IMHO

I needed to edit this post. I realize my opinion is hardly humble, but I spent seven hours at the University of Windsor's law library last night and by the time I felt compelled to write the original post, I was pretty out of it.

So it's time to rewrite on the beginnings of the election campaign.

So far, I am very pleased to hear that Harper will develop a public prosecutor’s office. Hearing this alone would make me vote for the Conservatives. Drop the G.S.T and my vote is in the bag.

The Liberals are trying to use a very tired argument that a public prosecutor’s department is “American Style” justice. Well, Martin, the U.K and Australia have the same and they are part of the Commonwealth in which Canada can look for legal support under our evidence laws. Nice try, but it won’t work. I think they are pretty damn scared at what the outcome of such a prosecution office will do to them. Obviously, Harper isn't so scared of his members getting caught as the Liberals appear to be.

As for Peter MacKay…do I smell a rat? What’s happening with him…why would he be against a public prosecutor? Is he getting influence with the Desmarais family or is he missing Belinda so much that he is presenting like a Liberal to get us ready for his defection to the Liberal Party? Peter is deflecting on just how effective it will be and never once did he mention on the CBC or CTV news that the Criminal Code of Canada has a part specifically for corrupt officials, including politicians. (That link is provided to the left on this blog).

The only problem is, we have the tools, but they are not being enforced. So having an independent prosecutor - away from the political influence of the Ministry of Justice - is the best thing for Canada and probably one foreign investors want assurance of before they invest in Canada. Of course, this would mean that Liberal connections would be rooted out and a cause for concern for them.

I want to give an example why there should be an independent prosecutors office. Ex Ontario Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs Charles Harnick. In his testimony into the Ipperwash Crisis and shooting of Native Dudley George, he conceded he lied to Parliament.

This is contempt folks.

Next to federal Parliament, the provincial Parliament is one of the highest "courts" in the land and he deliberately lied because of his political affiliations and loyalty to Mike Harris, not his loyalty to the Constitution, the Charter or his legal obligations.

This is dangerous folks and another reason to remove the Attorney General out of the political realm and elect candidates based on no party affiliation. Of course, if there were an independent prosecutor's office in each of the provinces and territories, then we could make sure the appearance of Justice is pretty well uniform throughout the country.

And what’s with Minister Ralph Goodale? Why is he attempting to impede justice by trying to tell Canadians that the NDP and the Conservatives are engaging in a smear campaign when there is a very serious allegation of securities fraud and their announcement on income trusts? Why attempt to minimalize or even deter enforcing criminal acts?

One of my favorite NDP’ers is Judy W (I still can't remember how to spell her name let alone pronounce it). Ms. Judy asked those hard questions of the government and I say…’atta girl!

My other fav is Pat Martin (why hasn’t he been considered as the NDP Party leader?) Too bad he’s not in my riding, although I still wouldn’t vote NDP for alligning with the Liberals and using the money from over-taxing to take credit for "getting things done". But I guess it was better to wait for Gomery for a judgment and due process and all.

Martin said something about the Charter after his government was kicked out for corruption. He says they hold the Charter dear and they love Canada or something like that. Well, no. I don't believe they do.

They want to make their accomplishments at lowering the dept look like they are the guys to re-elect. But they lowered that dept at the expense of Canadians AND the Charter. Look to the C.E.D.A.W link to the left and read items 27 & 28 on page 6 that specifically cites Martin's 1995 Budget Implementation Act as a neglinet throw-caution-to-the-wind approach cause of discrimination against hundreds of thousands of women in Canada - then read the rest to find out how widely and how deeply systemic it is.

This evidence indicate how women, old and young alike, that his budget act affected, not the hundreds of thousands of men in this country that are not added to these statistics.

So much for fiscal accomplishments if one of the results is disrespecting your own Charter and cutting funding to Law Societies that would have been used to help Canadians ensure their legal and guaranteed rights under the Charter - that is - if the Law Societies were all above board and didn't squander it.

In closing, I couldn’t care less about a “Christmas” campaign. I think that was just the media whining because they didn’t want to work very hard. I wished they’d all just shut-up and VOTE.

