The Legislature Raids

.
The Hidden News
Fridays 9 am
CFUV 101.9 FM in Victoria
Online http://cfuv.uvic.ca and on cable 104.3

Host Mehdi Najari will talk to Robin Mathews about B.C. Rail scandalous sale and the court case ...

References:

B.C. Rail, Gordon Campbell's Watergate and NDP silence

The Legislature Raids
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/

Politics (And Betrayal?) In The High Courts Of British Columbia
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930641-politics-and-betrayal--in-the-high-courts-of-british-columbia

Cracks Widen In The Supreme Court Of B.C. Legal Breakdown Threatens
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930561-cracks-widen-in-the-supreme-court-of-b-c-legal-breakdown-threatens

A Letter To Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, BC Supreme Court
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930534-a-letter-to-madam-justice-elizabeth-bennett-bc-supreme-court

Basi-Virk: Judge orders e-mails of 15 MLAs be disclosed to defence
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Basi+Virk+case+Judge+order+mails+MLAs+disclosed+defence/1747663/story.html

Vanished e-mails undermine trial
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/Vanished+mails+undermine+trial/1730689/story.html

Judge on BC Rail corruption case orders disclosure of MLA emails
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iOWWhp5T4A0EDQrGlbNbHDjbKY9w

Campbell's Own Watergate?
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/06/30/CampbellWatergate/

Public taken for a 40km, $1.2m gravy train ride
http://www.theprovince.com/Business/Public+taken+40km+gravy+train+ride/1761310/story.html

Campbell's British Columbia: Superunbelievable, among the lyingest places on earth
http://saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=19386

The key to the BC Rail sale lies in Premier Gordon Campbells beginnings in real estate and land development.
http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/the-key-to-the-bc-rail-sale-lays-in-premier-gordon-campbells-beginnings-in-real-estate-and-land-development/

Source of insider BC Rail leak from cabinet questioned in court
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Source+insider+Rail+leak+from+cabinet+questioned+court/1733085/story.html

Basi-Virk - may be "no explanation" for missing emails & more on possible cabinet leak to Erik Bornmann
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009/06/basi-virk-may-be-no-explanation-for.html

The Legislature "Raids" in B.C. Latest Developments: Smelling Rats
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/print/183732539

Delete button wipes out 'transparency' in government
http://www.theprovince.com/Delete+button+wipes+transparency+government/1729939/story.html

Fuss over B.C. Rail contract puts a spotlight on Kinsella
http://www.timescolonist.com/Veteran+Liberal+organizer+Kinsella+scrutinized+over+Rail+contract/1393960/story.html

Sale of B.C. Rail a tale that needs to be told
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:b4uzTB-whJAJ:www.theprovince.com/Sale%2BRail%2Btale%2Bthat%2Bneeds%2Btold/1372603/story.html+sale+of+b.c.+rail+a+tale+that+needs+to+be+told&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Railgate: The Kinsella Connection
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/27/KinsellaRailgate/

Railgate Bombshell: BC Gov't Ethics Scorched by Rail Firms
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/03/BCRail/

Railgate: Unearthed E-mails 'Out of this World' Says Defence
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/11/26/Railgate/

Railgate: Secret Witnesses?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/11/19/Railgate/

Tieleman Hit by Break-In
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/12/04/TielmanBreakIn/

Judge in Basi-Virk Case Rips RCMP, Special Prosecutor
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/06/05/Disclosure/

Corrupt Cabinet. Corrupt RCMP.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/print/095454777

Mayor was 'paid' to back BC Rail bid
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=18532

Happy Holidays Indeed for CN Boss
http://sevenoaksmag.com/features/45_feat2.html

===================================================
CanWest reports losses on charges
Making headway on financial restructuring
July 10, 2009
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canwest+reports+loss+charges/1778122/story.html

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.
While searching for something else, I came across this YouTube tribute to BC Rail by Double Ditch Light Productions. Title: BC Rail - Full 'DB' all the way down some spectacular country and into Lillooet. I got thinking that B.C. didn't just own some off-the-shelf kinky-poo trolly, heck no, BC Rail was one of the big ones -- biggest regional railway in Canada -- and maybe the smartest too ... because B.C. built that railway. Just watch how they handled that load and those grades ...

Find it HERE. Allow extra time for the video to load.

Or go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfsvDQnk7hY&feature=channel


Meantime ... I found the news video I was searching for of the 33-year BCRail trainman who stopped his locomotive at a West Vancouver intersection, climbed down, and walked across to speak to Carole James whose election campaign van was parked there. I like how the two of them stood there by the side of the road, unattended, and talked about BC Rail. "It's not working out," said the trainman. "That was our railway," said the Opposition leader. "Good luck to you," said the trainman as they shook hands. In the background, a BCR diesel stands.

I love that scene.

Nobody has made "Carole and the Trainman" into a handy YouTube yet, but there are glimpses embedded and preserved in this CTV page for April 15, 2009 illustrating their news item: NDP promises inquiry into BCRail scandal. Allow extra time for it to load. - BC Mary.

And remember July 14, 2009.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.

... excerpted from a Canadian Transportation Act (CTA) Review Panel's report dated 23 February 2001. That date is important. British Columbia had an NDP government. The premier was a soon-to-be-Liberal by the name of Ujjal Dosanjh.

The CTA Review Panel had been asked (by whom, it doesn't say) to assess rail competition in Canada, especially the running rights and "other forms of access remedies."

The report says that these rights are significant for British Columbia because the Province owned the largest regional railway in Canada, BC Rail. As such, BC Rail was a strategic resource for the province.

BC Rail was Canada's 3rd largest railroad by revenues, operating 2,315 kilometers of mainline track and 740 kilometers of industrial and yard track throughout B.C. In addition, BCR had a 37 kilometer line connecting CN, CP, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) to the West Coast's largest coal terminal and Deltaport container terminal at Roberts Bank.

