Volpe Membership Campaign Memberships

[jdobbin]

Well since you asked...would you say that the gomery inquiry "settled" the issue of adscam? You know, the same inquiry that exonerated Paul Martin & his government.

I'll be curious to see if chretien wins his lawsuit. If he does, I hope you'll come to this forum and make a post about how the liberals are innocent and the issue is settled. I'm not sure how that lawsuit is going, but I'll keep you posted if I hear any news.

The smear against Dion has to be seen in the light of Gomery. Dion wasn't accused nor called before the inquiry.

The Martin Liberals were punished in the election for a host of ills but mainly for running a poor campaign.

I don't know that Dion is the right man to lead the Liberals but I do know that he wasn't linked to criminal wrongdoing.

As for Mulroney, he may have been cleared but the RCMP won't confirm or deny that he is under investigation once again. Since Tories have stayed clear of him since February, perhaps they fear the worst. It certainly smells bad since the man who gave Mulroney the money says it wasn't linked to any work he did.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well since you asked...would you say that the gomery inquiry "settled" the issue of adscam? You know, the same inquiry that exonerated Paul Martin & his government.

1. Paul Martin wasn't PM at the time of Adscam.

2. Who did Gomery find responsible for the theft of $1.14 Milliion in taxpayer dollars?

The quick answer is no. Gomery was fact finding and had no accused. Mulroney was actually accused and found not guilty. The Government than settled Mulroney's counter-suit out of court.

[gc1765]

Well since you asked...would you say that the gomery inquiry "settled" the issue of adscam? You know, the same inquiry that exonerated Paul Martin & his government.

1. Paul Martin wasn't PM at the time of Adscam.

2. Who did Gomery find responsible for the theft of $1.14 Milliion in taxpayer dollars?

The quick answer is no. Gomery was fact finding and had no accused. Mulroney was actually accused and found not guilty. The Government than settled Mulroney's counter-suit out of court.

1. I know he wasn't. He was finance minister, and many people think he was guilty. But he was exonerated, so the matter should be "settled", no?

2. Chretien and Gagliano were named from the liberal party. The rest were beaurocrats.

This wasn't just about Paul Martin not being implicated, but Gomery actually went out of his way to specifically exonerate Paul Martin & his government.

[Ricki Bobbi]

1. I know he wasn't. He was finance minister, and many people think he was guilty. But he was exonerated, so the matter should be "settled", no?

2. Chretien and Gagliano were named from the liberal party. The rest were beaurocrats.

This wasn't just about Paul Martin not being implicated, but Gomery actually went out of his way to specifically exonerate Paul Martin & his government.

Martin was never charged with anything, something he said many times. So to say he was exonerated is a pretty big stretch.

The Sponsorship program had been wound up by the time Martiin took power.

Your sad attempts at defending Martin are embarrassing. Thankfully the Canadian electorate proved themselves to be a better judge of leadership ability than you have.

[gc1765]

1. I know he wasn't. He was finance minister, and many people think he was guilty. But he was exonerated, so the matter should be "settled", no?

2. Chretien and Gagliano were named from the liberal party. The rest were beaurocrats.

This wasn't just about Paul Martin not being implicated, but Gomery actually went out of his way to specifically exonerate Paul Martin & his government.

Martin was never charged with anything, something he said many times. So to say he was exonerated is a pretty big stretch.

The Sponsorship program had been wound up by the time Martiin took power.

Your sad attempts at defending Martin are embarrassing. Thankfully the Canadian electorate proved themselves to be a better judge of leadership ability than you have.

From the Gomery Report:

On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility

to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet, since they, like all members

of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized

by Mr. Pelletier and their funding from the Unity Reserve. Mr. Martin,

whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision

of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers

in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness

or misconduct.

Link

[Ricki Bobbi]

Thankfully the Canadian electorate proved themselves to be a better judge of leadership ability than you have.

[geoffrey]

This wasn't just about Paul Martin not being implicated, but Gomery actually went out of his way to specifically exonerate Paul Martin & his government.

