Skip to Main Content
print small medium large 

HOME /


Craig v. Prince Edward Island

Report of the Board of Inquiry Into the matter of a Complaint by Charles R. Craig alleging discrimination in employment by the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island because of Political Belief

Prince Edward Island Board of Inquiry Under the Human Rights Act M.A. Farmer

March 15, 1983
(66 paras.)


1      The Board of Inquiry was established by letter to me dated April 19, 1982, from Hon. George R. McMahon, Minister of Justice, Exhibit #1.  Correspondence was sent on May 10, 1982, and June 9, 1982, to the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission; Mr. John R. A Douglas, its counsel; Mr. Charles R. Craig, the complainant, and his counsel; Mr. G. Bruce MacDonald, Q.C., his counsel at the time; and Mr. Gerald Foster, Q.C., counsel for the Government of Prince Edward Island, advising of my appointment and requesting the parties to agree on a time and place for the public hearing.

2      Following this correspondence, a meeting was held on June 18, 1982, at the Law Courts Building, present were Mr. Foster, Q.C., Mr. McEwen and Mr. Douglas, who had taken over from Mr. G. Bruce MacDonald as counsel for Mr. Craig.  It was proposed at this meeting that counsel for the Board of Inquiry should be appointed with the result that Mr. Kenneth Clark of Summerside was appointed counsel for the Board of Inquiry.

3      A further meeting was held on June 25, 1982, with the same counsel present.  It was agreed the inquiry begin on July 21, 1982, at ten o'clock in the forenoon.  The parties to the Board of Inquiry and their counsel were requested to provide and provided names of persons they wished to appear as witnesses before the Board.  The following witnesses were subpoenaed: Andrew Wells, Lorne Driscoll, Thomas Connor and Earle Kennedy, at the request of Mr. Douglas, Paul Mullin, Charles Craig, Hon.  A. B. Campbell, Hon.  Horace B. Carver, Hon. George R. McMahon, J. Angus MacLean, Lloyd Lawless, Douglas Boylan, at the request of the Board of inquiry, and Peter Pope, Hon. Prowse Chappell, Rev. William MacDougall, Bea Mair, Charles Hogan and Thomas Klewin, at the request of Mr. McEwen.  Later, a request for Dougie Arsenault as a witness was made by Mr. McEwen and, although a subpoena was not issued, Mr. Arsenault agreed to attend a hearing to give evidence.

4      While the preliminary arrangements were being made for the public hearing, an Application was made to the Supreme Court, No. GDC-3861, by counsel for the Human Rights Commission on the 7th day of July, 1982, concerning the use of the report made by the Human Rights Commission.

5      Mr. Justice Large, on the application July 20, 1982, decided that the person legally entitled to inspect and have access to the information in the files of the Commission was limited to, at that time, the Board of Inquiry.  An excerpt of his decision is as follows:
 

"I would, therefore, interpret section 23(3) of the Human Rights Act by stating that the ordinary meaning of the words is to be taken and that all information obtained by the commission is privileged and is not to be communicated to any person not legally entitled.  In my opinion, section 4 of the Public Inquiries Act gives the commissioner of the board of inquiry the power to require the commission and its members to attend as parties and, as witnesses, would be subject to being required to produce such documents as may be in their control and as the commissioner of the board of inquiry shall require. The wording of the question as it applies to interested parties to the complaint is one which might be widely interpreted.  My interpretation to be given to section 23(3) is constrained by the wording of the application which requires that the section be interpreted as it applies to the availability of the Human Rights Commission report on the Charles R. Craig complaint to the board of inquiry and interested parties to the complaint.  I could foresee a different approach to this question of interpretation had the Minister failed to appoint a board of inquiry.  In my opinion, the person legally entitled to inspect and have access to the information in the files of the commission is limited at this time in the Charles R. Craig complaint to the board of inquiry."

6      On the 21st of July, 1982, the public inquiry opened at ten o'clock in the forenoon at the Law Courts Building and evidence was heard from Paul Mullin, Douglas Boylan, Charles Craig, Hon. A. B. Campbell and Hon. Horace B. Carver.  As provided in the Public Inquiries Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, Cap.  P-30, all evidence was given under oath.  The Board of Inquiry continued its hearing on July 22, and the evidence of Hon.  George R. McMahon, J. Angus MacLean, Lloyd Lawless, Peter Pope, Hon. Prowse Chappell and part of the evidence of Rev.  William MacDougall was heard.

7      During the hearing of the evidence of Rev. William MacDougall, the Board of Inquiry was served with an Originating Notice in the Supreme Court, application No. GDC-3899, dated July 22, 1982, seeking a mandatory injunction. An order dated the same day of the Supreme Court was served on the board restraining further proceedings of the Board of Inquiry pending the determination by the Court of the application by the Human Rights Commission for a declaratory order and mandatory injunction.  On the hearing of this, Mr. Justice MacDonald dismissed the Human Rights Commission's application on August 5, 1982.  On August 19, 1979, the Board continued, the evidence of Rev. William MacDougall was concluded and the evidence of Dougie Arsenault, Charles Hogan, Thomas Klewin, Bea Mair, Earl Kennedy, Andrew B. Wells, Lorne Driscoll, Thomas Connor, Elizabeth Webster, Lillian D. J. Coughlin, Joseph G. L. Bernard and Hon. Lloyd G. MacPhail was heard.  The only remaining witness was Hon. Bennett Campbell. Notice of Appeal by the Human Rights Commission was given on the 20th day of August, 1982.  No further proceedings on this appeal were taken.  It was not until January 5, 1983, he was available and gave evidence on that day.

8      Mr. Craig's complaint, that he was discriminated against by the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island on or about the 20th day of June, 1979, because of political belief in the matter of employment, to the Human Rights Commission had been under investigation from the date of the complaint, August 20, 1979, until its report, dated July 4, 1980.  The Human Rights Commission concluded that the Human Rights Act had been contravened but that the Commission was unable to effect a settlement between Mr. Craig and the Province of Prince Edward Island.  The Human Rights Commission requested the appointment of a Board of Inquiry.

9      The Human Rights Act was passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Province on December 12, 1975.  Its application was suspended until proclamation; the Act was proclaimed on September 2, 1976, bringing the Act into force as of September 11, 1976.  Section 1(2) of the Act suspended its application to prevail over all other laws of the Province for the period of three years.  Mr. Craig's complaint occurred within that three year period, so there is a question as to the application of the Act to his complaint.  A Board of Inquiry does not have authority to answer this question; there is, however, a proper tribunal which can make such a determination.

10      Section 13 of the Human Rights Act of this Province provides, among other things, that no person shall discriminate against an individual because of "political belief as registered under Section 24 of the Election Act R.S.P.E.I. 1974, Cap. - 1".  Section 24 of the Election Act provides for the registration of political parties but does not provide for the registration of political beliefs of political parties or individuals.

