INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE ON GOUDGE INQUIRY: COMPARED WITH A RECENT PUBLIC INQUIRY IN ONTARIO THAT FAILED;

"HOW COULD ONE INQUIRY SET RECORDS FOR EFFECTIVENESS, WHILE THE OTHER SEEMINGLY WENT AWOL IN CORNWALL? HAS THE GLAUDE INQUIRY BEEN BADLY RUN? WAS IT GIVEN AN IMPOSSIBLY BROAD TASK?"

REPORTER KIRK MAKIN: GLOBE AND MAIL;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting perspective on the Goudge Inquiry appears in today's Globe and Mail under the heading, "ONTARIO: GOUDGE INQUIRY VS GLAUDE INQUIRY: A tale of two inquiries - and how one lost its way."

The article, by Justice reporter Kirk Makin, bears the sub-heading, "Province cracks the whip as the examination of an alleged pedophilia ring in Cornwall, Ont., heads into a record-setting fifth year."

"CORNWALL, ONT. -- Mr. Justice Stephen Goudge is home and dry, basking in praise for his brisk and efficient year-long inquiry into the Charles Smith pathology scandal," the article begins.

"In jarring contrast, Mr. Justice Normand Glaude's much-delayed inquiry into an alleged pedophilia ring in Cornwall, Ont., is grinding on into a record-setting fifth year," it continues.

"As if to accentuate this tale of two vastly different inquiries, the province cracked the whip on Judge Glaude on Thursday, demanding that he cease hearing testimony in January and produce a final report in July.

Simultaneously, the province moved to implement all of the recommendations Judge Goudge made in September after his $9-million inquiry.

Print Edition - Section Front
Enlarge Image

How could one inquiry set records for effectiveness, while the other seemingly went AWOL in Cornwall? Has the Glaude inquiry been badly run? Was it given an impossibly broad task?

Peter Engelmann, chief counsel to the inquiry, said in an interview that a "long list" of reasons have caused his inquiry to bog down. "Did I know it would take this long?" he said. "Did I know it would cost this much? Did I know we would be criticized this much? No."

Mr. Engelmann also expressed doubt that its final report will end a bitter divide between those who allege the existence of a massive pedophile ring, and those who say that alleged victims have fabricated their stories to reap financial settlements.

"To some extent, no matter what we do, people will say this is a whitewash," Mr. Engelmann said. "People will say we got in too deep. That's inevitable."

However, the consensus of a dozen lawyers who have worked on either the Goudge or the Glaude inquiry was that, while the latter inquiry has made naive mistakes, the province shares much of the responsibility.

Its first gaffe involved setting no deadlines for the inquiry, the lawyers said. The second involved a sprawling, ill-defined mandate that instructed Judge Glaude to look at child sex-abuse cases; how police and child welfare agencies responded to reports of abuse; and to facilitate healing and reconciliation in the badly divided community.

"The mandate was, perhaps, in hindsight, overly broad or overly ambitious," Mr. Engelmann remarked.

Meanwhile, a small army of lawyers at the inquiry have mixed feelings about Judge Glaude and Mr. Engelmann. "Neither of them have the respect of most counsel," said one. "All of the problems of inquiries are exacerbated, when they are run like this one.

"The commissioner has made a series of procedural rules that bog down the process. ... Examinations-in-chief take days and days, when they could be done in one or two hours."

Mr. Engelmann pointed to the sheer number of alleged victims as a major cause of delay. "When the victims started coming in, they revealed abuse not only in the 1990s, not only in the 1980s, and not only in the 1970s," he said. "There was stuff from the 1960s and even the 1950s. It was huge."

More time was lost when Perry Dunlop, a former police officer who has been lionized by self-styled survivors of abuse, was cited for contempt of court after he refused to testify.

"We had developed some trust with a lot of survivors," Mr. Engelmann said. "The Dunlop thing divided survivors and made it much more difficult to get their support and continuing co-operation. Many of them got turned off the commission."

Mr. Engelmann conceded it would have saved time had his staff analyzed and winnowed down the 100,000 documents they obtained in advance, and had they reined in witnesses: "The commissioner is a fair man - sometimes, perhaps a bit too fair," he remarked.

Staff often worked, unpaid, into the night, only to be vilified on blog sites, at demonstrations and in poisonous e-mails.

"There are times when I leave that hearing room and I feel like I have no friends," Mr. Engelmann added. "You are accused of being biased in support of survivors. You are accused of being biased in support of an institution."

While some have criticized the fact that 13 parties were granted legal standing, Mr. Engelmann said there was no way around it. It meant an unwieldy list of lawyers lined up to interrogate each witness and regularly derailed the inquiry by challenging rulings.

Indeed, 10 of Judge Glaude's 40 rulings were appealed through the court system. "That is unheard of in a public inquiry," Mr. Engelmann said. "I sometimes wonder whether some of the counsel were less respectful to him - and his rulings - because he is an Ontario Court of Justice judge."

The $20-million that the inquiry has spent to date does not include many millions of dollars in salaries. (The Ontario Provincial Police, for example, have had three or four lawyers and two senior officers on hand who are paid out of its budget.)

However, an end is finally in sight.

"We have very strict deadlines now," Mr. Engelmann said. "It is going to be hell, but we have to do it.""

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;