We wouldn't have this problem if there were set election dates. It's bad form to whine about when to have an election given the system we're forced to endure. No one political party has the monopoly to say when 'Canadians' want to vote.

What is more serious is the fact that the Liberals are contemptuous of the Charter - which is part of our Constitution - by blaming the opposition parties for trying to show Canadians they take seriously the rule of law and their principles that Canada was founded on - by calling an election based on corruption.

We probably wouldn't be having an election if the Liberals didn't abuse their power.

Definition

ORGANIZED CRIME is defined as any organized group that has its leadership insulated from direct involvement in criminal acts and ensures organizational integrity in the event of a loss of leadership.

Let Scott Reid try to sue. It's a great way to get the definition before a judge to examine and compare the actions of the Liberal Party in the last 12 years.

As for "explaining" Harper's organized crime remarks, let all the Conservative MP's give various examples backed up by legislation or rules they broke or actual convictions of individuals associated with Martin or the Liberals. I liked how Monte Solberg and Peter MacKay have already started doing this. It's a great way to highlight each nefarious action of the stale federal Liberals.

Alleged Assassination Plot Revealed Against PM

Update December 1 2005: Below it mentions that 'evidence' was brought to the attention of the O.P.P in which the buck was passed and a complaint was launched. A response was sent and the O.P.P didn't follow the Police Services Act with respect to the complaint - for one- and now a review by the Ontario Commission on Police Services will be requested.

An alleged plot to assassinate Paul Martin Jr. while he was Finance Minister has just hit the media radar. Accused cocaine trafficker Vincent Brown testified there were two plots out on PMPM but the Crown is alleging he made up the story. – CTV reports

What the media hasn’t reported on is WHY there were two plots or contracts alleged to be out on Martin. What is the motivation or purpose of targeting Martin? Are we supposed to fill in the blanks?

If so, let’s connect the dots:

1) Martin’s soon to be body guard, an ex-R.C.M.P officer is indicted for trafficking

2) Two Liberal’s in British Columbia associated with Paul Martin’s election campaign are investigated and indicted for trafficking to the United States

3) A Canadian Steamship Line ship during a random search in Halifax is found to have 82 kilograms of cocaine welded to its hull

4) One of Paul Martin’s son’s is known to smoke de ‘erb with a former friend of mine ts while attending the University of Toronto – now part owner of C.S.L

5) Martin, while Finance Minister, states to Parliament that he is going to close the tax loopholes for ships flying under flags of convenience – he doesn’t close all of them and CSL takes advantage of them

6) Canadian Border Services Agency randomly searches inbound ships and outbound ships are not inspected

7) Hamilton, ON, for one example, has loose security in its port, is a hub of organized crime in Ontario and has a serious crack and other drug related problems.

8) Tony Valeri’s election team has been accused by Shiela Copps of sabotaging her campaign by cutting the wires of their phone and internet connections at her campaign office. The case was dropped by Hamilton Police for lack of evidence

9) Martin new “nothing” about Adscam

10) R.C.M.P dropped the investigation against Tim Murphy, one of Martin’s aids for dealing in offices for lack of evidence from the Grewal tapes.

11) AdScam is, at its core, organized crime as it involves more than 3 individuals

12) R.C.M.P Commissioner Zaccardelli announces in 1992 on his appointment in that position that crime syndicates are organizing to undermine Parliament and the Justice system.

13) The Toronto Star recently reports that the Law Society of Upper Canada is not forwarding evidence to our police services indicating that thousands if not millions of dollars of clients money was stolen or there is appearance of fraud by its members

14) It’s this pool of lawyers that are appointed as Crown Attorneys and Justices, with some of them going on into politics such as Alan Rock, previous Treasurer of LSUC

15) A complaint has been registered with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services against the O.P.P fraud unit for not taking evidence that could incriminate the Law Society of Upper Canada and Ontario Legal Aid. It includes possible incriminating evidence against a particular lawyer who is now a justice sitting on the criminal bench - appointed in 1998 by the Chretien government, who is also the brother of a previous Conservative Cabinet Minister with the Mulroney government.

