This full Executive Summary will be completed shortly.
Kinsella on Wajsman
Some of the testimony at the sponsorship inquiry Friday was quite colourful as former Liberal fundraiser Beryl Wajsman delivered several one-liners. Some highlights:
- "I turned to Joe (Morselli) and said, `look, with all due respect, I can't introduce this guy (ad man Jean Brault) to serious businessmen. I mean between the Elvis Presley haircut, the little moustache, he's sweating, he's nervous, this is not a guy I can introduce.'''
- "I said to Joe (Morselli): I am not sitting here ... bringing in money to pay the salaries of six people, one of whom is doing nothing but organizing broomball festivals when he's supposed to be an organizer for Quebec west.''
- "I don't want to name names, Mr. Commissioner, because it seems every time a name comes out of here, they become the spawn of the devil and the press goes bananas.''
- "Thank God I was habitually late (at Frank's restaurant) as I always am. God knows what would have happened had I arrived on time, I might have been accused of the Lizzie Borden murders.'' Wajsman commenting on a meeting he attended at which, according to Brault, an envelope containing $5,000 disappeared when he went to the bathroom.
- "The story doesn't make sense and I'll tell you why it doesn't make sense.'' (Judge John Gomery interrupts): "Just tell me the story. I'm like Joe Friday. I just want the facts.''
- "I'm sorry, Mr. (lawyer Guy) Cournoyer, if I'm going ahead but stop me if I'm ... (Cournoyer replies): "You're unstoppable, sir.''
Canada in Crisis:
Between Martin and Gomery
BPW interview with Lynne Robson of CBC's
BPW on CBC's “The National” speaking with Lynne Robson.
What has led to the current crisis in this country can be summed up in three words: abrogation, abdication and abnegation. And it is a process that has perniciously advanced over the past twenty years.
The greed decade of the eighties during which the Mulroney administration ruled, was characterized by an almost total abrogation of the public trust. Some half dozen Ministers had to resign for questionable dealings. It is evidence of the feckless mindset of the Canadian political culture that no one is affronted by the fact that Mulroney's Chief of Staff during that sorry period is now the Chief Counsel to the Gomery Commission masterfully exhibiting a magisterial projection of false piety.
The Chrétien administration that followed, engaged in abdication of Parliamentary responsibility by shuffling off important matters of state to bureaucrats, Courts and law-enforcement agencies answerable to no in order to avoid taking hard decisions. Micro-management at its most dangerous.
The sovereignty of the people's suffrage over the state was so compromised by these policies that we hardly noticed the brutal use of instruments of state power that almost destroyed Francois Beaudoin who insisted on maintaining his integrity in the Auberge Grande-Mere affair. It is offensive that the public morality of our commonweal has sunk so low that there has been no objection raised to the fact that Beaudoin's lawyer, knowing better than most the corrosive power of the state, is now representing the Liberal party attempting to reverse its own deflowering.
Finally, in the past few years, we have witnessed the self-abnegation of Canadians in their own consequence. This nation has been characterized by a self-doubt driven by a jealousy of others’ self belief. They have sold their souls for government handouts and have been rendered impotent by fidelity to the false security of the demands of statocratic consensus.
By the late nineties the stage had been set for what the philosopher Becarria called the triumph of the mindless and the tyranny of the mediocre. But, as Joseph Heller titles so well, "Something Happened”.
What happened was the near disaster of the 1995 referendum. This Prime Minister knows full well that Canada’s national political elite signed on to plans to destroy the separatist threat at any cost. He was there. Liberals and Tories recognized that job one of a Federal government was to keep this country together. The pathetic whining and bleating of the hockey-rink dads and soccer moms about their passports and pensions resonated like white noise across the land.
None of the leaders much cared how it was done as long as the voters could be satisfied. Besides, the specific tactics were unimportant. The overall strategy and structure had already been in place since Mulroney’s time with tens of millions of discretionary dollars allocated for Canadian unity initiatives with little or no reporting obligations.
All the Liberal leaders were very happy in the 2000 elections when federalists won Quebec for the first time in twelve years. Part of the reason was that the 1001 “silly” initiatives of sponsorship produced summer jobs for kids in Alma and Abitibi; and part-time work in local programs from the Saguenay to the Mauricie; and the flag was waved in all areas of “le Québec profonde”. Yes, it was bread and circuses. But that too is politics and it has worked since Roman times.
And there lay the problem. Politics had stopped being a vocation entered into because you felt a visceral desire to serve the public good. It became just politics. Just business. Politicians saw suffering and did not relieve it. Saw wrongs and did not right them. Saw injustice and did not cure it. Instead Canada’s political leadership promised something for everyone. Politics became a game. Pork barrel vote-grabbing schemes. No rules and everything was fair game.
A great party of power and principle was reduced to a sandbox of petty infighting between rival gangs. All for the sake of the brass ring. No matter how many lies were told. Well this did not fully meet its duty and all sides in the Liberal Party will soon have to pay the piper.
The Chretienites were carrying out the sponsorship initiative with electoral success, but with egregiously sloppy controls and shady deals. The Martinites were busy premeditatedly compromising the public trust stealthily funnelling contracts to their friends and firms. Both are responsible for turning the business of government into an arena for intra-mural rivalries. An arena where one wing of the party usurped the rule of law and enforced McCarthyite guilt by association in order to deflect from their own questionable practices.
It is time for new leadership in this new millennium. A leadership that does not merely oppose any man, but proposes new policies. Policies that restore Canada’s pride and purpose on the world stage shouldering our fair share in democratic development. Policies that protect our most vulnerable and secure our core social security safety net. Policies that strengthen health care by ordering the direction of federal dollars without fear of blackmail from provincial hacks. Policies that relieve the yoke of exorbitant taxation on our working men and women by rolling back corporate welfare and needless programs of politically correct social engineering. Policies that reflect the true purpose for the cession of our natural liberties to the state.
Though the Liberal Party may, to a great extent, be discredited, there are many of us who still value liberalism.
A liberalism that celebrates the sovereignty of each individual’s rights over any corporate or collectivist interests in a state. A liberalism of inclusion not exception. A liberalism of expanded opportunity, not low limitation. A liberalism based on the equity of just consideration, not the inequality of narrow circumstance. A liberalism that is the shield of the vulnerable and the staff of the unempowered. A liberalism whose leaders do not exercise power merely as a two-edged sword of craft and oppression.
Leadership does not lie on top of a fence. It climbs heights. It speaks truths. Clearly proclaimed and candidly proposed. If we do not soon marshal a new national resolve, we will fall victim to the warning of Thomas D’Arcy McGee who wrote in 1865 that,” There is room in this Northern Dominion – under one flag and one set of laws – for one great people. But that greatness can never be achieved – under that same flag and those same laws – if we succumb to a thousand squabbling interests.” Only if we heed these words and begin to celebrate our common universalities, rather than pandering to our parochial particularities, can we as Canadians ever vindicate the possibilities of our own capacities.
~ Beryl Wajsman
BPW on "The Current" with Anthony Germain
From: Charles. Coffey
Subject: WELL SAID
Good morning my friend,
Heading up Hwy. 28 to my cottage south of Bancroft and who do I hear on CBC's The Current?
I loved your description “the Elvis Presley haircut, pencil thin moustache, and sweating”. I could not introduce such a character to anyone either. Well said. I will be thinking of you later today as you appear at the Commission.
Charles S. Coffey
John Angus on Canadian Consequence
Institute Advisory Council member John Angus was taken aback by the demanding tone of a recent Liberal Party solicitation letter . He decided to put some of his thoughts, and frustrations, on paper. He has kindly allowed us to share them with all of you. It is well worth your while to take a few moments and read them. Not just for what they say about this country, but as much for what they say about ourselves.
John Angus speaking at an Institute Conference
I would like to start this letter by suggesting that a change in the wording being sent to those who are late with their annual fees is in order. I note that there is a “thank you” at the end, but no “please” at the beginning and this makes it sound a bit more like a command rather than a request.
I send you my cheque reluctantly this year, as I find that for almost the first time in my life, I am a Liberal only by default.
I am terribly shocked by our very nice Prime Minister’s lack of leadership skills and by the total lack of courage, vision and ethics exhibited by our present cabinet. They are making decision after decision with no overall context, no overall plan and no moral compass. Moreover, they are tainted by a whiff of corruption and cronyism. They attack serious problems with a feather duster.
Here in our riding, our MP is also a nice man. I am sure that he adequately represents local issues for us in the house, but he is not a leader, nor does he impact on the major issues of the day. We can do better.
I sense everywhere a growing feeling that it is high time we have a thorough house cleaning. People want us to find a leader who is courageous, solid and can express a vision for this country that we would all be proud to follow, especially as Liberals. We also need to elect local MP’s that are more than just caretakers. The Party needs to do much better.
Fortunately or unfortunately our Party is not the only one lost in the wilderness. While we dither and the other side waffles and the third and fourth Parties do whatever it is they do, our country suffers. This situation is completely unacceptable.
In contrast, Australians today are proud of their country’s growing sense of purpose and direction. Proud of their military. Proud to take on responsibilities. And because of that they are gaining weight, and stature, on the world stage. Their Prime Minister has articulated a vision that is bold and brave.
We on the other hand, are experiencing the exact opposite. We have a Prime Minister that seems incapable of articulating any vision. We are becoming less and less relevant on the world stage. Our Armed Forces have been mortgaged for decades. We often shirk our responsibilities and the results are all too obvious. Our national sense of pride in our country is abating fast.
What an incredible contrast. What an incredibly bad report card.
Some would say that we only get what we deserve and would casually point to our present muddled and deteriorating situation as proof of this. I for one do not agree. We not only deserve much better, but we can demand much more of ourselves and we can do much better for our Party and our country. The shame and the blame rest on my shoulders, on yours, on all of us. As a Party, we have been complacent and feckless for far too long. It is time to wake up and time to get moving.
John F. Angus
May 10, 2005
If it wasn’t for State Rape, Libs would never get paid
Probably one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long, long time.
~ Editor, Grandinite
The Scandal of Public Intrusions into Private Lives
Beryl P. Wajsman, President
Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
“Die Gedanken Sind Frei…My thoughts freely flower…
Die Gedanken Sind Frei…My thoughts give me power
Never to cater… To Duke or Dictator
No man can deny…Die Gedanken Sind Frei;"
~ Anthem of the German Student Movement in pre-war Germany
(as translated by Pete Seeger)
The violation of our thoughts, and the paralytic fear caused to our spirits, by excessive state oversight, are as much acts of aggression as the breach of physical integrity caused by rape.
If we have one boast, one over-riding advantage, over totalitarian regimes it is not in matters of materialism. It relates to matters of the mind and of the spirit. To those issues of natural law that, having a broad base in morality, protect our individuality and conscience against direct and indirect interference by government. All human progress centers around one continual rebellion. People, as citizens, in revolt against oppressive laws and insisting upon a personal accountability to conscience above the state. Liberty, inalienable, as the way of life.
Government was to exist for man, not man for government. The aim of the state was to be security for the individual and freedom for the development of his talents. The individual was to be protected from authority itself.
More on the paper in full at:
Full article from M.K. Braaten
Whoa. Everyone must listen to the recent radio show, Rob Breakenridge: The World Tonight on CHQR Calgary. When Beryl Wajsman was a guest he talked about how we should be demanding an investigation about:
- Why Paul Martin as Finance Minister systemically changed the tax codes to loosen the rules for off-shore corporations; allowed for the transfer of jobs to 3rd world countries and loosened the rules for Ministers having knowledge of their private business interests;
- How these changes will hurt our country far worse then misspent money on sponsorship;
- CSL: how an accounting error went from 165,000 to 165 million.
- Gun Registry: how it went to 1 billion.
- Contracts with Earnscliffe and Team Martin
- How Paul Martin took the surpluses out of the EI and CPP funds and almost bankrupted them.
Quote: "Its hard to imagine that men at that level, men in Cabinet, did not know, from 1995 on...it would be hard to imagine that any man of consequence at the political elite did not know about these programs.'
Random notes on the issues of the day
An Honest Liberal
I know, it sounds like an oxymoron. More and more it looks like all Liberals are liars. It has gotten to the point where they even call each other liars. But, I do not believe all Liberals are dishonest. These days, however, any Liberal who is fundamentally honest must feel awfully uncomfortable with Adscam and subsequent efforts of the Liberal Party to sidestep any responsibility for the scandal.
Consequently, it was with some relief that I read a letter from Beryl Wajsman, posted on Captain's Quarters (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/) last night. After having his name pop up in previous testimony at the Gomery inquiry, it seems Wajsman is chomping at the bit to tell his side of the story. As he puts it, “my story is one of a party reformer opposed, not a party consultant enriched.”
After a long talk with Wajsman this afternoon, I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would encourage my readers to have a gander at some of his articles on the web site of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal, of which he is president. We may finally have a Liberal who seems to genuinely put integrity ahead of self interest.