If Martin didn't know, which I honestly believe, he's still guilty by the nature of his position. The CFO of a company involved in widespread fraud of it's shareholders would serve time. Why do we treat our elected officals differently?

It's his business of knowing.

He's no criminal, but he was negligent in his duties to protect the financial interests. If you claim the CFO is actual the President of the Treasury Board, which I accept, he should be serving time then instead.

[jdobbin]

If Martin didn't know, which I honestly believe, he's still guilty by the nature of his position. The CFO of a company involved in widespread fraud of it's shareholders would serve time. Why do we treat our elected officals differently?

It's his business of knowing.

He's no criminal, but he was negligent in his duties to protect the financial interests. If you claim the CFO is actual the President of the Treasury Board, which I accept, he should be serving time then instead.

And he and the Liberals were punished this past election.

It is a bit different than the argument some have made here that they are criminally responsible.

[geoffrey]

It is a bit different than the argument some have made here that they are criminally responsible.

Absolutely, I'm dealing with it in a realistic sense, this idea that Martin had his hand in it is foolish, there is no reasonable motive why a successful businessman and politican would sink to that level. The people commiting these crimes are the scum, the quickly rich on government deals type.

That being said, I'd argue both the Finance Minister and the President of the Treasurey Board have an obligation to protect the taxpayers from fraud. It's this way in any major corporation, why aren't the taxpayers equally protected? It wasn't caught nearly fast enough, in private business this wouldn't have happened. Cite Enron if you wish, but the fraud there was of a much different nature, this was blatant thief, Enron was creative accounting.

Why weren't controls in place, why weren't these people caught sooner, why did so much money leave? Why hasn't someone served time in jail for their failure to protect the taxpayer?

[gc1765]

If Martin didn't know, which I honestly believe, he's still guilty by the nature of his position. The CFO of a company involved in widespread fraud of it's shareholders would serve time. Why do we treat our elected officals differently?

It's his business of knowing.

Rightly, or wrongly, he was still "exonerated from any blame for carlesness or misconduct."

I don't know enough about the role of the finance minister to really comment, but is it the finance minister's responsibility to know where every dollar goes? That seems pretty unreaslistic given the hundreds of billions spent, no? Of course he would have known about the money going to the sponsorship program, but how would he know that the money was being abused?

[geoffrey]

If Martin didn't know, which I honestly believe, he's still guilty by the nature of his position. The CFO of a company involved in widespread fraud of it's shareholders would serve time. Why do we treat our elected officals differently?

It's his business of knowing.

Rightly, or wrongly, he was still "exonerated from any blame for carlesness or misconduct."

I don't know enough about the role of the finance minister to really comment, but is it the finance minister's responsibility to know where every dollar goes? That seems pretty unreaslistic given the hundreds of billions spent, no? Of course he would have known about the money going to the sponsorship program, but how would he know that the money was being abused?

It's absolutely not beyond his responsibility to know where every dollar goes in the private sector in my opinion. He was exonerated, and this has to be respected... being said, I think we need significant changes that the Accountability Act doesn't bring. The Finance Minister and the President of the Treasury Board (both Martin at the time) needs to be held to the same standard as a private sector CFO, if not higher. It's their responsible to track down misappropriation.

If you wish to bring up the argument that the elected officals are not always competent in their portfolios, I'll play with this one. Martin isn't an accountant, he's not capable of understanding the concepts of audit and control. Why hasn't their very competent Deputy Minister (highest public servant in that department) gone to jail then? How about the comptroller general, how have they escaped responsibility?

It's rather ridiculous in my opinion to hold our government to lower standards than our private industry in terms of responsibility for money. Private sector CFO's are responsible for every dollar of shareholder money, fraud that isn't caught internally, will generally mean their dismissal... if they were negligent, criminal charges like we've seen in the US.

[gc1765]

It's absolutely not beyond his responsibility to know where every dollar goes in the private sector in my opinion. He was exonerated, and this has to be respected... being said, I think we need significant changes that the Accountability Act doesn't bring. The Finance Minister and the President of the Treasury Board (both Martin at the time) needs to be held to the same standard as a private sector CFO, if not higher. It's their responsible to track down misappropriation.

