FTA Lawyer

Shoop, Generally speaking, I agree with you...however, in this case, it does appear to be a report confirmed by a more reputable journalistic source so I think an exception to the rule is warranted. It's interesting that Martin appears to have some integrity in not wanting to unfairly take advantage of a drunken statement...he confirmed it happened but obviously he did not write about it in the Herald, nor did he think that chatter from a bar should be reported. That being said, the comment is nevertheless rather telling...Alberta is officially important because we are a true icon of Western Alienation...and Paul Martin by his own words will see himself as a failure if he doesn't fix that problem (report card so far is a resounding "F"). BUT, when it comes right down to it, Alberta doesn't have enough seats that can be won by the Liberal Party, so it is relegated to the position of a two-bit whore when one really asks the government how important Alberta is. I guarantee that, drunk or not, Reid won't be suggesting B.C. can "blow him" because there are actually some ridings that might vote Liberal this time around. FTA

The Canadian Constitution (i.e. the Supreme Law of our nation) disagrees...it's Albertan oil. Your logic would similarly support a contention that it's Mother Earth's land and therfore the oil belongs to every person on the planet. It's not like Canadians deserve to be wealthy any more than an African. It's an interesting philosophical debate, but completely invalid for the purposes of this thread. FTA.

You are: Social Libertarian 4.5% Economical Libertarian 20.5%

It sickens me that we are so f-ing privileged in this country that we can even for a moment suggest that bad weather is a legitimate reason to not vote, or to not call an election (I know you are not saying it is eureka, but you are saying we should tailor the timing of an election so that useless apathetic citizens might be bothered to get off of their asses to mark an "X"). There was a previous post on another thread about the fact that our parents and grandparents sat in open trenches in the dead of winter during Christmas holidays...pausing in their killing endeavours only for a few hours of peace...in order to give us the country we enjoy today. And in return, 18 out of every 100 of us is brave enough to put on a coat and gloves to exercise democracy...disgusting. We have sat and watched Iraqi men and women brave outright threats, bombings and assasinations to turn out to the polls in droves because of the importance of the principles of democracy and freedom...but we don't want to miss Survivor, or interrupt our leisure time or God forbid get a cold nose. Shame on anyone who has the nerve to complain about when we have to vote, and even more contempt for anyone who won't take the time to do so. FTA

ONE of those 7 incidents was probably a human error. But come on do you possibly believe 7 highly trained military officials were NOT signifacantly trained or was at fault for this? Or would most of these have to do with vehicle safety? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> politika, Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The LAVIII is apparently one of the things we actually have that is modern in the Canadian military. And I too have seen the story that the roll-overs were due to driver error or, in at least a couple of cases "driving too close to the edge" of an embankment (a.k.a. driver error). The fact is the cause of this death and the other injuries is job safety NOT vehicle safety. There is nothing safe about having to drive over uneven terrain at night in a place where you need to be in an armoured vehicle to block bullets, RPG's and land mines. It would be like revamping an entire line of American automobiles when a car crashes at night on a back road in freezing rain and terrible wind. It's unsafe conditions, not unsafe equipment. Unfortunately, while you and I stay home on stormy nights to avoid these unsafe conditions, it is our soldier's duty to actually head into such conditions every day. As Canadians we take this for granted, and we have an unrealistic expectation that we can send soldiers into war-zones and not have any of them be killed. The safest equipment driven by the most skilled soldier might still roll over when it is ordered to be driven through a treacherous situation to complete its objective. This story is tragic, yes, but probably entirely unavoidable if we want to participate in operations like those in Afghanistan. FTA

