Gomery inquiry update

[kimmy]

The government is going to sue some of the ad-firms to recover money.

CTV: Gov't to sue ad-firms to recover $10 million

That they're going to do this might result in some good PR. On the otherhand, it might remind people how mad they were about the sponsorship program in the first place, when most people seem to have forgot it or gotten over it.

I think the fact that they're going to court over this is also a reply to those Liberals on the inquiry who'd been trying to argue that the the money wasn't really mis-spent, that Sheila Fraser was in no position to assess what return the program got for the money that was spent, that the government must have gotten some value in return for the money that was given to the ad-firms, etc. If any of that were true, we probably wouldn't be seeing the government taking this to court, would we? No, I don't think we would.

But to me, the more interesting development is one mentioned towards the end of this article:

Toronto Star: Gomery inquiry notes

Yesterday, officials at the commission of inquiry said Gomery was receiving expressions of support from across Canada in response to an accusation by a lawyer for former prime minister Jean Chrétien that the judge had lost his impartiality.

About two dozen Canadians sent emails to the commissioner saying he has their full support and questioning Chrétien's motivation, said inquiry spokesperson François Perrault.

David Scott, who represents the former prime minister at the hearings, on Tuesday said remarks Gomery made to the media before Christmas showed that he had already reached conclusions about the causes of the problems that plagued the sponsorship initiative. Scott said Chrétien, who is set to testify next month, is considering going to court to have Gomery removed from the commission.

"People are saying in the e-mails, `What's Chrétien got to hide?'" Perrault said.

Lawyers are smart guys. I'm sure that Mr Scott knows that if he wades into this on Chretien's behalf, it creates the impression that Chretien has something to hide; I doubt it's something he'd do lightly, which to me says that Chretien *does* have some kind of personal stake in what's going on. After months and months of nothing from the Gomery inquiry, it looks like things might start to get interesting.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Kimmy, I don`t know what to say, really.

At this point, the Sponsorship Scandal has become boring. This is exactly what PM PM wanted. More convoluted accusations and counter-accusations will make it even more boooooring.

I think this was Nixon's original strategy with Watergate. (In Sep 72, he congratulated Dean for apparently smothering it.) No doubt many political scandals die such a death. I think the Sponsorship Dossier (as Jean Lapierre would say) is now more or less closed.

I may be wrong but I too think this scandal is no Dracula. It ain't coming back, except maybe in Quebec. The Tories have no traction. The NDP are either clueless or closet Liberals.

Yet.

If I can make a prediction, I'd say Canada is slowing coming to some kind of dénouement (in Quebec terms, about 40 years or so in the making).

Evidence of this "impending unknotting"? The past federal election shows that the federal Liberal Party can do no wrong. We have no opposition party to choose.

Why? Quebec.

Quebec's obsessive internal division has now infected Canadian federal politics. The result is that the absolute worst the Liberals can do is win a minority.

Many voters in Ontario (and elsewhere in Canada) don't want to hear or know about a sponsorship scandal. They fear that the fall of the Liberal Party is the collapse of Canada as they know it.

They are not far wrong.

[Shakeyhands]

perhaps if there were an alternative to the Liberals eh August? Sounds as though you are alluding to a lack of a good choice to an alternative is the Liberals fault?

[I miss Reagan]

The liberals are brilliant at maintaining power. They'll morph into, or at least project an image of exactly what they think Canadians want in a government. Then they'll govern the same as they always have. And with such a sympathetic media, how can they ever lose.

[kimmy]

Well, "Da Little Scom-Bag from Shawinigan" has gone ahead and done it. As threatened, Chretien's mouthpiece, David Scott, has indeed filed papers demanding Judge Gomery recuse himself, and failing that, challenge Gomery in federal court.

Globe 'n' Mail: Chretien's temper-tantrum

Not surprisingly, the 3 opposition leaders have called on the Liberals to stand firm in support of the inquiry, with Jack Layton being particularly blunt (in manner that would do MapleSyrup proud) :

"If [Prime Minister Paul Martin] waffles and offers a half-assed defence on the Gomery commission instead of standing behind it, then he deserves to be punished," he said from his own caucus retreat in Montebello, Que.

"I don't think that most Canadians feel like wasting time on an election right now but if he feels he can push this off into judicial-appeal oblivion with impunity, then he's got another thing coming."

