02 November 2005

Sheila knew nothing? C'mon.

People sometimes have short memories.

Sheila Copps, disgruntled former Liberal leadership candidate, is intent on contradicting the findings of Justice Gomery in his conclusions about who knew what about the sponsorship scandal and when. Mind you, she has no evidence. She can't even do anything except suggest what might theoretically have happened.

But what about Copps herself, cause after all, Sheila, two can play the silly game she follows in her column.

Let's wander a bit through Sheila's own ministerial appointments.

1993 - 1997. Appointed deputy prime minister to Jean Chretien. For those who may not know, that put her closer to the centre of power and the sponsorship mess (by Sheila's own logic) than Paul Martin ever was.

1996 - 2003 Minister of Canadian Heritage, among other portfolios.

Given Sheila's position in the Chretien administration and her own logic, then Sheila knew all about sponsorship and its irregularities. We know that she was involved in the disastrous 1995 federalist referendum strategy and blew $16 million of taxpayers money on a ludicrous scheme to spread Canadian flags everywhere.

Was that sponsorship money? Nope. Not as far as I know. But it was a monumental waste of public funds.

But the really important question is this: how could the deputy prime minister of Canada - the second most powerful person in the cabinet - not have known about a scheme to defraud Canadians of hundreds of millions of dollars, especially considering the scheme was intimately related to the fight against separatism in which Copps herself was involved?

By the logic Copps herself uses against Paul Martin, then Gomery should have dragged her in the dock along with everyone else.

If the Canadian public are cynical, Sheila, then you ought to know. Your commentaries - and perhaps hypocrisy - fuel their doubts about politicians every time you open your mouth or tap your keyboard.

At least the public can read the Gomery report and understand that he has no ulterior motives in his commentary.