16) Legal Aid Ontario is still missing $100,000,000 from its collectible accounts. My local area Legal Aid Director has not acknowledged my request to look at my 'evidence' or to facilitate Ontario’s head office to look at the evidence.

Is there anything more that can be added?

The media isn’t doing their job. They should be reporting on the rationale of why this drug dealer and his cronies felt they needed to assassinate Paul Martin. There has to be a reason behind it.

Dajjal or No Dajjal? That is the Question

If audio tapes produced are really of Al Zarqawi speaking on behalf of his Al Qaeda-in-Iraq group they say they actually meant to target Jordanian King Abdullah and Israeli and American Intelligence – not innocent Muslims and non-Muslims– from the CBC

Doh! Kind of a goof up I guess right buddy? If these guys were so “intelligent” and didn’t have to resort to deflection and misinformation to make themselves appear like they knew anything other than an open opportunity to kill innocents - they would have actually accomplished what he says they were apparently after.

The only thing they achieved was the ire of Muslims who aren’t in a state of denial and have chosen not to follow the Dajjal – the Islamic false prophet that many Muslims are expected to believe when ‘he’ is perceived to exist. Gee...I guess there are quite a few who seem follow ObL as if he were a "prophet" and Al Zarqawi would be just another follower blinded by a state of self induced religious euphoria.

So who needs drugs or alcohol when you’ve got a Dajjal?

Compliments of the CBC, here are some comments from our brave Jordanian allies:

"Al-Zarqawi, you coward, what brought you here?" the angry crowd shouted.
"Cease, cease, al-Zarqawi, you are a villain!" the throng chanted. "Cease, Cease, you terrorist, you are a coward!"

Jordanian television reported that 100,000 people marched; however, that estimate could not be independently verified. The size of the crowd appeared to be much larger than protests in the days right after the bombings.

"I came specifically to say to those terrorists and al-Zarqawi that we are all united against them. We do not want them on our land," said Ghazi al-Hajjaj, 43, who traveled from Tafila, 185 kilometres south of Amman, to attend the rally.

FDA Research Grant for SSRI's

From the Alliance for Human Research Protection

FYI

A fifteen year struggle by critics of the drug-centered treatment paradigm in psychiatry is being indirectly validated both by the FDA and the National Institute of Mental Health who are addressing the issue of SSRI and suicide publicly.

The FDA is planning a year long study of the evidence of SSRI antidepressants and the risk of suicide in adults. The first advisory committee hearing of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee is scheduled for December 8-9. See here

The following research grant being offered by the National Institute of Mental Health:

Program Number: 85476
Title: RFA-MH-06-001-- Antidepressant Treatment and Suicidality
Sponsor: National Institute of Mental Health/NIH/DHHS

SYNOPSIS:
The sponsor offers support for research to study the relationship between use of antidepressant medications, especially the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and suicidality (including suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts, and suicide deaths).

This RFA is designed to encourage innovative, multi-disciplinary, multi-method efforts to explore the pharmacological, psychological and social mechanisms that potentially put some individuals at greater risk for suicidality when prescribed antidepressants.

This RFA will use the NIH research project grant (R01), Exploratory/ Developmental grant (R21) and R34 award mechanisms.

Deadline(s): 11/21/2005 12/20/2005
Established Date: 09/28/2005
Follow-Up Date: 01/01/2006
Review Date: 09/28/2005

Contact: Jane Pearson, Ph.D.

Address: Division of Services and Intervention Research
6001 Executive Blvd.
Room 7160, MSC 9635
Bethesda, MD 20892-9635
U.S.A.

E-mail: jp36u@nih.gov

Program Website
Tel: 3014-443-3598
Deadline Ind: Receipt
Deadline Open: No

*See Restrictions for further information.

DEADLINE NOTE
The deadline for receipt of optional letters of intent is November 21,
2005. The deadline for receipt of full applications is December 20, 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~

AHRP believes that it is essential that research grants under this NIMH RFA NOT be awarded to any of the psychiatrists who helped perpetuate the lie that these drugs were "safe and effective" and led the fight against warnings about the drugs implication in increasing the risk of suicide, violence, and severe withdrawal symptoms.

