Kinsella outs Martin in Earnscliffe-gate

Apr. 19 - Americans might wonder why the Liberal Party has been dubbed "The Libranos." In part it's due to allegations of mob involvement, but what makes the nickname so appealing is that they act like mobsters. The cliche "a falling out among thieves" also comes to mind as Chretien's guy tries to prove that Martin and his guys are also dirty.

The problem is clearly a symptom of the decayed education system: none of these people ever studied Greek or Shakespearean tragedies -- had they done so they would have known they were riding for a fall.

The hearings on Earnscliffe contracts awarded by the Finance Department outlined here have already produced fireworks. There were early warnings to Martin's chief-of-staff that the bidding process for polling contracts was flawed:

A letter from Warren Kinsella to Terrie O'Leary, made public at a Commons committee Monday, warned of flawed competitions for public-opinion polling contracts, excessive payments, unnecessary work and political interference.

But O'Leary and another former top Martin aide testified that they did nothing wrong.

"Terrie, all of this spells trouble and you know it," Kinsella wrote in his letter.

"The competition was flawed, the payment is excessive, the work is probably not needed, and the research community can be fully expected to blow the whistle on the political connections here."

Kinsella was an aide to Public Works Minister David Dingwall at the time and was responsible for ensuring that government departments followed contracting rules. He was later a fierce supporter of Jean Chretien in the leadership dispute with Martin.

[...]

Allegations of political influence by Martin's office in the awarding of contracts were raised last year by Chuck Guite, the former bureaucrat who ran the federal sponsorship program at the Public Works Department. He claimed, in testimony to the public accounts committee, that he came under pressure in the 1990s to channel work to Earnscliffe.

Judge Gomery ruled that investigating the allegations about polling contracts did not fall under his mandate.

Further to Warren Kinsella's testimony, a more in-depth article today headlines that he proclaimed Martin knew about the 'rigged' contracts and that "someone" tried to intimidate him from telling the truth in his testimony. I'm excerpting out of order:

Paul Martin knew about claims of "bad behaviour" involving public-opinion contracts for a firm closely tied to his leadership campaign but threatened to quit his job as finance minister if his top advisor was disciplined, a former Liberal aide testified yesterday.

Warren Kinsella, a former advisor to Jean Chretien and a vehement political foe of Mr. Martin's, said the then-finance minister was aware of allegations that contracts in the mid-1990s had been "rigged" to favour the Earnscliffe Strategy Group.

"He absolutely had knowledge of these things," Mr. Kinsella told the House of Commons public accounts committee during hearings into a 2003 Auditor-General's report that looked at how the government handled contracts for polling and other public opinion research.

Mr. Kinsella said that, as then-aide to Public Works and Government Services minister Dave Dingwall, he wrote to Mr. Martin's office to express his concerns about money flowing from the Finance department to a firm so closely affiliated with Mr. Martin's leadership ambitions.

He called this "bad behaviour -- I considered it inappropriate that you cross-subsidize using the public treasury."

Mr. Kinsella's claims topped a dramatic session that saw him seated at the witness table next to two of the Prime Minister's most loyal advisors -- Terrie O'Leary and David Herle, her common-law spouse and a former partner in Earnscliffe -- and claim that he was intimidated in a phone call he received shortly before his testimony.

To be honest, Kinsella kind of loses me when he claims to have been intimidated, but I'd accept that someone tried to intimidate him.

He provided the name of the person who made the phone call in confidence to committee chairman John Williams, a Conservative MP. Mr. Williams said he considered the alleged call a form of intimidation and would refer it to a steering committee today to investigate. Mr. Williams refused to release the name when pressed by reporters.

Earlier at the session of the public accounts committee, Mr. Kinsella said that he raised flags about Department of Finance contracts for polling and other public-opinion research as early as 1994.

He also echoed claims made by previously by another witness, former public works bureaucrat Allan Cutler, who claimed the open bidding process for the Finance contracts were tailored so that only Earnscliffe could win them. He said he received complaints from several other polling firms about the contracts and felt obliged to investigate.

O'Leary denied the bidding process was flawed and said she had run the situation past an ethics counsellor (!) who said she was not in a conflict of interest - never recognizing that if you have to ask, it's a clue that either you are or, at the least, that you are giving the appearance of being in a conflict. It may not be fair, but there's a very good reason why intelligent people try to avoid even the appearance of being in a conflict of interest: it's an indefensible position to which one can only plead "Trust Me - I'm Honest."

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser began the hearing by reiterating her opinion that while public-opinion contracts were generally well-managed, there were some concerns about contracts in which the public-opinion advice was given to departments verbally, not in writing. But opposition members of the committee pressed Mr. Kinsella for details of what Mr. Martin knew about the contract awards.

Martin left messages and Kinsella didn't return the calls. Not much there.

By 1995, there was enough concern about Earnscliffe's contracts that they were the subject of a meeting in the Prime Minsiter's Office involving Mr. Chretien's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, and his ethics advisor, former Liberal Cabinet minister Mitchell Sharp, he said.

The possibility of dismissing Ms. O'Leary over an alleged conflict of intrest was discussed, Mr. Kinsella said. "Mr. Martin said he would quit before that would ever happen," Mr. Kinsella recall learning in in a disappointing call from PMO. "I phoned my wife said it's time to leave Ottawa."

Mr. Kinsella injected a note of intrigue in the proceedings when he claimed he received an intimidating phone call minutes before the hearing that indicated Mr. Martin's office would pressure former public works Minister David Dingwall to appear before the committee to contradict his testimony.

By the way, Dingwall is now the head of the Canadian Mint (another patronage postion) which was previously under investigation as outlined in posts from 2004 here and here.

There's an item about Dingwall's tendency to porkbarrel here, a profile from a year ago after his appearance before the House of Commons public accounts committee on Adscam here, and an item about Dingwall, Martin, Kinsella and Chretien here.

Dingwall was the subject of a wonderful column by Lorne Guntner partially quoted here (canada.com links to opinion columns are sadly short-lived.)

The Wikipedia entry on Dingwall says he was appointed to the Canadian Mint in 2003 - I thought it was 2004, but then my memory sucks.

Aug. 20 - 03:33: Frank Schiller is reportedly the "mystery man" who advised Kinsella not to testify against Martin:

Parliament Hill sources named the man Tuesday as Frank Schiller, who once worked with Kinsella in the office of former public works minister David Dingwall. Schiller also put in a stint on the staff of former prime minister Jean Chretien and is currently a principal of the Ottawa consulting firm IGRG (Industry Government Relations Group).

Posted by: Debbye at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1263 words, total size 9 kb.