Atually it was not specifically relating to the RalphBucks Bonus, but the surplus spending as a whole. It's a question of accountability. Currently, the government is spending the extra dough however it pleases with no oversight whatsoever. Sounds a lot like the bunch in Ottawa. I can't for the life of me understand why Albertans whinge about Ontario's voting habits. "Why oh why do those stupid easterners keep voting for a corrupt government that throws away heir tax dollars?" is the cry. Talk about yer pot calling the kettle black. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First of all, I never called Ralph a genius...I said he had conviction and behaved according to principle...has nothing to do with intelligence (or lack thereof). No matter how much money has flowed into Alberta, if Klien had not closed schools and hospitals and cut back spending drastically as he promised, and then did, Alberta would not be where it is today financially. Doesn't mean we'd be Newfoundland, but we'd be far worse off. As far as the surplus spending, I've had three different surveys sent to me (as have all Albertans) by the government asking my opinions on how surplus dollars should be allocated. Poor Ralph got criticized for wasting taxpayer money through these public consultations...and now you want to criticize him for not doing it...when he did... I asked for increased funding of Legal Aid programs and higher salaries for Crown Prosecutors, amongst other initiatives. In fact, just yesterday a huge fold-out glossy pamphlet found its way to the homes of Albertans which was the Alberta government's detailed description of what it is doing with surplus funds. I cannot remember ever being asked as a taxpayer and citizen what I wanted to do with the several successive multiple billion dollar federal surpluses...and I have not yet seen any instances of Ralph's ministers falsifying invoices and well...you know the rest. So let's see, they asked every citizen for input on how to spend the surplus and then sent out a report on what they are doing...perhaps I'm wrong but I'd call that the definition of government accountability. It seems to me your likeness of the two governments falls flat when one actually looks at fact as opposed to partisan banter. Just because lobbyists don't feel like Klien is listening to them (because he's not) doesn't mean there is no accountability. FTA.

I'm going to go to bat for Ralph Klien here... He is a bit of a blow-hard but while he may be unrefined he is hardly a numb-skull. His appeal in Alberta is that he's an honest politician. I know, I know, nobody really thought there was such a thing but King Ralph is the real deal. Many people have criticized his policies, his comments, his actions...and often not without good reason. But at the end of the day, all Albertan's want is not to be lied to. In fact, that may be a very common thread across a country which doesn't have that many common threads from one region to the next. What voters are really saying when they call Harper scary is that they are not sure he is being honest. Rather than try to disconnect from his old days in the NCC, he should have done a full-out Q&A on it...told people why he wrote things he wrote (because he was a lobbyist...it was his job), and explained fully that in his new role as leader of the CPC he has a completely different mandate to serve. For Canadians, it's not really about a politician's personal views...no one really pushed that hard for Martin to say what he personally thought about gay marriage...they just need to know that the politician will put his personal views secondary to the good of the country and will act in a way that is consistent with what he or she has promised to do. Klien coasted to one of his largest majority governments in the midst of severe cuts to health, education, and all other social programs...why? Because he told voters that was what he was going to do in the previous campaign, and after being elected, he did it. And it is largely due to this conviction and principled behaviour that Alberta is in the financial position it enjoys now over a decade later. As some have eluded to on this board, Klien was asked a question by a reporter and he told the truth...no spin, no bull-shit, no equivocations, no pretention...just the truth as he sees it. And THAT is why he is in the middle of a national firestorm??????????????????? We should criticize him because he didn't puke out some polished, politically tactical bunch of rhetoric about Liberal corruption???????? Rather than his sound-bite about duct-tape, Peter McKay should have said, "Ralph's a brutally honest guy, he doesn't hide things...that's why he and Mr. Harper and the rest of the CPC get along with him so well...I happen to disagree with him, and I'll put my money on a CPC gov't, but I can't fault him for his opinion..." I can only hope that voters outside of Alberta...and particularly in Ontario...aren't so foolish that they will punish the CPC and Harper for being associated with a Premier who doesn't tell lies just because they sound better on the evening news. And more importantly, I hope (although I fear terribly this is just a pipe-dream) that the entire gang of fools in federal politics would take a lesson or two from Klien about just being forthright with the people they are supposed to be serving. FTA Lawyer

True, but you have to appreciate that if you think you are totally screwed on an issue (which I suspect the government lawyers have concluded long ago) what seems like a big payment now might be a true steal of a deal if it makes the problem go away. I've seen an insurance company make a 6-figure settlement offer before a Statement of Claim was even filed because they obviously thought they were nailed to the wall. That kind of up-front money made the potential Plaintiff sign off and take the deal when he very well could have been looking at 4 times what the offer was if he won at trial. FTA

$17 million divided by 593 claims, equals $28,668/claim. $66 million on "government lawyers, staff salaries, research fees and other administrative costs" divided by 593 claims equals $111,300/claim. I don't know the extent of the govt's expenses, but shouldn't this $17 million versus $66 million be switched around? Reperations were only 20% of the bill; 80% went to expenses...it seems reasonable to expect this to be reversed, i.e., 80% to reperations and 20% to expenses. Just another example of why I loathe big govt... I would like to see a leftwinger try and justify this gross mismanagement by the govt! :angry: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Monty, I'm no left winger...but I am a lawyer... All kidding aside, I don't disagree with your opinion, I only pause to point out that quick and easy (and efficient) settlements can only happen if both sides are willing to play the game that way. I can rather confidently say if the government did a cost-benefit analysis before launching its bureacratic machinery and decided to just offer up $75,000.00 to each of the 593 claimants right from the get-go, it would have cost millions more in the end. It would be totally reasonable...each claimant gets way more, and the government pays way less...win-win. The problem with taking the reasonable approach is that everyone still assumes you are playing the old "used car salesman" game. If they offer $75,000.00 it must be because they're prepared to pay $150,000.00 and so the real fight begins. I'm not excusing the inefficiency, but I am saying that it probably isn't entirely the fault of the government. I can't tell you how many times I've advised clients (both individual and institutional) to take settlement offers, showing them that to fight it out will mean they will likely be in a worse net position (even if they "win" their case) only to hear the infamous "it's the principle of the thing" justification for refusing to negotiate reasonably. Those are my thoughts. FTA

If certain segments of the community are involved in a greatly disproportionate amount of crime, then it behooves us to examine the cultural factors at work which might be causing this level of criminality. Without noting and admitting to a problem how can the problem be addressed? And yet, statistical abnormalities to the degree we see in regard to black crime are unexplainable except by some cultural/ethnic factor unique to that particular group. Thus if we're to address them we have to examine that group to see how such cultural factors might be eliminated or redressed. There are innumerable programs which seek to address specific cultural problems within minority communities. Why not one addressing crime? Because no one in authority wants to come out and admit that the Black community, or at least, some portion of it, has a problem with criminality. I saw a Globe article once where a reporter sat all day in what was then a new thing, a special drug court in Toronto. The reporter observed that only about 2% of the defendants appearing before the judge that day were white. That says there is a problem within what is still, when we're speaking of visible minorities, the immigrant community. And I don't think anything has changed since then. Or am i wrong that virtually all those being murdered in Toronto are non-white, along with virtually all the murderers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus, By all means, explore the issues...but don't get focused on the wrong ones. If we all agree that being black doesn't "cause" one to commit crime, then we shouldn't be looking for solutions to "black crime"...we need to look for solutions to crime that happens to be committed by more blacks than others. It's a fine distinction, but an important one in my view. And, I'm not so sure that the contention that no one in authority is prepared to stare these issues down is correct...at least in Canada. For example, way back in 1996 the Criminal Code was amended after those in authority noticed that more Aboriginals than other races were being put in jail for similar crimes. The conclusions were not drawn that Aboriginals are just a criminal race...rather they didn't seem to be getting treated fairly in sentencing proceedings. So, s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code now reads: "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders." Now someone may want to track down the HANSARD from the debates on these amendments, but I would suggest that Canada has been more than willing to address these issues and act to correct them. FTA

Yes, people are people and individuals can't be dealt with in stereotypes. But in the bigger picture, doesn't avoiding a discussion of racial and cultural factors prevent us from figuring out *why* the statistics are so heavily skewed? As Argus says, I don't think anybody here is suggesting that skin pigmentation determines criminal behaviour. So why *are* the statistics what they are? What causes it, and what can we do as a society to fix it? -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kimmy, I hear you, and I'm not saying "hush hush, let's not point out the stats because it might anger people". I'm one of the first to be prepared to have such discussions. Perhaps what my real point is here is so what if there is a statistical differentiation? If our goal is to have an even percentage of each ethnic group of the population in jail, then encouraging more white people to commit crime would actually achieve this goal...but that's silly. The real goal is to reduce crime...if specific race-related measures can help do this, then we should be exploring them...but if at the end of the day we never see a less-skewed statistical picture, I'm not going to be bothered by that on its face. FTA

