Justice

Chretien satisfied court ruled in his favour against sponsorship judge (Chretien-Sponsorship)

Source: The Canadian Press

QUEBEC –  Former prime minister Jean Chretien is expressing satisfaction after his successful legal battle against the Gomery commission.

He won a Federal Court of Appeal decision earlier this week that struck down part of the report from the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

“He (Gomery) made negative remarks about me and the court has decided that it was wrong and he had acted inappropriately,” Chretien told Quebec City radio station FM 93.

“I’ve been criticized by a lot of people in my life. He was not the only one. I’ve always defended myself.

“Apparently, I’m quite combative.”

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld on Tuesday a ruling which quashed Justice John Gomery’s conclusion that Chretien bore responsibility for the scandal.

Federal Court Justice Max Teitelbaum ruled in 2008 that Gomery, who headed the inquiry, was a biased attention-seeker.

He said Gomery prejudged the outcome of the investigation and trivialized proceedings through repeated inappropriate comments to the media.

The Harper government appealed that ruling but the appeal court dismissed the case and ordered the federal government to pay Chretien’s legal costs.

The sponsorship program was created to raise the profile of the federal government in Quebec after the near-loss of the 1995 referendum on the province’s independence.

But the program became a vehicle for Quebec advertising companies to receive funds for little or no work, some of which was kicked back to Liberal party operatives in the province.

Although he did not directly implicate the former prime minister in any wrongdoing, Gomery concluded that Chretien and his former chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, set up the sponsorship program without adequate safeguards against abuse.

Teitelbaum also quashed the findings against Pelletier but an appeal of that ruling was dismissed after Pelletier died early last year.

INDEX: NATIONAL JUSTICE POLITICS


The Menzingers

‘Who’s Your Partner,’ here.

I may have a perforated eardrum, but I can still hear good punk rock (sort of).  The Menzingers are anthemic punk, as someone wrote, on the road between Billy Bragg and the Clash.  Friggin’ awesome.

So we laughed through glossy eyes,
Surely the gods would recognize,
Our good intentions, we showed them,
The sweat covered our skin.

We aged a decade in an hour,
We gave away our innocence.


Breaking: Kormos (whom I like) gets accurate about what he was inaccurate about

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, correcting the record of October 19, 2010, while I was speaking in the chamber: I was speaking about Warren Kinsella.

I said that I like Warren Kinsella; that was accurate.

I said he was an expert at mudslinging; that was accurate.

I said I only wished he was one of ours rather than the Liberals’; that was accurate.

But I then refer to him as the American king of mud-slinging. That was a gross misstatement on my part. Of course, Warren Kinsella is a Canadian.

I apologize to Mr. Kinsella, to Americans and to Canadians.


Tim Hudak, by the numbers

Here are the facts:

1.  Ontario cabinet minister Glen Murray re-tweeted something he shouldn’t have.

2.  Ontario Conservative boss Tim Hudak demanded Murray apologize.

3.  Murray apologized.

4.  Hudak is demanding another apology, because he’s mad that Murray asked that Hudak condemn the homophobia that is sometimes associated with his Conservatives.

5.  Hudak says some of his best friends are gay, and that his party isn’t the least bit anti-gay, and that he won’t do what Murray asks, and that he still wants yet another apology.

6.  Hudak’s Labour critic – a member of his shadow cabinet, in effect – is Randy Hillier.

7.  Here are some of the things Hillier has said he’s against, quote unquote: “Using taxpayer’s dollars, our governments support and promote Quebec, Native, Arts, Homosexual, Urban and Multi-cultures.”

8.  Tristan Emmanel is Hillier’s campaign manager and a very senior Ontario Conservative adviser, and he has said that gays are, quote unquote, “sexual deviants.”

9.  Hudak hasn’t fired or in any way disciplined Messrs. Hillier and Emmanuel for their statements – he has, in fact, promoted them.

10.  Tim Hudak is full of crap.


The Lesson from Barrie

From regular reader “The Other Jim:

I’m not convinced that Ford will be a failure, but the Ottawa template was also evident in Barrie’s 2006/2010 elections.

Dave Aspden defeated the incumbent mayor (Rob Hamilton) in 2006. As a councilor, Aspden had a Rob Ford type of image; the lone wolf banging away at the “Elite”. He captured just over 50% of the popular vote but was a disaster in office. He couldn’t work with council (and blamed council for that right to the bitter end), was repeatedly involved in self-inflicted scandals (generally caused by his tendency to do things beyond his authority as mayor) and basically just spun the city’s wheels for four years. Seriously, he was the beta Rob Ford.

He lost last night (no surprise, as Barrie has turfed the incumbent mayor in four straight elections), but the margin of his defeat was astounding. In 2006, 14616 people voted for him. In 2010, just 1249 did. That’s a 91% drop in popular vote. Staggering when you think of it!

I think that Ford’s team will shelter him from being an Aspden type of failure, but he will have a tough road ahead.

Smart commentary (I get a lot of that, from wk.com commenters).  What’s your view?  Can Ford get a second mandate?


The last majority

Was Jean Chretien the last majority prime minister?

On Oct. 25, 1993, historians will recall, Chretien did what no one else had ever done before – he reduced the once-great Conservative Party of Canada to two seats. All that remained, 17 years ago, was Jean Charest in Quebec, and Elsie Wayne in New Brunswick. Every other Tory, including then-leader Kim Campbell, was wiped out.

The Conservatives’ fall was stunning. That was particularly the case for Campbell – who, just a few weeks earlier, had been the most popular prime minister in the history of polling.

The lessons of Oct. 25, 1993 are two-fold. One, the current “anti-incumbent” mood ain’t anything new. Every so often, the people get fed up with what they’ve got, and they opt for change in a big way.