bccouldteachchretianalesson

British Columbia could teach Chrétien a lesson
Vaughn Palmer
The Vancouver Sun
VICTORIA - Not many things are as likely to provoke gales of laughter nationally as the idea that British Columbia might have something to teach the rest of the country -- particularly Ottawa -- about the proper handling of scandals involving persons in high office.
This scandal-ridden province? The holder of what must be the national record for forced resignations? Where the phrase "disgraced ex-premier" crops up so often in news stories that reporters joke about programming it into the user keys on their word processors?
Yes. And if everyone can just stifle the giggles for a moment, let me rephrase the point: When it comes to the handling of scandals involving persons in high office, B.C. has a lot to teach the rest of the country. Especially Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
If a B.C. premier personally lobbied a provincial agency on behalf of a constituent the way Mr. Chrétien lobbied the federal business development bank, he would be subject to special treatment.
If the B.C. premier were accused of a conflict of interest, the complaint would be taken up by the provincial conflict commissioner, whose mandate is set out by law and whose independent, arm's-length reporting relationship with the legislature is guaranteed. And if the police were to become involved, then the accusation would be supervised by a special prosecutor, whose independence is also entrenched in provincial legislation.
None of which says the hypothetical premier -- or the very real Prime Minister -- would be found guilty of anything. Only that any accusations would be investigated in a way that is open, accountable, independent and free of even the suspicion of partisan cover-up or political interference.
But no need to take my word for it. If Mr. Chrétien needs to know more about how much better these things could be handled, all he needs to do is consult one of his newest MPs, Stephen Owen, elected as a Liberal last November by voters in the constituency of Vancouver Quadra.
Mr. Owen needs little introduction in B.C., where he has held a series of high-profile positions as ombudsman, land-use commissioner and deputy attorney-general -- positions that gave him a unique perspective on the importance of independence and openness where elected officeholders are accused of wrong doing.
I interviewed Mr. Owen recently on Voice of B.C. on the Shaw cable system. To his credit, he didn't shirk at the comparison between the way things are handled here in B.C. and the way things should be handled in the case involving the Prime Minister.
"B.C. is often looked at as the neanderthal of politics," Mr. Owen conceded, "but B.C. on a number of fronts is a leader in new government ... We've led the country in conflict-of-interest legislation ... Our special prosecutor legislation is unique in Canada and in the Commonwealth."
What specifically could Ottawa learn from B.C.?
"One of them is a conflict-of-interest commissioner who is a legislature officer rather than a part of the executive of government and therefore independent of the executive," Mr. Owen said. "We've gained good experience, proud experience and the federal government may want to look at that."
The Liberal MP then went on to make a similar case for the provincial law that provides for the system of special prosecutors.
Their appointment is automatic in cases where a police investigation touches on a politician or senior official in the government and once appointed, they are insulated by law from political direction.
If the provincial attorney-general wishes to give any direction to a special prosecutor, "it must be in writing and it has to be published, and that is to protect the criminal justice system from any improper interference," Mr. Owen noted.
Having laid out the general advantages of the B.C. system, he then proceeded to get more specific: "One of the most difficult things for politicians to understand and senior bureaucrats to understand is that there is a line between the political and the administrative. When a politician speaks across that line to a senior bureaucrat, there is a danger of miscommunication and what may, perhaps, look like urging on behalf of a constituent might be taken as political direction to deviate from the duty of administrative fairness.
"The more senior the politician," he continued, getting to the heart of the matter, "the greater the need to be explicit about what the rules are and what the communication is about."
This was beginning to sound familiar, so I put forward the following question: "This case you are talking about where a senior person calls a public official on behalf a constituent sounds an awful lot like the Prime Minister three times lobbying the federal business development bank on behalf of a constituent who wanted a loan."
Mr. Owen didn't deny it: "Yeah," he replied, then proceeded to summon up other examples from the B.C. political realm. I tried to bring him back to the circumstances involving the Prime Minister: "I can't believe with your reputation that you are comfortable with him doing things that way."
He began his reply by noting that his leader and his party hadn't invented that way of doing things. Then he agreed that "yes," he was not comfortable with what had happened with the Prime Minister and the business development bank.
"I don't think any of us should be comfortable with the confusion and the public unease that it caused," he continued. "This is something we've learned earlier in B.C., that you need to make the rules very explicit, that you need to make the review processes very transparent and independent. I think this is something I can take with experience to Ottawa."
A B.C. premier who did what the Prime Minister did -- the case would be in the hands of an independent conflict commissioner, would it not? "That's right, absolutely," Mr. Owen replied. And in the hands of a special prosecutor as well? "Well, certainly if there were allegations of criminal activity, that is where it would be," he agreed.
Are you listening, Prime Minister? Ottawa? Anybody?