The finding by B.C.’s auditor general that no political interference was evident in the decision to pay the legal fees for two former government aides convicted in the B.C. Rail case does not clear the air. It still stinks.
That’s not the fault of the auditor general. The audit by Russ Jones and his department looked into only one aspect of the case — the decision by public servants to cover $6.4 million in legal costs for Dave Basi and Bob Virk if they pleaded guilty and were convicted. The former aides to B.C. cabinet ministers had been charged with accepting bribes and influence peddling in connection with the sale of B.C. Rail.
Jones found that officials who agreed to pay the legal costs in exchange for a plea deal acted legally and free of political interference. He said the decision was made for economic reasons. The trial was proving costly and promised to drag on for months.
“Overall, we found that government’s indemnities practice wasn’t perfect, but it was principled,” the auditor general said.
The auditor general’s necessarily narrow focus aside, “principled” isn’t a word likely to be associated with the B.C. Rail scandal. It was tainted from the beginning; tainted it shall always be — there’s little chance a public inquiry will ever be called into the sordid mess. There’s little chance the public will ever know the whole truth, or even a substantial part of the truth, without an independent inquiry.
In November 2003, the government of then-premier Gordon Campbell announced a deal to sell B.C. Rail operations to CN Rail for $1 billion, despite a 2001 election promise by the B.C. Liberals not to sell or privatize the railway. CP Rail had pulled out of the bidding process, complaining that the government had leaked information to its competitors, and Omni-Trax, the other bidder, had lodged a similar complaint.
On Dec. 28, 2003 — a decade ago — Victoria police raided the legislative offices of Basi and Virk. The reasons were cloudy. First it was a drug investigation, then it was about allegations of bribery and influence-peddling connected with the B.C. Rail deal. A year later, Basi and Virk were charged.
On April 29, 2010, they pleaded not guilty. The trial lurched along over the next few months, plagued by delays and hearings.
When the plea deal ended the trial in October 2010, only two of a possible 42 witnesses had been heard. We cannot know what the other witnesses — who included former cabinet ministers and other high-ranking officials — would have said, but they could have helped clarify the murky affair.
At that point, the trial had already cost the public purse $18 million. The defence was expected to cost another $2 million if the trial proceeded.
That’s a little like swimming three-quarters of the way across the Juan de Fuca Strait and turning back for home because you don’t think you can make it. Most taxpayers, if they had known they were already on the hook for $18 million, would have willingly spent another $2 million to get some answers. Witnesses testifying under oath could have provided some of those answers, but that process was short-circuited.
Campbell said when the deal was reached that all questions had been answered, and that the two men had acted alone. A statement from defence lawyers casts a different light: “Basi and Virk did not obtain the consent of their superiors to demand or accept these benefits.”
The auditor general’s investigation was useful, as far as it goes, which isn’t far at all.
This is an issue that will always carry the stench of unanswered questions.