And not surprisingly, Marting is still pretending he's in China.

So, what's Chretien's motivation? What's the point? What's in it for him? What's his angle, anyway? This column reflects on Jean Chretien, the man, the myth, the legend, and speculates on what might be on his mind...

Globe 'n' Mail columnist: At heart, Chretien is just a prick

If Judge Gomery is going to write a critical chapter of Mr. Chrétien's tenure, they can at least question the fairness of the portrait.

"If nothing else, I think it's probably fair to put it on the record that the person who is judging the process appears to have made up his mind on some issues," one Chrétien loyalist said yesterday.

It's a pre-emptive strike, and by implication an admission that Mr. Chrétien and his circle of still-loyal supporters don't like the way -- they think -- the Gomery report will shape up.

Is this about the all-important "Chretien legacy", then? It seems to me that Chretien will most likely be remembered for graft more than for anything achieved during his tenure (except for eliminating the deficit, but most view that as Paul Martin's achievement, not Chretien's.) Going to legal war against the Gomery commission is not likely to change the perception of Chretien as a man who presided over graft and swept it under the rug whenever possible. In fact, it's likely to make his image worse: not only did he preside over corruption and attempt to hide it from public view, he also tried to shut down the inquiry. Other than the most devoted Chretien devotees could believe that this improves his optics?

Perhaps this is closer to the heart of the matter:

It's true that Mr. Chrétien and his staunch supporters have always hated the Gomery commission -- from its very existence to its expansive scope -- and have never forgiven Paul Martin for calling it. Even yesterday, one senior Chrétienite said bitterly it's the stupidest decision that Mr. Martin has made, and "an albatross around this party's neck."

A public inquiry is just completely opposite to Chretien's style. How would Chretien have handled Sheila Fraser's report had it not been for his (fortuituously timed) departure from politics? I think we all know:

"Dis guy, he go to Denmark. Dat guy, he stay in Denmark. Dis guy, he go to de Senate. An' all of us, we say in de Question Period: I don' know not'ing about dat."

But despite his distaste for the process, Chretien is apparently excited about his scheduled testimony, which will be in a couple of weeks.

But more particularly, Mr. Chrétien is concerned that Judge Gomery just does not get history -- his history, the version that the former prime minister has all along argued was the "context" for the sponsorship program, and, by implication, the mitigating factor for its abuses. That, of course, was the knife-at-your-throat threat that Quebec separatism was going to tear apart the country.

Mr. Chrétien's loyalists say the former prime minister is looking forward to testifying at the commission to emphasize that context, which he feels has been lost in the testimony.

Yes, Mr Chretien is looking forward to taking the stand so that he can trot out the tired old "We had to save Canada!" pony again. Just as Dubya and the Republicans whip out "9/11! National security!" any time they need an excuse for anything, the Chretienites shout "Quebec referendum! National Unity!" when they need an excuse.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Kimmy, good post.

It seems to me that Chretien will most likely be remembered for graft more than for anything achieved during his tenure (except for eliminating the deficit, but most view that as Paul Martin's achievement, not Chretien's.)

The only legacy Chretien could possibly care about would the national unity thingey.

I haven't followed the Gomery inquiry too closely (I know Kinsella appeared recently) but I too am intrigued about Chretien's purpose.

I suspect that this is still part of the Chretien-PM PM feud and it concerns specifically the approach to Quebec. Chretien would like to see PM PM lose and someone else (Manley, Dion?) become leader. Why? To keep the Trudeau vision of Canada alive - Quebec as just another province.

Chretien's way of doing that is to raise a stink.

PM PM, on the other hand, has his mind focussed on getting a majority.

[August1991]

Gomery May Resign Tomorrow

The veteran judge listened to their arguments, said he would announce his decision early Tomorrow, then tucked a newspaper under his arm and trudged out for a walk in the snow.

"You'll have your answer tomorrow," Gomery said as he stepped out of the building.

Huh?

[Guest eureka]

And why should Chretien not take action to remove Gomery.? It is no more than any citizen is allowed to do where they may be a perception of bias in a judge.

The truth of that will come out when the pleadings are heard, unless Gomery does remove himself - as he ought to do if he has made the pronouncements that he is accused of.

There is also the smell of a payback by Mulroney loyalists.

