[Clogeroo]

'No' side illegally spent $539K in Quebec referendum: report

[align=left]The "No" camp fighting for federal unity before Quebec's 1995 sovereignty referendum illegally spent more than half a million dollars on its campaign, according to a report on the former Montreal-based lobby group Option Canada.

Parts of the report, penned by retired Quebec judge Bernard Grenier, were accidentally released online several hours before its scheduled publication time on Tuesday.

The Canada Rally drew 100,000 to Montreal in Oct. 1995 on the eve of Quebec's referendum.The Canada Rally drew 100,000 to Montreal in Oct. 1995 on the eve of Quebec's referendum.
(Canadian Press)

Grenier was asked to probe allegations that Option Canada broke electoral rules by funnelling millions of dollars from the federal government — then under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Liberals — to bolster the federalist side.

The allegations stemmed from two Montreal writers, Robin Philpot and Normand Lester. It's alleged that Option Canada channelled $3.5 million to the No side's budget, despite provincial dictates that limited spending to $5 million.

In his report, Grenier concludes that Option Canada and the Canadian Unity Council (CUC) illegally spent about $539,000 during the referendum campaign, and that altogether both groups spent about $11 million before and during the 1995 referendum period.

The $539,000, originating from the federal Heritage Department, is way short of the $5 million some sovereigntists allege was illegally spent by the No side before it eked out a narrow victory in October 1995.

Report stops short of blaming federalists

Details of Grenier's report were found on the website of Quebec's chief electoral officer, who was to hold a news conference later in the day.

Grenier did not put any blame on Premier Jean Charest, who was vice-president of the No committee in 1995.

The report also points to several prominent federalists in Quebec, but stops short of blaming them for breaking referendum spending rules.

The report singles out several key players, saying that:

* René Lemaire, director general of Option Canada, spent money without obtaining the authorization of the official agent representing the Committee of Quebecers for the No side.
* Jocelyn Beaudoin, director general of the CUC, was involved in spending decisions at Option Canada that led to non-authorized expenditures.
* Réjean Roy, financial comptroller for CUC and Option Canada, helped clear unauthorized expenditures.
* Nathalie Bernier, official agent of the No side, did her job with integrity, the report concluded, but she chose not to intervene to ensure Option Canada was following spending rules.

Option Canada was created to promote "linguistic duality" but was not supposed to be directly involved in the referendum campaign.

'Government injecting secret money,' authors alleged

Lester and Philpot, acting on a tip in January 2006, dug up trash bins filled with ledgers and cheque stubs that they later showed to reporters.

The two authors — both of whom have sovereigntist sympathies — wrote a book detailing how they believed millions of dollars from Option Canada ended up bolstering the federalist campaign.

"We have a very, very serious case of the government injecting secret money — illegally — to deny a legitimate political debate from taking place," Philpot charged.

Quebec's director general of elections asked Grenier to investigate the allegations in 2006, calling on Quebec's Liberal Premier Jean Charest to testify.

In 1995, Charest was the vice-president of the No campaign and political analysts said his credibility would be damaged if Grenier's report said the "No" forces breached electoral laws.

Still, before the report's release, Charest said he was not worried.

"The referendum happened 12 years ago, and as far as I'm concerned, the result of the referendum was quite clear," he said. "Almost 94 per cent of all eligible voters participated in that referendum campaign, and I know that when they went out to vote, they knew what they were voting on."

The provincial Liberal government has been on shaky ground since last week, when both opposition parties in the province threatened to vote down the new budget and trigger a snap election.

Pierre Martin, a professor of political science at the University of Montreal, told the CBC that the outcome of the report and the way opposition parties spin the details could be enough to push the Liberals into a third-place finish.[/align]

[ridenrain]

Where's Avro when you need someone to apologise for Chretien and Martin,.AGAIN.

[Patrick_Ross]

You know, pragmatically, I'm not sure that an apology is warranted for this particular breach of rules:

1.) The money in question here is, in my view, potentially excusable because the referendum campaign was about the future of Canada. The Liberals also use this excuse ("fighting for Canada") for theri Adscam indiscretions. However, this excuse is untenable in that particular situation, but I'm tempted to accept it here.

2.) There seems to be another $500,000 unaccounted for, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the "Yes" side spent it.

[ridenrain]

I think we're just seeing the other side of a staged wrassling match.
Crusher Chretien (Quebec lawyer) on one side and Parizeau the Punisher (Quebec lawyer) on the other, the winners were the parties, provinces and insiders, and the losers were the rest of Canada.

I doubt you would have the Bloc with any other party, than the Liberals. They really are a pair.

[fire_i]

$500,000 is less than what Robin Philpot and Normand Lester alleged. No big surprise, their ties to the PQ are known. However, when I see some federalists basically rejoice that they stole "less than expected" and consider it as if their crime, because it wasn't as bad as the PQ would have wanted, should be entirely overlooked, I can't help but feel extremely disenchanted.

For once I'd agree with Stéphane Dion : if we really want to know who stole and cheated and whatever during the 1995 referendum, we'd need to make a large, federal-provincial panel that would study both the actions of the Yes and No side at once and try to uncover the truth without being stopped by limited power, something which prevented judge Grenier from making all the research he'd have liked to make.

[Patrick_Ross]

Well, if Stephane Dion wants the government to investigate even more of his party's past activities, I'd say let the baby have his bottle.