BC Rail was provincially regulated and competed fully within the private sector in a market environment without government subsidy.

Freight traffic involved 200,000 revenue carloads annually from over 200 customer facilities. In 1999, forestry, mining, energy, and agricultural products made up 80% of the $329 Million annual revenue.

The overwhelming percentage of BCRail tonnage was transported beyond BC's borders. 40% of BC Rail shipments were forwarded to other North American railroads. By contrast, loaded rail cars forwarded to BCR by other railroads accounted for only 2% -- an imbalance which results in an inordinate number of train miles without revenue loads.

BCR's only direct rail link was with CN at Prince George and Vancouver. CP and BNSF were accessed through CN in North Vancouver. Big railroads threaten regional ones.

Recommendations of the C.T.A.:

1) Negotiate Competitive Access over major rail lines, e.g., Prince George to Edmonton, using haulage rights, not running rights.

2) Provide access to final arbitration on disputes such as tariffs.

3) Regulatory oversight for major mergers, i.e., must prove it's in the public interest.

Nowhere did it suggest selling BC Rail.

The Gordon Campbell government was installed 3 months later after the election of May 17, 2001.



From: Canadian Transportation Act Review Panel "On Competitive Rail Access, BC Rail -- 6 October 2000". That's before the election of the Campbell Government whose election promise was that they would not sell BC Rail. - BC Mary.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.

The respected Eastern newsmen misunderstand this Western issue. Or ... maybe that "pave the way" comment was intended as a tongue-in-cheek pun? Because no, this is not a joyful matter of First Nations stepping into commercial bliss. Giving up their protected lands is simply another tragic step in Gordo's real estate dreams for "development".

The same cruel process was used to give the Tsawwassen First Nation the right to sell their protected land for the Deltaport expansion. [ See also BCRail port lands, most cruel hoax posted here on Dec. 10, 2006.]

Today's report on the Nisga'a is particularly rich with weasel words making any transfer of First Nations land rights sound wonderful. But it's also evasive and deceptive.

No effort to protect B.C. land is safe from developers' attacks, not the Agricultural Land Reserve, not the Land Conservancy. That's what commercial bliss is all about. We know that. So nobody should celebrate such a concept among the First Nations landholders, except the developers and perhaps the unwitting Eastern newsmen who were undoubtedly assisted in this report by Gordo's powerful Public Affairs Bureau. - BC Mary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE NISGA'A PAVE THE WAY

Joseph Quesnel
The Globe and Mail - July 8, 2009


Engaging in commercial activity doesn't make someone less indigenous [Cute. Evasive. The straw man ploy. - BC Mary]


A historic conversation is occurring on a section of “Indian country” [huh?] in northwestern British Columbia. First nations people of the Nisga'a territory are evaluating legislation that may soon allow individual Nisga'a to own private land they can transfer to whomever they wish, Nisga'a or non-Nisga'a.

The Nisga'a Landholding Transition Act provides individual Nisga'a landowners with rights to hold land in fully transferable “fee simple.” Residential properties will be registered and protected in the Nisga'a Land Title Office. What is remarkable is this proposal calls for real property rights, meaning land that can be transferred to whomever one chooses. After all, if the owner cannot transfer the land to anyone, the right is not meaningful.

The Nisga'a government recently held information meetings to gather feedback on these proposals and because, usually, most on-reserve first nations do not own their own land. Under the federal Indian Act, title to reserve lands is held by the Crown but held in trust by Indian band councils.

On reserves, title is provided to individuals through certificates of possession distributed through the band council. But these certificates are only transferable to other band members and exist at the whim of political leaders.

This would be different as Nisga'a are not under the Indian Act. Almost a decade ago, they passed a modern treaty that exempted them from the Indian Act and placed ownership of Nisga'a land with Nisga'a Village governments.

Now, this same government proposes to allow individuals to claim residential plots of their own land. [Awww. Isn't that sweet?] Granted, it is a small step, as the individual plots can be no more than 0.2 hectares (about half an acre). But this will allow for wealth creation and economic development on Nisga'a territory.

Wealth creation and poverty reduction are intimately connected to the institution of private property. Nobel-winning Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, in his landmark The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, explained how poor people in developing countries were literally sitting on their ticket out of poverty. They possessed real estate, chattel and businesses. But governments did not provide them with formal ownership rights over these assets. Without formal ownership, poor people could not place their own land as collateral for business loans.

To grant individual property rights to Nisga'a residents will allow Nisga'a to leverage this land to secure credit and start businesses. Fee simple ownership will allow a Nisga'a landowner to leverage their own land for a mortgage or another loan from a bank or other financial institution. They will also be able to lease the land to anyone and build equity in their homes.

These are rights Canadians take for granted, so the landmark nature of this debate escapes much of society. What is historic is the possibility that indigenous peoples could overcome the traditional naysayers within their own communities; private property and even commercial activity are still taboo in parts of first nations societies.

The dragon to be slain is the notion that engaging in commercial activity will somehow make someone less indigenous. This idea is silly. It presumes indigenous people have never engaged in commercial activity when most of their history is based on sophisticated trade networks.

Besides, it is erroneous to assume that business robs one of indigenous identity. Other minority groups in Canada, such as Jewish and Japanese communities, retain vibrant cultures and are fully integrated into the market economy. As indigenous writer Calvin Helin said, “there is no culture to be had in poverty.”

Another dragon to be fought is the idea that private property or individual accumulation is not for aboriginal Canadians.

“It is good for others, but not for us,” contend some leaders. For instance, scholars such as Gerald Taiaiake Alfred rail against development on indigenous lands and argue that capitalism is “colonialist” while they offer no alternative to first nations poverty. This idea presumes indigenous culture cannot change or that identity must be connected to communal ownership. But it ignores the successes of off-reserve Indians or New Zealand's Maori, who have no reserves and still maintain strong cultural identity.

