The much anticipated release of Justice Gomery’s first report on the Sponsorship Scandal will come in the morning. Most on the Right anticipate the report with pig roast like salivation. Liberals are (or should be) shaking in their boots. Gomery is not afraid to speak his mind. How he has decided to do so will shape the future of the country. Let’s hope he has maintained some level of objectivity; the office he holds and the future of our parliamentary democracy depends on it.

Kinsella (sorry no permalinks) has been perhaps the most vocal opponent and critic of Gomery. Rightfully so: Gomery has made several public remarks such as the infamous “small town cheap” reference to former Prime Minister Chretien that seriously put his objectivity into question. Similarly, Kinsella has publicized the Commission’s hypocritical preference for sole sourced contracts with several firms providing services to the Inquiry. Quite curious for a Commission that is supposed to be delving into the failures of similarly partisan preferential contract assignments after the 1995 Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty Redux? He is not exactly an outsider; the Chretien stunt with the golf balls in front of the Gomery Commission was trademark Kinsella. It is difficult to believe that he did not orchestrate most of the drama on that day to help protect the legacy of his former political boss and continued political inspiration. Kinsella’s depiction of Gomery has merit but it ignores the larger issue.

Gomery’s proceedings were public and aired across the country on television for months. The testimony by the likes of Gagliano, Brault et al., weakened our knees and the perception of our democracy. The indiscretions and illegalities uncovered are too numerous to list here and now. Any of us who followed those proceedings have come to our own conclusions. Only the most partisan hack would suggest that what took place with millions of dollars was not outrageous and inexcusable. One hopes that Gomery has kept that in mind with his report. There is some concern that Kinsella is right: this may turn into a witch hunt to make conclusions that the evidence before the commission that we all saw does not support. Gomery is, after all, staffed with a bunch of good ole boys from the Mulroney era; not exactly friendly to either of the Liberal Prime Ministers whose legacy is at stake with the report. But legacy is a secondary issue here. We have collectively spent over one hundred million dollars on this Inquiry. It is incumbent on Gomery to ensure that his findings lead us in a direction that will eliminate the possibility of this happening again. If his report is nothing more than an obvious partisan scythe to blatantly slash one or both of the Liberal Prime Ministers in question, then we will have learned nothing and should not have even bothered with the expense of this Inquiry.

The real issue at hand is that some members of the Liberal Party behaved like common criminals with no regard for ethics, morals or a duty to the Party or country they ultimately served. Rather, they funnelled government money around like it was their personal lottery winnings.

The misappropriation of those funds had nothing to do with the original intent of the Sponsorship Program. Rather, the money was wasted away in a brutal scheme of kickbacks some of which eventually made their way back into Liberal Party coffers. The program itself was necessary; its implementation was a joke. I can think of two Prime Ministers who should bear some responsibility for that. There is nothing, however, that links either to criminal behaviour. Gomery needs to address that fact or his report, if controversial, or blatantly partisan, risks being filed in our libraries with “other” federal commissions that didn’t make a difference and are relegated to collect dust on shelves for second and third year political science students to ponder for years.