CKNW Editorial
for March 2, 2000

Ted Hughes, QC, former judge and former Deputy Attorney-General commands considerable respect so I start this editorial expressing my respect for him too ... even though he sued me once. Frankly, Ted, your decision not to permit a subpoena of Prime Minister surprises me.

First off, I should have thought that the better practice would have been to let the subpoena go - and as the act reads to me that was your obligation - then let the Prime Minister show cause why he should not have to obey it.

While this certainly wasn't your intention, it would appear to some that the Prime Minister is too powerful a person for a commissioner to dare see subpoenaed. As you are well aware, there is no privilege extending to a Prime Minister and a great many people every bit as busy as the Prime Minister are subject to subpoenas every day. I say this because in reading the Prime Minister's lawyer's letter, it would almost seem as if he is

claiming some sort of non existent executive privilege.

What I'm astonished at, Ted, is the fact that you seem on one hand to be saying that the Investigation will go wherever direction it takes without fear or favour. Yet when the trail leads into the Prime Minister's office you stop the train.

Does it lead to the Prime Minister's office? I think it clearly does. Now I grant you there is no one saying I heard the Prime Minister give an order etc etc but as we both know well, direct evidence is often much rarer than circumstantial evidence. Let's look at the circumstances.

1. There was evidence in the aborted hearing that a prominent woman heard Prime Minister giving orders to the RCMP.

2. The evidence of Jean Carle, from the PMO, seems by very strong inference to indicate that the PMO was indeed very interested in what sort of protection were given the visiting "dignitaries" including not just their safety, but their sensitivities.

3. Several key people involved in this affair are directly or only one step removed from the Prime Minister's direct command. I refer to Mr Carle, of course, but also to three others.

First there is Lloyd Axworthy, the Foreign Minister who in a number of ways, including a visit to Indonesia, went out of his way to assure Mr Suharto not only of his safety but that he would not be embarrassed. Secondly there was the Solicitor General responsible for the RCMP, Andy Scott, who was appointed to his job by Mr Chretien. Ted, you know the real world of politics better than most and must know that it would strain credulity to the utmost to assume that Jean Chretien didn't discuss the arrangements to

be made for APEC with his Solicitor-General.

Thirdly, the Commissioner of the RCMP is no longer independent of the government but is a deputy Minister, thus a political appointment subject to the disciplines from day to day that apply to all public servants. Such as taking orders from his boss and his boss’ boss.

There are many questions of great importance that you will advise on, Ted, but surely the most important question is whether or not the nation's police force has been politicized.

Most Canadians, while being repelled by police brutality or excessive force, would understand though not condone such actions if they came out the particular strains of a difficult situation. What they will not for a moment understand is policemen doing such things by direction from above. Moreover

there are two things here - alleged police brutality and their alleged use of excessive force on the one hand and their interference with the right to protest - as they apparently did when they arrested Jaggi Singh and a trumped up charge and manhandled Craig Jones for protesting in favour of free speech in democracy on a cloth sign. Such is the general respect for the RCMP people for the most part don't think that the excessiveness I mentioned - which seems beyond dispute - would occur without orders from above. "From above" in the minds of most means the politicians.

Ted I need hardly tell you that a police state doesn't happen when the police take over the state but rather when the state takes over the police.

There is, for the reasons aforementioned, a strong feeling in the community that the police in this case were directed by the politicians. Whether this was done by thinking aloud as Henry II did with Thomas-a-Becket or directly is an interesting question but that it happened seems pretty obvious to most people. If respect is to be sustained for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the public must know whether or not the Prime Minister’s Office interfered in any way with the APEC situation and the only way that question can be determined is for the Prime Minister to be required to give evidence.

With the greatest respect I suggest you revisit your decision not to allow a subpoena to issue to the Prime Minister.