will never see that much in a lifetime.
Posted by: tomax7 at May 12, 2006 11:31 AM
If I'm not mistaken the conservatives are preparing to take action. No legal action has been launched yet.
My guess is this info was leaked to get some of those most likely to be distressed by such news to react to it, especially with Guite's trial in process.
Its a bit of a ruse really. While I'm showing you one hand waving around, you don't see what I'm doing with the other hand.
If theres one thing the MSM and the libs should understand now (but obviously they don't) is that they shouldn't underestimate Iceman Harper.
They are about to get coldcocked and they won't even see it coming.
Posted by: gimbol at May 12, 2006 12:02 PM
What SHOULD happen in corruption scams such as the LPOC adscam debacle would be for the culprits to pay back ALL of the illegally scammed dollars plus, say, a 25% surplus fine plus jail time. If they were to plead poverty, take the money out of their investments or pensions or any squirreled-away assets.
As the law exists in Canada, a man going through a messy divorce can lose half of everything he has worked for (house, investments, pension, custody of children, future earnings & legal fees) almost automatically... just because the wife decides the marriage is over. A white-collar thief who pays off crooked politicians and scams millions gets a slap on the wrist and community service, but is allowed to keep most if not all the stolen money.
C'mon CPC, enact some legislation with teeth for white-collar crime, particularly for politicians who use their office to enrich themselves (Chretien & Martin spring immediately to mind.)
Posted by: Alienated at May 12, 2006 12:14 PM
I think it should be automatic. If there is a crime committed there should be an investigation and compensation paid,with interest. It shouldn't be thought of as gutsy or not but rather if there was a crime or not,period. If there is a taboo about reporting and punishing wrongdoing by government officials or any other person in positions of responsibility and trust, public or private,then this legal favouritism must end.
Posted by: steve d. at May 12, 2006 01:17 PM
Gimbol -- you have me all attingly in anticipation.
LPC members
in jails
in Canada
for a very long time.
I sure hope I am not dreaming.
Posted by: morison at May 12, 2006 05:44 PM
I don't care if as you state it costs $5 million to recover $3 million. For me it comes down to one simple question: How much does one have to steal before it becomes wrong?
It is possible that the LPOC was telling the truth (to the best of their knowledge) about the amount of stolen money they received, however there some reasons why I am suspicious as to the veracity of their claim.
1. This number was forwarded by the Federal Liberal Party and accepted by the Federal Liberal Government. I have yet to see any independant confirmation that this is the actual amount stolen.
2. As George posted above there has been no proof forwarded that the Liberals have actually repaid even this amount.
3. Given the LPOC's demonstrated lack of respect for the law in general and the Canadian people in particular, I am loathe to believe that they would tell the truth when the actual amount that must be repaid would surely bankrupt and wipe them off the political map. This is not to mention the embarrassment suffered by individuals that could destroy them politically, personally and financially through further lawsuits and prosecutions.
I say go for it! I want to see a full accounting of the money stolen from the Canadian people, full restitution, and prosecutions of all responsible.
Gerry
Posted by: gerry at May 12, 2006 07:54 PM
For those who want to draw comparisons between the Conservatives ordering investigations and/or suing the Liberal Party now and the Liberals ordering investigations into the actions of PM Mulroney when Chretien became prime minister, keep in mind there are several key differences.
Chretien's campaign of smear was against Mulroney personally. Unfortunately, Mulroney's ego made him an easy target and Mulroney's failures at Meech Lake and Charlottetown acerbated the effect.
AdScam is a completely different scale, involving dozens of Liberal insiders and Liberal-friendly firms... and it's only part of a larger problem called the Sponsorship Program which is part of an even larger problem called the culture of entitlement.
Mulroney was accused of having personally benefited. Mulroney denied this and proved his innocence in court. The Liberals were never able to substantiate any wrongdoing whatsoever... and don't think they didn't try. When the Mulroney matter was brought before the courts by Mulroney, the government was forced to admit there was no evidence of wrongdoing and Mulroney was given financial reparations.
The Liberals benefited from the Sponsorship Program at many levels although mainly in Quebec. The Liberals have admitted as much but have not yet accounted for how much or to whom those benefits were accrued. As the various players involved in AdScam go to court, more and deeper corruption is being exposed. These case are only the criminal aspect.
To put it bluntly, the Liberals lied about Mulroney and tried to use the powers of government to prove their lies and they failed.
AdScam, however, is real and substantial. Martin ordered the restrictive Gomery Commission for damage control purposes and, to date, Canadian still don't have a full accounting of the graft and corruption. To put it bluntly, the Liberals tried to use the powers of government to obscure their wrongdoings. Let's hope they failed.
I hope PM Harper and the Conservatives get cracking on this sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Mac at May 12, 2006 07:55 PM
Theft of federal government money should be the RCMP's jurisdiction, it's pathetic that the government of the day has to take the initiative against criminals.
The RCMP were poodles of the Liberal Party while the party held power, but they don't have to be afraid anymore, they can do their jobs now.
All thieves will have to be allowed to pay back a small portion of what they stole if Liberal thieves are allowed to set this precedent.
Posted by: infidel at May 12, 2006 10:24 PM
From the time when ex-Commissioner Norm Inkster evolved the role of Commissioner into an equivalent to a Deputy Minister role, the independence and arm's length relationship between the RCMP and the federal government hasn't been the same.
Between the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle, the Sponsorship scandal and the Firearms Registry, there should be an investigation by both the Auditor in conjunction with the RCMP. In addition, the Liberal Party, all of the Liberal friendly ad companies and the computer companies (gun registry) should be sued to recover the taxpayer's money.
Posted by: Mac at May 13, 2006 12:12 AM
My own view is that it is the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party's duty to prosecute this with the utmost vigor.
Moreover, there shouldn't even be any consideration of a sealed settlement, which would be totally antithetical to democratic accountability. The Canadian people, the electorate, have a right and a duty to know all about this.
They need to know if corrupt thieves constitute the real interests controlling the Liberal Party. If the whole truth about Adscam destroys the Liberal Party, so be it. They will have reaped what they sewed.
Well written and well thought out article, Mr. Janke!
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2006 07:53 AM
Since when does the criminal (organization?) get to determine what the actual damages of the crime were? And determine retribution? We have a criminal justice system in place (albeit weak). Let justice be served. Watch the MSM go crazy, the public will finally see them for what they are, Liberal, partisan hacks.
Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at May 13, 2006 08:46 AM
 
|
|
