Jean Chretien before the Commission of Inquiry
Today was the day that many Canadians were looking forward to; the day when Jean Chretien, the former prime minister who was responsible for the introduction of the national unity strategy, would face some sharp questioning concerning his involvement in the sponsorship scandal.
Mr. Chretien had the unique opportunity to start the day by making a presentation that lasted half an hour. It was a spirited defence of his stewardship in government for a period of forty years and his leadership of his party as prime minister for ten years. Very few people would deny that Canada had advanced economically over that period of time and that the deficit had been reduced. During that time a major challenge had to be faced as the movement for separation of Quebec from Canada was very strong. Chretien’s reaction to a possible future referendum on separation was to develop a unity strategy that would place emphasis on the federal presence in the Province of Quebec and the benefits of the Province remaining in confederation.
I had looked forward to this day for quite some time as I had viewed much of the previous testimony given by bureaucrats and ministers of the crown. So often in the past witnesses could not remember their involvement in particular activities. After spending well over three hours viewing today’s proceedings, I am somewhat disappointed that it took that much time to reveal what I personally had anticipated. Much like the testimony of many witnesses to date, Mr. Chretien could not remember so much that might have placed him in a bad light. He denied knowing specific facts about transactions or the involvement of friends in contracts or subcontracts under the sponsorship program.
When a list of contributors and amounts to the Liberal party were provided, the question was asked if he was aware of those contributions, his answer was that he was not aware of those numbers. He may not have been aware of those specific numbers but he must have been aware of some major contributors to the party. When his lawyer asked about the golf balls that he used as gifts, he stated that he did not order them himself, the golf balls had been paid for by the “association”, meaning, I suppose, the Liberal party.
What was not addressed was the matter of the golf balls that had been paid for with sponsorship funds. The Commission lawyer did not ask that question so a question still remains. Did Mr. Chretien profit from purchases made with sponsorship funds?
Prime Minister Paul Martin will testify on Thursday. He will then shed light on how much of the unity strategy he was aware of while he was in the federal cabinet.
There are many Canadians who are very anxious to read the Commission’s report which should be ready by December.
Mr. Chretien had the unique opportunity to start the day by making a presentation that lasted half an hour. It was a spirited defence of his stewardship in government for a period of forty years and his leadership of his party as prime minister for ten years. Very few people would deny that Canada had advanced economically over that period of time and that the deficit had been reduced. During that time a major challenge had to be faced as the movement for separation of Quebec from Canada was very strong. Chretien’s reaction to a possible future referendum on separation was to develop a unity strategy that would place emphasis on the federal presence in the Province of Quebec and the benefits of the Province remaining in confederation.
I had looked forward to this day for quite some time as I had viewed much of the previous testimony given by bureaucrats and ministers of the crown. So often in the past witnesses could not remember their involvement in particular activities. After spending well over three hours viewing today’s proceedings, I am somewhat disappointed that it took that much time to reveal what I personally had anticipated. Much like the testimony of many witnesses to date, Mr. Chretien could not remember so much that might have placed him in a bad light. He denied knowing specific facts about transactions or the involvement of friends in contracts or subcontracts under the sponsorship program.
When a list of contributors and amounts to the Liberal party were provided, the question was asked if he was aware of those contributions, his answer was that he was not aware of those numbers. He may not have been aware of those specific numbers but he must have been aware of some major contributors to the party. When his lawyer asked about the golf balls that he used as gifts, he stated that he did not order them himself, the golf balls had been paid for by the “association”, meaning, I suppose, the Liberal party.
What was not addressed was the matter of the golf balls that had been paid for with sponsorship funds. The Commission lawyer did not ask that question so a question still remains. Did Mr. Chretien profit from purchases made with sponsorship funds?
Prime Minister Paul Martin will testify on Thursday. He will then shed light on how much of the unity strategy he was aware of while he was in the federal cabinet.
There are many Canadians who are very anxious to read the Commission’s report which should be ready by December.
posted by croweagle at
11:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home