11      Since the Election Act does not have any registration of political belief for political parties or individuals to make the words of the definition applicable, it seems that definition in Section 13 of the Human Rights Act may not create an offence under that Act.  This Section of the Act has not yet been interpreted by the Courts of this Province.  The offence of discrimination because of "political belief" is not found in the Canadian Human Rights Act, Statutes Canada, 1976-77 C. 33, nor is it included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed in April, 1982.  There is, therefore, no assistance from these sources in the interpretation of the words in Section 13.  We have not found any precedent to assist in the interpretation of the statutory definition of "political belief".

12      During the Hearings, counsel for the parties appearing at the Board proposed various meanings of the words "political belief".  Each of the counsel had an interpretation to fit his client's position.  The closing submissions of counsel dealt, again, with this question.

13      Counsel for the Province advanced the plain meaning rule of interpretation of the words of the section and said the words refer to Craig's political beliefs as he or someone on his behalf has registered that belief under Section 24 of the Election Act.  Counsel for Mr. Craig and the Human Rights Commission advanced the position that because the Election Act does not provide for the registration for an individual's or a political party's political belief, there is no plain meaning of the words.  They say a literal reading of the section results in an impossibility or an absurdity.

14      It does not appear that this Board of Inquiry has authority, under the Human Rights Act or the Public Inquiries Act, to bridge the distance between an "absurdity" and the meaning which counsel for the Commission and Complainant proposes.  This Board of Inquiry is not a Court of Record, which can make a finding of what the Legislature intended.  It is bound by the ordinary meaning of words of the section with the result that there is no offence of discrimination under the terms of that Act.

15      While this finding may dispose of this complaint by Mr. Craig, I believe it is prudent and desirable to review the extensive evidence given by nineteen witnesses and examine it to test the submissions which have been made by counsel of behalf of the parties before the Board of Inquiry.  The evidence will be looked at under the parts as follows:
 
Part No. 1 Evidence given by Mr. Craig in support of his Complaint

16     Excerpts of it are as follows:
 
Volume 1, Page 45
Q.

You have any particular belief, Mr. Craig?

A.

No, sir.

Q.

You don't?

A.

No sir, not now.

Q.

Did you ever have any particular belief?

30 A.

Yes, sir.

Volume 1, Page 46
5 Q.

Did you in 1979?

A.

Yes, I would have to say yes.

10 Q.

You don't have a political belief but you did have one in 1979?

A.

Yes.

Q.

In June of 1979?

A.

Yes.  I think everyone has.

Q.

Was that a political belief you make known?

A.

No.

Q.

Would anybody know about that, what is was?

15 A.

They would assume assumptions I would assume.

Q.

They would assume.  What's your political belief, Mr. Craig, it 1979?

A.

What was it, I was a supporter of Alex Campbell, the Hon. Alex Campbell.  I guess that's as far as I would say was any political belief.

Q.

That was the complete extent of your political belief, was it?

10 A.

Yes.

Volume 1, Page 47
13 Q.

In 1970 when you were appointed, would it be a fair statement to say that you were perceived to be a supporter of the Liberal Party?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And over the years did you change?

A.

Yes, I kept out of politics as much as possible.

Q.

I appreciate, Mr. Craig, that you kept out of politics.  I'm asking you did that support for the Liberal Party change in later years?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

When?

A.

After I went as office manager of the Government Office.

Volume 1, Page 48
5 Q.

How did you perceive yourself to be viewed by the general public in terms of political affiliation?

A.

I would say that the general public thought I was a Liberal.

10 Q.

Would you say that perception continued up to and following the election of 1979?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And in your opinion was that perception the basis of the termination of your employment?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

During the period of time you were employed, Mr. Craig, in this period of some 9 years, is that correct?

A.

That's right, sir.

Volume 1, Page 49
24 Q.

What salary were you paid in 1970 when you were hired?

A.

As I recall, sir, around $6,000.00.

Q.

I see, and in 1979 what salary were you making?

A.

I think approximately $18,000.00 or $19,000.00.

Q.

How much?

A.

$18,000.00 or $19,000.00.

Q.

That's per year.

A.

Yes, sir.

Volume 1, Page 50
5 Q.

And did you have any knowledge of this, did you get annual increments?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Do you know the approximate amount?

A.

Well, they were based on the increase of the Civil Service, sane increase.

Q.

Same increase?

A.

Yes.

28 Q.

Were you concerned about your job after the election?

A.

Not immediately but then I certainly was with the street talk and that, certainly the rumours going around that my neck was in the noose type of thing. Yes.

Volume 1, Page 51
24 Q.

Okay.  And the substance of the comments of Mr. McMahon in relation to your status?

A.

As closely as I can recall them, sir.

Q.

Was what?

A.

Was that they had, the three of them had discussed my situation, my job, Mr. Chappell, Mr. Pope and himself had discussed it and because of my age, because of my experience there that my job was secure except if political pressure was exerted they might not be able to do anything about it, something to that effect, sir?

30 Q.

And what if anything, did you say in response to that comment?

A.

I don't know, I don't recall, probably sighed a relief.

17      About the establishment of the Government Office at Summerside after the election in 1970.

      Volume 1, Page 55
 
A.

Three principal people involved at the time in any discussions we had, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Schurman and Mr. Hickey.  After it was determined that we would start or open this office, it was basically Mr. Schurman and myself that did the actual leg work on getting the office opened, such as getting the premises and furniture and stuff, and renovations and things of that nature.

25 Q.

Are you saying when you were hired in 1970, you, in effect, were hired for a one-year period?

A.

Well, it was a trial basis that we, I don't think that I was hired on a one-year basis, I really don't know that part but it was on a trial basis that we were operating on one year just to see how it would work out.

18      The question of Mr. Craig's duties in the Summerside Office has been raised and are particularly discussed on Pages 62 and 64 of his evidence.
 
Volume 1, Page 65
14 Q.

Was there, who did you directly report to?  Was there anyone that you were directly under their direction?

A.

No sir, to the best of my knowledge.

28 Q.

Did you ever seek any sort of job description from your employer?

A.

No, the truth would be no.

Volume 1, Page 67
20 Q.

I think some suggestion may have been you were the Premier's man in Prince County, what is your reaction to such a statement?  What activities, if any, did you do for the Premier during his, during your tenure in Summerside?

A.

I would have to suggest I just did the job that, as it had to be done for his constituents.

Volume 1, Page 69
13 Q.

Okay, you did not, during the time of your employment from 1930 on, you did not have any contact with poll chairmen, Liberal poll chairmen as such in relation to your job?

A.

Undoubtedly, there were numerous occasions when poll chairmen would come into the office, yes.

19      As indicated by above quotations from Mr. Craig's direct or cross examination, the general tenor of his evidence is not impressive.  There is a lack of frankness in his answers, particularly so with reference to his duties.  His evidence does not, in many cases, agree with the evidence given by other witnesses: for example, his evidence of his salary, which jumps from $6,000.00 in 1970 to over $19,000.00 in 1978, suggests that this rapid rise may have resulted from a discussion with the then Premier Alexander B. Campbell in 1976, when his pay jumped from $9,350.00 in 1974 and 1975 to $15,610.00 on April 1, 1976.

