Talk:John Gomery

Untitled
The True Powers of the Gomery Commission

This is a preventative strike here; there has been a serious misrepresentation of what the Gomery Commission can do. The media and the Liberals have been saying time and time again; “Let Gomery get to the bottom of things”. The impression they have given, one that alas the majority of Canadians have bought into, is that Gomery has the power to name names, to identify who was responsible for the sponsorship fraud. In fact, Gomery has no such power. Gomery’s mandate is not to identify who was responsible for the fraud; his only mandate is to identify if there were any “problems” with the sponsorship program, and if there were, to suggest recommendations to ensure that none of these problems emerge again, all without naming names. Even Scott Brison has admitted “Gomery is on a fact-finding mission” and nothing more. Unfortunately, Mr. Brison and the rest of Liberals have usually not been this honest, giving Canadians the distinct impression that Gomery is on something more then a fact-finding mission.

Gomery can say that there were “problems” with the sponsorship program; what has mandate prevents him from doing to naming who was responsible for these “problems”. However, because the majority of Canadians believe that Gomery has the power to name names, when he issues his report and does not name names, the Paul Martin and the rest of the Liberals will no doubt try to spin it that this proves that they had no involvement with the sponsorship fraud, that this entire multi-million fraud was all the work of a rogue bureaucrats and advertising agencies heads, that the Liberals were the hapless and unknowing victims of this colossal fraud committed by a few middle-ranking civil servants. And no doubt, some Liberal supporter or someone has bought into the spin, will try to say here that the Gomery Commission has “cleared” the Liberals of any involvement of the sponsorship scandal since it didn’t name names. For the reasons I have just explained here, such an interpretation is total nonsense. If Gomery had the power to name names, and he didn’t name any senior Liberal as being involved, then I might say that the view that Gomery has “cleared” the Liberals might have something to it. But as it is, Gomery doesn’t have the power to name names; so when he issues his report and does not name names; please remember this is not because Gomery didn’t find any evidence that the Liberals were involved, but only because Section IV, clause I of the Inquiries Act prevents him from saying so. A.S. Brown 05:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point of view, but from his initial report it seems fairly obvious that he can name names, he simply has no ability to pass legal judgement. The political damage he could inflict on people he deems guilty, even without legal damage, is quite potent.-- Scïmïłar  parley 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite?
The first sentence of the second paragraph makes no sense. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went back through the history to find a good sentence and replaced it. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Gomery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060322215509/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/Canada/2005/11/02/1289613-cp.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/11/02/1289613-cp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)