Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Gomery Spin Part 2 Dingwall's Assertion

Update: David Dingwall says "All expenses came from the operating revenue of the corporation, not from taxpayers' dollars."

So, to summarize: the $700,000 came out of profits - and according to the Liberals - you can spend profits however you want to because that is not taxpayers money. Never mind that the profit spent could have saved taxpayers money elsewhere - that's just a red herring.

Therefore, the Liberals next step will be to say that the money spent on the sponsorship scandal was not taxpayers money - it was from the profits (i.e. surplus).

So by the rule of "Dingwall's Assertion" there is nothing wrong with that.

Part 1 - Liberal Spam


At 19/10/05, Blogger hancor said...

That is a very rich explanation from Mr. Dingwall. Even if one accepted this spin doctoring; how pray tell does he explain these expenses to "Canadian shareholders" in this Crown Corporation?

Given the investment industry has been repeatedly rocked by scandal; Bre-X, Norburg, Portus, Nortel Networks, WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Martha Stewart to name a few; how does one reasonably explain the personal expense ratio of $850,000 /$241,000 x 100% = 352% of one's salary!!

I thank CEO Dingwall for introducing new expense account metrics for us all to follow!! I gather I will be doing likewise with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.


Post a Comment

<< Home