20     At Page 92 Mr. Campbell said:
 
"Mr.  Craig and I (Premier Alex Campbell) discussed the matter of his temporary status within the Civil Service and as I recall a temporary employee does not participate in the pension or superannuation program of the Civil Service and that was cause for his interest in becoming a member of the Classified Civil Service.  However, by 1976, the government had established a policy to hold the line on the growth of the Civil Service and, unfortunately, Mr. Craig was a victim of that policy, and a position in the unclassified or classified full-time Civil Service was not, therefore, open for him."

21      This looks very much like a settlement for the lack of pension and superannuation which he complained about and also an acceptance of Mr. Campbell's statement that a classified or unclassified full-time Civil Service job was not available to Mr. Craig.

22      This salary continued to rise in April, 1977, to $17,380.00 per year and in April, 1978, and for the rest of his term to $19,490.00 per year.  This looks like very generous pay for a person without a job description, who was not attached to any Department of Government, who did not report to any supervisory personnel or Deputy Minister and admitted that he only worked 75% to 80% of the time.  See Page 71 of Mr. Craig's evidence.
 
Part No. 2 Employment of Mr. Craig

23      Hon.  Alexander Campbell's evidence discloses that Mr. Craig was brought into his office in Summerside after the 1970 Provincial Election after Mr. Campbell was elected and became Premier of the Province.  Excerpts of his evidence are as follows:
 
Page 89.
24 Q.

Mr. Craig active politically with yourself in the 1970 election?

A.

I was reminded today that he was my Campaign Manager.

26 Q.

Now, Mr. Craig, who would he be responsible to on this job?

A.

He would be responsible, technically, to his employing authorities.

      Page 90
 
5 Q.

And who would that be?

A.

That would be me.

Q.

So during that period of time if you wished to change the description of Mr. Craig's tasks, it would be you that would do that?

A.

That is correct.

Q.

Mr. Craig's in your recollection was Mr. Craig's status ever changed from that of a temporary employee?

A.

His terms of reference, changed with experience and as the responsibilities for the government office in Summerside expanded.  But his status as a temporary employee did not change throughout his employment. It maybe more accurate to say his status as a casual, I forget now whether it's casual or temporary but it's in the unclassified Civil Service.

15 Q.

Was it your understanding that at any time during that period you could terminate his employment yourself?

A.

It was certainly within and is within the authority of the employing authority to terminate temporary or casual employees at will.  The question before us now, I suppose, is whether the Human Rights Commission has limited that traditional power of authority, whether the Human Rights Act limits that.

20 Q.

At any time during your period of office was Mr. Craig required or the job he was employed at, was he at any time required to complete a completely political task?

A.

Mr. Craig was employed by a politician.  I find it very difficult to distinguish or make the distinction others seem to have made between a government task and a political task.  When the directions to Mr. Craig were given by his employing authority, myself, it was given not only as a member of government but as a politician and so if he was asked to arrange to have the grass cut at the Senior Citizens' Home in response to a complaint, would you describe that as a government task or a political task?  Perhaps it is both.  But perhaps as well, if I'm not being presumptuous, sir, if he was not required to perform tasks for the Liberal Party in the partisan political sense.  Liberal Party has its own office and its own employees and the government offices which were established in Summerside and elsewhere were part of the government apparatus, not of the Liberal Party.

Page 92
25 Q.

I see was there any consideration given during this time this was being considered to convert Mr. Craig's status from an unclassified to a classified position.

A.

Yes.  I believe in about 1976, I'm guessing it was. It is a guess.  About two years before the election Mr. Craig and I discussed the matter of his temporary status within the Civil Service and as I recall a temporary employee does not participate in the pension or superannuation program of the Civil Service and that was cause enough for his interest in becoming a member of the classified Civil Service.  However, by 1976, the government had established a policy to hold the line on the growth of the Civil Service and unfortunately Mr. Craig was a victim of that policy and a position in the unclassified or classified full-time Civil Service was not therefore open to him.

24      It is appropriate to insert here excerpts from Douglas Boylan's evidence.  Douglas Boylan advised in his letter of dismissal (Exhibit 4) as follows:
 
Page 23
10 A.

"... you will be given a separation allowance of two weeks full pay less standard deductions.  In addition, you will receive compensation for any vacation pay accumulated over the past fifteen months to which you are entitled.

15

Diane Blanchard, of my office, will process the necessary transactions to effect the allowances. You may wish to contact her regarding your various entitlements."

20 Q.

Was there any other documentation drawn at that time with respect to the termination of Mr. Craig's employment?

A.

Not to my knowledge.

Q.

Now, you indicated a bit earlier that there had been employing authority in order to hire Mr. Craig. What employing authority would be required to terminate Mr. Craig?

A.

Presumable the person that had authority to hire would also have the complementary authority to dismiss, terminate, or whatever the appropriate word would be, the President of the Executive Council.

Page 21
Q.

Just, I'm sorry, Mr. Boylan, I want to go back one point.  Now until, up until the 20th of June, 1979, what was the source of the monies which were used to pay Mr. Craig?

A.

As I've indicated, from the appropriation to the Executive Council under whatever subdivision at the time.  For the majority of the period under a subdivision within the estimate or within that appropriation, Summerside Government Office.

Q.

Was this the case right through until the termination of employment?

A.

Yes.

25      The evidence of Hon. Alex Campbell continues.
 
5 Q.

Mr. Craig indicated that there were some discussions and some movement prior to the 1979 election to convert the Summerside Government Office into the status of a Regional Services Centre.  Were you aware of that and were you involved in any way with that?

A.

Yes, I was.

Q.

Can you briefly describe what took place and what the intention was?

10 A.

I forget the year but approximately two years after Gaudet's Save Easy closed its doors and moved to the Mall, the government endeavoured to purchase that property through the Provincial Department of Public Works and to convert that building to a one house facility for government services.  But the attempted purchase fell through.  That would be the period when the establishment of a Regional Services Centre in Summerside was actively contemplated to the point of purchasing property, however, at about the same time it was recognized that there were many vacant office facilities in the Town of Summerside and it did not appear to be advisable politically or economically for the community to be taking out of half a dozen office facilities existing Provincial Government employees and relocating them in a government building and that is the reason why the Regional Services Centre did not proceed as it did in the other Centres within government building.

Q.

But was it the intention, sir, to eventually locate in Summerside a Regional Services Centre as soon as feasible?

A.

It was the intention, as I say, when we were attempting to buy the Gaudet's Save Easy grocery store building but that intention was abandoned for the reason I have indicated.

25 Q.

I see.  Was there any consideration given during the time this was being considered to convert Mr. Craig's status from an unclassified to a classified position within the Civil Service?

A.