Everybody has black (dark) humour on the job. The humor usually pokes fun at a stereotype of the people they deal with on a day to day basis. In most cases this humor will be appalling to people who do not work in the environment day after day. For example, black humor in the medical profession will often make fun of people with serious illnesses.If we are talking about cops in Toronto then black humor about blacks circulating privately between officers is expected since the black community does seem to be creating a lot of extra work for police. In short, it is not about where this humor was used but what context this humor was used in. If this was humor exchanged privately between officers and was never intended for an audiance outside that group then it should be fine. If it was used to intimidate or harrass co-workers or people in the general public then it is a problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree fully with Sparhawk on this. Sitting around in the barrister's lounge at Provincial Court one can hear a number of jokes, comments, and other quips about the justice system and its participants (from both Crown and Defence Counsel) that if spoken to the average person on the street would invoke quite a negative response. And oh to be a fly on the wall in Judges' Chambers... These forms of dark humour are a significant psychological coping mechanism for people who have to repeatedly deal with situations that tend to invoke a sense of helplessness. If we cannot find humour in our daily ordeal, dealing with murders, rapes, assaults, drug addicts, etc. etc. would simply become overwhelming. I refuse to draw a conclusion that the RCMP officers who sent this e-mail around are necessarily racist and should be canned. HOWEVER... It is one thing to have these "dark" conversations in the privacy of an office or a barrister's lounge...but any time you make a record, be it sound, photo, video or e-mail, you lose control over the use and context of the information. As such, if you privately joke with a co-worker by sending this rap song to him, you can't prevent him from doing something stupid or inappropriate with it, and now your name is permanently attached to it. As such, in my view, there should be an administrative reprimand of some sort for sending this rap song around through official police e-mail boxes and thereby bringing it beyond the realm of private conversation. FTA

I think this whole issue is unnecessarily raised (not criticising you for doing it...just saying it's smoke and mirrors in my view). Of course race does not cause crime. And if there are valid statistical correlations of some sort between race and crime...well, okay, I can accept that...it still strikes me as meaningless. I don't mean to be gratuitously crass, but if you are anally raped in prison, do you really care about the color of the guy's skin? Shouldn't we be expending efforts / resources on figuring out how to prevent people from being anally raped rather than noting their complexion in a standard deviation plot? As a criminal lawyer, I can tell you that criminals truly are individuals and will in most cases immediately dismantle myths and stereotypes, even if they exhibit particular patterns of behaviour. That is to say, robbers act like robbers, rapists act like rapists...regardless (in large part) of their race. FTA

Leafless, Have you got an incredibly high fever or something? To start with, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly stated that knowingly exposing others to HIV through unprotected sex is in fact within the legal definition of aggravated sexual assault. So, those who break this law face being removed from society for significant periods of time...one might say, the system is adequately acting to protect the population from this harmful act. Your suggestion is that upon being diagnosed with HIV all such persons should be institutionalized...you say "not in jail" as though it really matters when your liberty has just been completely extinguished?!?!? HIV does not spread as a result of a person merely having it. In fact, its methods of transmission would suggest that comparatively speaking we should let HIV patients run wild while we lock up those with influenza, malaria, and a list of other afflictions. Your analysis is unintelligent and frankly suited to the early 1980's where the idea of "putting all the faggots on an island and nuking it" actually had a certain following. I haven't missed that what you are saying is we can stop the criminal exposure to HIV before it happens...by simply locking everyone with HIV away. I suppose it is a laudable goal, in a very warped way. Of course, we could also completely end spousal abuse by immediately institutionalizing every person who had just said "I do" (because of course we now know who the culprits are, even before the beatings start)...but that is equally absurd. FTA Lawyer

Bravo... FTA

I have to agree with this statement... Being principled means doing what is right even if it is unpopular or otherwise has negative consequences. If the government has lost the moral authority to govern (which I happen to think it has) then the three opposition parties should be making every effort to oust it at the first opportunity...no flakey compromises. Either you are right...and the voters will prefer to punish the corrupt government, or you are wrong...and you will be punished for forcing an unnecessary election. It seems to me that the fact the campaign will happen over Christmas is a red herring. If I were Martin, I'd do exactly what he is doing...invite a proper non-confidence motion. If the three opposition parties are truly of the view the Liberals should be tossed, its a guaranteed win (no one-vote thriller this time). Declaring that the corrupt government should fall...but only if my poll numbers are good...is the worst example of "dithering" yet. Further, allowing a corrupt government to deal with a bunch of important issues like a First-Nations summit and other matters on the order paper makes no sense. Better to delay the matters at all costs than to have a government with no remaining mandate making commitments on behalf of Canada. That we are even talking about who will take the "blame" for a Christmas campaign suggests that the Liberal government is just fine to continue governing. If they have no moral authority to govern, shouldn't Harper, Layton and Duceppe be clamouring over who gets the "credit" for being the hero who brought down the corrupt government? As a traditionally small "c" conservative voter, I say bring them down immediately so we as voters can pass judgment. If you're not prepared to do that, then shut the "f" up and earn your salaries. FTA Lawyer P.S. My apologies for the expletive...but I hope most will agree it was well-placed.

