NO COMFORT FOR SMITH IN OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
- Details
-
Hits: 1134
VICTORIA -- Whatever political career Brian Smith had left after resigning from his job of attorney general probably was cut even shorter by B.C. Ombudsman Stephen Owen's report Wednesday on the abortion spy caper.
If the best the ombudsman could say about Smith's role in the affair was that he broke no specific laws when he ordered the covert surveillance of the pro-choice group, Concerned Citizen for Choice on Abortion, it might be a good idea for Smith to consider a different career.
Owen repeatedly stresses that Smith did not break any laws, but the report is still a clear indictment of the former attorney general.
For those who may have forgotten what the issue was all about, here's a brief review. In February 1987, Smith retained Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy, a Vancouver law firm, to ascertain whether CCCA intended to open a free-standing abortion clinic.
The law firm, in turn, hired a private investigator who gathered information on the group by covert means, infiltrating the organization by posing as a pro-choice supporter.
When details of the operation leaked a few weeks ago, the ombudsman was asked to investigate and issue a public report. His conclusions are of no comfort to Smith.
Using his by now familiar scalpel rather than a broad axe, Owen slices Smith into neat ribbons. The fact that he didn't actually break any laws is relegated to secondary importance, and rightly so. I mean, just how grateful should we be that the chief law enforcement officer didn't break the law?
The procedure used by Smith in getting information on the proªchoice group, Owen says, were "inadequate." They didn't ensure fair treatment of the public, he says.
"Because of its power and its special role in society, the standards required of government are higher than those of private individuals, and these were not fully respected," the report says.
One of Owen's stated concerns is the need for unfettered access to information. These concerns are echoed in his report. The public's vulnerability, he says, makes it essential that government not only guard the information it has on individuals, but also be open to "our need for access to information" regarding its actions and decisions.
Since there is no privacy and access-to-information legislation to speak of in this province, Owen recommends that all provincial institutions adopt and publish a statement of fair administrative practices regarding privacy and information.
He also recommends that government not use covert techniques where open and direct relationships are adequate. What the ombudsman says in so many words is politicians would be well-advised to act sanely and responsibly, to hold our interest at heart, not lord it over us.
Owen also manages to go get in a word about privatization. What concerns him is that standards do not suffer as a result of privatization.
"If government is going to privatize the delivery of public services, it must be willing and able to hold private contractors to high standards," the report says.
In most situations, Owen says, that means government must effectively regulate the activities of private contractors delivering a public service.
"While these accountability tools may seem cumbersome, they are essential to maintaining public confidence in the fairness of government action."
Owen leaves no doubt that the abortion spy scandal eroded public confidence in the fairness of government.
"By employing an extraordinary and intrusive process, it (government) sent a dangerous message to those who held a different view," Owen says. However unintentionally, the government gave the impression that its law enforcement arm can be used to enforce a partisan political purpose, he adds.
"The use of this power to infiltrate groups which openly represent a significant segment of the community in the middle of a wrenching social debate was to exercise questionable judgment."
I do believe those sentiments reflect the feelings of most British Columbians. You must remember that Owen goes to great length to be fiercely neutral.
Considering the necessarily narrow perspective -- devoid of all political and irrelevant considerations -- from which he must judge complaints, this report is a sweeping indictment of the former attorney general's role in the spy scandal.
It should be required reading for any current and future politician.
OMBUDSMAN PROBES INTO SPY SCANDAL
- Details
-
Hits: 1305
VICTORIA -- "The office I serve accepts sole responsibility, and without qualification, I apologize for this sad event."
With those words, Attorney General Bud Smith announced that his office has turned over to Ombudsman Stephen Owen all files in connection with the spy scandal that has brought his predecessor into some disrepute.
While the eagerness with which the government helps the investigation along is slightly embarrassing, the fact that a through probe is taking place at all can only be welcomed as good news.
I say embarrassing because I have never seen a government so anxious and impatient to fold up the rug and expose some of the dirt underneath. Indications that former attorney general BrianSmith may end up the only one to be discredited as a result of the investigation, would seem to account for at least some of the government's enthusiasm to get the ball rolling.
Here's a brief review of the facts. Between January and June 1987, Concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion had its ranks infiltrated by private investigators, working for the Vancouverlaw firm of Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy. That firm, in turn, acted on the instructions of then attorney general, Brian Smith.
The private investigators literally infiltrate the pro-choice organization, becoming members, working for the group. Bud Smith says the investigators even picked up Dr. Henry Morgenthaler at the airport and delivered press releases to Vancouver media outlets.
The attorney general also says that Brian Smith was the only one who knew of the operation. The law firm reported only to him. No-one else in the ministry knew anything about it. Neither, saysthe attorney general, did the premier or any other cabinet minister.
