MONTREAL - The judge behind the explosive probe into the sponsorship scandal will continue his struggle to preserve its findings this week as he heads to court to fight claims he was wrong in assigning part of the blame to former prime minister Jean Chretien.
John Gomery, now retired and tending to his farm in southern Quebec, is trying to stave off Chretien's attempts to have the sponsorship inquiry's conclusions reviewed because they allegedly are not supported by enough evidence.
"The Commissioner had more than ample evidence to support his finding that (Chretien) was accountable" for sponsorship funds, reads a summary of Gomery's defence filed with Federal Court last month.
Chretien, along with ex-chief-of-staff Jean Pelletier and disgraced Public Works minister Alfonso Gagliano, filed applications for a judicial review of Gomery's report soon after the first volume was released in November 2005. Evidentiary hearings will begin Wednesday in Federal Court in Montreal.
Chretien takes particular umbrage with Gomery's conclusion that he was politically, if not personally, responsible for the millions skimmed by Liberal-friendly ad agencies. He charges that Gomery "confuses his concern for national unity with the (sponsorship) Program."
By way of a response, Gomery rehashes many of his most damning findings, including that Chretien was repeatedly cautioned by the Clerk of the Privy Council about the lack of oversight of sponsorship funds.
"Several warnings were given by Ms. (Jocelyne) Bourgon who kept on pointing to the absence of rules for the Program...but these warning were left unanswered," reads Gomery's memorandum of fact and law.
The inquiry ultimately found that some of the millions that went missing were funnelled back into the federal Liberal Party by way of under-the-table donations.
Five people have faced criminal charges in connection with the missing money, while the federal government is still hoping to reclaim $50 million that remains unaccounted for.
Gomery expressed frustration recently that many of the recommendations contained in the second part of his report have failed to inspire the country's legislators.
"I worked so hard, and I got other people to work hard, and we gave very serious thought to what we were recommending," Gomery told The Canadian Press last week. "I thought it deserved a debate."
His Federal Court memorandum indicates the one-time Federal Court justice saw the commission as having unique and wide-ranging authority to investigate the scandal. The inquiry set its own grown rules, which Gomery argues raises the bar for its findings to be called into question.
"The fact remains that the process, by its very nature, cannot afford as many safeguards as proceedings before a normal court of justice," says the memorandum.
But for Gomery, the latitude accorded to the commission was necessary in order to respond to the public outcry that sparked its creation in the first place.
"A commission of inquiry plays a certain social role in uncovering the facts to inform the public about what is often a traumatic or chocking (sic) set of events," the memorandum reads.
