Double standards and cover-ups

Following up on yesterday's post, I'll offer one final note about Jason Kenney's lies about calling political staffers before Parliamentary committees. And this is a factor that should be absolutely devastating toward the Cons' base to the extent any reality manages to reach them.

Even today, the Cons' reflexive response to any concern about their ethics in government is to shriek "Adscam!", which their supporters take as reason enough to forgive and forget all Con sins in favour of a round of Lib-bashing.

But Kenney's earlier speech in Parliament about the need to call staffers as witnesses of course involved...Adscam. Which means that the Cons' new policy would serve to prevent Parliament from carrying out some of the same steps which were pursued to expose the Libs' wrongdoing.

As a result, when the Cons say "Adscam" now, it should only serve as a reminder that if their new-found principles in government had applied while they were in opposition, Adscam itself might have been swept under the rug. And that would seem to establish conclusively that the Cons are no less a party of double standards and cover-ups than their predecessors in office - not to mention raising questions about what kind of misuse of public resources they're trying to hide.

On known quantities

The Globe and Mail reports on the efforts of one of the advertisers which wound up in the middle of Adscam to settle with the federal government. But the most telling news comes from the response of government sources who seem less interested in recovering the maximum possible amount of money than in playing off public impressions of the scandal:

A company that made large payments to a former Liberal organizer has offered to pay back millions of dollars to taxpayers in relation to its role in the sponsorship scandal, sources say...

Sources said Polygone's lawyers have offered about $5-million to settle the firm's portion of the lawsuit. The federal government rejected the offer, but is still involved in discussions in an effort to obtain more money.

“The departments [of Justice and Public Works] have been seeking an extra $10-million from Polygone,” a federal official said.

Polygone was a central player in the sponsorship program, receiving more than $35-million to put federal advertising in its publications and at its events, such as hunting and fishing shows.

Evidence has been presented in court and at a public inquiry that Polygone made millions in profits by charging large margins on marketing opportunities. For example, court documents show that Polygone obtained $475,000 in federal funds after spending only $7,300 to run ads on a community station in Quebec City.

The public inquiry into the sponsorship program heard that Polygone surreptitiously paid out $6.7-million in subcontracts to former Liberal organizer and fundraiser Jacques Corriveau. Inquiry commissioner John Gomery called Mr. Corriveau a “central figure in an elaborate kickback scheme” that benefited the Liberal Party of Canada...

Federal officials said Polygone was never a well-known player in the sponsorship scandal, and that there is interest in Ottawa in finding out whether the company can help authorities go after Mr. Corriveau.

“Mr. Corriveau is a lot better known. Mr. Lemay has always flown under the radar,” a source said.

In sum, then, Polygone would seem to have been the greater beneficiary of federal money, and thus the party with the most money that could possibly be owed to the federal government if implicated. So any effort to salvage the most money possible would seemingly start with a vigorous action to recover it from Polygone.

But then, Polygone isn't as well known as its subcontractor. Which means that any successful action against would make for a less effective political ploy than one directed against a more familiar face.

So rather than pursuing the total amount which could have been lost to Adscam, the Cons are trying to work with the party which profited more from sponsorship funding to attack its subcontractor whose receipts would be a fraction of the total amount. And all this solely because Corriveau's public profile can help to resurrect the scandal to a greater degree.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that this type of news will have the staying power that it probably should: the Cons surely don't want to highlight their own politically-motivated enforcement choices, and the Libs will presumably figure that they're best off trying to change the subject. Which is a shame, since the fact that the Cons are apparently willing to trade away public funds to embarrass the Libs would seem to confirm just how ill-suited they are for the responsibilities of power.