There is little doubt that Wajsman is an unrepentant “liberal” who is passionate about his beliefs. He finds inspiration in Trudeau’s just society and envisages "a national political culture where victory is won on the battlefields of ideals and principles are never vanquished in the backrooms of deals."
One thing for sure, he is not one to acquiesce to authority. As he inveighs against the corporatism that permeates the Canadian state, he assures me, “we are going to expose who is running this country.” And by this, he does not mean the politicians.
Beryl Wajsman Interview At CQ with Edward Morrissey
This evening, I had the pleasure of speaking at length with Beryl Wajsman, the president of Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal and an upcoming witness for the Gomery Inquiry looking into Adscam. Our first contact came when Beryl posted an unsolicited statement in CQ's comments section, which I reposted separately to ensure that everyone had a chance to read it.
Beryl, it turns out, is a man who does not remain silent gladly. As his statement suggests, he is a man of strong opinions and convictions, a man who speaks bluntly, and someone who needs little prompting to discuss difficult subjects. Despite the differences in our political viewpoints, I found Beryl very convincing and his enthusiasm contagious. He cannot wait to appear before Gomery and tell his story to the Inquiry.
However, as he made plain during our interview, he sees the Gomery Inquiry as a red herring -- a machination that allows Prime Minister Paul Martin to deflect attention from his own peccadilloes. Beryl speaks about Martin's scandals in some detail during our interview, as well as his connections to Power Corporation, the TotalElfFina Group, and the Desmarais family. He told me that the Canadian media has focused on Gomery instead of Martin's much more extensive (and expensive) financial manipulations simply because Gomery stories write themselves, and the media doesn't have to lift a finger to get the updates.
If you expect to get inside scoop on Adscam corruption, you won't find it in this interview. Beryl didn't do any work for the Sponsorship Program, and as his upcoming testimony will show, he burnt his bridges at the Liberal Party well before Jean Brault alleges that Wajsman was present at a cash drop (which reporters mistakenly attributes as an accusation that he took a payoff, which isn't what Brault said at all.). He does give an insider's look at some of the players involved in the scandal, though, including Martin, Alfonso Gagliano, and Daniel Dezainde. He also gives his own unique analysis of Canadian politics and talks about his plans for the future.
I hope that over the next few days, you'll keep up with the posts of this extraordinary interview as I get them transcribed. Beryl's is a voice that not only should be heard, it practically demands it.
On LCN with Esther Begin
Beryl Wajsman, president de l’Institut des affaires publiques de Montreal, a expliqué qu'il avait été recruté à l'automne 2000 par le directeur général du parti, Benoît Corbeil, Joe Morselli, un proche d'Alfonso Gagliano et le ministre Gagliano lui-même, pour créer une structure de financement parce que la commission des finances ne fonctionnait pas.
Benoît Corbeil lui a alors dit que le réseau de financement libéral était «brûlé», selon son expression. M. Wajsman a expliqué qu'il avait organisé un cocktail de financement en février 2001 et que les chèques des participants totalisant 136 000$ amassés avaient été remis au comptable de la permanence, Daniel Cloutier.
Il s'est plaint que ce dernier ne rendait jamais de comptes à personne quant à l'argent reçu, mais que le total des sommes dues par le parti ne cessait d'augmenter.
M. Wajsman a ensuite raconté qu'à l'arrivée de Daniel Dezainde, au printemps 2001, en remplacement de Benoît Corbeil, ce dernier lui avait dit qu'il ne voulait pas de représentants des communautés culturelles au sein de la commission des finances.
From: Jennifer Tryon
Sent: May 12, 2005 4:27 PM
To: 'Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal'
Hey... nice job on LCN. You’re everywhere.
Qui est Beryl Wajsman?
From: Romano Dave
Sent: May 13, 2005 1:09 AM
To: Beryl Wajsmann
Subject: good job
Beryl -- saw you on the French news this evening -- great job! I think people may respond quite well to the kind of "fed-up with it anger" you displayed!
David H. Romano, Ph.D., McGill University
BPW- Gomery: Media Excerpts
Liberal exec was 'racist,' Gomery inquiry told
Fri, 13 May 2005
MONTREAL - Former Liberal party fundraiser Beryl Wajsman, alleged to have engaged in questionable fundraising practices, has shot back at his accuser, calling him a racist. Daniel Dezainde, the former director general of the Liberal party's Quebec wing, told the sponsorship inquiry that he fired Wajsman in 2001. But Wajsman told the inquiry on Friday that he quit the party because Dezainde was intolerant.
"He was a racist," said Wajsman, who is Jewish.
Wajsman said he was hired as a consultant to cultivate Montreal's cultural minorities and bring money into the party – a job he claims wasn't being done by the finance commission. He alleged that Dezainde was totally opposed to members from ethnic communities sitting on the finance commission. "Is it possible that you overreacted?" asked Justice John Gomery, who is leading the inquiry. The judge suggested Dezainde was probably telling Wajsman that he couldn't "dictate to him the composition of the finance commission."
But Wajsman didn't sway, insisting Dezainde wanted to keep the party "closed."
Wajsman denied allegations that he took an envelope stuffed with $5,000 from ad man Jean Brault at a Montreal restaurant. Brault told the inquiry that Morselli had asked him to give a bogus job to Wajsman when he fell out of favour with a top Liberal official. Brault said he was asked to meet Morselli in an Italian restaurant and leave $5,000 in an envelope on the table for Wajsman. Brault testified that when he went to the washroom and returned, the cash was gone.
"There was no money exchanged, there was no envelope," Wajsman said on Thursday.
May 26, 2005
MONTREAL- Ex-Liberal fundraiser Joseph Morselli, accused of being the "real boss" of party financing in Quebec denied the charge Thursday, in some of the most dramatic testimony at the sponsorship inquiry."I was born in the northeast corner of Italy." said Morselli. "There are no godfather-type groups originating from this region, nor any godfathers. I am a proud Venetian."
Morselli also gave an account of why he declared "war" on another Liberal party member, who said he was so afraid of Morselli he had to seek police protection. Morselli said that if he ever confronted Daniel Dezainde, it was over virulently racist comments targeting Beryl Wajsman, a former party fundraiser.He said Dezainde made the comments during a confrontation over Wajsman's attempts to recruit ethnic Montrealers to the party in 2001.
"His (Dezainde's) answer, with a very, very proud tone, was 'We were able to get rid of the damn Jew and soon we'll be able to get rid of all of those other damn coloureds,' " Morselli testified. "I lost my cool, that's for sure. If I had had a stick, I would have hit him. Did I declare war on him? Very probably."
