Les resignation raises more questions for Liberals

The resignation of John Les and the revelation that he's been under police investigation since last June could add to the Liberals' headaches.
Les did the right thing, resigning as soon as he learned that the RCMP is looking into possible wrongdoing when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the late 1990s.
And, it's critical to note, just because the RCMP is investigating doesn't mean Les did anything wrong
But after dealing with the Dobell affair, and with the BC Rail corruption scandal still hanging over their heads, this is not good news for the Liberals.
And 48 hours after the surprise announcement at 5:30 p.m. on Friday - a favourite time to release bad news - the government still hasn't answered some important questions.
Worse, that task will likely fall to Attorney General Wally Oppal, whose mediocre performance in such situations keeps government communications types braced for a train wreck.
The first questions will be about why Les was able to keep his job as the province's top law enforcement officials for the last nine months.
The man responsible for policing - including, at least nominally, the RCMP - was under investigation by the force.
Les says he didn't know about the investigation until Friday, so he couldn't resign. Premier Gordon Campbell said Saturday he wasn't told about it, so he couldn't ask Les to resign.
So who did know? Specifically, did Oppal know? And was it the right decision by the assistant deputy attorney general to keep the investigation secret? That's who gets to make that decision.
The special prosecutor system was introduced by the Socred government in 1991. It was intended to reduce the risk of real or apparent political interference in police investigations that involved government.
If government lawyers were placed in charge of reviewing the evidence and deciding on charges in such cases, then they might fear career repercussions or feel other pressures.
So if a case involves a politician or government, the assistant deputy attorney general has the option of handing responsibility to an outside lawyer.
The ministry and the Law Society of B.C. collaborate on a standing list of lawyers to handle the assignments; the assistant deputy attorney general appoints one from the list.
It's a good framework.
But this case, along with the BC Rail investigation, raises questions about how well it's working.
The biggest problem in the Les case is the secrecy. If it was appropriate that he resign once the investigation was made public, why was it not appropriate that he resign when it began?
The government's Criminal Justice Branch says its "general practice" is to keep the appointment of a special prosecutor secret unless the public finds out about it somehow.
But the report that led to the creation of the process didn't call for that level of secrecy.
It suggested that the appointment of a special prosecutor be withheld from the public only when the information's release might undermine the investigation. That's not the approach the government is apparently taking.
The other questions will be about whether Oppal knew about the investigation and the special prosecutor.
The original recommendations suggested the attorney general could be kept aware of the progress of significant cases. Did Oppal know about this one? Did he consider whether the premier should be told, or Les should step down?
And would the public ever have found about the investigation at all if a CBC reporter hadn't forced the government's hand?
The Liberals will likely revert to the same kind of stonewalling they've used, with some success, in dealing with the Dobell case and the BC Rail scandal.
And they will point out, quite rightly, that everyone needs to remember that Les is innocent at this point. He says he's confident he'll be cleared.
But another cloud is hanging over the government.
Footnote: The original policy called for "senior criminal lawyers in private practice" to be appointed special prosecutors. But in the B.C. Rail case and now in this one, the ministry has picked lawyers who, while highly regarded, are not known for criminal work. Given the massive problems in the B.C. Rail case, this raises questions about why the change was made.