|
|
|
- A Motion presented on behalf of the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien asks me to recuse myself as Commissioner of this Inquiry.
- Before dealing with some of the specific allegations made in support of the Motion, I would like to make a few remarks of a general nature.
- I realize now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was an error for me to agree to be interviewed by the media before Christmas. I also recognize that some of the statements made by me during those interviews were ill-advised and inappropriate. My inexperience in handling the media is obvious to everyone, and has served to detract attention from the real objective of the Inquiry, which is to get at the truth of the matters which were the subject of Chapters 3 and 4 of the Report of the Auditor General. I very much regret this distraction.
- However, the question raised by Mr. Chrétien's Motion is not whether the interviews and the statements were ill-advised and inappropriate, but whether they demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part, as that expression has been explained by the Courts, most recently in the Beno and Krever decisions.
- In the representations made before me on January 11th, Mr. Scott declared and I quote: "You have closed your mind". That statement was factually incorrect; I am the only person in the world who could know if I had closed my mind, and I said then, to reassure Mr. Scott and others, that my mind remained open. It is still open today and I repeat that I have not yet reached any final conclusion on any of the questions which this Inquiry calls upon me to decide.
- The arguments made in support of the Motion no longer appear to be that I am actually biased but rather that a reasonably well-informed person would conclude from the remarks that I made to journalists that I am biased, in spite of my reassurances to the contrary, and that I cannot be counted upon to decide fairly the matters which are to be decided. In paragraph 31 of the Motion, certain facts are cited in support of this proposition, which I would like to deal with briefly.
- When I referred to the report of the Auditor General, I am quoted as saying that I "was coming" to the same conclusions as she did, not that I had so concluded. In other words, I indicated that my mental processes were ongoing; I have not closed my mind to contrary evidence, should such evidence be adduced.
- When I made reference to autographed golf balls, I said that it was disappointing to have heard evidence that a Prime Minister would allow (note the use of the conditional tense) his name to be used in this way. My mind remains open to any reasonable explanation, and it is a small point in any event. I am looking forward to hearing Mr. Chrétien's testimony.
- I have heard contradictory evidence, from various witnesses. I must conclude that some witnesses have not been truthful, but I did not say which witness or witnesses I was talking about, or indicate which of the conflicting versions I may be inclined to prefer. As to the relative truthfulness of various witnesses, these are conclusions I will draw only in light of all the evidence thus far and yet to come.
- Finally, my description of Mr. Guité and the characterization of him as a "charming scamp", which is admittedly the kind of colourful language that judges should avoid using, does not in any way betray how I feel about his credibility. Sometimes charming people are credible and sometimes not. It is too soon to decide what weight I will give to Mr. Guité's testimony. That remains to be decided when the hearings are completed. The other matters referred to in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 31, namely the admissibility of testimony before the Public Accounts Committee and the decision to exclude evidence relating to outstanding criminal charges are raised in an application for judicial review which is pending before the Federal Court, upon which I should not comment.
- The Motion refers to the political past of the Commission's lead counsel, Me. Bernard Roy. It acknowledges that those political activities ended more than fifteen years ago. His past was known to all parties concerned from the time I made the appointment, and is totally irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Inquiry. Me. Roy should be judged solely on the basis of his work for the Inquiry, which has been professional, impartial and objective. He has my full confidence. My conduct of the Inquiry has not been in any way influenced or affected by what Me. Roy might have done in the 1980's, or by any political views that he has now or may have had in the past.
- I do not concede that anything that I said, or the language that I used, would persuade a reasonably well-informed and fair-minded person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, that I am biased or partial, or that I have closed my mind and come to conclusions prematurely about the issues with which this Commission is concerned, or that the proceedings are being conducted unfairly. After giving the matter careful consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that a reasonable, well-informed and fair-minded person understands the difference between committing an error and being biased.
- I note that the Applicant's complaint about the phrasing of my question to Mr. Beaudoin has taken a small number of lines out of the much larger context in which the exchange took place. As to the comments made to certain journalists by Mr. Perreault, the Commission media spokesman, I wish to state that those comments were made without my knowledge. In any event, Mr. Perreault simply stated the content of e-mails received -- a matter of fact.
- I consider that it is my duty to take into account the work that has already been accomplished by the Commission, including extensive preparations and more than 60 days of hearings extending over a period of nearly five months. The recusal of its sole Commissioner would place all parties, including the witnesses who have already been heard and those who have not yet testified, in a position of stressful uncertainty, and would necessitate lengthy delays and huge costs in addition to those already incurred. The public interest would be badly served by a suspension of the hearings for any reason.
- For these reasons I dismiss the Application for my recusal as Commissioner of this Inquiry.
__________________________________________
John H. Gomery, Commissioner
Dated at Ottawa February 1, 2005
|
|
