and i have a jetpack. don't you?

Is it too early to say that Martin is on his way to being another Kim Campbell? I know, I know, there were others before her but I wasn't old enough to follow politics until the end of the Mulroney years. The GST and base closures were the beginning of my political awareness.

The future arrived in 1981 and lasted about a year and a half. For evidence, see the Spoons video for "Nova Heart."

Yes. The future was characterized by men wearing fishing lures as ear ornaments.

If you believe Larry Zolf, Ben, Paul Martin has a very bright future as PM, see:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20040212.html

What Zolf seems to miss on the Sponsorship Program scandal is not the fact it was Liberal- friendly firms getting the advertising work, it's the fact that there was no "work" being done by these firms - they were just "skimmers" of payments to the RCMP, VIA Rail, the Port of Montreal and the like - in amount that would make Tony Soprano look like a piker (I like that word "piker").

Zolf says "...all this activity has a human side, a good intention side, that may have been overlooked in the media frenzy the auditor general's report has brought on...". Let's see, Tony Soprano has a good intention, human side, even when "wacks" somebody - he's always only just looking after his "family". I guess "Papa Ti Jean" was just doin' the same - ya know looking out for his family, the "Liberal Family" - that big fricking Liberal "tent" - takes alot money to prop up that tent, I guess.

Come to think of it, Chretien kinda looked like the "daper don" the other day, when he came out of hiding briefly, only to be wisked away in some black SUV, just after saying "I don't tinks anymores". The next thing I hope he'll be say'n is: "Wit all dese charges outstandin' ya'll havta talk to my lawyer". Budda-bing, budda-boom.

The question I have is how did it go unnoticed that the amount of money the government offered to the RCMP, et al was significantly higher than what they actually got? Did nobody question this?

That’s a good point, Ben. I haven't read Ms. Frasers' report, but I suppose there are few possibilities:

1. The agency receiving the money was told “this is just the way it is, now shut up about it if you want your money”. And don’t forget that the people employed in these various agencies like the RCMP etc. are essentially bureaucrats who had, as part of their job, an interest or duty to try to obtain these funds. They weren’t about to “rock the boat” and then try to explain to their supervisors why they didn’t get the money, or alternatively they ended up look like “heroes” for getting so much, probably even more that was applied for in the first place;

2. Which leads to the second possibility, which is these agencies sent in a proposed budget to this Sponsorship Program containing a “wish list”, never dreaming they would get anything near what they wanted, and they got most but not all of what they asked for, so they took the money and ran, no questions asked. We have to remember that all this money to these various agencies was “found money”, just plain “gravy”, not related in any way to their operating or capital budgets;

3. The next possibility is that these agencies didn’t even know that money was being “skimmed” – they just received a cheque from Groupe Action or the like, with a brief letter stating: “ We are pleased to inform you that your agency’s request for funds for this project has been approved in “x amount of dollars” and enclosed herein please find our firm’s cheque in “x amount of dollars. It has been our pleasure, no - our extreme pleasure in doing “business” with you”;

4. The final possibility I can think of, is that these agencies had to submit their request for funds through Groupe Action or the like, who simply stuffed the request in a envelope and mailed it off to the bozos in the Sponsorship Program. These agencies were then left with some mistaken impression that these ad firms were actually doing some work and lobbying etc. on their behalf and didn’t ask any questions, and couldn’t have cared less if these quys who they thought got them $1.5 million for what was really $1 million request, took a miserly 20 per cent cut.

After hearing from Ms. Fraser today, it looks worse than any of the above scenarios - it appears grant applications were generally filled out on the backs of drink napkins, or phoned in, possibly anonimously: "Yeah, that's it, send the money to the Alan McLeod Centre for the Stragetic Studies of Canadian Bloggers, yeah that's it, care of P.O.Box something, Province of Quebec somewhere, yeah that's it. Go Canada, eh?"

If I could spell I could save my life; that's "anonymously" and "Strategic". Apologies.

We have yet to really hear about the creation of the scheme by which government to government transfers were routed through the third party consultants. That is really a different thing than is being discussed with Fraser. Who set up that general plan?

I guess in part, that'll depend on Gagliano, and whether he falls on his sword, or names names: "What did the PM know, and when did he know it?" Don't you love it! We'll be just like the big boys south of the border.

Here's what Public Works had to say in March 2003 about these "challenges" with the Sponsorship Program, see
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/dpr/02-03/PWGSC-TPSGC/PWGSC-TPSGC03D02_e.asp

"Finally, in 2002-03 we continued to address risks and challenges that came from unexpected sources, such as those the department faced with the Sponsorship contract enquiries...The redesigned sponsorship program is now based on four key principles: value for money, stewardship, flexibility and transparency."

Makes you wonder what principles the Program was based on before? I guess we know now. Still, I don't know why the need for "flexibilty" - flexibility in what? the rules, value for money stewardship and the like?

Ms. Fraser reports: "Staff of CCSB (the new Communications Co-Ordination Services Branch of Public Works) told us that an Executive Director had not involved them in making decisions on sponsorships. They described to us the following process (much of this was confirmed to us by a former Minister of Public Works and Government Services):

-CCSB contracted with a communications agency to identify potential sponsorship opportunities in Quebec. The agency provided some information verbally, but there are no written records of that information.
-CCSB received unsolicited sponsorship proposals from a number of sources, including other government departments, event/activity/project organizers, communications agencies, community groups, and non-governmental organizations. Some requests were made to the Minister and forwarded to CCSB.
-The Executive Director of CCSB reviewed the requests and decided which events would be sponsored and which communications agency would get the contract. Project files were discussed with the Minister's office at various times.
At the request of the Executive Director, program staff prepared the requisition and forwarded it to CCSB's procurement staff, who completed the contract.
-The Executive Director approved the payments to the contracted communications agencies.
These procedures violate two fundamental principles of internal control: segregation of duties and appropriate oversight."
See
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20031103ce.html#ch3hd3b