Yes.  I believe in about 1976, I'm guessing it was, it is a guess, about two years before the election, Mr. Craig and I discussed the matter of his temporary status within the Civil Service and as I recall a temporary employee does not participate in the pension or superannuation program of the Civil Service and that was cause enough for his interest in becoming a member of the classified Civil Service.  However, by 1976

Page 93
5

(con't) the government had established a policy to hold the line on the growth of the Civil Service and unfortunately Mr. Craig was a victim of that policy and a position in the unclassified or classified full-time Civil Service was not, therefore, open for him.

15 Q.

Mr. Justice Campbell, doesn't surprise me that you've hit the nub of the problem why we're here today.  I want to ask you this, sir, in reference to temporary employees.  Assuming there is no discrimination as set forth in the Human Rights Act and that there is an absence of any other provision to the contrary, is it your opinion that the employing authority, the Crown, has the absolute and inherent right to dismiss at pleasure its temporary employees?  Assuming there's no discrimination, assuming that it's not covered by some other Act, such as the Civil Service Act, is it the inherent and absolute right of the employing authority to dismiss at pleasure a temporary employee?

A.

Mr. Foster, I don't want to be evasive on that --

Q.

I wish you wouldn't, My Lord.

25 A.

But I find it a difficult question to answer.  I had assumed for a long time that the employing authority had the unchallengeable right to dismiss at will or certainly for cause any temporary employee but you are calling upon me now for a legal opinion --

Q.

Let me put it this way.

A.

-- which may very well be changed in the light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the case of a probationary policeman in the Province on Ontario who was fired without cause.

30 Q.

I'm aware of that case, My Lord.  Perhaps then I may put the question this way, when you were the employing authority was it your opinion that in the absence of discrimination and in the absence

Page 99
5 Q

(con't); of any provision to the contrary in any other legislation, that the employing authority have the absolute aid inherent right to dismiss at pleasure its servants and in particularly its temporary employees?

A.

That was clearly my understanding.

26      Hon. Bennett Campbell succeeded Hon. Alex Campbell, who retired on September 11, 1978, as Premier of the Province and President of the Executive Council until May 3, 1979.  His evidence is brief.
 
Volume 4, Page 2
29 Q.

And during your tenure as Premier, I take it, the -- Mr. Craig was paid out of the Executive Council budget?

A.

Yes, that's correct.

Q.

Were any moves made by yourself or during your tenure to have the Summerside Government Office shifted to the Department of Development?

A.

No.

Volume 4, Page 3
28 Q.

Was that your understanding?  In other words, so long as there was no offence against the Human Rights Act, the employing authority within the Provincial Government could dismiss a non-classified Civil Servant at will?

      Volume 4, Page 4
 
6 A.

Yes, that's my understanding.

27      The evidence of both Premiers sets forth the beginning and continuation of Mr. Craig's services by them as employing authorities through the Executive Council.  It is noted that each of the Premiers indicated that they had absolute and inherent authority to terminate Mr. Craig's employment at any time.

28      Both Premiers state that during their respective terms no move was made by either of them to have the Summerside Government Office shifted to the Department of Development.

      Part No. 3 Termination of Mr. Craig's employment

29      Excerpts from the evidence of Hon. J. Angus MacLean:
 
Volume 2, Page 39
25 Q.

And did you have any part to play in the termination of Mr. Charles Craig's employment?

A.

Yes, certainly.

Q.

And was it you who terminated his employment?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Personally was done through any --?

30 A.

Well, when I became Premier, as in an age old

Page 40
5

practice, the personal staff of the Premier's office had resigned.  All of them.  With the exception of one stenographer who was a Civil Servant, a classified Civil Servant.  She wished to be transferred to a corresponding job somewhere within the Civil Service.  So there was a question, naturally, as is always the case, of I, as Premier, finding a staff, accumulating a staff and employing them.

10

I found that on the payroll of Executive Council, and I need not remind you that in this Province and in most provinces the premier wears two hats.  He's President of the Executive Council and Premier.  I found that there was one temporary employee still on the payroll of Executive Council who had been employed by my predecessor.  I found that there was no job description for his employment and that I could conclude only that he was an executive assistant to the premier operating out of Summerside, which had considerable logic because of the Premier, Alex Campbell represented Summerside riding and his colleague was also a cabinet minister.  Now it would be difficult for them, because of the onerous responsibilities they have as cabinet ministers, to carry on the duties that an MLA normally performs for his constituents and it would be fairly logical that in order to accommodate that responsibility as an MLA that an executive assistant or a confidential secretary or whatever you might call him would be employed.

In my case, I did not employ such a person because
my colleague representing 4th Queens was not a
cabinet minister, he was a very industrious member
of the legislature and, in addition to that, the
majority of my constituents find it easier to come
to Charlottetown than to go to Montague, which is
the -- where provision is made for the MLAs for 4th
Queens to meet their constituents.
So I terminated the employment of Mr. Craig and did
not replace him because I had no need for an
executive assistant.

Q.

Mr. MacLean, was Mr. Craig's employment terminated because of his political beliefs?

A.

I didn't know what Mr. Craig's political beliefs were and never did know them until I heard his evidence yesterday.  So that any perception I

Page 41
5

might have had of what his political beliefs might have been were peripheral of little effect or consequence in my decision.

20 Q.

Well, in fact, did you act upon that --

A.

No.

Q.

-- in this particular instance?

A.

Not particularly--not this particular instance. That had nothing to do with that.

25 Q.

You didn't act on it in this particular instance. So just because Mr. Craig was a previous employer of the Liberal administration did not enter into your mind when you terminated his employment?

A.

I want to not have you put words in my mouth or leave the wrong impression.  I want to make it clear that as I understood it and all the evidence available to me as far as records were concerned that Mr. Craig had been employed personally by my -- by Premier Alexander Campbell and he had continued in that position during the government of Mr. Bennett Campbell and that his role, since

Page 44
5

there was no job description otherwise - which would be normal if he had some particular responsibility as far as government administration was concerned - I could conclude only that he was a personal employee of my predecessors and, as I already said, in the role of presumably of executive assistant or confidential secretary or something, whatever you might call him, and that I had no personal need in my judgment of such a person outside of the offices of the Premier and the Executive Council.  As a matter of fact, as far as I know - I could stand corrected on this - I think Mr. Craig is the only individual who has ever been on the staff of the Premier's office or Executive Council operating in some other place.

30      Mr. MacLean says on Page 44 that he did not discuss the termination of Mr. Craig's position with Mr. McMahon nor Mr. Chappell.  On Page 45 he indicates no discussions took place with Mr. Pope, Rev.  William MacDougall, or with anyone from the 3rd, 4th or 5th districts of Prince.  Also on Page 45 he says that he discussed Craig's position with Mr. Boylan, Clerk of the Executive Council to be assured that Mr. Craig was on the payroll of the Executive Council.
 
Page 46
5 Q.

How did you arrive at an understanding of the position that Mr. Craig was filling and his duties when you hadn't discussed it with anyone?

A.

Because there was no job description, I had to conclude that he took his instructions directly from his employer, who was my predecessors.  Premiers --.

26 Q.

What other facts were there?

A.

