Posted on 04/06/2005 7:46:23 AM PDT by Clive
A Montreal advertising firm that received more than $40 million in AdScam sponsorship contracts paid huge kickbacks to both the federal Liberal party and the Quebec separatists, senior executives of the company have told Sun Media. "I remember seeing the cheques," one former Groupaction executive said of payments to the federal Liberal party in Quebec.
The man spoke on condition that he not be identified until he testifies at the Gomery inquiry sometime over the coming weeks.
The exec said the president of Groupaction, Jean Brault, made no secret around the company about where the kickback cash was going and for what.
"He spoke to me about it ... having to pay money back to the Liberal Party" in return for contracts.
ANTI-SEPARATISM CASH
The $250 million in sponsorships that the previous Liberal government pumped into Quebec was supposed to help fight the separatists after the near-miss referendum in 1995.
But another former Groupaction executive, Alain Renaud, said that while the firm was getting millions of dollars in federal sponsorship money, it was secretly cutting cheques to the separatist Parti Quebecois.
Renaud said that in one transaction, a total of about $90,000 was given to the PQ as part of Groupaction's getting a $4.5-million advertising contract for the Quebec liquor board, called the SAQ.
Groupaction apparently won the contract in a competition when a bagman for the Parti Quebecois had a meeting with the firm's top executives.
One of those executives told Sun Media: "The bagman came by and said: 'Well, you won the bid, and all that's needed now is a signature, and the documents are on the minister's desk to be signed, and it's going to cost you fifty grand.' "
Renaud recalled about $45,000 a year in donations were to be paid to the PQ for two years.
The money was funnelled through individual Groupaction employees to circumvent Quebec law, which prohibits corporate political contributions.
Renaud said Groupaction president Brault was personally involved in the tollgating deal. "I was there when he (Brault) was negotiating with the people of the PQ," he said.
Brault's testimony at the Gomery inquiry over the past week is under a publication ban and cannot be reported.
His criminal trial is imminentent in a Quebec court and the ban is in the interest of protecting his right to a fair trial.
Apologies for the awful typing in my post number 1
As in, "the doom of the Liberal Gouvernment is imminentent.
Cheers, Clive - this could be the equivalent of the Pipeline Debate in the '50s, which ushered Dief into power.
'Follow John'! ;^)
oh but this is so much better, if the PQ were in on the graft as well, could reflect badly on the Bloc Quebecois
hey any dots connecting Adscam directly to the Bloc, that would be interesting
[[His criminal trial is imminentent in a Quebec court and the ban is in the interest of protecting his right to a fair trial.]]
You are right but the bloggers in the US will me more that happy to expose the corruption for you.
That hasn't been true for 20 years.
The Liberals have few seats left to lose in Quebec. As far as the consequences for Quebec provincial politics and/or sovereignty, I have officially stopped caring.
Hello Clive, I am a blast from the past.
Imagine having to go to us sources to hear testimony we are entitled to hear.
Great Dane.
But there is the issue of conflict of rights, to wit, the right of the public to be informed about government misconduct against the right of an accused to have a fair trial.
When these rights come into conflict, neither is absolute and the court has to strike the best balance possible in light of the facts in issue.
Both Canada and the US have confronted this issue on more than one occasion and neither considers one right to be paramount over the other although Canada tends to lean more in favour of the rights of the subject to a fair trial while the US tends to lean toward the right of the public to be informed.
US courts have issued gag orders and Canadian courts have refused gag orders although an accused is more likely to get a gag order in a Canadian Court,
As to Gomery having issued a publication ban (now lifted because the criminal trial has been postponed):
I do not see Gomery as being in the pocket of either the Grits or Mr Dithers and he certainly does not kowtow to 'ti Jean. (Note that he has on more than one occasion refused to recuse himself on 'ti Jean's motions.)
And when the accused asked for a postponement to September and only got a postponement to June, Gomery today accepted the postponement as grounds to lift his publication ban.
It is nice to see you back. Lise.
You okay?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.