Untotal non-vindication

I’m not quite sure what set off my friend Paul Wells today, but the…

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28pm - 0 Comments

I’m not quite sure what set off my friend Paul Wells today, but the ruling of Federal Court Judge Max Teitelbaum has not “utterly discredited” the Gomery inquiry, nor is it the “total vindication” that Jean Chretien’s acolytes are predictably claiming.

Judge Teitelbaum has not ruled that there was no sponsorship scandal, that senior members of the Liberal party were not intimately involved in it, or that the Gomery inquiry was not a valuable exercise in exposing and describing both.

As I read the reports on the ruling, it has weighed in on exactly one question: Gomery’s finding that Chretien and Jean Pelletier bore some responsibility for the scandal, even if they did not directly participate or know of any illegal activity. Specifically, this passage:

Since Mr. Chrétien chose to run the Program from his own office, and to have his own exempt staff take charge of its direction, he is accountable for the defective manner in which the Sponsorship Program and initiatives were implemented. Mr. Pelletier, for whom Mr. Chrétien was responsible, failed to take the most elementary precautions against mismanagement.

Whether Judge Gomery was right or wrong to take such a view, I will not presume to say. But neither did Judge Teitelbaum. He set that particular finding aside, not on its merits, but on the grounds that Judge Gomery’s comments to the media (“small town cheap,” the program was “run in a catastrophically bad way,” etc.), while the inquiry was still under way and after, gave rise to “a reasonable apprehension of bias” toward Chretien and Pelletier.

That’s a defensible ruling, but a limited one. The report, in its entirety, has not been discredited. A part of it has been set aside.

SHORTER COYNE: All Teitelbaum found was that Gomery said some things outside the hearing room he shouldn’t have. He didn’t make any judgment about the hearings themselves, or Gomery’s findings.

UPDATE: I have now had the chance to read the ruling itself. My initial conclusions stand.

UPPERDATE: The official Liberal Party piles on:

[W]e are extremely pleased that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his former Chief of Staff Jean Pelletier have been completely cleared by the Federal Court.

Though Judge Gomery’s report itself stated that there was no evidence Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Pelletier were involved, today’s decision by Judge Max Teitelbaum of the Federal Court removes any lingering hint of impropriety…

If you say so, I guess. 

COURTDATE: This one looks set to run and run:

Gomery said Thursday he did not consider himself to have been biased in any way.

“When you’re seriously criticized by a judge who points out errors and inappropriate comments that you made, it’s not pleasant — to read about the mistakes that you have made or might have made,” Gomery told CBC News. ‘It is particularly disappointing that I am held to be, appear to be, a biased judge.”

CBC’s Rosemary Barton says Gomery is anxious to clear his name and is looking to the Harper government to see whether an appeal might be filed to Thursday’s court decision.

Bookmark and Share
  • Brian

    Good question Tricia. I think this rumour was started by Jean Chretien in his latest memoirs when he notes that “the only people actually charged with wrongdoing by the RCMP were Conservatives and separatists.” He goes on to suggest that Guite was hired when Mulroney was in power.

    Which implies 2 things:

    1. that the Conservatives and separatists concocted a plan to syphon $100 million from the treasury and illegally funnel it to the Liberal party; and

    2. that because Guite was hired when Mulroney was in power, he must be a conservative operative. So much so that Warren Kinsella from Chretien’s PMO went to great lengths to make sure he was running the Sponsorship program. If you follow this logic, you’d conclude that Brian Mulroney himself conducted the interview and personally hired Chuck Guite, who would go on to commit crimes on behalf of the Liberals and himself.

  • Just Visiting

    Guite was a bureaucrat, not a politco. He had a military background and then worked for public works in their exhibitions department. He eventually became the bureaucratic administrator of the Mulroney era advertising review board, which was chaired by an openly political partisan appointee, as was the custom of the times.

    When the Libs came in, they eliminated the partisan review board and its chair and gave Guite the whole advertising and sponsorship file to run in an allegedly non-partisan, open and competitive manner. The rest, as they say, is history.

    The point being: Guite wasn’t a partisan, but saw his job as doing the bidding of whatever party was in power.

    - JV

  • Just Visiting

    Incidentally, I find it refreshing how civilized the discussions at macleans.ca are. In an era when political discussion tends to be dominated by partisan vitriole, it’s suprising to find a web forum where people with different political perspectives actually engage in debate rather than personal attacks.

    I can’t say as I know exactly how this civility has happened, but I’m wondering if one of the reasons might be because the reporters and columnists here actually engage with commenters, which is really quite unusual for media web sites.

    Anyway, I really hope this refreshing civility lasts at macleans.ca, and the place isn’t eventually invaded by the mobs of angry, warring partisans who generally take over most online forums.

    - JV

  • Caroline

    Since there was some alleged bias against Chretien during the Gomery Inquiry then maybe we should just put the whole verdict/reports aside and start over from scratch with a whole new inquiry!! As a Conservative supporter, nothing would make me happier than to talk about adscam for another 18 months!!

    This changes nothing in the fact that millions of taxpayer dollars were stolen and that Liberals were pretty much to blame (one way or another). In surmising that this completely absolves them and going on as if they did nothing wrong will NOT change the Party for the better and the corruption and quest for power at all costs will continue (but that’s fine with me since it will mean 10 more years of CPC!!)

  • Gerald Gauthier

    One can only conclude from this article that Macleans is disappointed at today’s ruling. I expected no less. But I have to admire the wording chosen by Andrew Coyne, especially in the title and the first couple of paragraphs. I’ve never seen so many negations if so few words!

  • Joan Tintor

    The friendly dictator smiles again.

    And amen on Beaudoin. That’s who I thought of when Goldenberg was smarmily urging Paul Martin to apologize to Pelletier.

    “Aggression cloaked as compassion” as Peggy Noonan likes to say about the Clintons.

  • Sandi

    Eddie Goldberg is a piece of work isn’t he? He practically said that Gomery/Martin gave Pelletier cancer…good grief. Over the top or what.

    I wish this thing would end – I’m sick of it. I think the RCMP should be investigated for interfering in the last election, for example.

    It’s so over – sponsorship was discovered, examined and is still under investigation – what more can be done. What is all boils down to is a handful of thugs………..

  • http://thejagwire.blogspot.com/ James Goneaux

    No frothing here, Scotty. He is a fanboy of Chretien’s, just have someone read the article I mentioned to you out loud.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    I have to say that this thread, as well as others on this site and elsewhere, is as good an argument as any for why the government really does have to appeal this ruling. Not out of any lingering hostility towards Chretien, Pelletier or the rest of the gang, or any particular affection for Judge Gomery – who hasn’t exactly been a cheerleader for the Conservative response to his recommendations – but because it is threatening to turn into an infinite loop of alleged bias and meta-bias. At least at the Supreme Court, the final decision doesn’t fall to a single judge. Not to mention the precedent, which is surely of more than just historic interest, given the upcoming Mulroney inquiry, and whatever others may follow.

  • boudica

    Kady, even a ruling from the Supreme Court won’t stop the hostilities. People are already suggesting that the Federal court is biased against the Tories.

  • boudica

    And Andrew, if you are listening/reading, I just wanted to say that your pick as most underrated politician on last night’s At Issue has pretty much traumatized all of your fans in my office.

    We’re all hoping you were kidding.

From Macleans