That some do not like Chretien os not a reason to distort justice in this inquiry. I have my own reservations about Chretien but they do not cause me to believe that he is less deserving of due process than any other citizen.i

[Stoker]

There is also the smell of a payback by Mulroney loyalists.

Care to elaborate?

As an aside, I wonder what the prosepcts of an election happing are if Gomery resigns?

Could Harper and Duceppe find some ammo out of this to allow their respective parties to gain seat in any potential

election?

Though Canadians seem opposed to an election over SSM, would they be opposed to an election, in what could be ( or at the very least, spun) seen as Liberal obstruction of justice?

[Newfie Canadian]

Well, today's the day Chrétien testifies, barring a last minute attempt to avoid testifying (which I wouldn't put past him).

I had hoped never to see Chrétien on the national political scene again.

CTV Story

On Sunday, CTV News reported that Chretien's team will try to push the following:

-Canada was in a precarious situation after the 1995 referendum that was barely won by the federalist side

-He created the sponsorship program but didn't manage it

-He didn't know about any illegal activity, but if laws were broken, the individuals involved should be prosecuted.

[caesar]

Though Canadians seem opposed to an election over SSM, would they be opposed to an election, in what could be ( or at the very least, spun) seen as Liberal obstruction of justice?

Huh?????? obstruction of justice?????? If the man made remarks concerning the trials he should be removed. When one takes part in an investigation or trial in Canada; they are required to keep their mind open and their mouths shut

[kimmy]

Do you not feel that attempting to shut down the inquiry has the appearance of trying to obstruct justice? Do you not think that permitting the inquiry to be stopped would be a violation of one of Paul Martin's key campaign promises?

-kimmy

[Shakeyhands]

was the point not that the person who would be making the findings and recommendations had seemingly already come to a conclusion having yet heard all of the evidence?

I am having a hard time with that.

Would you want someone judging you that had made up their mind prior to hearing your side? Thats not even to mention making comments to the press.... Come on now.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Do you not feel that attempting to shut down the inquiry has the appearance of trying to obstruct justice? Do you not think that permitting the inquiry to be stopped would be a violation of one of Paul Martin's key campaign promises?

-kimmy

Of course they're tyring to shut down the inquiry. But the move from that to a claim of trying to "obstruct justice" is specious at best. The fact that Gomery appears to have made up his mind before hearing all of the evidence makes it very difficult to see how justice could be done by this inquiry anyway.

Gomery should have known better than to: i) speak to the press about an inquiry he is currently presiding over, and ii) reach decisions without hearing all of the evidence.

Gomery should be removed and replaced. If the inquiry can not reasonably be continued under a new judge, it should be terminated and a new inquiry started. Those who claim that it would be too expensive to start over, and thus Gomery should be allowed to continue, are the ones more deserving of the accusation of obstruction of justice.

[Guest eureka]

The inquiry itself is an obstruction to justice. There was no need for a Commission and it is there only because of the clamour of the Opposition parties.

The matter was already being investigated by the RCMP and, I think, that they would have dug deeper than thise very public exercise.

It is a waste of money that goes beyond whatever was misappropriated in the sponsorship programs.

[kimmy]

Of course they're tyring to shut down the inquiry. But the move from that to a claim of trying to "obstruct justice" is specious at best. The fact that Gomery appears to have made up his mind before hearing all of the evidence makes it very difficult to see how justice could be done by this inquiry anyway.

was the point not that the person who would be making the findings and recommendations had seemingly already come to a conclusion having yet heard all of the evidence?

I am having a hard time with that.

Would you want someone judging you that had made up their mind prior to hearing your side? Thats not even to mention making comments to the press.... Come on now.

(did Chretien's followers issue a set of "talking points" for people to parrot in discussions like this? Is there a mailing-list or something that I could subscribe to, so that I could read the party line and spare you guys the trouble of cut and pasting it here?)

First off I would point out that Chretien is not being "judged" or "tried" here. Second, please support this claim that Gomery's comments show that he's already reached a conclusion. What comment specifically? That giving away Jean Chretien autographed golf balls was "small town cheap"? Hey, it WAS... but that's not a judgment of any wrongdoing on the part of Chretien or anybody within the program. That Chuck Guite is "a charming scamp"? Again, not a judgment of any misconduct, even by Guite, let alone by Chretien.