Morselli, also said he never took an envelope stuffed with $5,000 from Groupaction president Jean Brault at an Italian restaurant. "I never saw an envelope, I can assure you," Morselli said in a lengthy rebuttal of Brault's explosive testimony.
In a strange twist, Morselli said he did in fact pocket $5,000 in cash from Brault, but that it was a reimbursement for work on a municipal campaign unrelated to the Liberals. Morselli said he took the money from Brault's secretary in 2001 at the firm's head office in Montreal, using the cash to cover expenses.
He said he didn't take cash from Brault to pay former party fundraiser Beryl Wajsman.
Thu, 26 May 2005 21:53:32 EDT
MONTREAL - Joe Morselli, longtime friend and supporter of former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, said he never solicited cash payments or cheques from Quebec advertising firms but he met them frequently to sell them tickets to fundraising events. He said he was named to the party's finance commission by Gagliano.
Morselli recounted how he got involved in fundraising for the Liberal party after a snap federal election in 2000 caught everyone by surprise. He was asked by Gagliano, Quebec's chief Liberal organizer, to organize a quick cocktail party in October 2000. The event, which took place at Montreal's Chateau Champlain, was a huge hit. It raised $600,000. Later, said Morselli, Paul Martin, who was finance minister at the time, thanked him for his efforts.
After the 2000 federal election, Morselli met the heads of a number of ad firms, among other businessmen. His goal, he said, was to sell tickets to fundraising events. Contradicting previous testimony by other witnesses, he repeated he never asked for donations. But he passed on the message that the party was broke.
"We always sat at the same table and it was I who paid for the lunch to make sure that I was not indebted to anyone."
The party was $2.5 million in debt after the 2000 election, he said, a fact that troubled Gagliano. Morselli's objective, he added, was to erase that debt within four years and to have $500,000 left over for the next election.
He recruited Beryl Wajsman in December 2000 with Gagliano's consent, and put him on the party's payroll at $5,000 a month. His task was to bring in money for the party.
Gomery said he was intrigued by the fact that a worker would be paid $5,000 a month while the party was in dire straits. But Morselli assured the commissioner that Wajsman was well worth it. "In the first four or five months, he was able to raise $300,000 by himself."
Morselli also admitted to pocketing $5,000 in cash, which was given to him by Brault, intended to help Benoit Corbeil's campaign for municipal office.
Wajsman descend en flammes
ses ex-collègues libéraux
Le samedi 14 mai 2005
Beryl Wajsman a émises les opinions hier avec une grande verve. Il a dit,
«Ce bureau (la permanence du parti à Montréal) était pourri. L'attitude des gens était froide, je ne pouvais avoir de rapports, il n'y avait pas de collaboration, mon courrier était ouvert avant qu'il ne m'arrive entre les mains.»
Ses relations avec Daniel Dezainde, elles, ont viré à l'orage dès leur première rencontre, en mai 2001. M. Wajsman affirme avoir expliqué ses fonctions au tout nouveau directeur général, en précisant qu'il serait souhaitable que des représentants des communautés culturelles puissent siéger à certaines instances du parti. M. Dezainde aurait sèchement refusé.
«C'est un raciste, a tranché M. Wajsman. Quand il m'a dit: Ces gens ne s'assoiront pas à la commission des finances avec un sourire froid, l'oeil froid, je lui ai dit: Qui sont ces gens dont vous parlez? Les bruns, les jaunes?La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid. Je lui ai répondu: Vous insistez pour tout faire derrière des portes closes. Moi, je veux tout faire de façon transparente. Vous ne vous tenez pas aux côtés des vôtres.»
En point de presse peu après son témoignage, M. Wajsman en a profité pour lancer des flèches vers le premier ministre Paul Martin, l'accusant d'avoir téléguidé le témoignage de Daniel Dezainde. De façon inopinée, il a annoncé sa candidature à la direction du Parti libéral du Canada.
Ex-Grit fundraiser blames 'turf war' for dismissal
SUN OTTAWA BUREAU
A former Liberal fundraiser says he never took envelopes stuffed with cash or engaged in influence-peddling, blaming a "turf war" over the Liberals' Quebec bank accounts for his firing. Beryl Wajsman, a longtime Liberal who prides himself on his connections with Montreal's ethnic communities, said he's preparing to run for PM Paul Martin's job to bring integrity back to his party.
Wajsman bowled over the Adscam inquiry in Montreal yesterday with feisty testimony about his attempt to reform the Liberal party's Quebec wing finances and fundraising. "It became a turf war," Wajsman said, suggesting the newly appointed executive director Daniel Dezainde in May 2001 was wrongly trying to freeze out Gagliano, the former public works minister.
Wajsman said he was hired by Gagliano and his right-hand man, Joseph Morselli, in January 2001 for $5,000 a month to recruit the ethnic communities, denying Dezainde's allegations that he was peddling his influence to party donors by forwarding their requests to then-PM Jean Chretien.
"If that's not the Liberal party of today, that we can't sensitize our prime minister ... that's not my Liberal party anymore," Wajsman said. Wajsman said he repeatedly butted heads with Dezainde, labeling him a "racist" for refusing to let leaders of cultural groups sit on the finance commission.
"Daniel Dezainde looked at me with very cold eyes and a very thin smile and said these people are never getting into the heart of the finance commission," Wajsman said. "I said, 'Daniel, who are these people? The brown ones, the yellow ones or those whose names you don't like?' "
Colourful Ex-Liberal Fundraiser
MONTREAL (CP) - A former Liberal fundraiser said Friday he never took a cash-stuffed envelope from ad man Jean Brault when he met him at an Italian restaurant. Beryl Wajsman, President of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal, told the sponsorship inquiry he had nothing to do with the alleged $5,000 cash exchange at Ristorante Frank that Brault said was one of several illicit donations made to the Liberals.
"There was no money exchanged, there was no envelope," Wajsman told commission counsel Guy Cournoyer in one of the most colourful appearances seen at the Gomery commission. "I don't take cash," added Wajsman, one-time aide to Irwin Cotler before Cotler was named justice minister. "Can you imagine me walking around with cash? My wife doesn't trust me to go to the grocery store."
The Montreal community activist, says he met Brault at the restaurant in the summer of 2001 to discuss business opportunities but that nothing panned out. Also present, according to Brault and Wajsman, was Joseph Morselli, an associate of Alfonso Gagliano.
Wajsman says that when Brault's testimony came to light last month, Morselli told him over the telephone that Brault was "full of shit" and that there was no envelope of cash.