In particular, psychiatrists associated with the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) or the American Psychiatric Association (APA), or the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) should be disqualified from the NIMH grant examining the link beteween antidepressants and suicide--as should employees of PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical trade lobbying association.

The ACNP, APA, and AACAP have been instrumental in misleading physicians and the public by vehemently denying the scientific evidence, rejecting the analyses by several independent expert panels who determined that SSRIs posed an increased suicide risk for children and adolescents compared to those given a sugar pill. Even as the FDA now estimates that the risk of suicidality in children prescribed an SSRI to be as high as 1 in 50.

Two weeks prior to FDA's advisory committee hearing (February 2004) the ACNP issued a "preliminary" Task Force report by the leading US psychiatric establishment at a highly publicized press briefing orchestrated by a public relations agency (GYMR) which also disseminated the report. ACNP's discredited report and its sweeping unsubstantiated, false assertions about the safety of SSRIs for children--"No significant Increase in Suicidal Behaviour in Clinical Trials of Youth"--was was aggessively promoted by GYMR, in an effort to divert public attention from the evidence. ACNP's bald claim was made on the basis of partial evidence--excluding substantial unpublished data kept under company seal.

Following the FDA advisory requiring Black Box warnings on all SSRI drug labels (October 1004) the APA defiantly issued a news release stating:

"The American Psychatric Association believes that antidepressants save lives."

No such claim may be made by any SSRI drug manufacturer because there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

Another avenue being used to perpetuate the lies is to disseminate misinformtion and false claims about SSRIs through proxies such as a hastily formed website, ParentsMedGuide.org, whose long list of sponsoring organizations are closely linked to pharmaceutical companies.

Posted on this website are purpoted "Guides " prepared by the APA and the AACAP. while it is claimed that the purpose of the guides is "to help patients, families, and physicians make informed decisions about obtaining and administering the most appropriate care for a child with depression" the claims made are patently false:

" There is no evidence that antidepressants increase the risk of suicide." See here

FDA is working closely with the manufacturers of all marketed antidepressants to fully evaluate the risk of suicidality in adults treated with these drugs. The FDA has asked these manufacturers to identify all placebo-controlled trials conducted in adults in their development programs for their antidepressant products, regardless of the indication studied, and to provide information from these trials to FDA.

Manufacturers are being asked to use a similar approach to assembling this information as was used in evaluating the risk of suicidality in placebo-controlled trials in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant medications. The method used to analyze the data for risk of suicidality in children using antidepressant medications is described in more detail at the following web page link

A similar approach will be used for adults.

FDA’s comprehensive review will involve many hundreds of individual clinical trials and many thousands of adult patients. It is expected that this review will require a year or more to complete because of the large number of trials and the thousands of adverse events that must be checked for possible evidence of suicidality. The FDA will make the results of its review available to the public once its analyses are complete, and will update this advisory in the meantime if more definitive information becomes available.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rememberance Day Poem

Striking

an officer in his Stetson and Red Serge
a tableau vivant in mourning pose.

This day,

a wind will blow, a leaf from its perch will swirl
sleeping on an invisible wave
completely at its mercy, uncomplaining

No movement.

the tableau vivant mourning pose, uncomplaining
How still he is
no motion

Emotion -
it stirs inside

A tear

it moves with a searing heat
to its final resting place, as the cadets pass
symbols for now, dread at a future that no one knows

Striking

a tableau vivant in his mourning pose





copyright November 11, 2005

Blogging Hiatus

Blogging posts are going to be few or next to none for the next little while. I have alot of projects that should have been done months ago that I need to work on.

I'm sure the political landscape won't change much in the next couple of weeks until the 15th of November.

Until then,

Blog On!

HR

Harper's Policy on Federal Corruption

Harper released his policy on eliminating federal corruption today - CBC reports

I believe him. Not buying into a lifestyle is exactly what I want to hear.

I don't believe the NDP would do anything since some of their members are probably a part of the construction union that benefits by cost over-runs from construction 'mistakes' when getting funding from the government - Ontario hospitals for example - that had NO duty to report their books to the Ontario auditor until this year.