Or is it Gomery's comment that the sponsorship program was run in a disasterously bad way? That's not in question-- that's a fact; it's the reason why the inquiry exists. That there were problems has been agreed to by everyone, including Chretien himself, and certainly Chretien's testimony yesterday that he and Don Boudria discussed calling the RCMP in regard to some of the problems.

I do not accept Chretien's mouthpiece's claims as fact. "David Scott says so" is not evidence, in my view. David Scott is paid to say so. I think his threat to go to court to remove Gomery is an empty one; I don't think the case (at least as he's articulated it to this point) is compelling in the least. The whole complaint appears to have been an exercise in public relations, and judging from the reaction here on the board it appears to have succeeded, although I suspect he was preaching to the converted.

The inquiry itself is an obstruction to justice. There was no need for a Commission and it is there only because of the clamour of the Opposition parties.

It was all forced by the Opposition? You don't believe public outrage over the auditor general's report had anything to do with it? You don't feel that prior to fighting an election, Paul Martin needed a public display of accountability to deflect corruption as an election issue?

I think you give the Opposition parties entirely too much credit. And I think that you don't give nearly enough credit to the Liberals' desire to manage public reaction to the scandal.

The matter was already being investigated by the RCMP and, I think, that they would have dug deeper than thise very public exercise.

I seriously doubt it. I don't think very many Canadians would have faith in an RCMP investigation to do anything more than tag a few bit-players.

Justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done. For Canadians to feel faith in their government and its institutions, they need to know that a proper process has been followed to identify the guilty and exhonerate the innocent. I simply don't trust an RCMP investigation to do an adequate job.

It is a waste of money that goes beyond whatever was misappropriated in the sponsorship programs.

Another one from the "talking points" newsletter I mentioned earlier...

-kimmy

[Shakeyhands]

I'm pretty sure that other than trying to shoot Martin in the foot that we didn't learn anything more than we knew was going to be said by JC .... However I did learn alot about the giving of golf balls as gifts by foreign leaders. That was a masterful counter to Gomery (and perhaps a little groundwork laying for later) and to be honest was pretty damn funny.

[Newfie Canadian]

That was a masterful counter to Gomery (and perhaps a little groundwork laying for later) and to be honest was pretty damn funny.

Indeed. Chrétien deserves credit for his performance.

Too bad the same can't be said for the inquiry's lawyers who asked the questions. I don't think the "money laundering" angle that was brought up by Jean Carle was mentioned to Chrétien. It would have been nice to see some questions about it asked of Chrétien.

I feel a little sorry for Martin.

You get a pretty good performnce by Chrétien, who avoided getting hammered, hindered, accused or implicated, now you've gotta follow it up. I really wouldn't want to be in Martin's shoes.

I agree with kimmy that public outrage, and even a Liberal need to be perceived by the public to be doing something about it, got the inquiry going.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Main Entry: 1scamp

Pronunciation: 'skamp

Function: noun

Etymology: obsolete scamp to roam about idly

1 : RASCAL, ROGUE

2 : an impish or playful young person

- scamp·ish /'skam-pish/ adjective

Main Entry: 1rogue

Pronunciation: 'rOg

Function: noun

Etymology: origin unknown

1 : VAGRANT, TRAMP

2 : a dishonest or worthless person : SCOUNDREL

3 : a mischievous person : SCAMP

4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave

5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation

Main Entry: ras·cal

Pronunciation: 'ras-k&l

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English rascaile rabble, one of the rabble

1 : a mean, unprincipled, or dishonest person

2 : a mischievous person or animal

- rascal adjective

You don't see a problem with a sitting judge describing someone involved in the inquiry in such a personal way?

"It's impossible not to like Chuck Guite,'' said the judge. "Let's face it, he's a charming scamp and he had his department mesmerized.''

Commenting to the press that his report may prove "very harmful" to the present prime minister is also a pretty questionable thing to do. Why is Gomery even considering what to include in his report before he has heard all of the evidence?

[kimmy]

  You don't see a problem with a sitting judge describing someone involved in the inquiry in such a personal way?

As I already mentioned, no.

First off, "scamp" is most commonly used in the sense of an impish or playful, just as rascal. In context, "it's impossible not to like Guite... he's a charming scamp," it certainly sounds like this is the sense Gomery intends. I am sure that the mighty Plymouth Scamp automobile (which my parents used to drive ) was named with an eye towards the idea of playfulness and fun, not tendancy towards criminal activity (it would have made a rather lousy get-away car, in my recollection.) I'm sure that when people name their dogs Scamp or Rascal, they have the same notion. I'm sure that likewise, the "li'l Rascals" TV program was named for playful impish fun, not criminal behavior. I don't recall ever hearing scamp being used as an accusation of criminal behavior.