The debate in the Nisga'a territory is one that ought to occur on first nations territories everywhere. It occurs on Nisga'a land because they have signed a treaty that grants property to their indigenous governments, not the Crown. Thus, they can grant that land to individuals as they choose.

Indigenous Canadians need a way to bring Indian Act bands and other indigenous communities into a system where land can be easily transferred to individual first nations. The First Nation Land Management Act, enacted in 1999, allows first nations to develop land codes over their own land but has limits on land transfer and is onerous to adopt.

The federal government must develop a more robust means to transfer land to first nations. Then a real revolution for all indigenous people can occur.

Joseph Quesnel is a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
_________________________________________________

[Google "Frontier Centre for Public Policy" and you find it headquartered in Winnipeg, focused on Manitoba and Saskatchewan issues. I wonder how much they actually know about Gordon Campbell and his B.C. regime. - BC Mary.]

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.
A message from Peter Dimitrov:

I believe we may be looking at the sale of the 40 km BC rail line to Roberts Bank to CN Railway...on this July 14/09 BCR/CN Option purchase deal. [This would mean "sale" in terms of the $1. selling price to CN, as we understand things. - BC Mary.]

As owners of that valuable spur line from BC Rail we normally collect interchange fees (that's when a non-owner uses BC Rail track to deliver goods or switches rail cars to another rail road).

Is it true that upon the July 14/09 deal going through, British Columbia and members of the public will lose the revenue generated by the spur line to Point Roberts. If so, is it not true that we will have lose approximately $400 million per year which BC Rail generates after overhead, for our General Revenue in British Columbia.

This "forever" loss of of a valuable rail line asset plus the annual interchange revenue....would be a significant loss to the Public Treasury, losses that reduce the capacity of government to respond to needs in other sectors. Sold for fireside sale prices!!

It is irrational shortsighted policy made to advance private interests and not the greater public interest of the province!

Peter Dimitrov

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Suggestion: Use telephone Enquiry BC (it's free) which provides phone, fax, e.mail, and mail addresses; and will usually connect a caller to the desired number.

Phone Leonard Krog (250) 714-0630
Phone your MLA
Phone the premier's office:
Vancouver number: (604) 775-1600
Victoria number (250) 387-1715
or visit http://www.gov.bc.ca

Then:
Phone the media.

If nobody calls, "they" think nobody cares.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Another secret railway agreement re-surfaces on August 29, 2009:

RAIL REALITY GROWS WITH HYDRO'S REVELATION.
Brian Lewis
The Province - July 7, 2009.

Recommended.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And this comment from "Leah", I respectfully post with thanks, adding that "it's never over until the people say it's over" ... OK? - BC Mary.


Leah has left a new comment on your post "BCRail - is Roberts Bank spur line a gift to CN on...":

This is why there will be no injunction...from the BC Rail Transaction Agreement:

ARTICLE 5
CONDITIONS OF CLOSING
5.1 Mutual Conditions

The obligation of the Vendors to complete the sale of the Purchased Interests contemplated by this Agreement and of the Purchaser to complete the purchase of the Purchased Interests as contemplated by this Agreement is subject to fulfillment of the conditions on or before the Closing Date:

(a) No Order or Proceedings: No injunction, declaration, restraining order or judgement of a court or administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction will be in effect which, directly or indirectly, restricts or prohibits the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and no action or proceeding will have been instituted and remain pending before any such court or administrative tribunal to restrict or prohibit any of tthe transactions contemplated hereby.

(f) Legislation: The Legislature of the Province shall have passed such amendments to the British Columbia Railway Act, and any other applicable laws which may be required to authorize and permit the consummation of the transaction contemplated in this Agreement and the other documents to be executed and delivered pursuant hereto.

Now can we look at conflict of interest or better yet...treason? This is UN-real.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
So ... Gordo knew the people wouldn't like it and might resist. Or CN knew. Or Patrick Kinsella knew. Hence the secrecy. No matter. It's never over until the people say it's over ... and I, for one, don't think it's over.

For example, which agreement is "The Agreement"? Is it the BCRailway Revitalization Agreement? Is it the BC Rail Privatization Agreement? Is it the BC Rail Transaction Agreement? Is it the BCRail Investment Partnership Agreement? Is it the BCRailway Revitalization (Amendment) Act? Is it the BC Rail Revitalization Agreement and Lease? Is it the BC Rail Privatization Consent Agreement? Is it the Realization Agreement? ... or ...

or ... is it anything CN wants, anytime they want it, as in: "the British Columbia Railway Act, and any other applicable laws which may be required to authorize and permit the consummation of the transaction contemplated in this Agreement".

How many agreements are there, and which one(s) take precedence? Secrecy plus confusion.

-BC Mary.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Gary E's blog, How Bad Is The Record, has some of the legal documents posted, with descriptions of BC Rail lands:

Labels: in Vancouver (604) 775-1600

.

I'd like to present the following postings exactly as received, because they illustrate the wonderful contributions made to this web-site by others who are concerned for British Columbia. The Hansard finding is the work of Lynx. At the end, is an outstanding comment about the 990 year contract. Special thanks to Lynx (on the West Coast) and to Skookum1 (on the East Coast). And yes, it looks as if the blog problems may have cleared up. - BC Mary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Mary,

Hope your blog problems are solved soon.

I found two other references in hansard where Joy is questioning why the public has not been allowed access to the details of the deal.

The first is from Monday, April 19, 2004. It's long but has lots of interesting parts that you may want to select from. Here Joy raises a point of privilege about why the public has been kept in the dark about the deal...which Collins tries to arrogantly dismiss. Quite revealing how dismissive he is.


