Gomery to be released.

[Yodeler]

I think you did indeed, FTA. However, Yodeler, as usual had to embellish it with the assertion that Canada is an international joke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever since Gomery's wife told us there would be no surprises ........

http://www.canada.com/components/printstor...f2-7bdee6bfa538

........... I haven't been interested and thus not made any comment on it.

Must have been someone else, Eureka.

I'm glad you thought of me though, I LOVE to see my name in print.

[Guest eureka]

I am aware of the process, Argus. In the past, I handled many dealings with the federal government and with provincial governments. I recall with some amusement, one for the Quebec PQ government. When the Minister was informed by my intermediary that the contracts would have to be in English he replied that " a dollar is a dollar on any language."

I fully agree that everything should be better handled and totally above board. However, this is a situation apart from any that Canada has faced. To Chretien, this was war with the Separatists and he must often have felt that he was alone amongst the appeasers in his Cabinet. Remeber that Martin andd several other senior Liberals supported Mulroney's attempt to sell the country down the river with Meech Lake.

[Montgomery Burns]

Kimmy:

I think it is quite hilarious that Liberal supporters here are trying to spin this as some sort of vindication for the party. Martin being exhonerated is literally the only good news for the Liberals in any of this.

Darn you!

As the old Meatloaf song goes: You took the words right out of mouth! :angry:

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

Dear Thelonius,

When we had this discussion you agreed that a spending program would have to meet a minimum size requirement before one could expect the Finance minister to know about it. Although we disagreed on whether a 60 million/year program was large enough to expect personal knowledge by the Finance Minister the fact that a threshold exists is important to remember.

I remember this conversation, thanks for bringing it up. It is important because it is basically the argument Gomery is using to exonerate Martin. In effect, smaller 'expenditures' (if everyone will keep in mind that the millions weren't spent all at once) could have made it through the department without raising eyebrows.

However, Chretien is using the defence that 'it was for the good of Canada', ie: promoting the Liberal Party in Quebec, an in effect is saying that it was a party mandate (however limited and secret) to do so. The question is, why would the Finance Minister be kept out of the loop on a new 'type' of expenditure, and a new program, when he would have been the one to judge 'feasability'?

Further, if there actually is bad blood between Martin and Chretien, why would Chretien help Martin (when Chretien knew by this time that he himself was on the way out) by 'appeasing Quebec'? Did Chretien think he was leaving an 'anonymous gift'?

[Montgomery Burns]

Did anyone see Chretien's reply? How embarrassing. This clown continues to embarrass Canadians every time he opens his mouth. I know that all reasonable Canadians cringed whenever this doofus opened his mouth (a toof is a toof is a toof).

He actually had the unmitigated gall to change the subject from his crooked dealings to questions about who is the "money" behind Stephen Harper. Then this disgusting man brought up that if he had sent troops to Iraq (like his neighbor did), they would be coming home in bodybags. Typical of the leftwing liberals. They know their brainwashed (by the state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC) Canadian sheep.

Chretien was an embarrassment to Canada. Because of his insatiable greed for Saddam's blood money (off the bodies of dead Iraqis), Canada is now recognized as as an immoral greedy nation who doesn't give a damn about democracy.

It is Chretien's despicable behaviour that has forced Canadians to sew American flags on their luggage when they travel abroad - for fear of being known as one of those greedy blood money-grubbing Canadians who put Iraq's oil over morality and the enforcement of law. :angry:

[Argus]

I am aware of the process, Argus. In the past, I handled many dealings with the federal government and with provincial governments.

So you agree that only the PMO could have allowed this process to continue?

However, this is a situation apart from any that Canada has faced. To Chretien, this was war with the Separatists and he must often have felt that he was alone amongst the appeasers in his Cabinet.

To begin with, Chretien was the man who slept through most of the referendum, paying it no mind, vacationing ,for the most part. Suddenly, with the referendum over, we're to believe he was shocked into action?

Second, Gomery has stated that it was obvious the Sponsorship program was set up to reward Liberal party faithful with big contracts, that in effect, it was a money laundering program. Did anyone EVER make the case that putting little "canada" signs up over a few hockey arenas or in newspaper ads was going to influence people who had voted to seperate from Canada? Has anyone EVER done any studies to show that they had the least influence? The reason the process was not undertaken in this case is because trying to make the case, on paper, that paying half a million dollars just to attach the name "canada" to some local festival was somehow going to make Quebecers who'd voted to seperate love Canada would have been an exercise in the absurd. It would have read like comedy.