While "rogue" can be used in the same sense as scamp or rascal, it is most commonly used in the sense of a renegade or outlaw (rogue state, rogue elephant, rogue cop, etc) and has more menacing connotation that scamp lacks; I feel you've included it here to boost your argument rather than because you honestly feel it was applicable.

Secondly, whether "scamp" was just a description of Guite's demeanor or was indeed an attack on Guite's character, it doesn't particularly matter. Guite had already testified. Gomery was entitled to have an opinion on Guite and his testimony at that point. Whether he was entitled to express it in an interview is another question, but that question doesn't relate to Gomery's objectivity.

  Commenting to the press that his report may prove "very harmful" to the present prime minister is also a pretty questionable thing to do. Why is Gomery even considering what to include in his report  before he has heard all of the evidence?

Given the amount of testimony and the nature of the testimony given up to the point Gomery made the comments, I think assessing it as potentially damaging to the government goes under the heading of "well, duh."

-kimmy

[Fortunata]

"Dis guy, he go to Denmark. Dat guy, he stay in Denmark. Dis guy, he go to de Senate. An' all of us, we say in de Question Period: I don' know not'ing about dat."

Yep.

That some do not like Chretien os not a reason to distort justice in this inquiry. I have my own reservations about Chretien but they do not cause me to believe that he is less deserving of due process than any other citizen.

Yep.

When one takes part in an investigation or trial in Canada; they are required to keep their mind open and their mouths shut

Yep.

Gomery should have kept his mouth shut. Betcha he won't make that mistake again.

Chretien knows more than he is letting on but he won't be charged since he didn't actually (or won't be proven to) tell people to scam.

Paul Martin probably wanted NOT to know about this but could have if he wanted. But, like he says, it isn't his portfolio that counts the money. He's scot free inquiry wise. Electoral support wise ... well thats a different story.

Opposition screamed for an enquiry and now they are screaming cause of the costs. Can't have it both ways boys.

[Trial-and-Error]

I Miss Trudeau

Gomery should have known better than to: i) speak to the press about an inquiry he is currently presiding over, and ii) reach decisions without hearing all of the evidence.

Absolutely and for a judge to rationalize his remarks (as he did) by declaring he was inexperienced with the press is disingenuous at best. Having said that, I also agree with eureka who feels that the Commission Inquiry is a egregious waste of money, much of which will transfer into the lawyers' pockets--and what a terrible waste of paper. It would be interesting to see how many tons of it they've gone through already.

The point is who in hell do we vote for come next election. The Conservatives I can't abide and aren't they just chomping on the bit to get back to the trough.

The Libs on the other hand have not been shy at dipping into the public coffers.

I would so love it if the NDP had a Tommy Douglas at the helm. To reach lift-off it needs a charismatic leader with extraordinary oratory skills who can capture the imagination of Quebecers and Ontarians to vote for a party that truly will put people first. Jack Layton, alas, is not that person.

BQ - a creature which surely only exists in Canada. I can't fathom how it can serve as a political party when its primary reason for existing is to do all that it can to secede from Canada.

We may have four political parties as opposed to the two-party system in the States, but does anyone here see a clear choice and why?

[kimmy]

Ok, now what is De Little Scombag from Shawinigawwwn up to?

CTV: Chretien files to remove Gomery

What's the point? He's already testified, in manner that all of his fans agree was just super. None of the activities which Gomery has been critical of seem to be linked to Chretien. Chretien himself has said that if anybody within the administration of the program was involved in wrongdoing, they should be investigated and charged... so why is he now interfering in the process?

If this succeeds, Chretien will have further undermined his unlucky successor.

-kimmy

[caesar]

What's the point? He's already testified, in manner that all of his fans agree was just super. None of the activities which Gomery has been critical of seem to be linked to Chretien. Chretien himself has said that if anybody within the administration of the program was involved in wrongdoing, they should be investigated and charged... so why is he now interfering in the process?

For an unbiased investigation. Simple to understand.

[Greg]

Lets avoid comments like,

De Little Scombag

Stick to the facts, not insults.

Greg

Admin