The short piece after that is from April 20, 2004. (scroll way down) It is interesting because of the reference to a professor, Dr. Paul Kedrosky who refers to Falcon's explanation of the deal as "magnificently bizarre". It would be wonderful to contact him about his understanding of the deal. - Lynx.

Hansard
Oral Questions - Monday, April 19, 2004.

TERMS OF B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

J. MacPhail [Leader of the BC Opposition]: The Premier and the minister sold the privatization of B.C. Rail as a 90-year, $1 billion deal where the province retained ownership of the railbed. Now we know it's a 990-year deal worth $750 million that allows the province to sell the railbed and accompanying land to CN for a buck. The Premier and the Minister of Transportation were explicit in claiming the original deal was for 60 years with one 30-year renewal clause — one renewal clause for 30 years, not 15 renewal clauses lasting for another 930 years. Can the Premier tell British Columbians why his government hid these details from the public when the deal to sell B.C. Rail was announced last year?

Hon. K. Falcon [Minister of Transportation]: I guess I shouldn't be surprised, really, that the members opposite and Carole James don't understand the distinction between a lease term and options to renew, but I'm happy to explain it for her. If they check their own NDP office lease, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a five-year lease. I also wouldn't be surprised if it had a couple of options to renew for additional five-year terms. But I want the member to know that that doesn't mean they signed a 15-year lease. They actually signed a five-year lease with options to renew.

That's just what we've done with the CN–B.C. Rail investment partnership. At the 60-year intervals, the government of the day will have a very clear choice. They can decide to continue with the arrangement. They may decide they want to bring in another railway operator, of which they would have that option, or — and I hope this isn't the case — they could even, as government, get back into the railway business. At the end of the day, the issue really comes down to this. What we're not hearing from the Leader….

Okay, I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and there you go.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: When the Premier stood up and announced this deal, he said it was a 90-year deal. That's what he said. He said that 60 years plus an extension made a 90-year deal. The government can't have it both ways, saying that now these extensions mean nothing. Despite the rhetoric, there's a simple explanation for the government's dishonesty. They were worried about the political backlash of a broken promise and chose to hide the real deal from public scrutiny.

On March 30, I asked the Premier to assure British Columbians that there were no — no — renegotiation clauses extending the lease or sale of B.C. Rail beyond the original 90-year agreement. I asked that question specifically. The Minister of Transportation said I was spreading false misinformation. Now we know that even Capt. Jean-Luc Picard and the Starship Enterprise will be gone by the time this deal is up in the year 2995. Can the Premier explain…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. MacPhail: Can the Premier…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: Their disregard with the concern around this matter is shocking.

Can the Premier explain, when asked that question, why his government deliberately kept the B.C. Rail renegotiation clauses a secret — when he was asked point-blank on March 30 if those renegotiation clauses existed? Point blank, and you said I was spreading misinformation.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again I'll say it to the member opposite: you don't understand the distinction in fundamental business principles between a lease term and renewal options. What we really need to know is something that I think is even more significant.

What we need to know is that this member and Carole James want to keep the government in the operation of a railway. The question I have for them is: where are they going to find the billions of dollars to be investing in railway? Where are they going to find the $3.5 billion for track maintenance and rehabilitation over the 90-year term of this lease? Where are they going to find the $135 million for the northern development initiative? Where are they going to find the money to expand Prince George Airport or to create containerization at Prince Rupert? The only place they're going to find it is on the backs of the taxpayers with their $3 billion tax increase they want to put through.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

J. MacPhail: In order to cover up their withholding of information, this minister comes up with new figures just out of the blue. The B.C. Liberals had a choice. They could have been honest. They could have been straightforward about this broken promise and hoped the public would understand based on the spin that the minister's now giving, or they could try the truth, or they could try to spin the deal. They chose to hide the truth. Now, not surprisingly, there's a huge credibility gap.

The minister is trying to draw a comparison to a standard commercial lease for office space that has extension provisions. Fair enough. That's fair enough. But if those extensions were negotiated, there would be a cost to the tenant. That's the way business is done. Under this privatization there's absolutely no additional cost to CN.

I remind the House that CN gave $122,000. They get 990 years for a billion bucks — nice investment. Can the Premier point us toward another lease anywhere, anywhere in this province, that has extension provisions that extend centuries into the future with absolutely no additional cost to the tenant beyond the normal cost of doing business? It's 990 years for a billion bucks. Is that what he says is doing good business in this province?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, when you hear questions like that, suddenly you get clarity. It's like a moment of clarity where I'm now understanding how it is they entered into a fast ferries project that blew half a billion dollars. It's a moment of clarity where I realize how they could have shovelled $400 million into a money-losing pulp mill. It's a moment of clarity where I realize when they talked about three — count them, three — aluminum smelters, there was no hope of that ever happening. Well, it's because they can't understand the basic premise of a lease agreement. If you cannot understand that, I can see why we get into so much trouble.

What I would say to this member is that she needs to understand this. We've been very clear that all of that information, all of the information associated with this that is not commercially sensitive, will be released upon the completion of the competition tribunal review. Upon the completion of that review all the information that's not commercially sensitive, including this lease agreement, will be fully, completely disclosed to all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: You know, when this deal was announced by the Premier, he said he was so proud of it that he would actually campaign against it on the next election. Let's put the facts forward. Here's what we know today. Since that announcement, we've had police raids on the Legislature involving the sale. We've had angry bidders withdrawing. Now we have a deal that nobody has any faith in at all. Now we find out that not only does the deal last for 990 years and the government can potentially sell billions of dollars of real estate to CN for a buck, but that the taxpayers of this province are on the hook for some of the 7 percent rate reduction promised to the shippers in the deal.

