Mike you might find a few interesting points in Gomery's opening statement that will address two of your points. In a prior post, you mentioned that conservatives "...are banking on people being so mesmerized by section k...". Gomery felt it was noteworthy enough that it should be specifically spelled out. The second bolded line talks to your most recent point regarding your statement "Unless this commission is vastly different from any other court hearing, findings about who recieved what are findings of fact (as opposed to findings of law)." An inquiry like this is completely different from other court hearings.
The purpose of the Commission is not to conduct a trial or to express any conclusion regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization. That limitation is expressly articulated in paragraph (k) of the terms of reference which I take the liberty of reading aloud, because of its importance:
Quote:
|
(k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;
|
Accordingly, the Commission may not establish either criminal culpability or civil responsibility for sums of money lost or misspent, or damages; it does not have the capacity nor does it intend to do so. The Inquiry is an investigation into the issues and events referred to in the terms of reference. Its future findings of fact and statements of opinion will be unconnected to normal legal criteria, and will be intended to serve as the basis for the recommendations which I will be making as required by paragraph (b) of the terms of reference. It follows that there will be no legal consequences arising from the Commission's findings and Reports, and they will not be enforceable in, and will not bind either civil or criminal courts which might consider the same subject matters.
Also included in his comments are this section:
I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it. Such findings will be the focus of the Inquiry only to the extent that they are necessary to carry out the mandate in the terms of reference.
Since the "terms of reference" severely limit his report to "factual findings" only, and the "paramount importance that the Inquiry's process be scrupulously fair" if there is any conflict in testimony, you can bet that none of it will be part of his report.
Bottom line, I think his final report will be a mere shadow of what most Canadians expect he will report upon. Time will tell though. In the interim, if the government falls and there is an election, so be it. Eventually Gomery's report will be tabled, and not until that time we will have the 20-20 vision to see how the "terms of reference" for this inquiry will have factored into it.