Seckel's response was, to say the least, theatrical. Reasonable
people (being given no explanation whatever for the change) may fairly
believe that it was a dynamically political move placing Seckel into a
position as an intended instrument of political tactics.
His every move on the matter since the change may be "political" unless a crystal clear explanation can demonstrate otherwise.
As
a result of Seckel's unwillingness to communicate in a civilized way,
Leonard Krog made his way to Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. She
agreed to release materials bearing on Krog's questions.
Four
points must be made about the released documents. (1) They do not give
any explanation for the change in protocol. (2) They do provide
detailed information about the setting up and structure of the first
protocol. (3) Many documents are included which appear to have no
relation whatever to Krog's questions. (4) Madam Justice Elizabeth
Bennett may have placed herself in the position of a biased party in
the matter, inexplicably setting the cost per page of the 250 or so
pages at one dollar a page: an atrociously (and unnecessarily) high
charge.
Among the 250 or so pages released, a few matters
are exposed that may be of strong interest to British Columbians -
especially since denial of information on public record to the public
is the rule not the exception in this case.
But first,
people have to remember that this is one of the most wild and strange
cases in B.C. history. The three men accused were all Order-in-Council
appointed cabinet aides. Over and over and over questions asked about
them, their actions, evidence connected to them ALSO may connect or
relate to or nearly touch the Gordon Campbell cabinet. Some may -
finally - be found even to connect, culpably, to the cabinet and bring
the Gordon Campbell government crashing down.
As if that
isn't enough, Gordon Campbell promised not to sell BC Rail. Then he set
about selling it in a way described publicly as tainted. His cabinet is
accused moreover of trying to keep the terms of the sale from the
members of the B.C. legislature. Finally, certain aspects of the sale
are still being kept secret from the people of B.C. For those reasons,
many, many British Columbians do not have any faith in Campbell
government integrity on any matter, whatever, connected to the BC Rail
Scandal.
Why has Allan Seckel, Deputy Attorney General,
taken over the control of release of cabinet documents to Defence
counsel in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case? The question has not been
answered.
All of those facts cannot but colour the matters of interest I will discuss that arise in the "Krog Affidavit Documents".
As
if the facts already mentioned aren't enough, the Gordon Campbell
cabinet has done what is almost a repeat performance on the virtual
destruction of B.C. Hydro, the misrepresented and propagandized policy
accompanying sale of nearly all B.C. rivers to private corporations,
and the false information consistently circulated about B.C.'s energy
self-sufficiency. So much misrepresentation, misinformation, and
misleading propaganda has been spread by or in relation to or in
support of the Campbell policy of privatizing the rivers owned by the
people of B.C. that nothing government says about rivers policy can be
trusted.
An aura of untrustworthiness shadows almost every
important initiative of the Gordon Campbell government. And the sale of
BC Rail was an early, important initiative.
For the reasons
stated, Canadians have to wonder what Gordon Campbell cabinet officials
and what senior civil servants consulted with what top and other RCMP
officers before the now-famous search warrant "raids" on B.C.
legislature offices on December 28, 2003. Canadians have to wonder if
they know all of the mutual decisions made between police and
government.
Canadians have to wonder what extraordinary
magic was at work - almost at the same time as a large number of boxes
and computers were seized from parliamentary offices, and as other
locations were being searched - to permit RCMP to state publicly and
categorically that no elected person was (or would be) under
investigation. Canadians have to wonder, especially, how such a tone of
confidence and efficiency could have been assumed by the RCMP, which
since then has unfolded a history of inept, inconsistent, disordered,
and inadequate disclosure of materials called for by the Defence -
almost as if part of a planned program of obstruction.
All
that I've written to this point describes the "ambiance", the
"surround", the "milieu", the "context" of the information that shows
itself in the "Krog Affidavit Documents".
The first piece of
information seems completely innocent. And it might be. But its
revelation, unfortunately, is preceded by everything I have written
here thus far.
On October 19, 2005, Kevin Begg of the
Solicitor General's office replied to a number of people - because of a
request for disclosure of notes by Defence counsel (in this case, I
believe, covering discussion of the search warrant "legislature
raids"). Begg informed those to whom he was replying that "I am fairly
certain I did not receive any paper from the RCMP". He reports he
"received verbal briefings on the case". And he "verbally briefed" the
Solicitor General.
Perhaps more important, he wrote: "and I
know that I did not make any notes of it due to the very sensative
[sic] nature of the case and the security associated with it".