Can the Premier tell us how much of the 7 percent taxpayers will be paying and how many years they will have to pay? Is it for one year, five years or 990 years? How much will taxpayers have to subsidize this key Liberal campaign donor?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is just fascinating, because it gives some great insight. Now, the members…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: …of the opposition are concerned because there's a clause in there that will allow the government, for the sum of a dollar, to force ownership of certain lands back on to the proponent that's operating the railway. They ask the question why and think that's a bad deal. Why don't they actually listen to the answer? Why don't they listen to the answer for a moment? The reason we did that and we insisted on that clause….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order!

Hon. K. Falcon: If you tried listening, you would actually hear the answers, and it might be helpful.

The reason we did that is because we wanted to ensure that if there was a case where track in which they were operating had, for example, significant environmental remediation costs associated with it, we had the right to make sure that the operator could not discontinue that section of the track and turn it over to a taxpayer obligation. She wants us to not have that, and she would rather have the taxpayers be stuck with that.

That's exactly why this member, Carole James and the NDP have never got it. They never will get it…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: …and they'll never get back in power, thank God. [Peculiar piece of information! Is he declaring a dictatorship? - BC Mary]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: If this government tells the truth, the answer might be worth listening to. It's the same story over and over and over again. Hide the truth, and when it comes out, insist that it's a good deal. It's not good news when a government hides the truth. The scandal is no longer about a particular clause in this contract. It's about a government that has deliberately and consistently kept the public in the dark, a government that has perpetrated a political swindle on the people of British Columbia.

We asked the Premier this question three weeks ago, and he didn't answer the question. Instead, the minister ducked the question on his behalf. Now we know what he was hiding.

I'll ask the question again. Will the Premier stand up today and be open and accountable and put the full details of the B.C. Rail deal forward for full public scrutiny and for full public debate, and will he do it today?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll remind those….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's difficult to talk when you keep yelling and interrupting. I'll remind those members that what we've said and what we've always said is all of the information that is not commercially sensitive — I'm sure the member opposite does not want us releasing lists of employees and how much employees earn — including the lease agreement, will be released upon completion of the competition board review.

The real issue here is this. Carole James and the NDP have to answer this question. Since they're so fascinated in having government continue to run this, even though taxpayers have put over a billion dollars in losses into this railway over the last 15 years, I need to hear from them where they're going to find the billions of dollars to invest in the railway over the next 90 years, where they're going to find the $3.5 billion to invest in the track upgrades and rehabilitation, where they're going to find the dollars to invest in new centre-beam cars.

Mr. Speaker: Wrap it up, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Clearly, they're not prepared to make that commitment…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. K. Falcon: …because they haven't got the money. Our priority is health care and education, and that's why we're bringing in…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: …a private sector operator and their investment.

Interjections. [I should hope so! - BC Mary.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.


B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL AND FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION

P. Nettleton (Independent M.L.A., Prince George-Omineca, former BC Liberal in Campbell Government): A letter dated March 2, 2004, from Tribal Chief Harry Pierre of Carrier-Sekani tribal council, directed to the federal competition bureau, reads in part:

"Please be advised there has been neither meaningful consultation nor accommodation of our aboriginal title, aboriginal rights or interests, infringements on our title and rights related to their activities in our territory, and of the inadequacies of the consultation accommodation in relation to granting replacement and transfer of tenure rights within our territory. It is incumbent upon these companies and the provincial government to address these issues. We request that this merger not be approved until meaningful consultation and accommodation are negotiated with the CSTC and its member first nations."

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the minister now recognize that these concerns are obstacles that need to be resolved between the B.C. government and the Carrier-Sekani tribal council to ensure that their rights are not permanently infringed upon if this hasty, secretive and ill-conceived deal is finalized? In light of this further impediment to the sale of B.C. Rail, can the minister tell the members in the Carrier-Sekani tribal council what actions he plans to take?

Hon. K. Falcon: Absolutely. I can confirm that we have been very clear that there's absolutely no threat whatsoever to the rights and title. We've been very clear with them from the first.

One of the things that is also very exciting is that under this deal, as you know, we're creating a first nations benefits trust made up of $15 million. Those 25 first nations will each have representation on the board of that trust, and they will be able to use that for creating economic opportunity, creating cultural awareness and creating real good news for the first nation folks of the province.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege at a future date.

Mr. Speaker: So noted.

Standing Order 35 Motion

J. MacPhail: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to debate an issue of definite and urgent public importance, specifically that this government's failure to provide the public with the true facts about the B.C. Rail deal has led to a crisis in public confidence in this government.

Mr. Speaker, as suggested in practice recommendation No. 8, I have provided you with advance notice of my intention to bring this motion forward at this time.

Until this weekend, no one but the government and perhaps CN knew some of the important details about the B.C. Rail deal, which have alarmed many in the public. Indeed, this government stated unequivocally in this Legislature that the deal was for 60 years with a 30-year option to extend and renew and for a specific amount of money. Now we have learned that the successful bidder can also have sole use of the B.C. Rail lines for 990 years. There is no information from government on what, if any, additional benefits might flow to future generations should CN exercise that 900-year option. Also…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …this government campaigned on not selling B.C. Rail, and yet this weekend we learned that there is clearly language in the agreement that would see government selling title to the railway and railbed. Clearly, we have a matter that questions public confidence in this government. This matter is urgent. The government, as we speak, is pursuing a speedy closing of this agreement.

Given the misinformation made available at the time of the debate in this Legislature on the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, a point and questions that were raised by the opposition at the time, it is clearly urgent that this matter be debated now, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to acknowledge the urgent nature of this matter. Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you adjourn this House until your ruling on this matter has been heard.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm somewhat interested by the comments of the member opposite. First of all, there's just a fundamental error of facts in her statement, which I think any clear reading of question period Hansard today would indicate. The fact of the matter is that CN does not have a 990-or-whatever-it-was-year lease that she mentioned. In fact, the option to renew is an option of government.