As Smith was answering reporters' questions at a press conference, representatives of Concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association were examining the files. After that, the ombudsman was to take possession of them.
Bud Smith declined to release any details of the files because it might prejudice the ombudsman's investigation, but Owen has already said his report would be made public. The attorney general admitted that his previous assessment of the spy scandal as a "bungled Keystone Cop operation" may have been somewhat inappropriate.
"In my view, this kind of activity should never have occurred. It's simply inconsistent with the high standards of conduct and procedures that are associated with the office and with the expectations of British Columbians," he said.
"It's very important that the attorney general's office be seen as a place where even©handed administration of justice is taking place," he said.
So it is, but dammit, I distinctly remember Brian Smith uttering the same or similar sentiments when he was attorney general. Let's wait and see if Bud Smith is as forthcoming if he's evercalled upon to co-operate in an investigation that involves
people other than those whose falling from grace must induce a delirium of joy in government ranks.
Having said that, I'd like to reiterate that the investigation of this affair by Ombudsman Stephen Owen is good news. I still find the whole scheme astounding, worthy of a tinpot dictator in a
banana republic. What, in God's name, was Brian Smith thinking when he launched this operation?
There is a name for people who did what they did on behalf of the then attorney general: agent provocateur. Bud Smith says he doesn't believe that his predecessor broke any laws in the process of the operation. Well, may be not in the legal sense, but I can think of several laws of common decency and morality that were blatantly broken.
If there is any lesson in this, it must be the realization how thin the dividing line is between democratic principles and government oppression.
When the chief law enforcement officer ignores some very basic democratic principles -- the right to privacy and freedom from government oppression, to mention two -- we are in trouble. The fact that it came to light and that the current attorney general assures us it will never happen again is encouraging, but not altogether reassuring.
Constant vigilance is the only guarantee for freedom, and with all due respect, a cantankerous press is part of that guarantee, even though you may, at times, be fed up to the teeth with whatyou consider muck-raking and negativism.
OMBUDSMAN PUB REPORT RELEASED
- Details
-
Hits: 1571
VICTORIA -- Ombudsman Stephen Owen's public report on the Knight Street pub controversy is a textbook case of walking through a mine field without stepping on the lethal devices.
Sticking with the mine field allegory for a moment, if the objective was to get to the other side, Owen succeeded in his task, whereas his predecessor, Karl Friedmann, would probably have blown himself sky-high.
Achieving results without becoming the target of intense government hostility has become Owen's modus operandi. There isn't much for the government to admire in Owen's latest report, but by the same token, there's nothing in it that would give the government an excuse to discredit the ombudsman, as it did in the case of Friedmann.
The report says all the important things, but it says them in a low-key and sober manner. The report says that attempts by David Poole, Premier Vander Zalm's principal secretary, in the approval process for the
Knight Street Pub application constituted "inappropriate political interference with administrative decision making."
The report says it is irrelevant whether an individual is "on-side," a term used by Poole to describe the loyalty to the Socred government of Charles Giordano, owner of Delta Media Services, the company that conducted the Knight Street Pub referendum.
There is a curious passage in the report. It deals with the possible involvement of the premier himself in the controversial issue.
"Poole stated that he did not recollect any conversations with the premier concerning the administrative decisions or actions of the (Liquor Licensing and Control) Branch, or the officials to whom the branch reports, as distinct from conversations of matters of a political or public policy nature."
That means Poole may have discussed the matter with the premier, but only in political terms, not administrative ones. The distinction is an important one for the ombudsman. That Poole is also aware of it, shows how slick an operator he is.
Poole's familiarity with the finer points of political manipulation also shows itself in another part of Owen's report.
Poole told the ombudsman that he didn't tell Bert Hick, then manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, to place Giordano on the list of companies eligible to conduct pub referenda. He merely asked Hick whether there would be a problem putting Giordano on that list. Had he known Hick would take his inquiry as a directive, he would never have phoned him. Why, that would be political interference, Poole said.
At a press conference, Owen said two important issues were at stake in this affair -- the sanctity of the voting process and fairness in administrative decisions. The report addresses both.
Owen recommends that the branch develop clear guidelines and procedures with respect to the entire approval process of applications for neighborhood pub licences. He also recommends that the decision to approve the Knight Street Pub referendum be reconsidered.
As for political interference, Owen recommends that the general manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch not allow himself to be influenced by political considerations.
That last recommendation doesn't do Hick much good. Minutes after reporters returned from Owen's press conference, Labor Minister Lyall Hanson announced Hick's resignation. He also said the branch would reconsider its previous approval of the Knight Street Pub referendum and develop a new set of procedures for the approval of pub licences.
