Court denies Auditor General access to BC Rail documents

[oneh2obabe]

CBC News
Posted: Jan 29, 2013 11:29 AM PT
Last Updated: Jan 29, 2013 4:34 PM PT

The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled the province's auditor general does not have the right to see all the documents linked to the cost of the BC Rail trial and the decision to pay $6 million in legal fees for David Basi and Bobby Virk.

Auditor General John Doyle had gone to court last year seeking an order for access to records and information, arguing the information was essential for an audit of the government's handling of the BC Rail case.

But on Tuesday B.C.'s Chief Justice Robert Bauman ruled that allowing Doyle to see all the unredacted documents linked to the case would violate the fundamental principle of lawyer-client privilege, which is a cornerstone of the judicial system.

"Solicitor-client privilege, as the case law repeatedly reminds us, is fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system. It is virtually an absolute privilege and must remain so," wrote Bauman in his decision.

"Solicitor-client privilege is not a lawyer’s 'trick' to avoid proper scrutiny of her client’s conduct or the steps taken on his or her behalf during the retainer, it is a critical civil right.

"All citizens must be able to freely discuss their legal positions with their lawyers and to take frank advice thereon, secure in the knowledge that this relationship — that between solicitor and client — is as sacred as any secular business relationship can be.

"It would be wrong to conclude that the result in this case represents the triumph of secrecy over transparency and accountability. It rather represents the reaffirmation of a principle which is a cornerstone value in our democracy and which has been so for hundreds of years."

Basi and Virk pleaded guilty in October 2010 to breach of trust and receiving benefits in connection with the 2003 sale of BC Rail. Their surprise guilty pleas brought an end to the lengthy trial, and the two former ministerial aides were sentenced to spend the next 24 months under house arrest.

The government's decision to cover the pair's legal costs, estimated at $6 million, sparked widespread outrage. The cost of the trial in total is believed to be about $18 million, but could not be determined precisely without the defence cost details, argued Doyle.

Since then, Doyle had been fighting to get the details of the agreements publicly released, along with the details of other deals reached with other government employees.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... doyle.html

[NAB]

Something doesn't ring right here. Solicitor-client privilege huh? Just who is the judge referring to as solicitor and client? In the case of "the client" - is that not the entity who pays the bills? Is the Auditor General not an independent officer of that entity?

""It would be wrong to conclude that the result in this case represents the triumph of secrecy over transparency and accountability...."

I don't think it would be wrong to conclude that at all!

Nab

[steven lloyd]

I don't think it would be wrong to conclude that at all!

A clear victory for the perpetuation of the status quo and governments we deserve.

[Urbane]

A clear victory for the perpetuation of the status quo and governments we deserve.

Or perhaps a clear victory for the rule of law.

[NAB]

Not healthy IMO when the "rule of law" can usurp and over ride the rights of the public to expect openness, honesty, and transparency from the governments they elect.

[Veovis]

To what extent though?

You've paid some form of taxes so you have in a way had business dealings in that form with the government. Should I as the public be allowed full disclosure of all your personal dealings under the call of "transparency".

Perhaps the judge determined that there are things truly not appropriate for general release, or at least "none of our business"

It doesn't always mean there is some great conspiracy, no matter how bad people want one to exist.

[Logitack]

The auditor general can still do his investigation and provide the public with his findings, according to vaughn palmer and alex tsakumis.. Doyle should now proceed with his findings based on what he has available and report his findings to the public ASAP.

The chief justice indeed denied Doyle’s application for access to additional documentation related to the legal defence of the two aides in the corruption case, whose legal costs were indemnified by taxpayers, then forgiven after they pleaded guilty.

But at the same time as he upheld the fundamentals of solicitor-client privilege, he also reaffirmed Doyle’s power to audit the controversial indemnity:

“The auditor general enjoys a wide power to examine and audit the government side of the arrangement and to assess whether it is operating economically, efficiently and effectively.”

The chief justice emphasized that Doyle had gained access to “considerable material” on which to base his review of both the indemnity and the waiver.
http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/opin ... story.html

For those wondering where all today’s decision leads, Mr. Justice Bauman couldn’t have made it clearer: “It would be wrong to conclude that the result in this case represents the triumph of secrecy over transparency and accountability.” Meaning? Mr. Doyle has enough information to do a thorough audit, despite not being able to examine all the billings, including ones associated with defence informants.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2013/01/29/mr- ... e-changer/

[NAB]

Honest personal dealings are one thing, ....but where malfeasance and criminality are involved or alleged perhaps that should be a different matter? I guess the only way around this situation now is to hope for an NDP Government come May and the calling of a public enquiry.

