Thursday, July 06, 2006

To inquire publicly or not, that is the question

Peeking my head out here to see if anyone is looking. I know I could get angry, gnashing of teeth from others for my opinion, but I am not sure that the answer to the political scandal of late is a public inquiry. I really, really want to know all the details and I want to go back to 1989 and find out who else might have been fiddling with the books but I don't think pouring millions more into this is the answer. I heard Jim Bennett this morning saying on the radio something to the effect that the government wanted to cover it all up with a police investigation. Huh? So a police investigation is covering it up?

It is in the hands of the justice department and the police and I'm sure Danny would go along with going back further if they wanted. But an inquiry will cost millions of dollars, most of it going in the pockets of the lawyers who will be working for the people called to testify. Yes, folks, the taxpayers have to pay for the lawyers of these people. We paid the legal fees of the inquiry for Chuck Guite and Chretian and all the rest of them during the Gomery inquiry. Those are the rules, to my knowledge. I think we are a public-inquiry-happy people around here and I think the only people that will come out any better after such an inquiry will be the lawyers. Sure, people may go to jail but I think the police investigation and justice department could manage that on their own if it is provable fraud. Didn't we just finish a public inquiry into the police and justice department so we could make sure they do their jobs better? Now that they've implemented much of the changes we asked them to make, we are not going to trust them to look after this?

The other thing I have to say about this is that the whole online petition thing does not seem to be working. Not for controversial things like this. In the petition calling for a public inquiry online (Jim Bennett said he has an online one too but I can't find it), there are 117 "signatures". 36 of them are signed "anonymous" and there are others signed more than once with the same name (no doubt, someone just pressed the submit button more than once by mistake). The same thing happened with the Don't Change the name of MUN petition--lots of anonymous which can't really count. I think the paper petition in the corner store is more the way to go for anything which might make people nervous to have the whole world know they signed their name to it.

Sure b'y, it's just what I think. Feel free to disagree but let's be nice about it.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home