Gomery Commission
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Gomery Commission, formally the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, is a federal Canadian commission headed by the retired Justice John Gomery for the purpose of investigating the sponsorship scandal, which involves allegations of corruption within the Canadian government.
The Commission was called by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in February 2004 soon after the Auditor General of Canada's report found unexplainable irregularities in the Sponsorship Program. The Commission was part of Martin's active campaign to be seen as working to solve the problem. Justice Gomery released his first phase report on the scandal on November 1, 2005.
Some, including Jean Chrétien, Warren Kinsella, and Sheila Copps, have criticized the commission as being little more than an extension of Liberal party infighting. [1] Gomery has been seen to be hostile toward Chrétien, although his lawyers failed to have him removed as biased, and friendly to Paul Martin. The two men have long represented a power struggle within the party. Subsequent to the release of the first report, Chrétien has decided to take an action in Federal Court to review the commission report on the grounds that Gomery showed a "reasonable apprehension of bias", and that some conclusions didn't have an "evidentiary" basis. [2]
Contents |
Mandate
The Commission had a broader mandate, more power and greater resources than the Auditor General, and most importantly could look beyond government to the advertising agencies that had received the Sponsorship dollars. The terms of reference allowed the commissioner to question witnesses, hire experts and adopt any procedures or methods that he considers expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry. The purpose given was to "investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly" by the Auditor Generals report. However, he was specifically directed not to make any conclusions or recommendations on criminal charges or civil liability.
Proceedings and testimonies
The Commission began in Ottawa, meeting in the Old City Hall. The hearing opened in September 2004. The first to testify was auditor Sheila Fraser who reported the findings of her earlier investigations. The first part of its investigation was of the political direction of the project. Most of the top officials involved were called to testify.
In an unprecedented event the inquiry saw the testimony of two Prime Ministers in February 2005: Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien. The testimony of Chrétien was much anticipated. In December 2004 Chrétien's lawyers had moved to expel Justice Gomery due to comments he had made to a National Post reporter that the lawyers argued showed that Gomery was biased against Chrétien. These included Gomery commenting that golf balls marked with Chrétien's name, which had been paid for by the sponsorship program, were "small town cheap." Gomery rejected the calls to recuse himself setting up a confrontation between him and Chrétien. At the end of his day of testimony Chrétien closed his statement by pulling out a series of golf balls bearing the name of American presidents and asking whether each of them was "small town cheap." The stunt was the focus of all the media reports.
After the prime ministers testified, the hearings moved to Montreal to investigate where the money had gone. The hearings in Ottawa had uncovered little more than what was in the Auditor General's report. The AG did not have the authority to investigate outside of the government, and the look into the advertising companies in Montreal uncovered a great deal of new and explosive allegations. The most important of these were by Groupaction executive Jean Brault who recounted a series of crimes committed to direct government money to Liberal party supporters. These caused a sharp fall in the support for the governing Liberals and has put their government in jeopardy.
First phase report
On November 1, 2005, Gomery released the first part of his report. Gomery criticized Chrétien, his chief of staff Jean Pelletier but cleared them of direct involvement in kickback schemes. While people such as Gagliano, Chuck Guité and Jacques Corriveau took advantage of the programme, Gomery observed that such abuses would not have been possible had Chrétien not set the programme up without safeguards in the first place. Gomery said that Pelletier "failed to take the most elementary precautions against mismanagement – and Mr. Chrétien was responsible for him."
Gomery also exonerated prime minister Paul Martin, the former minister of finance during most of the sponsorship programme. Gomery specifically said that Martin "is entitled, like other ministers from the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct", as the Department of Finance's role was not oversight, but setting the "fiscal framework".
Gomery's final report is due around the second anniversary of his appointment in February 2006. Paul Martin has promised that an election will be called within thirty days of the final report. During late spring 2005, some speculated that the government would be forced into a snap election by the opposition Conservatives and Bloc Québécois, but the Liberals narrowly avoided it on 19 May 2005.
Criticisms
Many commentators have criticized the report for various reasons: alleged bias on the part of the commission, the terms of reference with which it was set up, and the use of evidence in the report.
Jean Chrétien's lawyers are trying to have the the results of the Gomery report declared invalid by a federal court. They claim that Gomery has made many comments which indicate he had a bias going into the investigation such as comments Gomery made calling Chrétien "small town cheap", refering to the management of the sponsorship program as "catastrophically bad," and calling Chuck Guité, a "charming scamp".
Other allegations of bias concern the commission's chief counsel, Bernard Roy, a former chief of staff to former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. Roy is also a partner in Mulroney's law firm where Gomery's daughter works. Chrétien's lawyers allege that the appointment is a conflict of interest. Roy is a longtime personal friend of the former prime-minister's. [3] Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien have had an adversarial personal relationship in recent years since the Airbus affair. The choice of counsel may account for the failure to call some Chrétien friendly witnesses.
Courts denied the Chrétien legal team's request to remove Gomery in the spring of 2005.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper said that the main problem was that the commission's terms of reference did not allow it to investigate Paul Martin's contracting habits as finance minister. He said he was sympathetic to Chrétien's complaints of bias. [4] Other criticisms concern the lack of powers the commission had to investigate criminal matters, which were being investigated by the RCMP.
Chrétien's lawyers have indicated they are concerned about conclusions which are not based on evidence, but mere extrapolation. Jean Chrétien, on the day the report was tabled in the House of Commons, objected to the findings of the Commission, commenting that Gomery believed the wrong witnesses. "Personally, I believe Jean Pelletier, a man who dedicated his life to the service of his city, his province and his country," said the former Prime Minister, dismissing's Chuck Guité's testimony. Chrétien believes that Gomery's conclusion that the programme was run out of the prime minister's office is wrong.