It is a fact that Mr. Craig was a direct employee of then President of Executive Council and no -- because there was no job description or no other thing, he was not responsible to anybody else, to any deputy minister or any departmental staff.  I could conclude only that he was a direct employee of my predecessor, whose function I then filled.  I had succeeded.

Page 50
13 Q.

And Mr. Lawless' contract was with the Department of Development, was it not?

A.

That's right.

Page 51
28 Q.

You indicated in response to a question, Mr. MacLean, from Mr. Clark that you didn't know Craig's political -- what his political beliefs were and then later you went on to say that your perception of his political beliefs were of little consequence in the decision.

30 A.

That's right.

      Page 52
 
5 Q

And my --

A.

The decision to terminate his employment was not made on the basis of his --

8 Q.

When you said of little consequence, were you, in fact, saying then that you did take it into account but to a very minor degree?

A.

On, to be -- no, I think it had no effect because the job no longer existed as far as Executive Council was concerned and therefore a payment would be terminated.

Page 53
5 Q.

How did you -- where did that perception or impression come from that he wouldn't have had the confidence and that loyalty?

A.

Well, there's a very important - if I might digress or - there's a very important principal I believe under review here and that is historic right for Ministers of the Crown to employ on their own personal staff persons in which they have complete confidence and rapport.  A mutual confidence and understanding.  And that is never questioned, to my knowledge, in any province and certainly not in the federal government.  And this has no direct reference to the political beliefs of the people employed.  I have employed people on my personal staff as a federal minister in whom I have complete confidence without fewer knowing what their political persuasion might be.  And I might say that this is a long recognized right or privilege of Ministers of the Crown that when the people of a country, this country, decide to change a government that the ministers of that government have the right to employ on their own personal staff people of their own choice and that their own choice only and that they are paid from public funds.  Now this same principle now applies to members of parliament who are provided a staff for constituency office of their own choosing.  And when that member is replaced, the staff employment terminates automatically.

20 Q.

Is that the basis of the decision to terminate Mr. Craig's employment?

A.

Yes.

Q.

The fact that he was --

A.

He was on the personal staff of my predecessor --

25 Q.

Your predecessor --

A.

-- and on my personal staff for a short period.

Q.

On your personal staff, as successor, you had and I'll use a new word - an untrammelled right to dismiss?

A.

I believe that is right.

30 Q.

And --

A.

And I agree with what former Premier Campbell said yesterday that he believes at that time when he employed Mr. Craig that he had a complete right to terminate the employment, as well as I understood it.

Page 55
17 Q.

Would you have taken those comments into account when you were making the decision on whether to terminate his employment?

A.

No. I've already stated I think clearly the reason I terminated his --

Page 56
14 Q.

Are you concerned now that the position that Mr. Lawless filled at that point in time might have been similar to the position that Mr. Craig was removed from?

A.

No I'd say it's not the same position at all.  It's --

Q.

It's not the same?

A.

No.

20 Q.

What are the distinctions of the position?

A.

Well, he's paid from a different source.

Q.

Is that the only difference?

A.

That's the main difference as far as I'm concerned. Mr. -- because he was employed by --  directly by the previous Premier without a job description, I can only conclude that Mr. Craig took his directions and his instructions directly from his employer.

Page 57
Q.

Does that sound similar to the job description that was prepared for Mr. Lawless?

A.

In some respects it does but they're not -- they don't entirely coincide.  An executive assistant, anybody's executive assistant, carries out many of the functions that Mr. Lawless carries out. Directing people to the right department or part of government if they have requests to make or inquiries to make about what government services are available and that sort of thing.  But there are other functions that an executive assistant carries out, acting as it were as the agent of in place of his employer in the role of some of the -- of taking some of the functions that an MLA would normally do himself.

20 Q.

I presume you also heard him state that, in his opinion, Mr. Craig did not carry out any purely political activities in the job as the manager of the Summerside government office?  You heard that? Do you recall that?

A.

I heard -- as I understood what former Premier Campbell said was that Mr. Craig did not carry out any functions of the Liberal Party.

25 Q.

Okay.

A.

But as former Premier Campbell said, there are many functions that an MLA carried out or an executive assistant carries out for him which are looked upon as being political.  They're part of his function as an MLA of course.

Page 58
14 Q.

Oh. So that the fact then -- would you admit then that you really don't know whether Mr. Craig fell within the category or carried out duties that would normally be done by an executive assistant?   Would you admit that?

A.

Sure.  I have no direct knowledge of what Mr. Craig did at all.  But as his direct employer, I had a right to know.

20 Q.

Did you take steps to find out?

A.

And -- no, I didn't because the job on the payroll of the Executive Council was redundant.

Page 60
    Q.

There was minute of council came out to hire Lloyd Lawless.  Was there a minute of council to dismiss Bud Craig?

15 A.

No.

Q.

Why not?

A.

Because Bud Craig was not employed by contract.  He was employed directly on the say-so of the Premier of the day.  Of the President of Executive Council. And he presumably said the Clerk of the Executive Council put Bud Craig on the payroll.  That's all that -- the action that was required.  And therefore there was no necessity whatsoever for Executive Council to consider the matter.

Q.

You heard Mr. McMahon's evidence this morning that he indicated to Mr. Craig that his job would be safe or secure or whatever words were used - and there seems to be some confusion - as long as pressures were not brought to bear and Mr. McMahon might have said he might have used the word political pressures?  You heard that this morning?

A.

Yes, I heard Mr. McMahon say that this morning.

Q.

Were, in fact, in your opinion, any pressures brought to bear?  Did anyone make any representations to you?

A.

No.

Q.

You weren't aware of this at all going on up in the Summerside area?  If in fact, there was political pressures being brought.

      Page 61
 
5 A.

There was no political pressure applied to me.

Q.

None applied to you?

A.

No.

Q.

To your knowledge, was there any applied to any of the members of your government or cabinet?

10 A.

I don't know about that.  But it certainly would be relevant because it was -- none of them -- I don't recall any minister or any member of the legislature or anyone else recommending that Mr. -- to me that Mr. Craig's employment be terminated.

Q.

Did anyone -- do you recall anyone recommending to you that you might consider the status of Mr. Craig and make a decision on it, one way or the other?

15 A.

No, I don't recall that.

Q.

Did any of your members of government or cabinet ministers come to you and indicate that there was pressure to have Mr. Craig removed or pressure being brought on them?

A.

No.

Q.

None whatsoever?

20 A.

Not prior to the termination of his employment in any case.

Q.

Was there pressure -- did you have any indication of pressure being brought to bear after the termination of his employment?

A.

I've had the various opinions expressed as to whether I had done the right thing or not.  That's all.

25 Q.

When did this -- when did these -- when were these opinions expressed?

A.

Well, I suppose -- I don't recall now but I suppose it was immediately after the event.

Q.

Do you recall who expressed the opinion?

30 A.

No, I don't.  Because they were -- it was water under the bridge at that point and they were, if at all, were just passing comments.  No representations had been made to me.

Page 56
27 Q.

Now you've heard -- you sat through the evidence yesterday, sir, and this morning, did you not?

