Gomery reform proposals could have major impact on Harper government

[tuvor]

Jim Brown
Canadian Press

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Justice John Gomery, whose first report on the sponsorship scandal helped seal the fate of the Liberal government, is set to deliver a second volume that could have a major impact on the way Stephen Harper structures his incoming Conservative regime.

The new report, to be made public Wednesday, may affect how Harper designs his cabinet, as well as the marching orders he gives to his ministers and political staff.

It may also affect his ability to reshape the public service in his own image - especially at the senior levels, where Harper has complained that Liberal holdovers could act as a check on Conservative policy initiatives.

Unlike the report last November, in which Gomery blamed former prime minister Jean Chretien and his inner circle for letting the sponsorship program run off the rails, the new volume will concentrate on reforms aimed at averting future fiascos.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=e39d42c8-b042-4509-bab9-eefad456cd99&k=79489

[ConcernedCanuk]

1. Forensic accountants say government spent $355 million on sponsorships . .

.
.
.

From the posted article:

"Forensic accountants say government spent $355 million on sponsorships and related projects,"

Well . .

That's a heck of a lot less than the 2 BILLION wasted on our useless gun registry program

like as if the criminals are gonna register THEIR guns

and many with a collection of their guns, their fathers guns and their grandfathers guns, either sold them "under the table", and/or only registered one or two of their weapons

So the government still really has no idea of how many weapons are floating around

I don't condone the ethics of the sponsorship thing - but it's cost to Canadians was tiny compared to the gun registry -

but it's motive was honorable in a way - to keep Canada united

and maybe it did - I dunno

but it's WAY out of proportion in my mind considering how the politicians use it for part of a mudslinging contest - -

that's my opinion anyhoo . . .

[Mother Jones]

2. Must disagree here....

I don't think the gun registry is perfect, but I do think it's a good start.

According to the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the registry is used approx 2,000 times a day, and is helpful in determining whether there are firearms in a home they are preparing to enter.


Also, it was my understanding the price tag is 1 billion, not 2.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. Price tag IS 2 Billion so far, was supposed to be 2 MILLION

.
.
.

and mostly only NON-violent people are gonna register their guns

MORE guns are now available because of those that want to hide them, and also because they didn't want to pay the fee, and/or they expect the "fee" will increase in the future - like taxes - they rarely go down

I personally know many people that hid their guns, and/or got rid of them "under the table" so to speak to avoid attention or the fees

I do not agree with the scenario "is helpful in determining whether there are firearms in a home they are preparing to enter." - as the REAL bad guys ain't gonna register them . . .

as if . . .

"Hey Al (Capone) - how many guns we got?????"

yeah right . . .

[Mother Jones]

4. huh?

Exactly how does a gun registry and/or fees make MORE guns available?


Sure, some people may hide them....like your "friends", but if they're stolen and used to commit a crime, your "friends" will be held accountable, as they should be.


As an advocate of women's rights, this is a progress. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

[Mother Jones]

6. Whoops

Too late to edit, and too much cough syrup last night....

I meant to say, "like your "friends", but the idea behind the registry is that, if they're stolen....."


I actually think the best thing about it, is the role it plays in helping curb violence against women. There's a spousal notification line (or snitch line) available, and they have received around 30,000 calls since it's inception. Coupled with the process of license renewal, including background checks, psychiatric evaluations, etc...This goes a long way towards prevention.

[SixStrings]

10. "If it saves one life it is worth it". Now that's a line of BS.

How many lives could $2 billion save? Wake up. Criminals will not follow the law. I'll say it again - Criminals will not follow the law.

"Sure, some people may hide them....like your "friends", but if they're stolen and used to commit a crime, your "friends" will be held accountable, as they should be."

So, we won't blame or punish the actual criminal but the law abiding citizen who was a VICTIM of a crime themselves? Good God, am I ever glad this ridiculous mind-set is dying in this country...

[Mother Jones]

12. Typical post from you

I don't know where you get off saying that I don't support punishing criminals.


As a former victim of spousal abuse myself, first husband was a lunatic, I feel very strongly in the snitch line, used in conjunction with the background checks, and YES, I do believe the money is well spent if it saves lives.


You seriously need to go fuck yourself.... And yes, that's worth a ban because I'm tired of your shit always attacking my posts. I don't do that to you or anyone else here.

[SixStrings]

14. Why don't you just debate instead of attacking all the time?

All you can do is attack, flame and bash. You should be banned, but I'll never be the one to alert on you. I happen to believe in 'freedom of speech', even for people whose only recourse is to attack the messenger and never the message.

Way to put words in my mouth as well...Please show me where I said 'you don't support criminals'. C'mon. We're waiting.

[CHIMO]

5. Just A Warning

You may be an accomplice or an actual law breaker.

In addition your disagreement doesn't amount to much against the statement from the police. So keep on believing that you and everyone else are entitled to claim that the bad guys don't get a license to drive cars. As they will be caught and answer to society for that.

Your logic is based on a premise that bad guys have a right to do whatever they want and everyone should therefore become bad guys.

Wake up and realize the line that you are being fed.

[daleo]

7. Jeffery Simpson (Globe) was backing off the Gomery recommendations today

He says they are unworkable, give the bureaucracy too much power, are unrealistic about partisanship within the public accounts committees, etc. I tend to agree on a lot of those points.

I think the wider point, though, is that Gomery has done his job of de-legitimizing the Liberal government and the Conservatives now don't actually want their hands tied by Gomery's recommendations. I think most of the mainstream media will pick up on this theme soon.

[Spazito]

8. Yep, no surprise there

It is called optics. Proclaim ethics but do nothing to ensure ethical behavior. Actually, it is simply hypocrisy.

[daleo]

9. Just for the record, I am not saying Gomery wasn't sincere

He may well believe everything he said and wrote, for all I know. I don't know what to make of his role in that sense. Having Bernard Roy on his team was not a good idea, in terms of maintaining an appearance of neutrality, though. Roy's name comes up frequently in Newman's book about Mulroney, so it seemed like a too partisan choice to me.

[Spazito]

11. Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was referring to Harper when I posted

not Gomery although, I, too, tend to believe Gomery was less than objective when he chose Roy and his visceral and inappropriate comments about Chretien during the inquiry. I do not doubt Chretien knew what was going on, he never struck me as an 'incurious George' in any way so my questioning of Gomery's objectivity re Chretien is in no way a defense of him.

I suspect the reason his report was in two parts, the first hammering Chretien and the second being more objective recommendations to clean up the mess, was to enable him to be partisan in the first and objective in the second.

[daleo]

13. I agree with all of your points. n/t

[AX10]

15. It makes sense that the Globe would do this.

The Globe is your version of our New York Post.