POLITIQUE, samedi 14 mai 2005, p. a3
Beryl Wajsman :
Dezainde, un raciste; Gagliano, faible
C'est un Beryl Wajsmann tout feu tout flamme qui a qualifié Daniel Dezainde de «raciste» lors de son bruyant passage à la commission Gomery hier.
Beryl Wajsman soutient qu'il a été renvoyé en raison du racisme de Daniel Dezainde, qui refusait d'ouvrir les portes de la commission des finances aux membres des communautés culturelles. «Daniel Dezainde m'a regardé avec des yeux froids et un mince sourire et m'a dit: "Ces gens-là n'entreront jamais au coeur de la commission des finances." Je lui ai dit: "Daniel, nous n'avons plus rien à nous dire."»
«C'était un raciste, a-t-il ajouté. J'ai été impliqué avec les communautés culturelles toute ma vie. Je suis né en Russie, j'ai perdu 70 membres de ma famille dans l'Holocauste. Il y a des choses que tu ressens ou que tu sais.»
M. Wajsman avait reçu son mandat de l'organisateur en chef du PLC au Québec, Alfonso Gagliano. Toutes les deux semaines, il se rapportait au ministre et à son fidèle lieutenant, Joe Morselli. Il devait non seulement recueillir des fonds auprès des communautés culturelles mais les mener à s'impliquer davantage dans les rouages de la machine libérale.
C'est donc à M. Gagliano que M. Wajsmann s'est plaint lorsqu'il a été congédié par une bande de «racistes» et «d'incompétents» incapables d'organiser autre chose de mieux que des soirées «de ballon-balai» pour renflouer le parti. Dans une lettre adressée au ministre Gagliano, M. Wajsmann se vante d'avoir amassé 300 000 $ en deux cocktails pour le parti, en février et juin 2001. Pour six mois de travail, M. Wajsmann a quant à lui touché des honoraires de 27 500 $ en plus d'un remboursement pour des dépenses de 13 797 $.
samedi 14 mai 2005,
Accusations de racisme
Wajsman tire à boulets rouges sur Dezainde
Montréal - Quand Beryl Wajsman a quitté en juin 2001 le PLC section Québec, il laissait un "bureau pourri", miné par le "racisme" du directeur général et par "une guerre interne". Il avait été engagé comme "consultant" six mois plus tôt, directement par Alfonso Gagliano et Joseph Morselli.
Aux yeux de Beryl Wajsman, qui a travaillé en 2001 au PLC(Q), il ne fait aucun doute que Daniel Dezainde est un "employé de Paul Martin" dans ce qui est "sa dernière tentative pour attaquer la réputation des gens" et, par ricochet, pour sauver sa peau.
M. Wajsman a plutôt raconté qu'à son arrivée en décembre 2000, "l'ancien réseau de financement du Parti était brûlé", selon ce que lui aurait dit Benoît Corbeil, alors directeur général. C'est justement pour cette raison que le ministre Alfonso Gagliano s'est tourné vers son ami Joseph Morselli pour "remettre sur pied la Commission des finances". Et, pour aller frapper à la porte des communautés culturelles, MM. Morselli et Corbeil ont embauché M. Wajsman.
M. Wajsman affirme que "tout était fait au grand jour. Rien n'était caché. Je remettais tous les chèques que je percevais à Daniel Cloutier (le comptable du PLC-Québec), ils étaient tous faits à l'ordre du Parti". Par contre, il n'a jamais rencontré la présidente du Parti, Françoise Patry, ni le conseil de direction. "Je ne savais même pas qu'il y en avait un", a-t-il lancé, insistant sur le fait qu'il n'était "pas un employé", mais un "consultant" agissant avec un "mandat" de M. Gagliano.
Le mandat en question prévoyait qu'il approche les communautés culturelles et les amène à contribuer au Parti. En six mois, il a organisé deux cocktails, "prononcé des conférences et des discours", assemblé un recueil des programmes gouvernementaux à partir d'information disponible dans Internet et, affirme-t-il, produit un rapport de ses activités qu'il remettait à Benoît Corbeil et à M. Morselli.
Quand M. Dezainde a succédé à M. Corbeil, M. Wajsman a déchanté. La première rencontre a eu sur lui l'effet d'une douche froide, se rappelle-t-il. "Je lui ai tout expliqué, comment ça marchait, je lui ai montré les lettres que j'avais reçues, les remerciements", mais M. Dezainde serait resté de glace.
M. Wajsman est sorti fâcher du bureau. Pourquoi ? a demandé le commissaire John Gomery. "Parce qu'il (M. Dezainde) est raciste. Il m'a dit "Ces gens-là (provenant des communautés culturelles) ne siégeront pas sur cette commission" (des finances), malgré l'engagement de M. Gagliano. Je lui ai demandé : "Qui sont ces gens-là ? Les bruns, les jaunes, les gens qui ne sont pas de souche ?" Il n'a pas répondu. Sourire froid. Regard froid. Je suis parti."
Impliqué en politique depuis les années 70, alors qu'il était bénévole dans la circonscription de Pierre Elliott Trudeau, M. Wajsman a une piètre opinion de M. Gagliano, qui "n'a pas les capacités intellectuelles ou le charisme" d'un "Jean Marchand ou Marc Lalonde". Mais il lui en veut surtout à cause de son "manque de courage", pour ne pas avoir plaidé en sa faveur auprès de M. Dezainde.
Au cours d'une rencontre tout juste avant son congédiement, après que Gagliano l'eut invité à faire preuve de patience, il a dit au ministre : "Je ne peux pas vous pardonner pour ne pas vous tenir debout. N'auriez-vous pas dû me dire ce qu'on dit dans mon dos? (M. Dezainde s'était plaint de M. Wajsman au ministre.) Je m'attends à ça du nid de couleuvres, mais pas du ministre qui m'a donné un mandat."
Le "nid de couleuvres" dont il parle, c'est la permanence du Parti à Montréal, "12 000 pieds carrés pour six personnes" qui "ne font rien". Contraint à composer avec l'"attitude froide" de ses collègues, M. Wajsman s'est plaint de n'avoir "pas de rapports sur ce qui arrivait aux chèques que je ramassais, mon courrier était ouvert avant qu'on me le remette. Il y avait une frustration générale, les gens ne faisaient rien".
Dans une lettre qu'il écrit à M. Gagliano, il lui explique "ce que je faisais et mes frustrations. Je lui rappelais ses engagements, que je n'allais pas travailler pour six bons à rien, que le Parti ne m'appuyait pas". Il la lui remet Chez Frank. Joseph Morselli est présent. M. Gagliano l'a lue lentement. "Et m'a dit "Vous avez absolument raison". Il m'a redonné la lettre en me disant "Je ne peux pas avoir ça en ma possession". Il a dit "Calme-toi, je vais lui parler, ça va s'arranger". Ça ne s'est pas arrangé."
