Archived
Commentaries

FAQ

Past Projects

About TDH

Contact

November 17, 2004

Following a vigourous debate with a close friend and political confidante yesterday, a question arose that must be posted for feedback.  While it seems to be a common refrain that Paul Martin has been an utter disappointment in his first year as Prime Minister (Warren Kinsella has posted his article in the National Post this morning detailing this apparent consensus), the question that was posed yesterday is simply this: Is Paul Martin ethically challenged?

The opposing view was that while Martin might use dirty tricks, underhanded practices, and is surrounded by devious political aides bent on power above all else, TDH's friend still determined that he was nothing more than an ambitious man that had an earnest belief that he could affect positive change for the country.

By now, readers should be well aware that this website remains a fan of the Jean Chretien era in terms of policy, sentiment, and direction for the country, and as a result, at times might come down hard on the current administration.  That being said, TDH Strategies does acknowledge that there were plenty of ethical missteps that occurred during the Liberals' first decade in office. 

So, would that not mean that Chretien and Martin are in the same boat?  Maybe...though, Martin swept to power on rhetoric that not only was he going to change the way that Ottawa was run (referring to past ethical breaches without ever stating this explicitly), but that he was above reproach in his public record.

Thus, let us examine some examples of that very record.

1) The government told Parliament last year that Martin's Canada Steamship Lines received just $137,000 in government contracts between 1993 and 2002. In February of this year, however, former Government House Leader Jacques Saada admitted that the real figure was actually $161 million.  Despite having his assets put in a "blind trust," Martin received semi-regular briefings regarding his companies, and even had current Defence Minister Bill Graham personally intervene on matters regarding these assets (according to a report in the National Post on March 6, 2003).

2) After the Auditor General Sheila Fraser released her report on the sponsorship program, Paul Martin claimed that he never had any knowledge of the conduct of this program.  It is now public knowledge that Akaash Maharaj, an extremely well respected Liberal party activist and the party's former national policy chair, sent a letter in February, 2002 to then Finance Minister Paul Martin to make him aware of the "rumours" that were making the rounds.  This was well in advance of Fraser beginning a formal investigation later that spring.  Furthermore, the Gomery Inquiry has now produced a document that details how one of Alfonso Gagliano's former aides had received a phone call from an unnamed official in Paul Martin's office to inquire why event organizers for a Montreal event had not heard from the public works department about their $600,000 request.  In reality, they had received word, and their request had been denied. According to public works records, the event organizers got $250,000 subsequent to this phone call.  Of the event organizers, the most prominent member was former Montreal Canadians superstar Serge Savard, a huge Martin leadership backer, whose son was a Liberal candidate in the last election.

3) Paul Martin rode to office pledging to clear up the democratic deficit.  Yet, Paul Martin went on to trample the rights of various democratic processes, while changing the rules of the game for those loyal to him. 

This is an excerpt from a speech given at Osgoode Hall in York University on October 21, 2002:

"We have permitted a culture to arise that has been some thirty years in the making.  One that can best be summarized by the one question that everyone in Ottawa believes has become the key to getting things done: "Who do you know in the PMO?"

"This is unacceptable.  We must change that reality."

He seemed to change his tune somewhat when he stated that ""I've also said that there will be circumstances in which I will reserve the right to nominate candidates," after appointing three "star" candidates in Vancouver months before the election.  Yet, in the cases of Sheila Copps, Chretien loyalist Stephen Hogue, or new faces like Tony Kuo,  Martin refused to get involved with the process, preferring to let the political battles stay local.  In fact, with reference to Hogue's nomination and Kuo's nomination, both men weren't even permitted the right to run by the Prime Minister.

4) Earnscliffe Strategy Group has been a de facto headquarters for Paul Martin organizers and political operatives for over a decade, encompassing within its corporate hierarchy high profile Martin aides such as David Herle, a partner in the firm's polling and communications division and the Liberals' continuing national election co-chair.  The sponsorship hearings have now revealed that through the Department of Finance (Martin's home for 9 years), Earnscliffe has been given favoured status for publicly tendered contracts since 1994.  The Gomery Inquiry had detected several examples of impropriety, such as the time in 1995, when the Finance Department pushed for a 1995 contract competition to be overridden to steer a $300,000 deal toward a losing bidder - Earnscliffe Strategy Group.  In fact, despite being dismantled into two pieces in the spring so as to deflect growing criticism of its close and incestuous relationship with the Martin government, and particularly directly with the PMO, it has just been revealed by Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen that the company is still continuing to receive substantial government contracts (once again, refer to Warren Kinsella's website and his November 16th posting to read the text of the article).

So, without offering too much comment on the instances mentioned above, TDH asks readers:  is this simply ambition, or closer to moral degradation?

Comments? jonathan@tdhstrategies.com