One
may fairly ask, then, how much of the pre-legislature raids preparation
was done verbally, without "any paper" being produced? Has any
post-legislature raids consultation been carried on among RCMP, Gordon
Campbell cabinet members, government bureaucrats, and others "verbally"
without "any paper" being produced"? If so, how much?
On
April 1, 2004, George Copley, counsel for the cabinet, wrote to persons
in the Attorney General's office. On that date the BC Rail Scandal case
(charges not yet laid) was still in the hands of Associate Chief
Justice Patrick Dohm. It had not yet been passed to Madam Justice
Elizabeth Bennett.
George Copley referred to delay in the
matter. The "legislature raids" were held on December 28, 2003, and
charges were not laid until nearly a full year later. Copley states
that delay "is the responsibility of the RCMP". Then he goes on.
"Obviously Bill Berardino [Special Crown Prosecutor] is sensitive to
the matter taking so long and he asked me this morning before Court not
to comment on that aspect. In his report to the Court he assured the
court that the RCMP were working full time except for the spring break
and that Copley would complete his review in 3 to 4 weeks".
What
is clear here? All seem to agree there was delay for which the RCMP was
responsible. "Bill Berardino" knew it and wanted to make no reference
to the fact. Berardino, in fact, asked counsel for the Gordon Campbell
cabinet not to draw attention to the delay. George Copley cooperated.
The delay seems to have been weighing heavily - for Patrick Dohm, it
seems, might well have noted it. But, George Copley writes, "He [Dohm]
chose not to comment on the delay".
Why did Dohm "choose"
not to comment on the delay? Why did the Special Crown Prosecutor want
nothing said about the delay? Why did George Copley, counsel for the
Gordon Campbell cabinet, go along and stay silent about the delay?
Those
questions are especially pertinent, for the RCMP has given the
appearance of continuing, unremitting delay in the case. The Special
Crown Prosecutor has given the appearance of either attempting to
negate claims of RCMP delay or to make various kinds of apology for
them. Like Patrick Dohm, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett has almost
consistently been unruffled by RCMP delay. On the one occasion when she
appeared to have decided to end it, she did not follow through with
anything like meaningful action. Her role in the endless delay - a role
I judge to be key in the matter - brought me to suggest recently that
she step down or be removed from the case.
All of that has
been taking place while opprobrium has fallen, nationally and in B.C.,
upon the RCMP. That opprobrium caused a special Task Force to be struck
to look into "governance and cultural change" in the Force. The Task
Force reported (a few months ago), sternly reporting on serious flaws
throughout the RCMP. (As I write delay heaps up in the BC Rail Scandal
court processes.)
As I write a five person council has been
struck to prepare a first blueprint for the restructuring of the RCMP
and for the creation of a long, long, long-needed arms-length and
supervisory body to assure Canadians that the RCMP is not a law unto
itself doing what it wants, without meaningful scrutiny. Even while
that is happening, and as I write, the Force cannot seem to rid itself
of its publicly unresponsive, violent, brainless image. Headline in the
Globe and Mail (April 7 08 S1/2) reads that UBC "Students accuse RCMP
of 'outright lying' after 19 arrested" in an attack on protesting
students on UBC campus. A witness to the arrests said police "suddenly
attacked" the crowd.
On April 2, 08 the Toronto Star
reported that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP,
attempting to learn the truth of the RCMP intervention in the last
federal election, tried to interview top officers. But "several top
RCMP officials, including former commissioner Juliano Zaccardelli,
refused to talk". From the top officers of the RCMP to the officers
mauling UBC students on the Point Grey campus the RCMP acts - it
appears - as a law unto itself.
Can we suppose it is really
seeking to assure the rule of law in the BC Rail Scandal and the case
arising out of it against Basi, Virk and Basi? Why should we?
A
few glimmers of information that show through in the "Krog Affidavit
Documents" (depending upon how they are viewed) may reveal much about
the whole BC Rail Scandal and its "investigation".
Maybe
that's why Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett charged a dollar a page for
copies. And it just might be the case that George Copley, counsel for
the Gordon Campbell cabinet, wishes she had charged a lot more.
Leonard Krog, NDP justice critic, tossed a small wrench into the BC Rail Scandal court hearing on February 25, 2008 (The Basi, Virk, and Basi case). Krog asked, in effect, why Gordon Campbell, B.C. premier, suddenly, unilaterally (on May 28, 2007) changed the protocol for screening requested cabinet documents from a protocol that had been in operation since at least early 2004.
