First thoughts

Share Button

Just home.  Nearly 2,400 pages to the final report so I’m far from versed as to its contents.  However, from what I have read to date along with Justice Normand Glaude’s 75 minute commentary I get the feel that the commissioner steered a course almost straight down the centre of everything – with a tilt toward that old rumour and innuendo chestnut.  I get the impression that Glaude believes that virtually everyone – Perry included! – did a little good here and there and at the same time made an error or two here and there.  I also get the impression that in some instances Glaude views those little errors here and there as perhaps the responsibility of the institution in question which could or should have done something which might have prevented the occurrence of errors.

There is continued dancing and confusion and contradiction on the issue of a paedophile ring and cover-up – seems Glaude believes Project Truth never investigated same adequately and was therefore in no position to say ‘no ring and no cover-up.’  He also says he was not mandated to address that particular matter – but noted that he saw no evidence of same :).

Glaude said he was alternately asked to demonize Perry or to make him a hero in the report –  he said he did neither.   So, at this moment in time it seems there is no big judicial dump on Perry.  For that matter, seems there is no big dump on anyone.  I get the impression from my very cursory review that perhaps the OPP took the biggest hit, but I could be wrong.  No matter, the OPP certainly don’t seem to come out like a shining star.

There are welcome recommendations, – most sheer common sense – not the sort of thing I would expect to come in at a cost to $50M to $60M or more!!

There are gravy train recommendations – as anticipated and if enacted by the McGuinty government some individuals/organizations stand to gain and feather their nests for a goodly number of years. 

Glaude would like to see victim counselling continue for another three years.  I have no objection to counselling, but fail to understand why the commissioner thinks that victims of Cornwall alone should warrant such a service at tax payer’s expense.  It seems to me that fair says that if Glaude thinks the victims of Cornwall warrant such counselling he should not exclude and discriminate against the countless other sex abuse victims throughout Ontario.  Why should not those victims and “alleged” vicitms also be entitled to five years of counselling?   That of course would make such counselling prohibitive.   I personally believe that while the notion itself is charitable it is far too costly.   The taxpayers’ pockets have already been picked to the tune of millions – there are limits.

It seems to me the report was penned with conflict resolution in mind.   Oh yes, also a call for apologies, with reminder that Ontario encated legislation in April of this year which alloiws apologies without opening the door to admitting culpability and therefore legal action.  This one floors me.  Strikes me as manipulative++.  If there are strident denials of wrong doing, and insistence that no crime was committed, apologize for what?

Those are the first thoughts.  Time to get something together for supper and I’ll be back 🙂

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)     

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *