Andrew Coyne & Hansard on Sponsorship Scam: Taking Refuge in The Charter-Multiculturalism-Unity-Minorities-Language

Andrew Coyne: My Saturday column February 12, 2005

Here is what we are asked to believe.

We are asked to believe that Jean Chretien, having created the sponsorship program, having personally secured funding for the program out of the so-called “unity reserve,” having personal authority over every request for funds from that allocation and having been warned in writing by the Clerk of the Privy Council that he would thus be personally responsible for every grant made out of those funds, should accept no personal blame for anything that went wrong under the program.

[. . . . ] We are asked to believe that the politicians responsible for a program that was conceived in secret, that appeared in no budget document, that was never divulged to Parliament and of which even cabinet ministers were unaware, should have been surprised to learn that bureaucrats answering to them were allocating millions of dollars in secret, without invoices or receipts.

We are asked to believe, last, that Paul Martin did not know about the existence of the unity reserve until 1996, three years after he had been named Finance Minister; that he did not know what it was used for, ie sponsorships, until some years after that; and that he did not know about the abuses that went on under the program until some years after that. And yet, ignorant as he was as to either the purpose or results of the program, he immediately signed off on the Prime Minister’s request for funds, without question.

We are asked to believe that Messrs. Chretien, Pelletier, Gagliano, Carle, Dingwall, and Kinsella acted at all times throughout this affair out of an impartial devotion to the public good; or that if they did not, Mr. Martin had no clue that anything untoward was going on, and no reason to suspect it.

That is what we are asked to believe. Do you?

Nothing so revealed them as the manner of their testimony. Now, check how they perfomed in the House on the Liberal slush fund and sponsorship scandal.




The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel -- Appeals to Liberal Interpretations of the Charter of Rights, Unity, Multiculturalism, Minorities and Language

Hansard Feb 8/05 -- Sponsorship Program

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the extraordinary spectacle of a former prime minister being hauled before a judicial inquiry. He is again trying to justify what occurred by wrapping himself in the flag. We all remember his statement that it does not matter if millions of dollars were stolen as long as the country
was safe.

Does this Prime Minister clearly understand that the unity excuse for the theft of taxpayer dollars is completely unacceptable?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the continued attempts by the Leader of the Opposition to subvert the Gomery commission will be responded to in due course.

On another issue, the other day the Leader of the Opposition said that the protection of a certain minority right, that is to say the definition of civil marriage, was an attack on multiculturalism. That is an attack on the Charter of Rights. It is the worst example of the politics of division.

I ask the hon. member to take this opportunity--

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped we would get some clear answers before the Prime Minister was hauled off to the inquiry himself.

What Mr. Chrétien does not seem to grasp is that the Liberal sponsorship program is the biggest gift the Quebec separatist movement got in the past decade.

Does this Prime Minister clearly understand that the sponsorship program is a national unity catastrophe?
¸ (1420)

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply repeating questions that he has stated in the House time and time again attempting to subvert the Gomery inquiry.

The real issue before the House is his statement the other day, the statement which he confirmed yesterday, which was a blatant attack on the Charter of Rights, the statement that the protection of a minority right was an attack--

[. . . . noise]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to call the Prime Minister the artless dodger.

We will continue to ask this Prime Minister questions in the House about the sponsorship scandal until we get answers from him.

[Translation]

Last week, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, “I am very proud of what the last government did and I am very proud that I was part of it”.

My question is simple. Is the Prime Minister proud of the sponsorship program and was he part of it?
[English]

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will give the Leader of the Opposition the definition of dodging. Dodging is when the member makes attacks on the charter, when the member challenges the charter outside of the House and is afraid to come in here before the Canadian people and make the case. That is dodging and it is cowardice.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is feeling a little thin-skinned today. I hope he is as animated when he testifies before the Gomery commission.

Daily the testimony at the Gomery commission shows direct links between the Liberal Party's political activities and the sponsorship program itself. Liberal Party luminaries, Chrétien, Kinsella and now John Manley, have come out in an attempt to discredit the process that was designed to get to the truth. John Manley is quoted as saying, “The Gomery commission is not a very good idea”.

Will the Prime Minister clearly signal to his Liberal colleagues that they should back off all attempts to discredit or derail the Gomery commission?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about unity. In a multicultural bilingual nation like Canada, the role of any leader of this country is to unify Canadians, to bring people together, whether it is English Canadians, French Canadians or minority language groups.

Instead of uniting Canadians, the leader of the Alliance-Conservatives is pitting one minority group against another. Anyone who pits one minority group against another does not deserve to ever lead this great multicultural masterpiece of Canada.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that Liberal's lips are moving, but I can actually hear Herb Gray. John Manley is saying that the cost of revealing the information at the Gomery commission is too high for the amount of money it is costing.

Clearly, the toll that he is talking about is not on the public treasury, it is on the Liberal Party. Continued comments by prominent Liberals to discredit the Gomery commission are an indication that this testimony is hurting the Liberal Party.

Will the Prime Minister just admit that this mantra about the sponsorship scandal, and the ends justifying the means, is really about the ends which the Liberal Party intended the sponsorship program to do, which was to fill its pockets?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is why the Alliance Conservative Party is trying to divide Canadians instead of trying to unite them. It is shameful for that party to take advantage of Canada's multicultural minorities and to use them as pawns for cheap political purposes.

No wonder the director of the World Sikh Organization is quoted today as saying, “Why would politicians like the Leader of the Opposition use constitutional rights issues to further divide multicultural communities in Canada? It doesn't make sense”.

She is right. It is shameless and it does not make sense for anyone who seeks to lead this country to try to do so by dividing Canadians.

* * *

¸ (1425)