Links to Chretien in Non-tendered Building Sale

Kathy Tomlinson of CTV’s ‘Whistleblower’ confronted Public Works Minister Scott Brison about a non-tendered sale of the Skyline Complex owned by Andre Desmarais, Jean Chretien’s son-in-law.

The aging building was bought for $91 million from Desmarais with another $82 million that had to be pumped into it before it’s inhabitable. The building was found to have black toxic mould – Stachybotrys - that could endanger the health of the employees and cause considerable repairs in the future

The Government was warned that it could have mould problems before it was bought in March 2003, but that didn’t seem to bother Public Works.

Unnamed real estate consultants – unnamed because they do business with the government and may face retribution – say that a new building could have been built to spec for less than the cost that is being flooded into this one.

When confronted on air by CTV’s Kathy Tomlinson the look on Brison's face was priceless. He couldn’t stop blinking and stuttering when asked why Public Works was still buying older buildings that was against their publicly stated policy.

Brison stated: 'The fact is we buy buildings on an ongoing basis and we evaluate them in terms of best possible value for the taxpayer.'

No mention about the non-tendered transaction with connections to Chretien was addressed.

Graham MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator's cartoonist, has got to be one of the best in Canada.

I tried to find out what those specs (no pun intented) were in the pic.

The guy in the newsroom said: "either they're flies or something I don't want to be involved with"

Um...use your imagination...

Boulets

After 12 years, I dug out my red boulets from the closet. My western days are long gone after I stopped seeing that guy from Georgia. But I needed something on my feet to match a pair of pants from a Sari outfit. Now I can't get them off. I guess I'm sleeping with them on.

The Privledged Few

Updated Update: Peter Doody, Chrétien's lawyer announced on CTV this morning that Chretien would be paying his own legal fees after CTV asked their audience if the legal fees should come out of public funding. 96% said NO. I'm going to leave it at that.

Update: It's been reported on the CTV six o'clock news that Chretien will be covering his own legal fees IF the court rendered a montary settlement in his favour. That's Chretien's way of getting back at Canadians I guess for demanding justice .

What am I NOT getting? How is it that Chretien can have the tax payers cover his legal fees when low-income Canadians can't?
I guess it's that attitude of privledge and entitlement only bestowed on the likes of the Liberals and the lawyers that defend them. That they are above the law and are deserving of special services that other Canadians are restricted from getting is beyond surreal.

I'm so disoriented from it that I'm not sure what country I'm living in. For a moment there, I thought I was transported to the politics of a developing nation. I thought it was one of those anxiety dreams I get from being a victim of crime, but I realized, I'm awake. But it still feels even though I'm awake, like my heart is twice the size it's supposed to be, my chest hurts, why can't I concentrate? Is this the physical reaction I have to endure in an environment where there is no notion of justice? How long can a person stand it before they burst?

The only outlet I can comprehend is revisiting that C.E.D.A.W review again. I'm going to take some credit for this part because my submission to the United Nations focused on the oppressive removal of legal rights and services in Canada, in particular, Ontario.

Why is this oppressive? Because section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that Enforcement of those guaranteed rights and freedoms can be remedied in a court of competent jurisdiction.

That can only be done with the legal support of a lawyer, in which hundreds of thousands of Canadians are denied because they don't have the tax payers covering their costs like Chretien is.

So in effect, this section of the Charter is impotent and means nothing to a disproportionately large number of Canadians. This report does not include low income men in the areas of law it cites, but when they are taken into consideration, the numbers of those who are oppressed from these guaranteed rights, becomes higher.

Here's what the C.E.D.A.W committee has said:

31. While appreciating the fact that funds are available under the Court Challenges Programme for test cases under the equality guarantee in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Committee is concerned that the Programme applies only to federal laws and programmes. The Committee is also concerned that federal legal aid funds in civil and family law and for legal matters related to poverty issues, in contrast to legal aid for criminal cases, are channeled to the provinces and territories at their discretion. That, in practice, turns out to have a disproportionately restrictive impact on women seeking legal redress as compared to men.