A.

Yes Mmhmm.

Page 64
28 A.

I would say that, to begin with, that any discussions that took place in cabinet or may or may not have taken place in cabinet with regard to Mr. Craig are completely irrelevant to the situation because it was I and I alone who had

Page 65
5

the prerogative of retaining Mr. Craig or

terminating his employment.

31      Mr. Angus MacLean's evidence of the dismissal of Mr. Craig is definite.  He gives the reasons for the dismissal and positively denies that political influence of any kind or influence from any person or source was exercised.  The veracity of his evidence was not questioned in any respect by anyone.  Mr. MacLean was acting on the same authority the Premiers Campbell maintained they had as the employing authority -- absolute and inherent authority to dismiss any temporary or casual employee at any time.

32     Hon.  George McMahon:
 
Volume 2, Page 18
Q .

Did you have any input to the decision to dismiss

Mr. Craig?

A.

Not really, no.

Page 20
19 Q.

You didn't push for the termination of his employment?

20 A.

That's correct.

33      Lloyd Lawless, Peter Pope, Hon.  Prowse Chappell and Hon.  Lloyd MacPhail, also corroborated this:

      Hon.  George McMahon:

      Volume 2, Page 20
 
30 Q. Well you give me the word.
Page 21
5 A.

Well, I think I appraised the Premier of the facts of the situation, what --

Part No. 4 Clarification of Mr. Craig's employment in contrast to his allegations of transfer to the Department of Development.

34      Since the Commission was apparently influenced by the mistaken assumption that Mr. Craig had been transferred from his employing authority, i.e. from the office of the Premier it appears necessary to look at the sworn evidence to determine that if this was so, Hon.  Alexander Campbell said at:
 
Volume 1, Page 90
13

But his status as a temporary employee did not change throughout his employment.

35     From the evidence of Douglas Boylan:
 
Page 19
28

Mr. Craig was hired by the employing authority for the Executute Council, the President of the Executive.

      Page 20
 
8 Q.

Who was that?

A.

Mr. Alex Campbell.

      Page 21
 
A.

He was paid during the first office and subsequently and after that office having been established there was a specific heading created in the budget called the "Summerside Government Office", the money was appropriated to the Executive Council.

36     Mr. Boylan said at:
 
Page 24
21 Q.

Was the status of Mr. Craig as temporary employee ever changed?

23 A.

Not to my knowledge.

37      Hon.  Premier Bennett Campbell said:
 
Volume 4, Page 2
29 Q.

And during your tenure as Premier, I take it, Mr. Craig was paid out of the Executive Council Budget.

      Page 3
 
5 A.

That is correct.

6 Q.

Were any moves made by yourself or during your tenure to have the Summerside government office shifted to the Department of Development.

      A.   No.

38      Thomas Connor who was Deputy Minister of the Department of Development said:
 
Volume 3, Page 61
19 Q.

And was, the Summerside Government Office was transferred to the Department of Development?

A.

It was subsequently.

Q.

And can you recount what sort of direction, or what sort of involvement the Department did have with the Government Office before August of 1979?

A.

Well, first there would have been many occasions and many contacts with Mr. Craig over conduct of Government business and information about programs and things of that kind.

Page 62
5 A.

And then at the time that the, I'll call it the decision process, not a decision, but a decision process was going on of transferring the office to the Department of Development, we were trying to determine what role they should play, what the functions of it should be, the Department of Development establishment.

Q.

Would Mr. Craig have been involved in those discussions?

10 A.

To some extent, yes.

Q.

At that time, how was the office looked upon by the Department of Development?  Government Office, Premier's Office, prior to the transfer in August 1979?

A.

Well, I would say that it was looked on, the mixed kind of this.  Our, my attitude was that it was a political office and it also had the function as a government information and information to the Summerside public about government programs, so that I was aware that it had a number of roles to play.

Q.

And was that, your understanding of the job of this office prior to the transfer, it was that, your understanding what you just stated, was there anything else that you knew they were doing,

20 A.

It's as I said.  I knew that it had several roles to play, part of them political and part of them, I would say general government business.

Q.

What you stated that it was -- in your impression a political role, what sort of political role did you look upon it playing prior to August?

A.

Again we're talking about my perceptions of it.  I wasn't very close to it.  I, I saw it as looking after the interests of government members with their constituents and ahh, whatever that entails.  I suppose there are any number of things.  Helping people gain access to the government and gain access aid a favourable hearing for their needs.

Q.

And the same with opposition members?

A.

I would think so, yes.

30 Q.

Was there any -- before August of 1979 was there any actual supervision of this government office by the Department of Development or direction?

      Page 63
 
A.

That's a little difficult to say.  There couldn't have been and legal supervision but to a large extent we were anticipating that the transfer would be made as soon as a budget was approved and so we were discussing things and we were working co-operatively with the government office determining what his job was going to be and what the reporting relationships would be and what we expected by way of performance.

Q.

So and to your recollection would Mr. Lawless have taken over the job of manager?

A.

Well, it was some time during the summer.  I recall that much, and according to earlier testimony it was in August.

39      This evidence does not agree with Mr. Connor's statement to the Human Rights Commission on December 17, 1979. At that time, he is alleged to have said that Mr. Craig was transferred to a regional service centre and the Department of Development on March 31, 1971, and that Mr. Craig was paid by the Department of Development for April and May and up to June 20.

40      Lorne Driscoll who was with the Department of Development since 1973 until after 1979, said in part:
 
Volume 3, Page 48
10 Q.

And can you recount, please, what involvement the Department of Development had with the Government, Summerside Government Office?  What exactly was the jurisdiction of the Department over this Summerside Government Office?

A.

The Department of Development was directed to assume administrative responsibilities for the Summerside Government Office.

Q.

And do you recall when that directive was received? When that transfer was directed?

A.

I'm not sure at what point a decision was made to transfer it.  The actual transfer took place in August of 1979.

Page 50
30 Q.

Was there any transfer of personnel from Executive Council to the payroll of the Department of Development?

A.

Not until September of 1979.

Q.

Was there any direction prior to that actual transfer then, September of 1979, were there any directions being provided to the Summerside Government Office by the Department of Development in respect to the duties or what services should be provided by that office?

Page 51
5 A.

The first directions we would have provided to that office would have been after August 1, 1979, when the budget appropriations for the Department were approved.

Q.

So there were no directions, no directions being provided to the Government Office in Summerside from the Department prior to that date?

A.

I don't believe there were.

Page 54
Q.

Okay and was it left up to you as an employee of the Department of Development to supervise the transfer? Were you in charge of it?

A.

I was responsible for Regional Services Centres at the time.

Q.

Okay were you responsible for transferring the Summerside Government Office to the Department of Development?

A.

During the summer of 1979 I was.

Q.

It's fair to say then that there was some preparatory work done in connection with the transfer prior to the election in April of 1979?

A.

I don't believe there was any actual activity directed to that.

Page 60
14 Q.

In your position with the Department of Development, was Charles (Bud) Craig ever an employee of that Department?

