The Honourable Justice Macaulay's ruling about ministerial responsibility for the Provincial Health Services Authority applies equally well to the Regional Authorities established by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In his 2003 decision Justice Macaulay wrote "In my view, the Minister has not delegated any of his duties. The functions of the PHSA are administrative and advisory. The Minister remains legally and politically responsible." (emphasis added)

Speaking on the Rafe Mair show on March 1st, Premier Campbell spoke about regional health authorities in general, and the Interim Authority for Community Living in particular, when he argued that the government should let them make as many decisions as possible. He attempted to explain why it was credible for him not to know that an undischarged bankrupt was made Acting CEO of the Interim Authority. The previous week his government introduced legislation to replace existing consumer protection with a scheme to be regulated by an "arms length" board. Section 8 of the Bill states that an undischarged bankrupt is not qualified to be a director of the Consumer Protection Authority. It does not seem credible that the government would introduce a legislative requirement that an Authority cannot have an undischarged bankrupt as a director, yet allow such a person to become CEO of an agency that was to have responsibility for spending more than $500 million per year of provincial tax money.

"Plausible deniability" is a doctrine used by politicians to escape accountability. According to Wikipedia, a free Internet encyclopedia, the doctrine was developed in the U.S. in the 1950s to protect CIA operations. It came into disrepute when it failed to protect Nixon during Watergate. Some argue that it is the fundamental gospel of all politicians; some might even suggest it is being applied today in the sponsorship scandal. The idea is simple. According to right wing U.S. radio host Brent Johnson, "you can do anything you want, legal or illegal, if you only preserve the plausible appearance that you didn't know what you were doing. Never admit any wrongdoing, do not answer questions directly or clearly, always speak with a certain degree of obscurity or ambiguity so that at a later time you can revise what you said or did."

An alternative to speaking with a degree of obscurity is to speak with a certainty that is not in direct response to what is asked. Campbell said to Mair "I don't hire the chief executive officers of health authorities." Of course not, but does the Premier or his staff have veto power over the hiring? With respect to Doug Walls, Campbell said "Does being involved in a bankruptcy disqualify you? That's a good question to ask." Campbell didn't answer his hypothetical question, but it is the wrong question. The issue is not whether one is "involved in a bankruptcy" it is whether an undischarged bankrupt is a suitable candidate.

Each member of the public will have to determine for themselves whether Campbell's answers are credible. He professes ignorance. Just because a politician appears to seek refuge in the doctrine of plausible deniability, doesn't mean that the politician really didn't know what was going on. That is why some ask, "if he didn't know, should he have known?"