This program was not designed to save Canada. It was designed to make money for the Liberal party.

[Riverwind]

Second, Gomery has stated that it was obvious the Sponsorship program was set up to reward Liberal party faithful with big contracts, that in effect, it was a money laundering program.

Argus,

Please show me where in the report Gomey concludes that the sponsership problem was set up with the sole purpose to reward Liberal party faithful.

http://www.gomery.ca/en/phase1report/

Gomery concludes that the abuses happened because the program was not properly managed and exempted from the rules normally used to prevent abuses. Gomery does not question the rational for the program in the first place.

[Guest eureka]

Precisely, Sparhaw. But this will never satisfy the vampires.

[cybercoma]

Dear Shakeyhands,

After reading the initial release reports I would think that there are many here who will be disappointed with the findings of Gomery.

I, for one, am very disappointed. I find it silly that he would exonerate Martin yet blame Chretien. If Martin didn't know 'why' the expenditures were taking place, he was still in charge of 'how, when, where and to whom'. If Maritn knew none of these things, then he was the 'world's most incompetent boob'. Or, everyone submitted testimony to 'protect the hand that feeds them' ( at Nurmberg, Speer wrote in his journals that the unwritten motto amongst the accused Nazi leaders was 'incriminate the absent'), the incumbent PM, P.M.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's quite easy to blame the guy no longer involved in politics, now slam the guy who signs the cheques and you're opening a whole new can of worms.

[cybercoma]

To use one of your favourite words, Argus, that is drivel. Belief is not evidence.

The program was set up and directed, I am sure. Hoever, there is nothing to link any senior Liberal with the frauds. I am sure that you, as a manager, have delegated to trusted subordinates. I am sure that some subordinates rourinel cheat on their expense accounts or do business with friends and you would not necessarily know. Not without a very long nose and twenty four hours a day to check everything that is done and to do no work yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose it would be different if they were using their expense accounts to put money into Argus's bank account.

[Yodeler]

Did anyone see Chretien's reply?  How embarrasing. :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When asked if Martin should have been aware of what was happening he replied .... "he was aware just as I was aware". Than he mumbled something about that it was Martin who put up the money. I liked that!

Couple that with Ralph Klein's answer when asked whether if he were Paul Martin would he resign ...

"Of course I would - unless you hung me first. I would say that I couldn't find a place far enough away to hide."

... and, I must say, I have a sneaky suspicion that things may look very rosy for Mr. Harper come Spring.

[kimmy]

When was this portrayed as a whitewash?  I'm not saying that there weren't serious issues and some people who were involved in some pretty serious illegal activities.  What I do know, is that from what I have gleaned from the report so far, it implicates a precisous few from within the party and is not the smoking gun held firmly in PMPM's hand that the CPC and Bloc want.   

Your earlier comments:

After reading the initial release reports I would think that there are many here who will be disappointed with the findings of Gomery.  It would seem that the investigation backs up earlier assertions from the PM that these were a few bad apples, not a systemic problem.

(emphasis added for ...emphasis.)

As I said earlier...

"A few bad apples."

A few bad apples that just happen to include Prime Minister Chretien's chief of staff at the time, two consecutive executive directors of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, the former Public Works minister, and some of Jean Chretien's closest friends and collaborators.  As I have argued before, when the "rogue elements" in the party just happen to include the leader and his inner circle, they're not "rogue elements".

"not a systemic problem."

Two consecutive directors of the Quebec wing of the party have been fingered. That points to system, rather than rogue individuals. Gomery found that the sponsorship program was intended from conception to avoid transparency. That points to system rather than rogue individuals.

The report exhonerates Paul Martin from wrong doing, and supports his claim that he had no knowledge of the corruption. (although, it does not refute the view that he could have found out if he'd chosen to.) But it was extremely damning of the Quebec wing of the party and of prominent people close to Jean Chretien. Trying to explain it away as "just a few bad apples" and "not a systemic problem" flies in the face of what the report says.

I like what Martin is doing about it to at this point, haning the investigation over to the RCMP and banning people from the party.  But I am sure you have issues with his action to this point as well.

Nah. Not really. Handing the report over to the RCMP was a symbolic gesture, as the RCMP was already involved. The bans on Chretien's friends are fine with me; anything that annoys Chretien is fine with me quite honestly. And the repayment of $1.14 million is a nice gesture, although everybody but the Liberals feels they've dramatically underestimated the sum of money that they owe.

-k