A.

He was not.

41      From the evidence of the two Premiers Campbell, the Deputy Minister of Development and Mr. Driscoll, an officer, in the Development Department, there can be no question that Mr. Craig was never attached to the Department of Development.
 
Part No. 5

Another issued raised was whether Lloyd Lawless replaced Mr. Craig.

42      They were both located in the Summerside Office. Mr. Craig was dismissed on May 20, 1979.  Mr. Driscoll came into the Department of Development on a written contract, which was dated August 20, 1979.

43      Excerpts from the evidence of Lloyd Lawless:
 
Page 78
13 Q.

Now in 1979, were you employed in the Summerside Government Office?

A.

Yes, I was.

Q.

What was the nature of your employment at that time?

15 A.

I was employed by the government of the day to do the functions as laid down -- I was employed by the government through the Department of Development to perform the functions as laid down in the job description given to me on the contract that I signed at that time.

27 Q.

When were you hired?

A.

In August of 1979.  I believe about -- I believe the 20th of August.  On or about that time or the date on the contract that I signed.

Q.

When did you first -- you were hired on the 20th of August?

30 A.

Yes.  About that time.

Page 79
13 Q.

When you commenced your employment in August of 1979, was that office referred to as a services centre at that stage?

A.

No.

Q.

In Summerside, what was it referred to as?

A.

I'm not sure.  I believe it was called the Provincial Government Offices and I believe it was in the phone book as Provincial Government Offices. I don't think there was anything on the door that was designated as the Premier's Office.  But I'm not certain about whether there was anything on the door or not but it was looked upon by me as the Summerside Government Offices.

Page 80
22 Q.

When you were initially hired in August of 1979, it wasn't a Regional Services Centre at that point.

A.

No.

25 Q.

There were moves afoot, I take it, to convert it to a Regional Services Centre?

A.

Well, I wasn't aware of that at the time that I was hired.

44      Lorne Driscoll's evidence on this point appears on Page 57.
 
10 Q.

Now that contract, Mr. Driscoll, is dated August 20, 1979, I believe, is the date at the top.

A.

Yes.

Q.

There's been some suggestion that in fact that contract was not prepared and executed until late 1979 or early 1980?

A.

That contract, this contract was prepared, to my recollection it was prepared and executed during the month of August, 1979. it was prepared some time, my recollection it would have been prepared some time after, after August 1st of 1979.  Certainly, executed by August 20.

Q.

You're disagreeing then with the witnesses that said it was, they believed it was executed later.

A.

Yes.  It's not my understanding.

Q.

My understanding and I think I stand to be corrected, but I understand that Lloyd Lawless was hired, approximately, August 20, 1979.  Do you know?

A.

I think that it was, it was in August of 1979.  I'm not sure of the exact date.  I recall that there was a question of, previously of, of whether Mr. Lawless was employed before the contract was executed.  Our records show that he was not.

Q.

That he was employed before the contract was executed.

A.

Yes.

45      Hon.  Lloyd G. MacPhail said:
 
Page 97
10 Q.

So when you took over the Department of Development then, had. the move to transfer the Summerside Office into the Department of Development already commenced?

A.

Well, I think as mentioned earlier in a budgetary way it had not yet happened and I understand that some discussion had taken place though prior to that.

16 Q.

And would you have been party to the decision to commence the transfer or would that have been?

A.

I think the decision making started before my time but it actually took place on July 3 -- no sorry, I believe I have the figures somewhere -- I'm afraid I do not have the exact date that it took place.  In a budgetary was it took place about August 2.

22 Q.

That was when the actual, for financial purposes, the transaction affected?

A.

Yes.  The reason for the lateness was the fact that the government changed on May 3 and the Legislature had not yet met and the budget had not been presented or approved until August 1 or August 2.

26 Q.

In the financial transfer then was in, or about August of 1979 had there been an actual transfer of responsibility before them, other than the financial?

A.

The three other, or the three Regional Services Centres, Souris, Montague and O'Leary were already there.  I believe though that the Summerside Office was still in Executive Council.

Page 98
25 Q.

Did you have any involvement in the dismissal of Bud Craig?

A.

No, I did not.

Page 100
15 Q.

Well, as Minister of Finance, was there any discussion within that ministry regarding the transfer and, perhaps any financial aspects of it that you recall?

A.

Well, I was only Minister of Finance since May 3 of that year, and of course the new budget, which was presented and passed, I believe had the appropriations with Development for the office.

20 Q.

Okay.  So, what in effect you are saying then is that the Summerside Government Office was transferred from Executive to the Department of Development and you were not aware of it until the actual transfer was completed approximately the beginning of August, 1979?

A.

Well, that's when I felt I had responsibility for it, because that's when it seemed to happen.

46      Some evidence of certain witnesses has been quoted in detail.  This is because certain people were more closely connected with the subject matter by the Board of Inquiry.  Other witnesses gave evidence of a more peripheral relation to the subject matter.  Their evidence was also closely reviewed.  Some of these people are as follows:

47      Paul Mullin was Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, during its investigation of Mr. Craig's complaint, he had questioned one individual.  His evidence did not deal with the primary question as to whether Mr. Craig was discriminated against or not.

48      Rev.  William MacDougall first elected as member for 4th Prince in 1978.  At Page 7, Line 25, he indicated that, as far as he knew, the reason for closing the Summerside Office was based on what he perceived to be lack of worthwhile work being done there, what he indicated he felt the office was a waste of money.  At Page 9, Line 16, Mr. MacDougall says "I answered every question regarding Mr. Craig's political affiliation and his removal from that position.  I had no political motive to remove him from that position.  I couldn't care less."

49      Dougie Arsenault's evidence is not very helpful on the main question.  He had been in the Progressive Conservative party and was subpoenaed at the request of Mr. MacEwen.

      Volume 3, Page 22
 
19 Q.

Are you saying that you told him nothing else?

A.

Not concerning anything to do with his losing his job.

Q.

Why did you want Mr. Craig removed from his position?

A.

I, very much like Mr. MacDougall, for one reason, didn't feel that the office was doing a good job in Summerside.

Q.

Did you perceive Mr. Craig to be a supporter of a Political Party?

A.

To answer that, Mr. McEwen, I would have to say as much as I suggest that you are a Liberal, I will suspect that he is a Liberal.

50     Charles Hogan
 
Page 25
14 A.

What I recall or my impression is that Mr. Craig came into my office one day and started to talk about his position and he asked me if I could do anything to help him.

Thomas Klewin

51      Mr. Klewin was at that time and is the Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission.  He did most of the interviews during the Commission's investigation into Mr. Craig's complaint.

Beatrice Elsie Mair

52      She was an investigator for the Human Rights Commission.  Her evidence related to her involvement in the investigation of Mr. Craig's complaint.  A ruling had been made when Mr. Klewin was giving evidence to the effect that the contents of the interviews by the Inquiry of the Human Rights Commission was inadmissable.  This same ruling applied to this witness.

