Well, lets revisit that for a moment shall we? Let's take a moment to remember exactly what all that was about. In the shadow of the close scare of the Quebec referendum of 1995 the Liberal Party instituted both the Clarity Act, and began to fund a campaign to counter the negative propaganda of the Parti Quebecois in order to boost federalist support in Quebec. A worthwhile goal, however certain persons involved in that program took it upon themselves to engage in dishonorable tactics to redirect money for personal gain - namely to funnel money into political coffers to maintain personal power. Over the course of the eight year program, it was determined that approximately $100 million had, in effect, been embezzled from the program to that end.
This issue came to light upon investigation by the Auditor General, and the new Prime Minister of the day - Paul Martin - immediately convened the Gomery Commission to investigate the affair and punish the offenders. He did so, in fact, with such zeal that internal elements of the Liberal Party were upset with him over it.
There is no excuse for those who perpetrated that fraud. They dishonored not only themselves, but the party and the country - doing more to erode the public trust in government than any other event in the past two decades. Canada paid dearly for it. The Liberal Party paid dearly for it. Paul Martin paid for it with his career.
Speaking for myself, I have never had more respect for Paul Martin than the day he committed political suicide and took personal responsibility for the affair. He took a page from Truman, accepting that the buck stops at the desk of the leader, and understanding that the people of Canada, at that moment, NEEDED to hear someone take responsibility for it. That they needed an apology, and they sure as heck weren't going to get one from the perpetrators.
So Paul made an unprecedented televised appearance and gave it. He gave the apology, took the rap personally, and promised to topple his own government after the commission report was released to allow specifically for a referendum on it. He went so far as to walk right into and reinforce Stephen's talking point that Paul, as Finance Minister at the time, should have known that it was going on.
That, as Stephen and Paul both knew, was a ridiculous statement. But he made it because he couldn't make it a personal apology without shouldering that cross.
In reality, the finance minister sets broad fiscal policy and budgets, and the Auditor General audits the government operations to root out waste and corruption. That is how it works, the division of labors necessary to avoid conflict of interest, and that is what happened, and the offenders got caught. In other words, the system to enforce accountability worked perfectly.
No organization can stop employee theft. The best they can do is monitor for it vigilantly and punish the offenders.
Now, to you and I we naturally think "But- $100 Million is a ton of cash! How could he not have known?"
Yes, $100 million is a lot of cash to people. To a government, though, it is not so much. For 2009, Canada's total budget expenditure is around $237 Billion. If the fraud from the sponsorship scandal was fairly even spread over the eight years that the program ran, then the $12.5 million defrauded in a given year would equate to 5 hundredths of a percent of the total budget. To put that in your household perspective, if you and your spouse are discussing how you spent a combined $71,000 dollars this past year (StatsCan reported median family income), then this would amount to assuming that you are going to be investigating where $3.74 went.
That's what Paul was saying when he took personal responsibility for not having known about the fraud. He was saying that, if he were you, he should have known exactly how any and every given $3.74 was spent by each and every given family member.
Do you know where each and every $3.74 from all of the combined family pay cheques went to last year? Me neither.
Right about now, though, you're probably wondering why the heck you are getting a history lesson. It's done. Over. 2006 was a political lifetime ago. Something from an almost forgotten age when budgets had surpluses, unemployment was low, and before the world economy took a vacation. The "Good Old Days", from an economic perspective, but hardly relevant to today.
But here's a thought. If it was worth toppling one government for a small cabal in that party redirecting $100 million over eight year for partisan gain, then why is it OK for another government to direct almost exactly the same amount into an advertising campaign for partisan gain instead of spending on the actual program?
Does that roadwork near your house need a blue, partisan-slogan cheque presented to kick it off with a photo op? Does it need a sign out front reminding you that your own tax dollars are paying for it and a go-train driving by it with an even bigger ad reminding you of that fact upon it?
Why can the government say it's OK for it's MPs to stage partisan photo op's to advertise these programs because they should be allowed to take credit for bringing stimulus dollars to their communities, but on the other hand say that the fact that the distribution of the program favors partisan ridings was a total fluke because supposedly the MPs had nothing to do with either proposing or approving the projects.
Is wasting money to take partisan credit for work and decisions which, according to the other side of the party face, the local MP had no input in whatsoever now the ethical standard of accountability?
They can't have it both ways.
And to top it off, they have actually been heard to repeat the specter of sponsorship in recent weeks to deflect blame, stating that what they have been up to is nothing like Adscam.
On that, at least, they're right.
AdScam was a partisan appropriation of advertising dollars for political gain by a small group of criminals within a larger party. This is a concerted, party-wide misuse of public dollars for partisan advertising gain.
What they are doing is worse - and they have the nerve to be brazenly perpetrating this misuse of public funds right in your face.
What, I wonder, should be THEIR punishment for THIS wasted $100 million?