En point de presse au sortir de son passage à la Commission Gomery hier, il a qualifié de "fiasco (traduction de mess)" l'enquête menée depuis un an sur le scandale des commandites. Il a également confié vouloir se lancer dans la prochaine course au leadership du Parti libéral du Canada.
Speaking Truth to Power
BPW Gomery Testimony
English audio excerpts of the testimony:
RDI Report on BPW Testimony
For a fuller review of my testimony please read
"Paul Martin's Legacy of Stone: The Death of Trudeau Liberalism"
at the following link on our website:
From: Jean-Paul Ruszkowski
Sent: May 15, 2005 10:21 AM
To: Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
Congratulations on your performance at the Gomery Commission.
From: Albert A. ZBILY
Sent: May 15, 2005 11:14 PM
To: Institute for Public Affairs
I saw your testimonyand read the media read-out. You had meticulous record keeping. Good for you. I hope this gives you the fuel to expand the institute across Canada and maybe also to take on the Liberal Party.
Albert A. Zbily, M.A
From: Zénon Mazur
To: 'Institute for Public Affairs'
Il est fantastique de constater qu’il y a encore des gens très bien.
Ta liste le prouve sans équivoque. Ta réponse et bataille est superbe, mes félicitations et ne lâche pas !!!
Carrefour des communautés du Québec
From: Jim Kovalsky
Sent: May 13, 2005 4:31 PM
I write this message to commend you on your forthright and honest testimony at the Gomery Commission. Your exuberance and passion for justice is evident and an inspiration. It is unfortunate that individuals such as yourself do not have more influence in guiding the direction of our national will.
From: John Angus
Sent: May 13, 2005 5:25 PM
To: Beryl P Wajsmann
I watched as much as I could of your appearance today. I think you did an amazing job of getting the truth out and setting the record straight. It was a classic performance.
John F. Angus
le 13 mai 2005
Le juge Gomery entendait ce matin l'organisateur électoral Beryl Wajsman, impliqué à partir de janvier 2001 dans le financement de la section québécoise du Parti libéral fédéral.
Cette semaine, lors de son témoignage devant la commission Gomery, Daniel Dezainde avait fait d'importantes révélations sur Beryl Wajsman. L'ancien directeur général de la section québécoise avait déclaré que Wajsman était congédié en raison d'activités de démarchage qu'il trouvait inappropriées.
Beryl Wajsman a réfuté cette allégation, plaidant qu'il était normal que le parti offre de l'information aux gens qui donnent des fonds au parti. Le témoin a également nié les déclarations de Jean Brault, de Groupaction, sur la disparition d'une enveloppe contenant 5000 $.
Beryl Wajsman a déclaré que Daniel Dezainde, à son arrivée au poste de directeur général en mars 2001, aurait dit ne pas vouloir de représentants des communautés culturelles à la commission des finances du parti. Il a souligné qu'il avait alors perçu M. Dezainde comme un raciste.
With Mario Langlois on CKAC:
Response to a Hatchet Job
Harry Truman once said that if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Well, we can stand the heat, and with the alliance we've built, we're going to try and take over the kitchen. Out of over two dozen stories on my appearance at Gomery only two were negative. I took great exception to the William Marsden story printed in the Gazette. Responding to my complaint, the Gazette worked with me on three days of verification of the facts and concluded that indeed it was appropriate to print a serious clarification. It is reproduced below with a sampling of letters sent to the Gazette and to me.
Story distorted the Gomery facts
May 19, 2005
Re: "Wajsman bites the hand that fed him" (Gazette, May 14).
This article on my testimony at the Gomery inquiry left out some key facts about certain evidence presented and much of my testimony.
I have received literally hundreds of calls and e-mails thanking me for championing an opening in the party and for talking straight about the deceit, duplicity and deception that went on.
The Gazette dared to say that I bit the hand that fed me, when I presented proof that I had fed them. The commission counsel himself put my hundreds of thousands of dollars of financial contributions to the party into the evidence, but The Gazette report ignored that fact.
Your story called my presentation of letters of thanks from community and social-action groups "vaudevillian," but the previous day repeated without comment Daniel Dezainde's unsubstantiated "lobbying" claims against me - which he admitted were based on "intuition" and destroyed "evidence."
The Gazette story ridiculed my criticisms of personnel in the Quebec branch of the federal Liberal Party who did not do their jobs - precisely the problem I was hired to fix - but denigrated the proof presented by commission counsel that my efforts were the sole revenue coming into the party that paid their salaries.
Your story had not a word about the fact that Dezainde insulted me, Joe Morselli, Alfonso Gagliano, Irene Marcheterre, his own friend Serge Miousse, and even PMO chief of staff Percy Downe who, by Dezainde's admission, opposed his decision to terminate my services.
Your story pejoratively described me as a bagman, ignoring commission counsel's own presentation that every contribution I delivered was by cheque.
And your story portrayed my explanation of the mix-up over the party phone number with no reference to the fact that commission counsel put into evidence the written statement of the company that made the mistake.
The story made no mention of the evidence presented by commission counsel that our work was the sole financing done within the federal Liberal Party at the sectoral level, and we could not get an accounting from the party's own bookkeeper. It simply repeated Dezainde's unsubstantiated charge that this fundraising was parallel to the party. Commission counsel got Dezainde to admit, in his second day, that this work was on the books and strictly within the party.
I will continue my work for the just, without compromising truth to timidity or mortgaging honour to expediency.
Beryl P. Wajsman
Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
From: Anthony Philbin
Sent: May 15, 2005 10:18 PM
Subject: Where CanWest draws its line
Dear Mr. Phillips,
It would be naive of anyone to presume that a contemporary newspaper editor isn't directed from time to time to run an opinion that he or she isn't comfortable with. Obviously it's part of the job. Perhaps this was the case with the recent report you ran by William Marsden on the Gomery testimony of Beryl Wajsman, and if it was then I think it's time you paused to reflect on just where you draw your line in the sand as an editor, and why.
Mr. Wajsman's charity, integrity and commitment to social justice are well-known and well documented in the archives of every major paper in this city. He is one of the very few men I have had the pleasure of meeting who truly understands the importance and responsibility of personal honour. The values Mr. Wajsman champions are the values that all of us go to bed believing we are here to support and defend, and they are precisely the values that should have made you and Mr. Asper take a stand against whatever spurious influence was at work here.
