Gomery report soon - election too - nothing changes

[Karlin]

Gomery 's report will be a whitewash, nobody important will be fingered. Its been so silent for so many months now... we used to see daily reports of the testimonies...

But of course PMMartin will have to call an election, like he said he would, "to see if Canadians forgive his role in it all", which he can argue was fairly innocent since he was let down by underlings or 'now-retired persons', who will be fingered by Gomery's upcoming report.

So, nothing changes. The primary thieves will have the top rungs of power as usual. The lost $500M sponsorship money is long gone, less than 1% returned by PMMartin's SponProgCops, with a trail of favours to be collected on in the future.

The Liberals will win another election, giving Martin the two terms he wants, more or less.

Only the NDP has a chance of advancement this year though
... if Canadians want to punish Martin's Liberals over the Sponsorship debacle,
...and Harper's cONSERVATIVES for being radicals,
... and get social programs for the homeless, infrastructure improvments, health care not privatised, plus Kyoto implemented, and gas prices addressed by legistlating oxygenates be added - gee, its looking like the NDP would be the first choice this fall.

oh ya, Chretien's name may come up in Gomery's report though. Thats the remaining drama.
So what, he is not the PM now, and is disposable. He may have protected himself, its almost certain he did, by having damaging info/evidence on many of the top MPs and Cabinet members, keeping gomery from reporting all he find out. If Martin or Gomery fingers Chretien, they will be in big trouble I bet.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery report soon -

I don't know that the report will be a whitewash, Karlin. Gomery isn't a Liberal, after all...he's an old-school Mulroneyite.

It does take time to go through all the testimony and supporting documentation though.

The issue may not be what's in the report... think we've heard the most damaging parts of it already...but what the Liberals do about it. That's what the next election is really all about.

If the Liberals win a majority, we'll get some window dressing, but no real changes. If the Liberals get a minority though, especially if the NDP gains seats and the Conservatives loose seats while the BQ remains about the same, I think that it can be a wedge issue that brings alot of changes to election laws and gets talk about proportional representation kick-started again.

The Conservatives and Liberals don't like either of those options because their corporate masters won't have the same control they have now, so we really need a Liberal minority and an even weaker Conservative Party to get any real change.

 

[#juan]

There is one thing.

Probably six or seven people are in jail for sponsership related offences, with a good chance for at least another dozen fairly high up people to do some time in the slammer. If Martin was intimately involved with the scandal, surely somebody would come forward and say so to save their -ss. I've always thought the sponsership thing was Chretien's project and that it got out of control just like the gun control fiasco.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery report soon -

That's a good point, Juan. The other similarity to the gun control thing is the inflated numbers and the importance put on those numbers.

Half a billion was pretty much the entire sponsorship budget. There may have been as much as 100 million in questionable spending, but a lot of that will turn out to be for legitimate expenses. Not agreeing with a program is one thing, but calling legitimate spending you don't agree with the same as money given to thieves is not right either.

The other thing that should be considered is budgets. You know how much 100 million is in federal spending? Every have a sore back and drop a loonie on the ground and decide to leave it there? 100 million is nothing when it comes to federal spending. Harking on the amount of money is just being petty.

We're seeing the same thing with Dingwall right now. $750,000 in travel expenses? I spent over $50,000 one year. That's not counting my company car, and I actually caught shit for staying in cheap hotels. My region was from Thunder Bay to the Sask/Alberta border, but I spent a lot of time in Vancouver and Toronto too. I was not an executive and the closest I came to padding the expense account was eating cheap and submitting bar bills as supper. I could have eaten in better restaurants instead.

Now I want to know if Dingwall was spending excessively. I'm not clear on why he and his aides were travelling so much and I don't know what their budget and guidelines were. All I hear on the news is that they spent 3/4 of a million in one year though. I can't help but saying, "So what?"

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

"Gomery 's report will be a whitewash, nobody important will be fingered. Its been so silent for so many months now... we used to see daily reports of the testimonies... "

....but parliment is back in session and the battle is gonna get even more heated as the final report nears. I serously doubt that Gomrey has any liberal bias.....but who knows with the type of corruption power that the libs have.

Steven Harper is the man for the job however his lack of appeal to people in the east is dissapointing. Jack Laynton is nothing more than a joke, I mean his election platform seems like nothing more than an excessive spending plan, and I personally don't want or economy to hell.

....and Paul Martin uuuuuggghh

 

[Reverend Blair]

I serously doubt that Gomrey has any liberal bias.....but who knows with the type of corruption power that the libs have.

