A couple of things on Gomery 
First, this ATV interview with Martin is pretty good. I love the Liberal line that they don't make any conclusions based on heresay and unsubstantiated allegations made during the inquiry - they want to wait for the report. Well, unless it's the Prime Ministers own testimony...
Steve Murphy: On the subject of Gomery, what do you believe Mr. Justice Gomery is going conclude about your action or inaction pertaining to the sponsorship scandal.
Martin: Oh I think if you look at the testimony that has already occurred it's pretty clear that the department of finance didn't know. That's not only my testimony but the deputy minister.

Secondly, I found this point made by Steve at his new blog Random Notes:

Andrew Coyne summarily dismisses recent speculation about “paragraph k” of the Gomery Commission’s terms of reference and the limitations it might impose on Gomery’s ability to assign blame in his blog yesterday.
On the surface, he appears right. But after a little searching, I discovered that the Krever public inquiry into Canada’s blood system provides a relevant precedent. Like other public inquiries, it would appear that the Krever Commission had a similar clause in its terms of reference regarding conclusions of criminal or civil liability.
But what the Krever case also shows is that if misconduct is found, named parties are prone to engage in legal tactics to prevent or delay the release of an inquiry’s report.
The whole process took more than four years. So what are the prospects for similar legal interventions by named parties to derail the conventional view that Gomery will report this year, with an election held by March 2006?
In my view, the conventional view of a winter 2006 election is looking like a best-case scenario. And Paul Martin knows it.
Read it all.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?