[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 10 2005, 02:26 PM
snip

None of that contradicts what I wrote, and indeed "I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it" specifically backs it up. Yes, "such findings will be the focus of the Inquiry only to the extent that they are necessary to carry out the mandate in the terms of reference", but then the terms of reference specifically include Transaction Intended to Hide Sources of Funding to Crown Enteties. If findings about who received kickbacks from whom weren't going to be a part of the inquiry's findings then all of the testimony that has come out on that topic would have been irrelevant and Gomery wouldn't have spent so much time going over that area.

With respect to my comment about normal legal proceedings, I was simply meaning the regular distinction between findings of fact and findings of law. In a normal court proceeding who received movey would be a finding of fact and nothing I've read about this inquiry has made me believe that that distinction would be different here.

Since the "terms of reference" severely limit his report to "factual findings" only, and the "paramount importance that the Inquiry's process be scrupulously fair" if there is any conflict in testimony, you can bet that none of it will be part of his report.

Again, who received kickbacks are "factual findings" and are included in the "terms of reference". Yes, it's of "paramount importance that the Inquiry's process be scrupulously fair" but that's no different from any criminal or civil trial; Gomery will have to evaluate all the testimony on any given issue, the credibility of the witnesses and any corroberating evidence in order to determine whether a finding can be made.

Bottom line, I think his final report will be a mere shadow of what most Canadians expect he will report upon. Time will tell though. In the interim, if the government falls and there is an election, so be it. Eventually Gomery's report will be tabled, and not until that time we will have the 20-20 vision to see how the "terms of reference" for this inquiry will have factored into it.

So you've come down from your position that nothing of value will come out and have admitted we won't know until it comes out.

Given that, and the fact that the majority of Canadians don't want another election right now, whose positio now looks more reasonable? The Liberals who want to wait for the findings, or the Conservatives who insist it must be now? It must be getting hard to hold on to the belief that it's only the Liberals who are playing partisan politics.