The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

page 20 â€" Deadly Payâ€"Off? Most Canadians were shocked to dis- cover that the RCMP had paid a lot of money to Clifford Olson in exchange for information leading to the dis- covery of the bodies of ten Children in British Columbia. The whole episode is viewed by the public as being offensive and immoral. It is easy to understand why paying a murderer $100,000.00 to pinpoint the bodies is considered immoral, based on the promise that one should not be rewarded for doing "wrong" or for committing a crime. Canadians should, as well, consider what the practical legal and political ramifications of the money-forâ€"bodies exchange might be. The law of evidence could certainâ€" ly be affected by this kind of practice if it is more than just the one time event various attorneys general are claiming it is. In the Olson case the accused was paid to provide evidence which would ensure a conviction. If another pay-off by police takes place in the future, can we be sure that the evidence provided in return will be true? The Olson situation may also extend the ambit of what is considered to be "legally obtained evidence" and will give police more discretion and, therefore, power than the already considerable poaers they now enjoy. My major concern about what comes out of the Olson incident is this: apparently the RCMP did not inform Federal Solicitorâ€"General, Robert Kaplan, of the payâ€"off until almost one month after it took place and, even then, he only found out inadvertâ€" ently. The RCMP fall under the authority of the federal solicitorâ€" general, who should have been consulted before an unorthodox and, unprecedented decision was made to pay an accused for evidence. It is particularly ironic that the da/ after the payment was made the Mcâ€" Donald Royal Commission on RCMP activities made its report which included strong criticisms of RCMP practices and of the RCMP's lack of candor in dealing with those who, constitutionally, have jurisdiction over them. The RCMP concealment of the payâ€"off has become more confused because the attorney general’s department in British Columbia, Mr. Kaplan's office, and the RCMP all have a different story as to who was informed and when. Someone is not telling the truth. Further complications arise from The British North America Act, which is still the major component of our Constitution. Although the federal solicitor-general is supposed to be responsible for the administration of the RCMPand the criminal law. Generally, the provincial attorney general's department is responsible for the administration of justice in the province. I have a feeling that the principle actors involved in the Olson scheme will somehow manage to hide behind this complication. Portland Office Services Limited PORTLAND, ONTARIO KOG 1V0 BOX 70 Phone 2722439 1’. K. SCOVIL, President Should that happen, the case for adoption of the Charter of Rights in our soonâ€"to-be patriated constitution will be stronger, particularly in view of the fact that police are claiming that the Charter will limit their powers. If the police, the RCMP in particular, are acting independently or without reporting to the federal solicitor general, who, by law, is to preside over them, and, if they have done all, or even some, of the things the McDonald Commission concluded they did, the restrictions on their powers will be welcome. â€"Jane Monaghan 1981 BOMBARDIER "Trademarks oi Bombardier Inc. Everest® 51 mm THE LEGAL POINT OF VIEW I You won’t see ‘ savings like this again. So hurry on down while our supplies last! Suggested Retail Price BROWN’S MARINA} Chaffey’s Lock, Ontario KOG 1C0 Phone (613) 359-5466 *Prices are effective trom January 15 through March 31, 1982 or while quantities last.