Gomery Makes Strange Bedfellows

What is it with these Liberals? When Fox News wants to come to Canada, they go on about the distinctive Canadian way of life and the perils of U.S.-style politics. Yet let one of their own get into trouble, and nationalism flies out the window: Suddenly Warren Kinsella and Sheila Copps are belting out old hits from the Clinton impeachment songbook.

There's the campaign of denigration against the investigator: "Gomery Pyle" as Kinsella calls him.

There's the accusations of bias against everyone in sight, such as attorney Bernard Roy for having worked as Brian Mulroney's principal secretary 20 years ago.

There are the incessant complaints about cost. Apparently it would be cheaper and more convenient to leave the truth safely covered up.

And of course, there are the insinuations of political conspiracy against poor little us -- not a right-wing conspiracy this time, but nonetheless still vast. As Ms. Copps put it last week, "Judge Gomery had the auditor-general, the prime minister, the minister of public works, the leader of the opposition, and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois all on his side."

Will these time-tested tactics work? It will be an interesting test -- both of the tactics themselves and of the Paul Martin government.

Jean Chretien is scheduled to testify today; Martin, later this week. Chretien insists he's done nothing wrong -- or anyway that any wrongdoing was done to save Canada. It was patriotism that motivated the whole thing.

But Paul Martin: What will he do?

Martin, of course, wants to be perceived as a good-government man, cleaning up after an embarrassing predecessor. On the other hand, how many believe Martin really wants the full truth to be known about the Liberals' 1990s-era scandals?

Judge Gomery's report was scheduled to be delivered after the 2004 election -- by which time, it was assumed in Ottawa, Martin would have won himself a majority. There would then ensue a month or two of tut-tutting, leaving three full years for the public to get bored with the story before the next opportunity to vote.

The plan went awry. Now the Martin government has to confront the likelihood that the Gomery report will be delivered to a Parliament in which the Liberals hold only a minority of seats, with an election possible at any time. Perhaps the PM is confident that nothing will be found to implicate him. In that case, of course, he has nothing to worry about. But what if there are some nagging doubts in his mind? Might he not privately welcome the shutting down of the inquiry -- or failing that, a discrediting of its work?

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. Canadians may yet see Paul Martin sharing a bunk with Copps and Kinsella.

Should that day come, Canadians might also want to reflect on the reasons that the work of Judge Gomery is so important.

One-party states such as Canada are prone to corruption, as everybody knows. And on balance, Canada has fared pretty well compared to, say, Italy when it was dominated by the Christian Democrats, or India under the Congress Party, or Mexico under the PRI. But one reason Canada has fared well is that the natural tendencies of a one-party state have been checked by powerful institutional restraints: an honest civil service; a free press; competitive businesses who resent being squeezed for funds.

The behaviours that together we call the sponsorship scandal were aimed at weakening every one of these restraints. An entire department of state and all who work there are alleged to have been transformed (in the name of national unity) from public service to partisan warfare. Huge amounts of public money were spent on advertising in media outlets, inevitably dulling those outlets' curiosity about possible wrongdoing by their advertisers. Instead of being victimized, businesses were cut in on the action: Some got sponsorship dollars in the form of ad commissions, others allegedly overcharged the program to compensate themselves for bills owed by the governing party.

How far did it all go? Who was involved? Every Canadian should demand answers. It's not just money that has been lost; serious questions have been raised about the integrity of Canadian government.

Sheila Copps advises Post readers to conduct a cost-benefit analysis: Compare the amount of money at stake in the scandal (sum A) to the amount it costs to investigate the scandal (sum B). If sum B exceeds sum A, disregard and forget. If taken seriously, this advice would teach future political leaders: Steal, but don't steal too much -- or, if you must steal a lot, then make sure you steal in very complicated ways, so as to make any investigation cost even more.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Voters should demand honesty and the wise use of public funds in all cases, small as well as big. When dishonesty, abuse, or waste is alleged, voters should expect an accounting -- even if the job is difficult, time-consuming or costly. And as for that old Clinton songbook: This is one case where those CRTC rules against imported content would serve the Canadian public well.