"Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today"
--Mahatma Gandhi
When liberals aren't destroying people...
BDC settles with ex-chief Beaudoin, ends costly lawsuit,
By JEFF SALLOT
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - Page A8
OTTAWA -- The Business Development Bank of Canada wrote a cheque yesterday to François Beaudoin, its former president, to end what had been an expensive and politically disastrous lawsuit for the Crown corporation.
BDC, which had already spent $4.3-million in its failed legal campaign against Mr. Beaudoin, would not disclose how much it had to pay to settle the suit.
Under terms of the settlement Mr. Beaudoin will also have no comment, his lawyer, Doug Mitchell, said.
Or trying to intimidate them... (A former pmo staffer has taken to threatening me..Funny that Beaudoin is not allowed to comment...That's okay, I'll let the facts speak for themselves here:)
Guité hand-picked to revamp federal ad policy: memo
Canadian Press
Ottawa — Controversial public servant Chuck Guité was hand-picked by the Liberal government to overhaul federal advertising policy after the 1995 Quebec referendum, a public inquiry was told Wednesday.
A memo tabled at the inquiry shows that Mr. Guité was recommended for the job by the office of David Dingwall, then federal public works minister.
Warren Kinsella, who served as Mr. Dingwall's chief of staff, wrote on Nov. 24, 1995, that “recent experience” had shown the need to centralize not just federal ad strategy but also contracts for public-opinion polling and other communications programs.
(Can I wonder out loud which staffer suggested Chuck "No Audit Trail" Guite?)
They are slowly losing their control:
Liberals lose bid to grill inquiry witnesses
LES WHITTINGTON
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA—A last-minute bid by the Liberal party to give its lawyers the right to cross-examine every witness at the sponsorship hearings was turned down yesterday by inquiry commissioner John Gomery.
He rejected the Liberal request on the grounds that the party's reputation does not so far appear to be at stake in the hearings, which Gomery said are mainly concerned with how the Liberal government — not the party — ran the infamous advertising and promotions project.
Having "standing" at the sponsorship inquiry would have allowed the Liberals to participate fully in proceedings, with the right to challenge all witness testimony.
Funny thing about that star article: it doesn't mention that none of the other parties have 'standing' either. What liberal bias indeed, Alterman.
No comments:
Post a Comment