The Gomery Deception:

Letting the Big Fish Swim Away

By James Duff

The harder Paul Martin struggles to distance himself from the sponsorship scandal, the more Canadians lean toward thinking he played a key role in its making.

The recent Institute for Research on Public Policy/SES/CPAC survey indicated that over four in 10 Canadians (43 percent) believe Martin and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien should both take responsibility for activities uncovered by the Gomery Commission. Another 29 percent said Martin alone should take responsibility, while only16 percent said Chrétien should take the blame by himself.

Quebec voters were more likely to believe that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien should take responsibility for the sponsorship scandal, while among Canadians outside of Quebec, this opinion flips. Canadians from outside of Quebec are more likely to believe that Martin should take responsibility when compared to Chrétien.

"The impact of the Gomery inquiry on the public perception of Martin should give political leaders pause," said SES President Nikita Nanos.

~

So one wonders why Martin keeps hammering away at that message, as he did at the big Liberal Party fundraiser at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal. Martin repeated for the umpteenth time the message that the sponsorship issue --it's clearly Liberal policy to avoid referring to it as a scandal--was dealt with on his watch. The PM hit all the buzzwords "unacceptable...money badly used and badly spent...putting our house in order" and this golden oldie: "I am determined to get to the bottom of this. That is why our government established the Gomery Commission."

As Judge John Gomery settles down to write his report—all by himself, he assures us—inquiry junkies are of the general opinion that the report's conclusions will concentrate largely on how the process must be scandal-proofed.

Some things, like the role of Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano, were obvious from Day One. Gagliano was a loyal soldier who did what the PMO told him to do, whose only response to Chrétien's orders was "yes, boss." The idea of Gagliano setting up a rogue fundraising operation out of sight of the Liberal Party of Canada's Quebec wing, is laughable to anyone who knows him and who has followed the testimony.

The corollary is true of Jean Brault, so sympathetically portrayed in the Quebec media as a whistleblower driven by repentance. Those of us who watched this carefully choreographed and beautifully scripted show trial unfold were struck early on by the impression that Brault was being allowed to make viciously libelous claims about some of the players under the inquiry's shield of privilege without the slightest attempt to

test the evidence.

It's not our mandate to cross-examine the witnesses, the Gomery prosecutorial staff insisted time and again.

In the end, much of Brault's claims lay in tatters, contradicted by subsequent testimony. But little of that made the popular press in Quebec.

What also became obvious was the care taken by Gomery's inquisitors to ensure that nothing led directly to Chrétien, or to the Federal Liberal Agency for Canada (FLAC). When former LPC (Q) director-general Benoit Corbeil suggested that whenever the party's Quebec wing was running in the red, someone would pick up the phone and call John Rae --officially the executive assistant to the office of the chairman of Power Corp., Gomery didn't go there. When Françoise Patry, the wife of MP Dr. Bernard Patry and administrative assistant to Paul Desmarais and his wife, was asked who she was secretary to, the question was deftly batted aside.

In other words, nothing was allowed to touch the inner ring, which surrounded--and continues to surround--the PMO.

What also became obvious as the show went on was how many people--including Martin's Quebec lieutenant Jean Lapierre--spoke freely of how the fate of Gomery's three co-accused, admen Brault and Paul Coffin and former deputy minister Chuck Guité, had already been decided. There was little surprise when Coffin pleaded guilty to a dozen charges that could conceivably earn him 10 years in jail; everybody knows he won't do 10 months.

The fix was in.

~

I thought the true nature of the Gomery probe emerged during the last day, when Sylvain Lussier, the lawyer for the attorney-general, pressed Gagliano about some of the sponsorship deals he was personally involved in. For the first time in close to two years, Gagliano lost his temper, accusing Lussier of insulting the entire Italian-Canadian community. It was entirely uncharacteristic of the usually taciturn former minister and ambassador, but it was a reminder that when this is all over, most of the villains will be Canadians whose last names end in vowels.

That's why Canadians should have no sympathy for Martin or his vain struggle to free himself from the Adscam Tar Baby. The inquiry he mandated never had a mandate to come up with the truth.

The commission's counsel felt it had no mandate to go past November, 2003. Why would that be?

~

The testimony of political aides to several federal and provincial ministers who were among those who took and distributed cash to Liberal campaign workers made it clear that this wasn't the work of a few rogue fundraisers, but a well-organized cash-based system that had, and still has, roots in the PMO.

Gomery watchers have grown accustomed to hyperbolic descriptions of the various testimonies, but as someone who spent the past year interviewing several people close to the proceedings, including Alfonso Gagliano, for a book, I can honestly say nothing surprised me until Corbeil's allegations about Rae.

Why would a senior advisor to the chairman of a publicly traded corporation, a trusted confidant of both Jean Chrétien and the current PM, call Banque Nationale president André Bérard to ask that the party's line of credit be increased? Over a period of several years the LPC (Q)'s debt soared from

$30,000 to more than $3 million.

Which hat was Mr. Rae wearing when he allegedly made those calls? Was Mr. Rae acting on behalf of Power Corp. in guaranteeing the Quebec wing's line of credit? That would beg the question of why one of Canada's largest financial-services conglomerates was acting as a guarantor for a political party. If so, did Power Corp. make a declaration of this liability to shareholders or list it for tax purposes as a donation in kind?

~

Former Chrétien PMO Chief of Staff Jean Pelletier probably knows the answers to these and many other questions to have emerged during the Montreal hearings, but we've already heard from Mr. Pelletier, as we have from Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin during the Ottawa phase. Because the commission's lawyers didn't know then what we all know now, the big fish never got asked the hard questions, and they won't be coming back for

re-cross anytime soon. Ever ask yourself who decided the order of appearance?

What was FLAC's role? What influence did some of Canada's richest, most powerful business interests enjoy in the Chrétien PMO? What influence do they exert on the current PMO?

The Gomery probe never threatened to delve into the culture of entitlement at the very top which has characterized the past decade of Liberal rule.

That's why Canadians should have no illusions that the big fish will be spotlighted, let alone netted. The Gomery probe is as carefully scripted as a West Wing episode; there will be no embarrassment for the Martin PMO or its many rich and

powerful friends.

And as Stephen Harper will be led to realize his first day in office, some things never change in Canada, and who wields the real power is one of them. That's why they call it the Nepean lobotomy.