There will be at some point, some time from now, a government that can opt, as the minister said, to renew, to not renew, to find someone else to operate the railway for them or to operate it themselves. So first of all, there's a fundamental error of facts, again, with the comment by the member in the Legislature.

Second of all, she alleges that that, therefore, is new information, and I think there have been numerous previous rulings in this House as well as in other Houses about the relevancy and the impact of new information on the urgency of debate. It's not a matter, and I'd refer the member to page 370 of the sixteenth edition of Erskine May [what the heck?? - BC Mary] …. Even if there were new information, which I allege there isn't, that is not a matter for urgency. I would refer the Speaker and the member opposite to that.

The question is the urgency of the debate, in fact, and there have been previous debates in this House about this issue. There was last fall with the passage of legislation. There was also, I might add, and there continues to be a standing opportunity for the members opposite to raise matters and motions that they put before the House on Monday mornings in private members' time, something that was not available to the opposition in the ten years I was in opposition.

It's also a standing provision in this House by agreement with the opposition members that they can choose the time for that debate. They could have done it this morning. They could do it next Monday, if they wish. There are other opportunities for debate. It's not me that doesn't want to have the debate. If that member had wanted to have the debate, she could have had the debate. She could have had it this morning. She can have it next Monday, if she wants. It's up to her to get her act together and to submit her information.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Collins: Again, she doesn't understand it, because the issue is a debate. It's a debate put forward by a motion of the member of the opposition. It becomes the member of the opposition's debate. [By gosh, this is bullying! Let's not forget that there were 77 MLA's in the Campbell Gang, and that they were addressing two (2) MLA's in Opposition. With Paul Nettleton as an Independent voting with them on this matter.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order, please. Hon. members, we heard one side of the issue. Let's have the courtesy of listening to the other side.

Hon. G. Collins: The member is just incorrect. The fact of the matter is she's just put before the House a motion that she would like to move in the event that you rule in her favour. So for her argument to be that it's not an opposition motion is simply factually incorrect, and if she'd read her own motion, which she just handed to the Table, she'd know that.

There is a process by which the member….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Collins: The fact of the matter is that the member put forward a motion which would be moved in this House, and it would be up for debate. There are other opportunities for her to do that. The estimates for the Ministry of Transportation will be up shortly. As well, there will be legislation coming before the House. When the B.C. Rail issue comes for final determination, there will be opportunities for debate at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair thanks both members for their comments. We will take them under advisement and bring back a ruling on the subject, probably later today.
_________________________________________________

Tuesday, March 20, 2004:

J. MacPhail: …B.C. Rail's turning a profit of $60 million per year. That's how bad this government is. But yesterday the Minister of Transportation insisted that anyone who disagreed with him didn't understand basic business principles. So yesterday a Dr. Paul Kedrosky got on air — a highly educated B.C. business professor, years of experience in his field, someone who is consulted widely for his advice. Here's what he called the Transportation minister's explanation. "Magnificently bizarre" is how he…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …labelled what the Minister of Transportation said.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. member, it's time for the question now.

J. MacPhail: Right.

He said the whole deal was just a sale in disguise. He said it was semantics to say otherwise. Can the minister tell Dr. Paul Kedrosky, a respected business professor, why he — Dr. Kedrosky — doesn't understand business principles? And can he point to any contract in the western world…? Can he google to see whether there's any contract in the western world that lasts for 990 years?

Interjections.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

BC Liberal Government and Premier Gordon Campbell Should Come clean and admit it Sold BC Rail - Simpson

.
BC Mary continues to have problems accessing the Legislature Raids, as a visitor or as the boss. So she forwarded some information to me in case I could post some of it, rather than just giving up, as logical as that may seem at times. Confronted with the ongoing criminality, obfuscation and especially galling, the apparent either complicity or lack of concern by the Loyal(?) Opposition, it becomes tempting to throw up one's hands and become another "What Me Worry" person. I can't help but entertain the notion, that as bad as things may be for the average British Columbian, they are still good enough for opposition party members that they don't really want to rock the boat. I can't help but suspect there may be far too much of the attitude "Go along to get along" going around!

The latest "bombshell" re: the BC Rail travesty seems to be that we are all crazy, the deal isn't secret and has been completely public for the last five years. Added to this is the notion that since the deal has been public and uncontested for five long years it must be perfectly legit.

Now this really conflicts with my recollection of what I naturally assumed was reality, and it makes even the koot consider not bothering to even care anymore. But then that would be the perfect strategy for the cabal we know as the Campbell Gang to undertake, wouldn't it?

Mary recently received the following from one of the research assistants at NDP Opposition HQ:

Hello Mary, I understand that you emailed asking for the BC Rail sale contracts.

Here are the links to the 2 agreements: the "Transaction Agreement" (the outright sale which the government rebrands on the link as the "Investment Partnership Agreement") and the "Revitalization Agreement or 990 year lease portion of the deal: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/bcrail/

(FYI, there was also a third agreement called the Consent Agreement that came out when the federal Competition Bureau signed off on the deal on July 2, 2004 but it is not on this provincial website.)

You can also access the 2 main agreements on the Legislative Library website:

The Transaction Agreement: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/370853/index.htm)
The Revitalization Agreement: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/370854/index.htm).

The Campbell government only released these publicly under pressure/in response to our FOI back in 2004, and then posted them in their heavily severed version on the website.

We continue to push the government to come clean on the deal they gave CN and release the full text of the agreements.

