SECRET
against the CP. How, one might wonder are these questions
relevant to paragraphs (c) or (d) or (e) of the terms of reference?
The Commission's Counsel would say that they may be relevant in that they may show that there was misconduct by the CP and/or
others in the way that they performed their duties as they
affected MacLennan. The questions have been answered so
that such suspicisons might be allayed and Mr. Beveridge, in
private, gave an indication thathe considers that there was
no "executive conspiracy" against MacLennan. One might
then expect that those matters would not be explored in the
hearings. Present indications are that they will be explored because the Commission calls "negative evidence" to show that that which might have been suspected was not in fact. Thus, the SCS was obliged to give evidence to the effect that although a meeting of senior officials was called a week before MacLennan's death to consider the question of employment of homosexuals in the public service there was in fact no connection
between that meeting and MacLennan a fact which he had
already told the Commission in a lengthy statement.
been a substantial failure to distinguish between the role of investigation outside the hearings and presentation and consideration of evidence inside them. If all questions of relevance are reserved until the conclusion of the proceedings so that anything which could be relevant will be heard then this
is the result. And the view of the Commission is that all
matters should be heard in public session.
There has
Beveridge, QC seems pre-occupied with the
question of possible misconduct by, or homosexuality of senior officials in the Government or Judiciary. He has been reported by the press as saying that the Inquiry "has gone from the gutters to the corridors of Government House".
Allegations (of misconduct or homosexual behaviour)
SECRET