Hick probably has probably only himself to blame. He did have a choice. He could have told Poole to take a long jump off a short Pier. Instead, he took what he believed to be a cue from the premier's right©hand man and placed Giordano on the list of companies qualified to conduct pub referenda.
Still, the outcome is far from satisfactory. Hick loses his job, but the minister still has his. There was a time when ministers of the Crown assumed responsibility for the actions of their top-ranking bureaucrats.
The NDP has called for Hanson's resignation, and rightly so. The Ombudsman's report, cautiously written as it is, leaves no doubt about the sorry state of affairs in the part of Hanson's ministry that deals with liquor control and licensing matters. If Hanson knew anything about propriety, he would resign. He won't, of course.
Owen's report doesn't mark the end of this controversy. The RCMP is still looking into the case, and the possibility of criminal charges shouldn't be ruled out.
Owen has given us his assessment of the case in terms of administrative justice. Wouldn't it be nice if it were followed by a good dose of moral and political justice?
DO SOMETHING FOR B.C.’s WILDERNESS
- Details
-
Hits: 1350
VICTORIA -- Political junkies depending on their daily fix of partisan news flashes may find it hard to accept that there's a world of important information out there which goes beyond the antics of politicians.
I'd be willing to wager an entire month's coffee allowance that every British Columbian of voting age has heard about Premier Vander Zalm's new godfather status, but how many are familiar with the forest and lands ministry's new policy paper on wilderness management in provincial forests?
I don't wish to belittle the premier's decision to be godfather to a child, whose mother says she decided against an abortion because of his unwavering stand on the issue. To the premier it was, no doubt, an important moral statement, the mother is probably very proud, and the kid, well, we'll ask him in 10 years what he thinks of it all.
Beyond that, however, the event is of little consequence to the rest of us and merely serves to reinforce everyone's opinion of the premier, whatever that opinion may be.
The wilderness management report by the forest ministry, on the other hand, is of extreme importance to all of us, including the premier's new godchild. For better or for worse, the report precedes government policies that will affect the fate of British Columbia's wilderness areas.
So far, British Columbia's wilderness is, thank God, still vast, but so was that of the United States a hundred years ago. Failure to take adequate protective measures can quickly spoil our wilderness heritage.
The government deserves to be commended not only for recognizing the potential problems before they are upon us, but also for trying to involve the public in the debate over the future of the province's wilderness areas, rather than just foisting policies on us.
The forest ministry's report invites the public to take part in the process of hammering out a set of policies that is to arbitrate between the various interest groups vying for use of British Columbia's wilderness.
The most apparent conflict in the management of wilderness areas is between those who advocate retention of wilderness in its most pristine form, free from any commercial intrusion, and a number of industries for which the wilderness represents vital raw materials and, therefore, profits. Where that conflict will lead, is anybody's guess right now.
The immediate aim of the forest ministry is to prepare an inventory of the province's wilderness areas. The ministry is looking at creating two classes of wilderness areas, primitive and semi-primitive.
Primitive wilderness areas are those with more than 5,000 hectares, located more than eight kilometres from the nearest road. Semi©primitive wilderness areas are those with more than 1,000 hectares, located at least one kilometre from the nearest road.
The ministry sees its mandate for the management of these wilderness areas as a responsibility to "maintain the wilderness resource and provide the opportunity for a wilderness experience for British Columbians and visitors, now and in the future, through land allocation decisions and management plans, for specific areas, which protect the wilderness resource against incompatible uses."
Those last two words are crucial. What will the ministry consider incompatible with the preservation of wilderness areas. Will logging be prohibited or will some selective logging be allowed?
Will mining be o.k.? Will campgrounds already constitute an alienation of a true wilderness area?
Well, I suppose the answers to those questions are up to all of us. At least they ought to be, unless the government's stated desire to involve the public in this issue is little more than a public relations gimmick.
As for myself, I would hate to see any logging done in areas that have been declared true wilderness areas. The same goes for mining. Campgrounds seem acceptable, although the purists would probably disagree with that. I'd certainly draw the line at hotels and restaurants.
Got any views on the matter? Make yourself heard now or forever hold your tongue. The deadline for submissions is September 30, 1988. The address is: Recreation Section, Integrated Resources Branch, Ministry of Forests and Lands, 1450 Government Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 3E7.
If, for just a little while, you can manage to forget about Premier Vander Zalm and Peter Toigo, privatization anddecentralization, the Knight Street Pub and Fantasy Gardens, here's an issue in which you might be able to make a difference.
Don't let the opportunity go by.
Find out what Beyer had to say
Election are always a hot topic
When is the Budget not a hot search