[. . . Plausible] deniability isn't working for Prime Minister Paul Martin. The most important reason: It is decidedly un-prime-ministerial, the mirror image of the kind of person we don't want for a national leader. We hope the highest post in the land will be held by someone with an unimpeachable sense of personal honour.
. . . someone in that most important office [PM] who actually seeks out problems, who demands of those around him that he know everything. Why? So he can provide genuine leadership and make the country better.
But the other reason Martin now faces the serious problem of implausible deniability is that he has simply used it too many times. It is meant to be used judiciously. It is precisely that rare usage that makes "not knowing" plausible. Make a habit of it and suddenly it becomes a fatal flaw.
The sponsorship scandal is, for Martin, the denial that reached implausible critical mass. Almost no one believes he "didn't know" because, well, it's unbelievable.
Briefly, these are other cases where Paul Martin may have claimed "plausible denial" -- and where subsequent revelations made them implausible:
1. The tainted blood scandal -- Canada Development Corporation and Connaught Laboratories -- HIV/Aids
2. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) -- serious flaws in the tax laws and huge losses in revenue -- GST law and allowing companies to deduct fines for environmental infractions as a business expense
3. Canada Steamship Lines, some of the most notorious union-busting in Australian history, foreign flagged ships in Australian coastal trade, allowing it to fire its unionized workers, regular meetings with his CSL management through an unusual agreement--for a Finance Minister supposed to be operating at "arms length"--negotiated through Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson
4. Canada Steamship Lines -- government money had gone to CSL since 1993 -- reported as $137,000 -- actually $161 million
5. "The extraordinarily vicious takeover of the party, the sabotage of Sheila Copps' career, and the continuing hounding from nomination contests of people Martin doesn't want in his caucus, have all been done in the Prime Minister's name.
[. . . . ] it is his political staff who are responsible — unless a plausible deniability covenant was in play.
Check the whole article for the details. Martin is beginning to appear risible in his denials. NJC
