Both MP Diane Ablonczy (video on the right of page) and Conservative candidate Peter Kent (Monday PM, around 50 min. mark)_
mentioned the true madate of Justice Gomery today. Funny how a blogger points it out and it bubbles up to the surface pretty quickly. Could be just a coincidence or maybe a reflection of the impact this medium can have. At this point I am not sure but with the Chuck Guite testimony due any day it is a good thing if the average Canadian becomes aware of what Justice can and cannot actual do.
Update: The media bloggers (Mr. Wells, Coyne and Spector) are all cold on the Paragraph K meme but Mr. Spector does point to Random Notes who provides another reason why the "waiting for Gomery" message is deceitful.
...what the Krever case also shows is that if misconduct is found, named parties are prone to engage in legal tactics to prevent or delay the release of an inquiry’s report. The timeline of the Krever Commission is quite revealing:
October 1993 – Krever Public Inquiry into the Canadian blood system established
December 1995 – Krever gives notice to 95 persons, corporations and governments about possible misconduct
January 1996 – a group of the named parties asks the Federal Court of Canada to prevent the Commission from making findings of misconduct
June 1996 – Federal Court rules that the Commission may make allegations of misconduct
January 1997 – Federal Court of Appeal upholds decision
September 1997 – Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirms Krever’s right to make allegations of misconduct
November 1997 – final Krever report released
The whole process took more than four years. So what are the prospects for similar legal interventions by named parties to derail the conventional view that Gomery will report this year, with an election held by March 2006?
Jean Chrétien is already challenging Gomery’s right to head the inquiry in Federal Court. As the report deadline approaches, you can count on other legal interventions by parties likely to be named in the report.
In my view, the conventional view of a winter 2006 election is looking like a best-case scenario. And Paul Martin knows it.
