Why is Jean Chrétien so desperate to muddy the adscam waters It is not to help discover why ministerial and bureaucratic oversight of the sponsorship program collapsed. Nor is it to learn how - according to the auditor general - $250-million of tax money was misspent and how $100-million of this amount ended up in the pockets of Liberal-friendly advertising firms. Mr. Chrétien is desperate to stop the Gomery Commission from assigning blame because it might point to him.

Mr. Chrétien and his loyalists are still smarting that Prime Minister Paul Martin established the judicial inquiry when the auditor general's report was released a year ago. They did not want a public inquiry and do not believe anything good can come from it for their man, his reputation or the Liberal party.

As prime minister, Mr. Chrétien had the power to halt or simply ignore troublesome commissions. His government shut down the Somalia inquiry when the evidence was taking investigators to the top brass at the Department of Defence. When Justice Horace Krever reported on Canada's tainted blood scandal the Chrétien government refused to accept its recommendation that all victims be compensated.

Stripped of political power and unable to call the shots, it is Mr. Chrétien's lawyers who are pressing Justice John Gomery to remove himself. They have put the commissioner in their crosshairs over comments he made to the media before Christmas. If he refuses to step down, the next step for Mr. Chrétien is to take the matter to Federal Court. It is believed - and hoped by taxpayers - that his request will be quickly dismissed.

Mr. Chrétien's boosters say this is not about the commission, but a rogue commissioner who commented publicly on the inquiry he is overseeing. This is a tactic employed last year when some Liberal MPs accused Auditor General Sheila Fraser of stepping beyond her mandate in how she reported her shocking findings, which were bluntly - but accurately - worded. Canadians were told the problem was the auditor's loaded language, but not necessarily her report. Few taxpayers accepted this distinction then, and it is hoped fewer will accept this distinction today.

Prime Minister Paul Martin should be commended for standing by Judge Gomery. While he has refused to comment on the legal proceedings launched by Mr. Chrétien's lawyers, he did take ownership of the commission, "We created the commission. We created it because we want to get to the bottom of this, and that has not changed." Translation: Onward Justice Gomery!

In four months of hearings, the inquiry has gathered 10,000 pages of testimony. By the end of March the inquiry's cost will hit $20-million. If the process was indeed flawed, it should begin anew. But this is clearly not the case.

Perhaps Judge Gomery erred by publicly describing golf balls with Mr. Chrétien's signature on them as "small-town cheap" or saying he is "coming to the same conclusion" about the $250-million sponsorship program as Ms. Fraser, namely that it was a financial disaster. But the judge aptly defended the appropriateness of his remarks by asking, "Does anybody have a different opinion on that subject " Moreover, nothing he said indicates his mind is closed. The problem for Mr. Chrétien is that few Canadians seem willing to accept rule-breaking or the theft of tax dollars in order to accomplish legislative or political objectives.

The Gomery Commission is an important exercise in accountability. Taxpayers expect the inquiry to untangle the political and bureaucratic web that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being misspent. Moreover, it is hoped the commission finds what went so terribly wrong and assigns blame where deserved - even if that is something the former prime minister finds uncomfortable.