So that last sentence kinda forces me to ask yet again - IS THE AGREEMENT REALLY PUBLIC - OR NOT? I assume by "severed version" the r.a. is just trying to use bigger words than necessary and means cut, or more accurately perhaps "redacted," but then again, I can't even figure out what the loyal opposition opposes!

posted by kootcoot and crossposted at the House of Infamy

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

BC Mary writes: Many thanks, Koot. I was totally blocked from access to this site until a few minutes ago. And it may go crackers again any minute. So I'll hurry up and post this comment from 2004, found by Lynx:


BC Liberals "leased" BC Rail for $52 million, says MacPhail
September 15, 2004

VANCOUVER - The true sale price for BC Rail comes to a mere $52 million, NDP Opposition House Leader Joy MacPhail said today.
MacPhail pointed to the 1st quarter financial report delivered yesterday. That report states that a mere "$52 million of the transaction gain relates to the operating lease for the right of way and rail bed assets, and will be spread out over the term of the lease..." (page 19, First Quarter Report)

"This BC Rail deal is a scam, and the first quarter report proves it," said MacPhail. "We handed over $750 million in assets from a profitable company to a major BC Liberal campaign donor for a return of just $52 million spread over 90 years. That's $577,000 a year for a company that made a profit of more than $80 million last year alone. I'm sure they're having a good chuckle over at CN headquarters."

MacPhail said that the deal is another example of the premier's incompetence.

"At the end of the day, Gordon Campbell makes a good mark for big companies looking to buy up BC. Every privatization scheme he touches results in BC getting ripped off or in such a ferocious public backlash that he has to back off."

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.
Two weeks ago, I wrote a polite e.mail to the premier asking to have the secret BCR-CN deal opened to the public. There was no reply, not even the auto-response acknowledgement.

The deadline is July 14, 2009 ... 7 days away, or 5 working days.

I have a serious question for the Opposition. Is it true that you have a copy of the deal?

If true, is there some reason why you can't tell the public? Is there any reason for you to be silent?

Are you aware of the options, penalties, and possibilities, made plain (so we hear) in that document?

- BC Mary.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Update, July 7, 2009:

Today, this response arrived in my INbox today from the premier's office:

Thank you for your email. Your comments have been shared with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, for review and consideration in related discussions. We have asked that a response be sent to you as soon as possible.
Again, thank you for writing.
From: Mary Mackie [mailto:bcmary14@rogers.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2009 2:57 PM
To: OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX
Subject: Show us the deal.

Two weeks ago, on June 22, 2009 I wrote to ask you to open the BC Rail - CN agreements to the public.

This is to advise you that there has been no response from your office.

______________________________________________

.
Executives on huge pay running tiny Crown corporation

By Michael Smyth
The Province - July 5, 2009

I thought the only way to get rich running a make-believe railroad was to play Monopoly -- and even then all your loot would consist of play money.

But Kevin Mahoney is playing this game in real life and for real cash: Last year he bagged nearly half a million dollars running B.C. Rail.

What's that, you say? You thought Premier Gordon Campbell sold B.C. Rail to private-sector rival CN Rail six years ago? Not all of it. There's a little spur line that runs out to Roberts Bank near Tsawwassen that's still technically controlled by the government. (Campbell tried to sell that, too, but the deal became tainted by the ongoing B.C. Rail corruption scandal and fell through.) So, incredibly, B.C. Rail still exists as a provincial Crown corporation, responsible for managing a measly 40-kilometre spur line, as well as doing some real-estate deals and providing "consulting advice" on the government's ports and Pacific Gateway strategy.

And Mahoney is the president and CEO riding the gravy train -- which is the only kind left at B.C. Rail, since all the rolling stock was sold to CN. Last year, Mahoney was paid $275,000 in salary, $64,167 in bonuses, $123,505 in RRSP and pension allowances and $31,511 in "other compensation." Total haul: $494,182. Not bad for running a railroad that doesn't have any trains.

According to B.C. Rail's 2007 annual report -- the most recent one on their website -- the corporation suffered an "operating loss" of $17 million. Those losses were offset by interest income and sale of assets such as real estate.

In fact, B.C. Rail has a second president in charge of its real-estate division. John Lusney was paid $268,574 last year. And there are two other executives at B.C. Rail also pulling down more than $200,000 a year.

How can the government justify these type of executive salaries at a Crown corporation that's a shell of its former self? Amazingly, the government has argued Mahoney's salary is far less than the $2.9 million collected by Fred Green, the CEO of private-sector CP Rail.

Just a few small differences there. CP Rail had $4.7 billion in revenue in 2007, compared to $18 million at B.C. Rail. And CP Rail has 16,000 employees, while B.C. Rail is expected to trim its workforce this year to just 24 people, down from a robust 30 in 2008.

That's right, folks: You're paying a quartet of executives $1.2 million a year to run a money-losing 40-kilometre railroad with no trains and 24 employees. It doesn't get much loopier than that.

{Snip} ...

But that would be a little awkward for Campbell, who still insists he never "sold" B.C. Rail, but simply leased the tracks to CN for 990 years -- ensuring the B.C. Rail executive gravy train keeps rolling far into the future.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Maybe it's not so difficult to understand John Lusney's fat salary after looking at the list of BCRail lands (scroll down: list of BC Rail Lands posted below on June 28, 2009). Many valuable properties are vulnerable to certain miraculous $1. real estate deals on the 5th anniversary of the BCRail main giveaway (July 14, 2009). John Lusney's fat salary may simply be the cost of doing business the Campbell way.

The archives of this web-site has this story, posted December 10, 2006, headed BCRail port lands, most cruel hoax; and further developments 18 Jan. 2007 (and the comments are outstanding).


See also this item on executive compensation, government explanation. Note also (for those still debating the actual date of the secret BCR-CN deal) that they refer to July 14, 2004.
_______________________________________


Salt Spring News, one of the best world news digests, is thinking of the same things. Go HERE [http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=19418] for the complete edition ... but href="http://newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy134.htm" this remark strikes a nerve in British Columbia these days ...



