Not so fast on vindication declaration
By ALAN SHANOFF
Former prime minister Jean Chretien is said to have been vindicated by a Federal Court decision that found more than a perception of bias on the part of Judge John Gomery.
Portions of the Gomery Report are to be voided. That's sort of like a judge telling the jury to disregard the damning answer just uttered by a witness.
I suppose the sponsorship scandal never occurred and the auditor-general's report and Gomery Report will now be burned.
Not so fast. Let's examine this a bit more carefully.
The Gomery Report has not been declared invalid. The auditor-general's report still stands. It is only the findings in the Gomery Report specifically relating to Chretien that are declared invalid.
So what is it the Gomery Report said about Chretien? Did it convict him of some crime or render him civilly liable for anything? No. All it did was make the common sense statement that "Since Mr. Chretien 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."
That's really no different from saying the buck has to stop at the top. That's the point of ministerial responsibility. Voiding the portions of the report that mention Chretien do not lessen his accountability.
Prejudge
So why was it necessary for Chretien to bring a court application seeking a declaration that Judge Gomery, sitting as a commissioner, acted under a reasonable apprehension of bias -- in other words that he had or appeared to have prejudged issues and appeared not to be impartial toward Chretien?
Perhaps Chretien brought the application to get back at Gomery who called Chretien "small-town cheap." If so, he has won that battle.
If, however, he brought the application to shore up his reputation, he has failed miserably.
When I think of the former prime minister I think of two things. First, I vividly picture Chretien grabbing and throttling a protester at a Flag Day ceremony in 1996. I can still see the menacing grimace on Chretien's face. He looked like a mob enforcer. Nothing will erase that picture from my mind.
Second, I think of the Shawinigate scandal.
Before Chretien became leader of the Liberal Party he owned an interest in a hotel and an adjacent golf course in Shawinigan, Que. After becoming Liberal leader, but before becoming prime minister, he sold his interest in the hotel.
In 1993, after becoming prime minister he sold his interest in the golf course. But the purchaser defaulted and didn't pay so Chretien sold his golf course interest again to another purchaser in 1999.
In the meantime, in 1996, the hotel owner, Yvon Duhaime, a man with a criminal record, applied to the Business Development Bank of Canada, a Federal Crown Corporation, for a $2-million loan to expand the hotel.
Loan
Chretien, prime minister at the time, phoned and met BDC president Francois Beaudoin to discuss the loan. The BDC turned down the loan as being too risky. In 1997 the BDC approved a smaller $615,000 loan after Chretien again spoke with Beaudoin.
The problem for Chretien is any attempts to convince the BDC to lend money to assist the hotel could be seen as benefiting Chretien in respect of the adjacent golf course.
Ah, but hadn't Chretien sold the golf course. Well, he did but he hadn't been paid and had a right to re-sell his interest in the golf course which he did in 1999, so perhaps there was an indirect benefit. Chretien says he did nothing wrong in lobbying the BDC and that he was only doing his job as a Member of Parliament for his Shawinigan riding.
As he said, "it's the usual operation. You call who you know." The problem for me and others is he had repeatedly denied having any involvement with the loan which he claimed was routine until confronted with evidence to the contrary by National Post writer Andrew McIntosh.
In plain language Chretien lied -- more than once. The loan was anything but routine and Chretien had involvement up to his eyeballs.