If you wish to bring up the argument that the elected officals are not always competent in their portfolios, I'll play with this one. Martin isn't an accountant, he's not capable of understanding the concepts of audit and control. Why hasn't their very competent Deputy Minister (highest public servant in that department) gone to jail then? How about the comptroller general, how have they escaped responsibility?

It's rather ridiculous in my opinion to hold our government to lower standards than our private industry in terms of responsibility for money. Private sector CFO's are responsible for every dollar of shareholder money, fraud that isn't caught internally, will generally mean their dismissal... if they were negligent, criminal charges like we've seen in the US.

It's probably not that unreasonable to expect someone in the department to know where the money was going, but how would they know what they were getting back in return? How would they know that no work was ever produced for many of the contracts?

Also, who is responsible for how the money is spent in the department of public works? Is the finance minister reponsible for how that money is spent, or is it the department of public works (ie gagliano's department) that would be responsible?

[geoffrey]

It's probably not that unreasonable to expect someone in the department to know where the money was going, but how would they know what they were getting back in return? How would they know that no work was ever produced for many of the contracts?

Also, who is responsible for how the money is spent in the department of public works? Is the finance minister reponsible for how that money is spent, or is it the department of public works (ie gagliano's department) that would be responsible?

Two questions here...

First one... you have project directors, someone is in charge of spending that money. They sign off on completion before the invoice is paid, or before holdbacks are released. That person is now accountable. It seems like that never happened, we'd know who spent the money and that person would be directly responsible for fraud. As well, the further ups in the chain would be responsible for such action. Spot checks should be occuring regularly on the delivery of services like that, ESPECIALLY in regards to such services as marketing and consultation. The processes and controls weren't there, management is responsible for that.

Second one... both are responsible, somewhat outlined in the previous example. Public Works needs to sign off, say they approved and received such services. Finance needs to be reasonably sure that such services were reasonably priced and actually provided. Spot checks, comparision to previous expenditures, all methods to do this. Why wasn't it done? Failure by management, a definite responsibility.

[gc1765]

Two questions here...

First one... you have project directors, someone is in charge of spending that money. They sign off on completion before the invoice is paid, or before holdbacks are released. That person is now accountable. It seems like that never happened, we'd know who spent the money and that person would be directly responsible for fraud. As well, the further ups in the chain would be responsible for such action. Spot checks should be occuring regularly on the delivery of services like that, ESPECIALLY in regards to such services as marketing and consultation. The processes and controls weren't there, management is responsible for that.

Second one... both are responsible, somewhat outlined in the previous example. Public Works needs to sign off, say they approved and received such services. Finance needs to be reasonably sure that such services were reasonably priced and actually provided. Spot checks, comparision to previous expenditures, all methods to do this. Why wasn't it done? Failure by management, a definite responsibility.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

[Argus]

If Martin didn't know, which I honestly believe, he's still guilty by the nature of his position. The CFO of a company involved in widespread fraud of it's shareholders would serve time. Why do we treat our elected officals differently?

It's his business of knowing.

Rightly, or wrongly, he was still "exonerated from any blame for carlesness or misconduct."

No he wasn't. A lack of evidence does not "exonerate" one. To be exonerated you need to pretty much prove you didn't do something, and he's a long, long, long way from that.

[Argus]

]On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility

to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet, since they, like all members

of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized

by Mr. Pelletier and their funding from the Unity Reserve. Mr. Martin,

whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision

of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers

in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness

or misconduct.

Gomery is a judge. The way lawyers think is that if Adolph Hitler showed up tomorrow, he is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

There are tons of well-known mafia types out there, Hells Angels types, who are "entitled" to be considered innnocent of any and all wrongdoing, even though we all know they're not.

"on the basis of the evidence" Gomery said.

Which means, there was no proof he did anything.

The law does not work on assumptions, however strong they are.

The law cannot say, well, because he had this huge political machine based in Quebec for years and controlled half the party, because he was deputy PM and finance minister, he had to know this was going on, and therefore he's guilty.

But we can.

[newbie]

Give it up Argus. He's out of office.