Nab

[LoneWolf_53]

Honest personal dealings are one thing, ....but where malfeasance and criminality are involved or alleged perhaps that should be a different matter? I guess the only way around this situation now is to hope for an NDP Government come May and the calling of a public enquiry.

Nab

Sure NAB let's get an inquiry going right away, then we can spend another 20mil to find out where 18mil went. That's the kind of logic, and craziness, that terrifies some who anticipate a looming NDP government.

For those who keep crying about not enough money being spent on education, health care, and whatever else is on the list, it seems very odd for you to be calling for frittering monies away on an inquiry, that truly has no purpose other than to possibly give you cause to point fingers, and if not, in the end money thrown away for naught.

[Urbane]

Sure NAB let's get an inquiry going right away, then we can spend another 20mil to find out where 18mil went. That's the kind of logic, and craziness, that terrifies some who anticipate a looming NDP government.

For those who keep crying about not enough money being spent on education, health care, and whatever else is on the list, it seems very odd for you to be calling for frittering monies away on an inquiry, that truly has no purpose other than to possibly give you cause to point fingers, and if not, in the end money thrown away for naught.

And we're promised separate provincial hearings on the Enbridge Pipeline as well if the NDP wins the coming election even though we already have hearings. Money doesn't seem to be an object.

The auditor-general will complete his report and we can all read it but a BC Rail inquiry at this point would be nothing more than a very expensive fishing expedition.

[Captain Awesome]

I guess the only way around this situation now is to hope for an NDP Government come May and the calling of a public enquiry.

Nab

Well, Supreme court operates outside of party in power, so I don't think the response would be any different that this one.

[LoneWolf_53]

Well, Supreme court operates outside of party in power, so I don't think the response would be any different that this one.

Exactly, but it would serve as a good make work project for some NDP party faithful.

[flamingfingers]

Doyle has enough information to do a thorough audit, despite not being able to examine all the billings, including ones associated with defence informants.

This is really the important part as far as I am concerned. It seems as if the defense has information from government 'officials' that would be quite inappropriate to reveal to anyone, even including the Auditor General. With that I agree. Protecting sources is paramount.

And while it may be satisfactory to others for the NDP to agree to and mount a 'public inquiry' I am opposed to anything other than a JUDICIAL inquiry.

ETA -
Mr. Reid has a bit more here:
http://therealstory.ca/2013-01-30/bc-li ... s-to-plead

[steven lloyd]

Money doesn't seem to be an object.

Well, it certainly doesn’t seem to be a real object to the Liberals – but then, that’s all right I guess. Liberals spend multiple millions to obstruct Court process and then continue spending millions in ongoing Court costs to maintain the cover of their malfeasance but that’s okay. They spend money giving themselves raises, increasing the bureaucracy and then paying out bureaucrats. The spend money hiring superfluous assistants and renting lavish new office space. Then they spend millions more on top of that to mislead and lie to us with our own money and host lavish parties at a time where everyone is supposed to be demonstrating restraint. Liberals spend money = GOOD. NDP spend money = BAD. That’s the kind of “logic” and craziness by you excuse-makers that just keeps the rest of us laughing.

Urbane, far from thinking this government can do no right (that would be incredibly narrow-minded reminding me of some other ideologically entrenched positions held by many around here), I simply believe this government has done far more than enough to warrant being removed. I believe that until we start demanding something more from our governments we will simply continue to get the governments we deserve. You have made it quite clear that you are satisfied with the status quo and take desperate measures to find excuses to rationalize and justify that position. Fair enough. You are entitled to do so.

You go on and on about other posters blaming (mostly for good reason) this government for various malfeasant acts and screw-ups while forcing yourself to remain oblivious to the excuse-making you continue to engage in. There is much to level warranted criticism toward the NDP. However, guess what? Despite your continued rationalization and excuses the Liberals have now amassed just as much baggage. Supporting the status quo simply sends the clear and unmistakable message that we don’t care. No more, no less. Don't fool yourself. Only the Liberals believe you can fool all the people all of the time.

No matter who wins the next election I’ll be laughing. I’ll be laughing at the dupes if they’re gullible enough to vote for the perpetuation of the status quo and the re-election of governments we deserve, or I’ll be laughing at the excuse makers who left the electorate with no choice but to wake up and decide the perpetuation of the status quo and the re-election of governments we deserve is no longer an option.

Actually, either way we will get the government we deserve. Carry on.

[Urbane]

I'm well aware of the faults of the present government and have gone so far as to say that they don't deserve to be reelected. However, the only party that has a chance to beat them is even less deserving of being elected after their disastrous performance last time out. And the philosophy of that party is simply not conducive to building a strong economy. Becoming a "have not" province again shouldn't be one of our goals.