**UPDATED**
Andrew Coyne’s column this morning:
[…] The personal responsibility or otherwise of Mr. Martin is irrelevant to the question of whether the Liberal party should be held accountable. Suppose a corporation were discovered to have dumped toxic waste in the local river. And suppose, in the wake of the scandal, the corporation brought in a new CEO—not just promoted the senior VP, but hired someone wholly unconnected with the firm. The new CEO could protest with absolute justice that he could not personally be held to blame for the misdeeds that had gone on under his predecessor. But would that absolve the corporation as a whole of liability? No it would not.
The corporation would still be legally liable, that is, with all of the rules of evidence and standards of proof that implies. But the Liberals, whatever their legal liability, may be held to another standard, that of political responsibility. The public does not need to know, to form such a judgment, which persons broke which laws. It is enough to ask: How did it occur to so many people to do so? And, as important, how did they think they could get away with it? It wasn’t only a “culture of entitlement” that was at work here. It was—is—also a culture of impunity. […]
Subscription required to read it unfortunately. Ask me and I’ll send it to you.
And another columnist, Colby Cosh:
[…] On Feb. 1 and 2 of 1996, the cabinet convened at a retreat to conduct a post-mortem on the referendum campaign and review methods of preventing a recurrence. This is the point at which the Liberals made a collective decision to make aggressive brand-building in Quebec a permanent strategy; everyone at that table, including then-finance minister Martin, would have thought of Chuck Guite’s name and accomplishments in this context. In the Attorney-General’s submission to the Gomery Commission, that decision was described as a commitment to “increase the visibility of the Government of Canada mainly, but not exclusively, in the province of Quebec.” And this is the ground on which the idea of the sponsorship program has always been defended.
But the actual cabinet minutes contain significantly different language. The report of the unity committee headed by Marcel Masse, which was presented at the retreat to the other ministers of the Crown, called for “a substantial strengthening of the Liberal Party of Quebec.” It is extraordinary and offensive that such a thing should be uttered at a cabinet meeting of any kind, but we have not heard that Mr. Martin (or anyone else) made any objection. Is anyone really surprised that so much money should find its way into the pockets of Liberal cronies after an open call for the partisan “strengthening” of the Liberal party at the public expense? […]
Subscription also required to read this, unfortunately. Ask me and I’ll send it to you.
…Even as the ever-increasingly liberal National Post lead editorial “exonerates” Paul Martin:
Since Paul Martin became Prime Minister in 2003, this newspaper has given him mixed reviews. But even his critics must give him credit for the way he has responded to Adscam. While some Liberals urged him to bury the issue lest skeletons be unearthed, Mr. Martin gave Justice John Gomery’s Commission of Inquiry broad investigative powers, and stood by Judge Gomery even after the commissioner’s own comments to a Post journalist put his credibility in question. Yes, the Martin Liberals have delivered plenty of self-serving spin since Adscam broke—this is politics, after all. But the important thing is that Judge Gomery was given free rein. As a result, the report he delivered yesterday was comprehensive, detailed and credible. […]
Subscription required to read that one too.
- Proud To Be Canadian. But Maybe Not. - Tuesday December 17, 2024 at 2:07 pm
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm