By Vaughn Palmer for The Vancouver Sun
The Conservatives sprang a trap on the New Democrats on Thursday over Premier David Eby’s defiance of the legislature rule that members don’t comment on matters before the courts or under police investigation.
Eby had denounced the man accused in the Lapu Lapu rampage as a “murderer” and told the house “I hope he spends the rest of his goddamn life in jail.”
Would NDP Attorney General Niki Sharma likewise denounce a man who was appearing in court in Penticton that day on charges of assault, mischief, endangering life and flight from police? asked Conservative MLA Steve Kooner.
No, of course, she wouldn’t. Eby has been sharply criticized for crossing the line with his comments, as she was well aware.
The Law Society said the premier had threatened the rule of law. The Canadian Bar Association said Eby was “ignoring the presumption of innocence and the requirement of due process” and giving “permission for others to do the same.”
Speaker Raj Chouhan cited the longstanding sub judice convention, whereby members of the legislature “exercise restraint” in commenting “on matters that are before a court or subject to an active police investigation.”
Sharma echoed the theme in responding to Kooner, who is a lawyer.
“The member would know as a lawyer that something that’s before the court right now is something we should not be commenting on, especially something that is before the court today,” she replied. “So I won’t be offering a comment on that.”
No surprise there. It was the standard answer from most governments in most cases, which is what made Eby’s comments, spread over three days last week, such a departure from the norm.
Kooner’s follow-up question was pitched to those of us on the irony watch.
“Here we have a government saying they cannot comment on a case that’s currently being investigated and before the courts,” the Richmond-Queensborough MLA observed.
“At the same time, this premier has no problem commenting on a major case investigation and a case that will be before the courts.”
Could the “government make up its mind and decide if they are going to follow their own rules?”
Sharma sidestepped the double standard and delivered another answer grounded in respect for the system.
“We on this side have every confidence in our justice system to investigate, to lay the charges, for the B.C. Crown prosecution service to do their independent work and the justice system and the judiciary to act in an independent fashion.”
Outside the house, Sharma excused Eby for crossing the line. “It was an emotional time” just after the Lapu Lapu festival attack.
But pressed by reporters, she admitted that she’d raised the concern directly with the boss. “It is clear that we need to be cautious when we are speaking about a matter before the courts.”
The attorney general’s statement was more direct than anything Eby has acknowledged about his lack of wisdom in commenting on someone under investigation and before the courts.
In the legislature last week, he apologized for the profanity (“goddamn”) but vowed “I will never apologize” for his other comments on the case.
In a news conference Wednesday, Eby tried to suggest his comments were somehow prompted by concern about bail reform.
But bail was not a factor in the Lapu Lapu Day rampage. The accused is in custody undergoing a 30-day assessment of whether he is mentally fit to stand trial.
Earlier Thursday, CKNW broadcaster Simi Sara asked Eby if he regretted the language that had drawn fire from the law society and the bar association.
“No, I do not,” he replied.
You could tell the premier was stung by Thursday’s exchange inside the legislature because he resorted to heckling.
“Hypocrite!” he shouted across the floor at the Conservative MLA Kooner.
Not letting that pass, Opposition leader John Rustad asked the Speaker to direct Eby to retract.
“I understand the issue is very sensitive to him given the mistake he made,” said Rustad, “but I would ask that he withdraw that comment and apologize to this house.”
Whereupon Eby walked into that trap as well.
“The leader of the Opposition and members on that side of the House asked you to caution the house about matters that were before the court,” said the premier addressing the Speaker directly.
“You directed the House accordingly. I heard that caution. I respect that caution.
“But to have the member then stand up and ask a question directly to me about a matter that’s before the courts that we shouldn’t be talking about, according to their side, that they lobbied you about, that you ruled on, is an act of hypocrisy.”
The Speaker wasn’t going to let him off the hook.
“Members, regardless how the question is put and how we are tempted to answer the question, despite all that, we must be very cautious that we never use unparliamentary language in this chamber,” said Chouhan.
“So I ask the premier to withdraw that word.”
“I withdraw, honourable Speaker,” Eby said grudgingly, having disclosed more about his character than he perhaps intended.