We are paying lower interest on debt than you or I would ever get if we negotiated the borrowing individually. And keep in mind that by borrowing that money, the federal government didn't have to tax us -n leaving us with more money in our pockets.fellowtraveller, the problem is not the debt or the interest on the debt. The problem is: what do we have to show for the money the federal government spent? IOW, the question is not whether the government runs a budget deficit or a budget surplus, it is whether the government is spending our money wisely. I say that when several billion get "lost" in HRDC handouts, or wasted in gun registries, then we are not getting value for money. ---- This thread merely highlights the difficulty - if not impossibility - of determining the true debt position of the govedrnment. The government has a variety of commitments into the future. Should these commitments be actualized and calculated as a current liability? One can play around with these numbers as one wants - excluding or including future pension payments for example - and present almost any fiscal picture one desires. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent post August. FTA

$30 billion/year or about 15% of all federal government revenue.I think Wells was being sarcastic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I read this piece as being just a tad "tounge in cheek" as well. FTA

I didn't say they "spend" or "have spent", I said they committed to "spending" (i.e. into the future...over how many years I'm not sure) What I am sure of is it certainly is multiple billions...not hundreds of millions. Here's an article from a couple years back showing what Shell and Chevron were doing in one single project north of Fort McMurray: Alberta's oil sands contain 1.3 trillion barrels of bitumen, of which 255 billion barrels is considered to be potentially recoverable using modern technology. In Alberta, some $60 billion worth of mega-projects have been publicly announced, are in the regulatory approval stages or are under construction. Shell Canada, together with its joint venture partners Chevron Canada and Western Oil Sands, is currently in the construction phase of its $1.9 billion Muskeg River Mine and oil sands processing plant. The Muskeg River Mine, situated 75 kilometers north of Fort McMurray, contains a reserve base of nine billion barrels in three leases. The mine is scheduled to reach full production of 155,000 bopd of synthetic crude in 2003. Given the size of the bitumen reserves, output could eventually grow to 530,000 bopd. The joint venture is investing an additional $3 billion in downstream infrastructure -- construction of the Scotford upgrader, co-generation facility and pipelines, and modifications to the Scotford refinery. aapg By my math, 1.9 billion plus 3 billion in infrastructure equals 4.9 billion (in one project) which is 4,900 million...so much for your hundreds of millions theory Yaro. And Yaro also suggests that it is "completely irrelevant" that the oil companies provide the employment they do...well according to the CBC tonight, the average annual income for a resident of Fort McMurray is $91,000.00...I suggest that if you ask any of those people...they're okay with the fact that the companies they work for are turning big profits. FTA Lawyer

I hate to put up an argument for the oil companies, but let me play a bit of a Devil's advocate here. The oil companies employ hundreds of thousands of people directly and millions more indirectly (all of the contractors and subcontractors who work to service well-sites, refineries, etc.). The costs of exploration are mammoth and frought with huge financial risks...not to mention research and development of new technologies etc. For example, a couple of years ago Shell committed to spending 2 or 3 hundred billion dollars I think it was into exploring the farthest reaches of the Northwest Territories for new oil reserves. If there was no promise of reward, no one would ever commit to such risky endeavours. And this factor does trickle down in the oil industry...no one would take the risks (and tough conditions) of being a tool push on an oil rig if it wasn't for the huge reward in terms of salary. Right now in Calgary we are paying about 81 cents a litre at the pump for gas. At Safeway we're paying about $1.10 per litre for milk...and we don't need to search the tundra for new cows all the time, nor is it difficult to get the milk. I do have sympathies for the likes of cab drivers and courriers who need to drive for a living and can't just "stop buying gas", but it is also hard to sit back and blame oil companies for all that is bad...the net effect for the economy of a country like Canada is a huge plus, notwithstanding that the oil companies might be padding their wallets too. FTA Lawyer