32. The Committee urges the State party to find ways for making funds available for equality test cases under all jurisdictions and for ensuring that sufficient legal aid is available to women under all jurisdictions when seeking redress in issues of civil and family law and in those relating to poverty issues.

The full content of the report is in the links.

So far, this report, as mentioned before, has been ignored by the following:

Paul Martin's PMO office
Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada
Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Parliament of Canada
The Parliament of Ontario
Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Legal Aid Ontario
...oh yeah...and the CBC

Film - Prescription: Suicide?

Press Release:
Prescription: Suicide? is an unprecedented feature documentary built around intimately-told personal stories of six American families, their hopes and experiences with anti-depressant drugs prescribed to their children. As the film unfolds, we meet a range of individuals - some shy, some outspoken. Many have experienced tragedies and their pain is undeniable, yet with strength, humor and resilience, they love, care, struggle and speak for those who are no longer with us.

Film Premiere:
Ft Lauderdale premiere of the film on Nov 10th. Please brief friends or relatives in the area to attend the premiere. A sold-out house will be a big marketing step towards getting major distributors/networks interested in wanting to air it.

Initially, this film will be shown in Florida only but the producers are working on distributing it, including to Canada. It most likely won't be shown in theatres - a time slot from one of our broadcasters would be cool - but people like myself would probably have to purchase the DVD and have the Sky Dragon Community Co-ooperative for example, show it at one of their film screenings.

I didn't know, therefore...

4th Reaction - Gomery

Structure, Responsibility and the Lines of Accountability in the Federal Government

Page 26:

"Mr. Guite must have learned from someone that APORS would be implementing the government’s new visibility program. It is extraordinary that no witness is willing to tell the Commission exactly what transpired in the period following the political decision made by Cabinet on February 1-2, 1996, up to the first meeting between Mr. Guite and Mr. Pelletier on April 16, 1996."

Extraordinary huh? I guess the cover-up is greater than the crime. Too bad the media is ignoring it. What about the attendees at that Cabinet retreat?

I hope the R.C.M.P are looking at this with the eyes of the international community upon them.

3rd Reaction – Gomery

Structure, Responsibility and the Lines of Accountability in the Federal Government

Another important chain of events that implicates that Martin must have known something was a Liberal Cabinet retreat that took place in February 1 & 2 of 1996.

On page 25 it states:

“A Cabinet committee chaired by the Honourable Marcel Masse, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, recommended at a Cabinet retreat on February 1 and 2, 1996, a “substantial strengthening of the Liberal Party of Quebec”, including the hiring of organizers.

Most witnesses agreed that such a recommendation would not ordinarily form part of a Cabinet Committee’s Report.

It is an indication of the failure of some members of the government at that time to consider that any political party other than the Liberal Party of Canada could have a role in promoting federalism in Quebec."


So who was in attendance in that Cabinet retreat? Brainstorming was evident:

“The Commission concludes that a decision in principle was reached at the February 1996 Cabinet retreat to improve federal government advertising and communications to enhance the visibility of the federal presence in Quebec, but that no specific decisions were made by the Ministers present on mechanisms, financing or responsibility for the program.”

Surely Martin had to be at that retreat. So why didn’t Martin ask the questions then on the mechanisms, financing or responsibility for the program?

Why didn’t those in attendance at this Liberal Cabinet retreat question this proposal by Marcel Masse that only focused on strengthening the Liberal Party in Quebec?

Did it not seem inappropriate to any one of those Cabinet Ministers that questions weren’t asked of Masse on how he proposed to do this or that the Liberal Party was being favoured in this instance?

I think it's important to note that Marcel Masse was the President of the Treasury Board commencing on January 25, 1996 to August 1999 and this retreat took place on February 1 & 2 of 1996.

Masse stepped down on January 3 1993 as the Progressive Conservative Minister of National Defense if the Cabinet was shuffled, as he would not be running in the next election.

So Masse was appointed as Treasury Board President on January 25, 1996 by a Liberal government and came up with the idea of strengthening Liberal support?

Do red flags not go up when the president of the Treasury Board brings up a proposal without the details?