Mr.  Earl Kennedy

53      Mr. Kennedy was a former clerk of the Executive Council.  He raised the question of executive privilege. There was considerable controversy and debate over this question by Council.  He gave no evidence on the main question.

Andrew Bruce Wells

54      Mr. Wells was appointed Secretary to the Executive Council on the 9th of September, 1970, and remained there until the 18th of August, 1971, when he was appointed Secretary to the Council of Maritime Premiers.  On April 19, 1972, he was appointed principal Secretary to the Premier and as such attended Executive Council Meetings.  He also referred to the Executive privilege, which had been ruled upon, in relation to the evidence of two previous witnesses.  His evidence also does not deal with the main question.

Elizabeth Webster

55      She was secretary at the Summerside Government Office from 1970 to 1973.

56      Mrs. Webster worked for Bob Schurman during the 1970 election and then cam to the Government Office in Summerside.  At Page 75, Line 17, she says Mr. Craig was office manager and that Premier Alex Campbell used the office one morning each week and at Page 77, Line 28, she said, "I had no idea at all what Mr. Craig's political beliefs were."

Lillian D.J. Coughlin

57      She succeeded Mrs. Webster in the Summerside Government Office on May 28, 1973.  At Page 78, Line 25, she says "I was working for the Executive Council." At Page 80, Line 26, she said, "Mr.  Craig was office manager.  When people wanted appointments with the premier, he would discuss it with them, why they wanted to see him and he would actually set up appointments." Page 84, Line 15, "After Mr. Craig left and before Mr. Lawless came, I ran the office to the best of my ability while there was a lapse of management.  And if I had any problems that I couldn't handle, I usually asked George McMahon."

58      Page 90, Line 35.  Mrs. Coughlin states that Premier Bennett Campbell never used the office in Summerside.

59     Joseph G. Leonce Bernard
 
Page 92
15

Was first elected in 1975 for 3rd District of Prince.

Page 94
32

Don't think Premier Bennett Campbell used the office at Summerside.

60     

There are marked distinctions between the conduct of an investigation by the Human Rights Commission and this public Inquiry conducted as required by Section 25 of the Human Rights Act.
 
(1)

This Inquiry is not in the nature of an appeal from any finding by the Human Rights Commission.  While the hearing by the Board of Inquiry is held under Section 24 of the Human Rights Act, the Public Inquiries Act provides the powers of the Board of Inquiry.  Evidence, here, is taken under oath, whereas the interviews conducted by the Human Rights Commission personnel were of a much more informal nature.

(2)

An important witness, former Premier Angus MacLean, was not interviewed by the Commission employees during its investigation.  This oversight, in view of his evidence, may very well have made a difference in the finding of the Human Rights Commission.

(3)

Section 25(3) of the Human Rights Act provided that if a complaint is supported by a reasonable preponderance of evidence the Board shall report its recommendation on the course to be taken with respect of the complaint. Preponderance is defined as "the fact of exceeding in weight; greater heaviness; superiority or excess in moral weight, power, influence, or compliance;" the conclusion is substantially the most probable of the possible views of the facts.

(4)

There seems to be numerous and substantial discrepancies between the evidence given in the interviews or the conclusions drawn there from and the sworn evidence given before this Board.  The sworn statements do not support the conclusions, reached by the Human Rights Commission.

(5)

The Human Rights Commission, from its investigation, drew the erroneous conclusion that an Executive Council Order was made on March 31, 1979. transferring the Summerside Government Office from Executive Council to the Department of Development.  No such Order was ever made.  The existence of such an Order was not substantiated after exhaustive searches, however, Mr. Connor, the former Deputy Minister, mentioned such an Order in his interview with Mr. Klewin while the Human Rights Commission was conducting its investigation.  Mr. Connor's sworn evidence before this Board of Inquiry, is different.

61     

There are several paramount areas which assist in determining the question for a report by the Board.
 
(a)

The employment of Mr. Craig in the Government as an unclassified Civil Servant whose pay was incorporated in Premier Alex Campbell's appropriation as part of funds for the Executive Council and particularly for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, for the expenses of Premier Campbell's Summerside Office.

(b)

The termination of Mr. Craig's employment by Hon. Angus MacLean with excerpts from his evidence.

(c)

The distinction between Mr. Craig's duties in the Premier's office and the erroneous claim that he was within the Department of Development, (see excerpts from evidence of Lorne Driscoll, Premier Bennett Campbell, Thomas Connor), and especially, the fictitious Order upon which the Commission placed so much credence.

(d)

The attempt to establish the replacement of Mr. Craig by Lloyd Lawless a perceived friend of the new Conservative Government.  Mr. Craig's services were terminated on June 20, 1979.  Mr. Lawless was hired on the 20th of August, 1979.

(e)

The Human Rights Commission was apparently influenced by the mistaken assumption that Mr. Craig had been transferred from his employing authority, i.e. from the office of the Premier to the Department of Development.  The evidence which appears on the record, shows that this was not the case.  Refer to the evidence of Hon.  Alex Campbell already quoted:

Page 90

13   But his status as a temporary employee did not change throughout his employment.

62     From the evidence of Douglas Boylan:
 
Page 19

28   Mr. Craig was hired by the employing authority for the Executive Council, the President of the Executive.

Page 20

8 Q.

Who was that?

A.

Mr. Alex Campbell.

Page 21
16 A.

He was paid during the first office and subsequently and after that office having been established there was a specific heading created in the budget called the "Summerside Government Office," the money was appropriated to the Executive Council.

CONCLUSION

63      In pursuance of Section 25 of the Human Rights Act, the Board of Inquiry has conducted a public inquiry into the matter referred to it by the Minister of Justice; it has given full opportunity to all parties to present evidence and made representations before it.  No settlement has been made between the parties although an opportunity for such a settlement has been given.

64      When a settlement is not reached, the next step is to make a finding on the complaint.  The Act provides that if the complaint is supported by a reasonable preponderance of evidence by a Board of Inquiry, it shall report its recommendation to the Commission on the course that ought to be taken with respect to the complaint.  I find that the complaint is not supported by a reasonable preponderance of the sworn evidence.  The facts are that there is a preponderance of evidence against the support of the complaint.

65      While the Board of Inquiry does not find that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, it does appear to the Board of Inquiry that the Commission was misled by some of the unsworn and uncorroborated information received during its investigation.  In addition to this, there appears a perception that since Mr. Craig was a Liberal, he was dismissed by the new Conservative Government, because he was a Liberal, the evidence rebuts this perception..

66      The finding, therefore, of the Board of Inquiry is:
 
(a)

Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, on account of its meaningless definition, it does not create an offence in respect to the complaint of Mr. Craig.

(b)

In the alternative, if this finding in (a) does not dispose of this matter, the evidence, taken by the Board of Inquiry, is preponderantly against the support of the finding of the Human Rights Commission in respect of discrimination against the complainant because of political belief as defined by Section 13 of the Act and in respect of any other form of political belief of any kind.

(c)

The Board of Inquiry recommends that nothing further be done by the Human Rights Commission.

back to top