Yodeler, I voted for Harper in the CA and PC leadership races...and I sure as hell don't see a casual waltz coming any time soon. FTA Lawyer

Here is the text of the Gomery report: The wording is pretty clear - Gomery eviscerates the argument that Martin must be guilty or incompetent because he was the "Finance Minister". It is equally ridiculous to say that he must have known because he was a bigwig in the party - the bad blood between Chretien and Martin is well known and it is quite likely that Chretien would have kept Martin in the dark. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As a conservative-minded person, I am fully prepared to accept that Martin had no personal knowledge. The fact is, he'd never have called for the inquiry in the first place if he didn't know that Gomery would ultimately have to come to that conclusion...he's no idiot. The problem that seems to be getting missed by Liberal supporters is that their leader (Chretien) set up a program that intentionally kept "all members of Parliament uninformed" about how hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent. This secretive set-up made it possible (and frankly inviting) for at least 10 senior Liberal Party members to put into motion a "kickback scheme" that allowed some 1.14 million dollars to be defrauded from the Canadian government into the Liberal Party accounts. The fact that Martin didn't personally know (which I'll accept) is hardly something to feel good about. Sure, it maybe allows him to remain personally untarnished by the fraud...but it certainly doesn't make me think he and his party should continue to run the show. Sure, he's out saying the right things and referring to the RCMP and so on and so forth...but for all we know, there are several other horrible schemes going on in the Liberal Party that we (and Martin) don't know about. If he tells us today that there is no corruption in the current government, how can we possibly accept that? His answer back in the height of the ADSCAM scandal would have been exactly the same...because it was going on around him and he just didn't know it! Being a high-level member of an organization and having no idea what is going on within that organization is not what I would want on my resume if I was looking for any job let alone that of PM of Canada. No matter what political party you support, the fact that the Gomery inquiry had to be called and the contents of his report demonstrates a very embarrassing and disgusting state of government in Canada. That the Liberal Party as an institution is saddled with the responsibility is shameful and should be acknowledged as such. Do not take this comment as me saying that the CPC or NDP or BQ or any other party don't have their own skeletons...I'm not saying that. But stop acting like Martin was not a member of the Liberal Party during this fiasco, and therefore should not feel ashamed...and stop suggesting that because other fiascos have occurred in the past that this one is okay. We can all continue to disagree about the way in which the country should be governed...its what democracy is all about. BUT, the one thing we should be united in is our condemnation of the events of ADSCAM...even if you are a Liberal Party member. FTA Lawyer

BINGO!

I don't know if you understand to what extent Canada is irrelevant in international circles. In addition, there is nothing so boring or confusing as a domestic scandal seen from a foreign country. This will have zero impact abroad, and will merit at most an article in The Economist that only Canadian specialists will read. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August, Perhaps you missed my point... Canada may be a mere footnote when it comes to its outward participation in the international scene, but there happens to be the odd country interested in investing here...like the U.S., China, Japan, and the U.K. to name a few, and we do happen to export some of our resources here and there. I'm not suggesting the world will shudder if our government is rendered senseless by the Gomery report...but it matters significantly to those who are deciding where to put their money. The damage I'm talking about is certainly not abroad...it's right here at home. FTA Lawyer

While my gut reaction is the same as yours wellandboy, I begrudginly have to defend the early release of the report. The early release is to the office of the PM, not to Martin or the Liberal Party...it just so happens that the current PM is a Liberal (and potentially to be criticized personally in the report)...bad luck I suppose. If the last election had resulted in a Conservative minority, I suspect very few would argue that the PM should not get an advanced look at the report. Keep in mind that there are major potential consequences for the Canadian economy and international reputation that hinge on the findings of this report. In international circles, if the Canadian government looks debilitated, confused, or disorganized by the Gomery report (or any such report) and there is no semblance of preparedness to answer tough questions about what the report means, we could be yet to experience the worst harm of ADSCAM. Internally, the Canadian people know enough about what went on that they will not be snowed by spin doctors. Gomery's report is expected to call it like it is, and if he is unambiguous, it leaves little room for spinning anyway. I am certainly not saying this from the viewpoint of an apologist, just recognizing that a government prepared for intense scrutiny from outside our borders is much better than a bunch of surprised goofs making knee-jerk reactions and on-camera comments for the world to see. FTA Lawyer