Is there information missing that has not been disclosed by those in attendance at this retreat as to what was mentioned or asked regarding just how to strengthen the Liberal Party?

2nd Reaction - Gomery

Structure, Responsibility and the Lines of Accountability in the Federal Government

So far, I've only read the first ten pages of this part. But there are some significant details that haven't made it in the news.

The first is on page 20 and 21 where the Attorney General of Canada argued that there was no 'Sponsorship Program' until 2001.
This is very important, because it would be on the advice of lawyers within the Attorney General's office to make sure that legislation is interpreted and followed, in particular with respect to setting fiscal guidelines.

All legislation has definitions of the terms in its preamble to clarify what is meant by a particular word or phrase to help in the interpretation. All legislation is supposed to be written clearly and unambiguously.

Once government gets advice from their lawyers for the go ahead to use a loophole in the law, in this case being a lack of definition and clarification of what constitutes a 'program', then it is easy to see how the sponsorship funding could have been allowed to run.

Gomery concluded against the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada's arguement because in section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, it refers to 'program' even though there was no definition of program in the definitions of the preamble of the legislation.

Here's what Gomery has said:


"Despite some contrary points of view, I have concluded that the series of projects and initiatives launched by the Government of Canada in 1996 unquestionably constituted a “program”.

Sponsorship initiatives were a series of projects or activities planned and undertaken to accomplish the objective of enhancing the visibility of the federal presence and promoting its programs and services.

As such, they fit precisely into the dictionary definitions of "program”. The fact that the program was not formally structured and had not been specifically approved by Cabinet, Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office did not make it less of a program. "

So the Ministry of the Attorney General's office has attempted to argue that the inquiry should not be legally binding with respect to the Financial Administration Act, thus attempting to remove the legal fiscal accountability under this Act from the Ministries and Ministers involved.


In my opinion, here starts the problem.

Why would the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada attempt to argue that the Sponsorship Program was not a program binding under the Financial Administration Act? Who are these lawyers working for the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada?

To me, this is just more support to remove the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada out of the umbrella of a political party.

1st Reaction - Gomery

Major findings of the Gomery Inquiry

Assignment of Responsibility

These are not very long and can be read easily.

On reading the assignment of responsibility, my conclusion is, the illegal funding and mismanagement is a problem concerning the Liberal Party of Canada to further strengthen its Quebec wing that the Liberal Party has to take responsibility for.

It states in no uncertain terms, that, since Mr. Chretien and Mr. Gagliano were responsible for their staff, even though they have been exonerated from the kick-back schemes - they are responsible for their staff and allowed abuses to continue.

The CBC and CTV did not highlight these points.

Of particular interest, on page 2 of the Assignment of Responsibility, Gomery states:

"The notion that Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Gagliano could provide political input without strongly influencing the decision-making process is nonsense and ignores the obvious reality that the expression of an opinion to a subordinate official by the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff or the Minister amounts to an order. Mr. Pelletier's actions in meeting with Mr. Guite in the absence of Mr. Quail or his representative constituted political encroachment into the administrative domain. It was a dangerous precedent that should not be condoned."

I'm still looking for the comments on Martin not being aware of what was going on in the report. CTV touched on it so briefly that I wasn't able to catch what was said.

While the CBC and CTV are focusing only on Chretien, they are ignoring the obvious - what Martin didn't know and why.

That is why I believe Gomery made his public statement to refuse questions asked from the media, as he stated he didn't want to answer them focusing on a particular person or agency because he said, the full report should be read and taken as a whole, not attributed to a single entity. He is obviously emphasising that this is systemic, not attributable to a "few rotten apples" as the current Liberals have tried to portray.

I believe that was Gomery's shot at the media for failing to see the forest for the trees and an attempt to deflect Martin's spin doctors.

I am satisfied with Gomery. I am not satisfied with what the media is not reporting.

Gomery Traffic

Holy Geez...no wonder I couldn't get on my own blog last night...there was so much access to posts on the Gomery leak most likely were looking for opinions, I wasn't able to respond to comments

Like me, I wonder if anyone gets any sleep tonight?