Mr. Marsden and the people he serves are without honour and without shame Mr. Phillips. The fiction he presented regarding a man like Beryl Wajsman was beneath CanWest as a publisher and it was beneath you as an editor, or at least it should have been.
Anthony L.M. Philbin
From: Me. Jacques Berkowitz
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: William Marsden report on Wajsman testimony
It was absolutely incredulous to read the report appearing in The Gazette this morning, Marsden’s report on Beryl Wajsman’s testimony at the Gomery hearings in no way reflected what occurred or what was said publicly and in no way is fair reporting. The reporter twisted facts and used insulting terms of reference.
The report is an obvious biased piece and is certainly not in keeping with standards of honest reporting. At best it should have appeared as a letter to the editor, then it would clearly be an opinion rather than fair reporting.
There is already enough dirt being presented as fact “he said vs. he said “, that it is difficult to ascertain who is telling the truth and what the truth is. However it is unacceptable for a reporter, your reporter, writing and you publishing material which is obviously a distortion of what actually occurred at the public hearing and in this case laid before us on the public airwaves and pretend that it accurately reflects what was said and in what manner it was said, and for that matter the veracity of what was said.
The very difficult task of judging all these matters based on written evidence and appreciation of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses rests exclusively with Justice Gomery, most definitely not by reporter Marsden under the guise of an article reflecting his judgment, something which he is not called for to present nor in the manner presented.
Me. Jacques Berkowitz
From: Michel Bourque
Sent: May 16, 2005 1:05 PM
Beryl, In reading the article this weekend I was outraged. The manner in which words and events can be taken out of context - No - created, borders on fiction rather than fact.
To the casual observer this article might depict you as a bitter grandstander with an ax to grind when in fact you simply don't cower to bullying or shy away from injustice. I am confident that this will only strengthen your resolve.
This battle for the truth is like pushing water uphill. In the time I've come to know you, I have seen the passion for the work you do for those unable to fight for themselves. All I can say is that I feel sorry for the other guys, Marsden included.
Keep up the good work.
Michel A. Bourque
The Gomery Revelations
BPW: Excerpts from Media Interviews
Articles and Letters
Below is the interview I did with CTV's Jennifer Tryon and is followed by the broadcast I did on Paul Arcand's CJFP radio talk show. Please take a few minutes and I assure you of riveting commentary on the state of this nation and a dramatic challenge to Prime Minister Martin.
For a fuller examination of all the issues involved please view
“To Spend Oneself in a Worthy Cause: The Arena of Dust and Sweat and Blood” at:
Never On The Take
Montreal – April 8, 2005
Your coverage concerning me in your edition of today was wrong on many important facts.
Your reporters should have looked at Brault’s testimony. He never said he paid me anything. Brault mentioned me only in the context of one lunch where, he claims, he left an envelope of $5,000 on the table in front of Mr. Morselli. I neither took, nor saw, any envelope. He does not even claim that I do. In fact he said that I arrived a half hour late and, added graciously, that I actually tried to make a few introductions for him over the next ten days, nothing materialized, and that we never saw each other again until a party five months later.
I had no connection with the Liberals when I met Brault. In fact I was quite fed up with them. I had taken on a project in January 2001 at Mr. Morselli’s request to increase cultural communities’ involvement in the Party. It did involve two public fundraisers. The project lasted six months. The project was not aimed at the Jewish community as has also been erroneously reported. I have spent my life working for common universalities not ethnic particularities. In June I had an argument with Party officials arising from their opposition to giving cultural community leaders a proper place in party decision making not just relegating them to buying tickets to fundraisers and acting as campaign slaves. And I left.
I have dedicated my life and work to social action for the underprivileged and disenfranchised. Your coverage cast spurious allusions that were very hurtful. It did not meet the high standards of your newspaper.
Beryl P. Wajsman, President
Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Re: Brault Alleges Liberal Officials Got Kickbacks (April 8):
Your coverage concerning me in this story was wrong and injurious Jean Brault never testified that he paid me anything for five months or $25,000, as reported in your story. His only direct reference to me was in the context of one lunch where I neither took, nor saw, any envelope. He does not even claim that I did. In fact, he said that I arrived a half-hour late and, quite graciously, that I actually tried to make a few introductions for him over the next 10 days; nothing materialized, and we never saw each other again until five months later.
I had left the Liberal Party two months before this lunch and Joe Morselli simply asked me to meet Mr. Brault because he said that the latter needed help getting Anglophone corporate clients because his business was slow. I was not a Liberal official nor was I involved with the party when this lunch took place.
I have dedicated myself to social action for the underprivileged and disenfranchised, to advocating common universalities, not ethnic particularities. In 2001, I took on a project at the Liberal Party's request to increase cultural communities' involvement in the party. It lasted six months, involved two fundraising events that were open and transparent, but ended when there was opposition by party bureaucrats to giving cultural-community representatives an appropriate place in party decision-making other than just buying tickets and being campaign workers.
Canada’s political leadership has descended into petty parochialism since the Trudeau era ended. Devoid of character, compassion and conscience. I had simply hoped that this sectoral approach to cultural communities was in the spirit of the values we celebrated, and the politics of inclusion that we built on, that inspired me to work for Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Beryl P. Wajsman, President
Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
Wajsman Disputes Brault's Account of Events
CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette
Friday, April 08, 2005
MONTREAL - Beryl Wajsman, a political organizer and community activist, recalls a restaurant meeting with Groupaction president Jean Brault in August, 2001, but says he never saw an envelope with $5,000 being placed on the table and never took it.
Wajsman, a graduate of McGill University law school, said in an interview he agreed to meet Brault at the suggestion of Joe Morselli, a longtime associate of former Liberal cabinet minister Alfonso Gagliano.
Wajsman, 50, said that in June 2001 he had just completed six months work for the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec section, aimed at getting ethnic voters more involved in party affairs.
Wajsman said the party paid him $2,500 every two weeks for that work, ending in June of that year, but it had no connection with Brault.
He met Brault at a restaurant in Little Italy at the urging of Morselli, but disputes Brault's version of the reason for the meeting.
“When Joe, who is a friend, says come and meet somebody I go and meet somebody,'' Wajsman said.
Brault testified he first met Morselli in a Little Italy restaurant and he proposed that Wajsman be put on his payroll at $10,000 a month so he could raise funds for the cash-strapped Liberal party. Brault said he counter-offered to give Morselli $5,000 cash a month.
Wajsman has a different understanding of his meeting with the two men.
``I was asked to come because he (Brault) needed help to open up his company to the anglophone and ethnic communities, because he said his business was drying up.''
