Once again there is a public outcry over taxpayers covering the legal costs of aboriginals in a public inquest. In the case of the death of Brian Sinclair dying during a 34 hour wait in the patient waiting area, the circumstances reflect indifference on the part of staff and a failed system.
The family that represent the deceased prefer a Toronto lawyer. The choice of a lawyer is their right. If they see this as the best representation in a very important inquiry and they have a duty to engage that representation.
But self-righteous commentators once again express their indignation, insisting that right to legal counsel be restricted to Manitoba lawyers, and low-cost ones at that. They balk at the taxpayer addressing the costs as a public inquiry.
It is however strange that similar outrage over costs does not occur when non-aboriginal cases come up. In the case of the Mulroney inquiry reported by CBC the bill was payment by the taxpayer went unchallenged.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/20/mulroney-fees.html
“The Harper Conservatives did not hesitate to pay former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s legal fees,” said Dosanjh. “Taxpayers paid over $2 million to cover Mr. Mulroney’s legal costs at the inquiry into his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.”
The same was true of Jean Pelletier in the Gomery inquiry. Richard Colvin in the Afghan whistleblower inquiry was also covered for legal fees but since he was testifying against the government, he was initially refused.
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2010/01/27/12636886.html
People have also complained that taxpayers should not be on the hook for travel and accommodation for Toronto lawyers. In this case the assumption that such costs would be covered is wrong. In fact, in Provincial Court Judge Ray Wyant’s ruling he specifically stated that if the family hired a lawyer from Toronto then meals, accommodation, and travel expenses would not be paid.
Judge Wyant’s decision to pay a higher fee rate than offered was based on a better knowledge and authority of the legal circumstances than the layman posses and in no way represents a blank cheque for the family. In fact the decision is non-binding and it still remains up to the province and the Winnipeg Regional Hospital Authority to follow the decision. However in not doing so, they would run the risk of accusations of not allowing for a full and balanced inquiry. The family is not pocketing the money for needed legal fees; they simply want a fair inquiry.
What is mostly troubling about this case is that critics are jumping the gun and twisting it into an issue of race. They also accuse the family of not being there while he was in the waiting room but are the ones coming forward in demanding justice. Brian Sinclair was homeless and disabled. Whatever circumstances that led to his homelessness was in part likely Sinclair’s choice. If the family wasn’t there in the waiting room with him, it was likely because they didn’t know, and not necessarily that they didn’t care. The hospital and staff however did know he was there. It was their professional responsibility to attend to him and they didn’t. It is up to his family to ensure that his death is investigated fully and properly and not in a cut-rate fashion.
In the end, the case is a public issue. It could have been anyone in the waiting room and the homeless and indigent are the most vulnerable to being overlooked as was Brian Sinclair in this case. Because of this they are most in need of public advocacy and protection.
Leave a Reply