Well, I did note that he was a Mulroneyite. That'd make him as corrupt as the rest of the Conservatives.

Steven Harper is the man for the job however his lack of appeal to people in the east is dissapointing.

His lack of appeal is like that ZZ TOP tune. He's bad, bad, bad. He's nation wide. It has nothing to do with east or west, decent people everywhere despise Stephen Harper.

Jack Laynton is nothing more than a joke, I mean his election platform seems like nothing more than an excessive spending plan,

It was endorsed by far more economists and accountants than the Conservative plan was. That's even funnier when you consider that there are hardly any economists who are partisan NDPers. It could be that they endorsed it because not only did it contain less spending than the Conservative platform, but contained realistic ways to pay for that spending and a promise not to return to deficits.

 

[#juan]

Rev wrote:Half a billion was pretty much the entire sponsorship budget. There may have been as much as 100 million in questionable spending, but a lot of that will turn out to be for legitimate expenses. Not agreeing with a program is one thing, but calling legitimate spending you don't agree with the same as money given to thieves is not right either.

A hundred million would probably buy everybody in Canada new underwear but in terms of the total federal budget, what is it now? about three hundred and fifty billion? A hundred million is pretty small potatoes. The Liberals have done a lot of things right but I have a theory that says all political parties self destruct after two terms in office by making stupid blunders, like the gun control or the sponsership mess.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Andygal]

RE: Gomery report soon -

I can't help but be highly supicious of Martin's role in the sponsorship thing. He was the goddamn finance minister at the time, he should have known all about where that money was going. And if he didn't then he is clearly incompetent. Neither option is good for my opinion of him.

The NDP have been the only party actually trying to get things done, the Liberals and Cons. have been bickering, the Cons. have been trying to derail government business to get what they wanted. And the Bloc, I can't consider them an asset to government no matter what they do.

Everybody EXCEPT the NDP has been behaving like spoilt brats. That's what decided me in the spring that I will vote NDP, I was thinking I'd just vote Green before then. I was hugely impressed with Layton getting that budget through AND getting rid of some of the stupid corperate tax cuts that the Libs put in there to appease the Cons. Those tax cuts made me really angry.

 

[Hank C Cheyenne]

Those tax cuts made me really angry.

....why because they would create jobs for Canadians? a possible 250 000 jobs....... I understand people hear corporate tax cuts and they become sceptical but you have to understand tax cuts stimulate growth and the economy.

...how else does Canada compete next to the American giant or the upcoming Asian economies...

 

[zenfisher]

Yes, but so does investing in social programs.

A hospital needs a MRI. The Government invests X amount of dollars. The machine that is bought, is purchased through the private sector. That creates employment for those that sell and assemble the machine.

A person receives an unemployment cheque, he in turn spends it buying groceries, paying rent, in a bar. This maintains a need for jobs keeping other people off unemployment.

On the other hand ...a good corporate accountant will keep ensure its client pays a minimum of taxes. A good corproate lawyer ensures the company can get away without paying taxes it may owe. Which in turn increases the tax burden on individuals. Which stagnates the economy.

Don't believe me... compare the way Walmart does business to the way Costco does business.

You compete by making sure your product is top rate. You compete by enusuring your country is producing products that are well made and are needed.

 

[MMMike]

It was endorsed by far more economists and accountants than the Conservative plan was. That's even funnier when you consider that there are hardly any economists who are partisan NDPers. It could be that they endorsed it because not only did it contain less spending than the Conservative platform, but contained realistic ways to pay for that spending and a promise not to return to deficits.

The Conservative plan was panned because people claimed the money wasn't there. Soon after the election the surplus figures came in, and what do you know, the money was there the whole time. Kind of off topic, but before any election auditors should have to go through the books and publish an update. That will avoid incidents like this.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gomery report soon -

Actually, a lot of ther reason it was panned was because the projections into the future were, and still are, considered unrealistic.

The military spending also put us in a position of possibly having to drastically raise spending in the future because it was so closely tied to US interests instead of being directed at our traditional role as multi-national peacekeepers. Since we are likely to return to that role in the future because it is what Canadians say they want, being tied into US-specific spending would very likely lead to a rise in future costs.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[no1important]

Well it will finally be released tomorrow. I can't wait. I will be going over every inch of it.

I see PM Martin recieved his copy today. I guess so he can get the spin ready if it is overly negative.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Well it will finally be released tomorrow. I can't wait. I will be going over every inch of it.

I see PM Martin recieved his copy today. I guess so he can get the spin ready if it is overly negative.

no goblins and gooks party for them guys.... They might be burning the midnight oil.......to have back up spin ready.