Brault testified that a week later at the same restaurant he met Morselli and placed an envelope with $5,000 on the table before Wajsman arrived at the restaurant. Brault said he went to the washroom and when he returned the envelope was gone and Wajsman was at the table.
Wajsman said he knows nothing of any envelope or cash payment.``I didn't see any envelope with $5,000 ... there was nothing passed in front of me.''
Wajsman said Brault at the meeting asked for help in getting business for his advertising agency and his response was to ask for ``something like $7,500 or $10,000 a month as a retainer,'' plus `”a percentage of two or three points'' as commission for work obtained.
`”He (Brault) found that excessively high ... I was fully in my rights to take a contract with him if I wanted to, (but) he didn't agree to the terms,'' Wajsman said.
`”My conversation was a business conversation between me, who was running his own business, and a businessman. I wasn't a Liberal official.''
The founder and president of the Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal, Wajsman helped organize Irwin Cotler's first run for office in the Mount Royal riding in November 1999 and set up his Ottawa offices.
Wajsman denounced the Gomery Commission as an exercise in ``hypocrisy, deception and false piety.''
`”Where was it dictated that these `sins' were so extreme that our instruments of state were to be converted into McCarthyite weapons of character assassination and destruction of due process?'' Wajsman charged in a commentary posted in February on the institute's website.
LES ACTUALITÉS, mercredi 13 avril 2005,
Beryl Wajsman nie les allégations de l'ancien directeur général du PLC
«Le seul système parallèle, c'étaient les gens qui appuyaient Paul Martin»
L'un des bénéficiaires présumés des largesses de Groupaction dans le scandale des commandites, Beryl Wajsman, soutient n'avoir jamais participé, ni de près ni de loin, à un système de financement parallèle au sein du Parti libéral du Canada.
En entrevue au Devoir, M. Wajsman a réfuté les allégations de l'ancien directeur général du Parti libéral du Canada, Daniel Dezainde, qui l'a associé à une filière de financement parallèle. M. Dezainde a dit avoir congédié M. Wajsman en 2001 parce que ce dernier ne reconnaissait pas son autorité et qu'il rendait des comptes à Joe Morselli, qui lui-même faisait la même chose avec Alfonso Gagliano.
Beryl Wajsman (et non Burryl Wiseman, comme l'a rapporté la commission Gomery) a expliqué s'être impliqué au PLC à la demande de Joe Morselli afin de créer des ponts avec les différentes communautés culturelles. Pour son travail de consultant, il recevait 1200 $ par semaine en plus d'avoir à sa disposition une jeep. À la fin de juin 2001, Daniel Dezainde les accuse, lui et Joe Morselli, d'avoir fait une «levée de fonds secrets» parce qu'il disait ne pas avoir été informé.
«C'est une histoire politique. Que Dezainde dise qu'il y avait un système parallèle, c'est complètement de la bullshit. Le seul système parallèle, c'étaient les gens qui appuyaient Paul Martin, qui ne voulaient pas travailler pour le parti et vendre des billets pour les activités. Ils étaient occupés à amasser des fonds pour Paul Martin», a déclaré M. Wajsman.
Selon ce dernier, l'attitude de M. Dezainde s'expliquerait par une chicane politique. Alfonso Gagliano se serait opposé à la nomination de M. Dezainde à la direction générale du PLC. Mais il y aurait plus. M. Wajsman a souligné qu'il y avait une divergence de vues importante sur la présence de militants issus de l'immigration. «Dezainde voulait que tout ces ethniques [sic] soient déplacés dans une commission des communautés culturelles. [...] Chaque fois que le Parti libéral a besoin des communautés culturelles, il en a besoin pour deux choses: comme esclaves dans les campagnes électorales ou pour acheter des billets. Dans un parti, il y a cinq commissions: jeunes, femmes, politiques, [communautés culturelles] et finances. Le pouvoir, c'est aux finances. Si tu peux vendre des billets pour les événements, ramasser des contributions, tu as du pouvoir et de l'influence dans le parti même pour les questions politiques. Et les chefs des communautés culturelles voulaient une place à la commission des Finances. C'était une condition», a raconté Beryl Wajsman.
Quant aux affirmations de Jean Brault, de Groupaction, qui aurait embauché M. Wajsman à la demande de Joe Morselli pour 5000 $ par mois, M. Wajsman a donné sa version des faits. «Brault voulait des entrées chez des compagnies privées [anglophones], particulièrement dans le secteur des vêtements pour faire le programme de communications. [...] Pour faire ce travail, j'ai demandé une commission qu'il a trouvée trop chère», a-t-il raconté en précisant qu'il n'y a pas eu d'entente. «Il n'y a pas eu d'enveloppe. Je n'ai pas pris d'enveloppe, ni de Brault ni de personne», a ajouté M. Wajsman, qui dénonce l'absence de présomption d'innocence pour les personnes nommées à la commission Gomery.
From: Daniel Amar
Sent: April 9, 2005 8:50 PM
To: 'Institute for Public Affairs'
Subject: RE: BPW INTERVIEWS ON THE GOMERY REVELATIONS
Mon cher Beryl
Je devine ta frustration et l'impact que les déclarations de Jean Breault peuvent avoir sur ta réputation.
Mais console toi, à l'allure où les déclarations se multiplient, ceux qui n'auront pas été nommé par Jean Brault finiront sans doute véxés d'avoir été ignorés.
Courage vieux frère et à très bientôt autour d'un bon verre.
Wajsman s'en prend à Paul Martin
Congédié par l'ancien directeur général du Parti libéral Daniel Dezainde, M. Wajsman affirme que le camp Martin cherche à faire porter tout le blâme de l'affaire des commandites sur un groupe d'anciens militants du PLC.
Beryl Wajsman, ciblé depuis mercredi à la commission Gomery par Daniel Dezainde, ancien directeur général du PLC au Québec, porte, à son tour, des accusations.
M. Wajsman a été présenté comme étant l'un des bénéficiaires des largesses de l'agence de publicité Groupaction de Jean Brault.
En entrevue, M. Wajsman nie ces affirmations et reproche au clan Martin d'être l'artisan de ses malheurs.
« C'est, affirme-t-il, le dernier effort par le camp Martin, aujourd'hui, de placer tout le blâme sur un ancien groupe de militants pour essayer de nettoyer leur problème.
With Rob Breakenridge on CHQR`s "The World Tonight".
BPW with Gilles Proulx on Canada and Québec
Radio Open Mike with Paul Arcand: BPW On Leadership
With Mongrain on Future Plans
BPW with Paul Artcand on Martin's Desperation