What's Gomery up to exactly?

[devious9191]

I'm trying to figure out what Gomery is doing. Last week he was asking for the public's opinion on defining policy, and now he's doing a tour across the country asking the same thing.

I was quite impressed with this guy a few month's back, but I'm not sure where the benefit is to taking opinions from the generally clueless public, and taking a road trip across the country for the same thing. He's the judge, he has a whole staff of lawyers and law experts available that define where the line is between proper/improper.

Just release the damn report and quit the media tour.

http://www.canada.com/national/story...6-21b761ff8441

FREDERICTON -- The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities is taking its probe on the road, starting in New Brunswick.

The first of five roundtable discussions will be held Wednesday at the University of Moncton.

Commission spokesman, Francois Perrault says they want to hear input on issues surrounding the scandal, including accountability, transparency, and whistleblower legislation.

A discussion paper is posted on the inquiry's website.

Former federal minister, John Crosbie and Derek Burney, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney are among the people expected to present to the committee in Moncton.

The inquiry has heard that millions of dollars in contracts were awarded largely to Liberal-friendly firms in Quebec, sometimes for little or no work.

© Broadcast News 2005

[Ojam]

The people who normally participate in round tables like this are well informed. The people who go to them are the people who are most interested in the topic. He is giving these Canadians the opportunity to possibly change how the current laws work, so that this doesn't happen again. Is that not a good reason?

[devious9191]

The people who normally participate in round tables like this are well informed. The people who go to them are the people who are most interested in the topic. He is giving these Canadians the opportunity to possibly change how the current laws work, so that this doesn't happen again. Is that not a good reason?

No, actually it isn't. The laws in place are fine the way that they are. The only thing that the government needs is more controls on expenditures, which is done by hiring more accountants. Give less people the ability to sign cheques, and more people the ability to double check what they're signing for, and you eliminate the need for 'whiste blowers' altogether. It doesn't seem like rocket science whatsoever. You get caught blowing the tax payers dime, you're fired, lose your pension, and charged for whatever was misappropriated. There's no reason the government shouldn't be treated like every other private corporation in this country.

[Ojam]

No, actually it isn't. The laws in place are fine the way that they are. The only thing that the government needs is more controls on expenditures, which is done by hiring more accountants. Give less people the ability to sign cheques, and more people the ability to double check what they're signing for, and you eliminate the need for 'whiste blowers' altogether. It doesn't seem like rocket science whatsoever. You get caught blowing the tax payers dime, you're fired, lose your pension, and charged for whatever was misappropriated. There's no reason the government shouldn't be treated like every other private corporation in this country.

including accountability, transparency

which is needed to do those things.

[devious9191]

which is needed to do those things.

And how do you feel Gomery is going to bring 'transparency' to the public service? As far as I know Gomery's only there to determine wrongdoing in the sponsorship scandal, not dictate future policy.

[Ojam]

And how do you feel Gomery is going to bring 'transparency' to the public service? As far as I know Gomery's only there to determine wrongdoing in the sponsorship scandal, not dictate future policy.

ALL trials and investigations have an impact on future policy, the point of an investigation isn't only to uncover wrong doing by individuals but to also pin point where the system broke, and sometimes (in this case) establish how to fix those breaks, and try to stop it from happening again. Determining who is at fault is all well and good, but if you don't fix the problems then what’s to stop it from happening again?

[devious9191]

ALL trials and investigations have an impact on future policy, the point of an investigation isn't only to uncover wrong doing by individuals but to also pin point where the system broke, and sometimes (in this case) establish how to fix those breaks, and try to stop it from happening again. Determining who is at fault is all well and good, but if you don't fix the problems then what’s to stop it from happening again?

That's not what I'm saying. If Gomery determines that someone is at fault, and one of the causes that this occurred was lack of transparency in various government departments, that should obviously be part of his report. Is it Gomery's job to run around the country trying to figure out how to fix it? No, it isn't. If it's determined that one of the causes of the sponsorship scandal is lack of transparency, an independent group should be brought in to find a solution to it. I'm not exactly sure how Gomery fits into all of this.

[J1M]

Far better for him to be looking for opinions from the public than for him to release a report that nobody outside the media and political aides are going to read and then have nothing change because we get a whole lot of grandstanding and posturing by Paulie.

[devious9191]

Far better for him to be looking for opinions from the public than for him to release a report that nobody outside the media and political aides are going to read and then have nothing change because we get a whole lot of grandstanding and posturing by Paulie.

Nothing's going to change anyways if he comes out with a report that says '75% of the public polled thought blah blah'. He's the judge, just identify where the problem is, determine who's guilty and who isn't and let the opposition put pressure on the government to make policy decisions. Opinions from Joe Public aren't going to do anything but waste time and resources.

Am I paying someone to go through every email submitted with a brilliant idea on how to fix the government and then present it to someone that isn't directly involved in policy decisions? Give me a break.

If there isn't pressure for government change, when every report from Sheila Fraser (who actually knows what she is doing) shows that it's required, how is a report from Gomery laced with public opinion going to change anything?

[d_jedi]

I thought the second phase of his report was to deal with what to do to fix things..

[J1M]

Nothing's going to change anyways if he comes out with a report that says '75% of the public polled thought blah blah'. He's the judge, just identify where the problem is, determine who's guilty and who isn't and let the opposition put pressure on the government to make policy decisions. Opinions from Joe Public aren't going to do anything but waste time and resources.

Am I paying someone to go through every email submitted with a brilliant idea on how to fix the government and then present it to someone that isn't directly involved in policy decisions? Give me a break.

If there isn't pressure for government change, when every report from Sheila Fraser (who actually knows what she is doing) shows that it's required, how is a report from Gomery laced with public opinion going to change anything?

So you want the thief to not only turn himself in, but be responsible for determining guilt and sentencing? That is exactly the broken system that is supposed to be addressed by this report.

[devious9191]

I thought the second phase of his report was to deal with what to do to fix things..

Looks like you're right. Well, if it's his job, can't complain too much I guess.

I'll retract all of my bs in this thread, even though I don't think it should be his job.

[devious9191]

So you want the thief to not only turn himself in, but be responsible for determining guilt and sentencing? That is exactly the broken system that is supposed to be addressed by this report.

Not at all. I want the judge to point out areas where the system failed. I then want someone without a vested interest to go and pull apart the financial system of each government department, determine where the checks and balances aren't taking place, and figure out how to fix it. I then want the current government to specify exactly what the penalty should be for intentionally not following the system. I also want Sheila Fraser to have a bigger staff to ensure that everything is being done to spec at least once a year. I know personally, that I have my work audited three times a year. There's no reason that a government department should be able to go several years without a proper financial audit.