AND the very same infrastructures listed in [U.S.] Executive Order 12803 are also listed in all Martial Law Executive Orders, and all these infrastructures having been for sale, lease-able, or having been sold during the last 17 years- including our children’s schools, our hospitals, and our homes - I suggest to you that you are witnessing Central Banking Debt Magic at its finest moment. Wouldn’t you love to know how much money has been made by selling our nation to the highest bidders?

Let us review:

1. The country’s infrastructure has been for sale for 17 years. Roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling/wastewater facilities, solid waste facilities, prisons, hospitals, schools, and housing -- this being of “examples” of saleable infrastructure and not the entire list of saleable items according to E.O. 12803--so the question begs: What exactly has been sold to “private parties in our nation? We would like to see the complete list. We know that many highway systems have been sold to foreign countries, but what of the other listed items? Have they been sold as well?

___________________________________________

Still having blogger problems. Even CanWest problems!! - BC Mary

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

.
Thanks to all who have written or visited or telephoned Leonard Krog today.

And now a strong voice from within the New Democratic Party has added to our efforts. I wrote to Peter Dimitrov this morning, explaining our efforts to activate the B.C. Opposition. Here is the result ... Peter's e.mail which he sent to

Carole James
Leonard Krog
Shane (Simpson?)
Adrian Dix

with copies to Allen Garr at The Courier
Vaughn Palmer at The Vancouver Sun
Bill Tieleman at 24 HOURS
Sean Holman at Public Eye Online

Hi Carole, Leonard and Shane,

On July 14, 2009 the BCR/CN Re-purchase Option agreement will be executed, transferring significant assets to CN for $1.00...forever more, whilst the previous deal is still secret and whilst we have the ongoing BC Rail trial.

Will the party be providing some public leadership on this issue in the form of (a) minimally, a denouncement and (b) a request that this be postponed pending "x, y, z" conditions;

or better: Is the NDP considering itself, or in association with others, raising this matter in BCSC, seeking an injunction and other equitable remedies?

..surely it is not good to sit around with our hands in our pockets and just watch as significant assets being transferred from the public to private hands ..without so much as a whimper of protest or action? It seems the party could get some public traction on this issue.

Thank you,

Peter Dimitrov

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

PETER DIMITROV is a well-known Vancouver lawyer and environmentalist with a long history of social justice and political activism. He has worked closely with approximately 30 First Nations communities acting as Project Director in the design and implementation of traditional land use mapping and impact assessments projects. He has founded a multi-faith social justice coalition that was very active on the issues of poverty and homelessness in British Columbia.

Over the years he has provided journalistic commentary on a variety of British Columbia issues to www.bcpolitics.ca. In the early 70’s he was co-chair of the Ad Hoc Committee Against uranium mining & exploration in British Columbia, and, in September 2003, Peter Dimitrov was one of 7 candidates (including Carole James and Leonard Krog) for the BC New Democratic leadership. .

In January 2007 he publicly released detailed information respecting approximately 500 water license applications for power generation in hundreds of BC watersheds, which information was taken up by others and digitally mapped. His focus continues to be matters arising from the issuance of water licenses for power generation to private energy companies in British Columbia.

He has a Masters of Science degree from UBC’s School of Community and Regional Planning. He is also a lawyer with considerable litigative experience and knowledge of water, environmental, constitutional and administrative law.

www.bcpolitics.ca

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

It surprised me yesterday when the comments of two old friends of The Legislature Raids indicated that they had gone up a side-trail and got lost. They thought the need for an injunction asking to see the BCRail-CN Agreement has a connection to the Basi Virk trial. No, it doesn't.

Even if there had been no raid on the B.C. Legislature and no trial of Basi, Virk and Basi, the secret BC Rail Agreement would still be in place, and would still mature on July 14, 2009.

To allow the secret BCRail-CN Agreement to mature - unchallenged - means that it will trigger a whole new set of issues, including options for the people of B.C. to decide ... and including fabulous bonus-gifts for CN.

The BC Rail Agreement will still be with us 990 years from now.

But we get this one brief opportunity to choose among several options, including the re-possession option. One brief opportunity. Then poof! it's finished for almost a thousand years. Yes, it's hard to believe. But don't let us be confused about the need to act now.

We want to see the BCRail-CN agreement. We believe that democracy is suited to such moments in history where secret deals can have far-reaching effects upon the population; where secret deals absolutely must be challenged.

We believe that an injunction is the quickest, cleanest way to call for a "time-out" so that democracy can return to this equation.

We believe that the injunction should best come from the B.C. Opposition, because the injunction should be presented to the court on behalf of all British Columbians. Then we'd know what happened to BCRail, once owned by all British Columbians.

Leonard Krog, a lawyer and the Opposition Critic for Justice, is the person to contact. He must take the initiative to get this injunction. This is an emergency. There's no time to lose. Show us the deal. Let the people decide on best options. That's what the injunction must demand. What court could refuse that?

- BC Mary

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I am still playing hop-scotch with blogger-world, and although I see everybody's comments arriving in the "Comment Moderation" file, I can't access the comment section myself. All I get is a blank page. So I will continue to keep the discussion going by re-posting some comments onto the main page, at this critical time in the BC Rail affair. As follows:


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Contact Leonard Krog today on BC Rail secret deal":

Krog is a small time, backwoods lawyer. Westlaw hasn't published any of his cases. During the Barrett years, the party attracted heavy hitters - like Alex McDonald - from the legal community. Now, the NDP is happy to get Neighbourhood Watch goofs like Mike Farnsworth and Jenny Kwan (Criminologist).

I saw a poster in Vancouver yesterday, asking activists to "restore' the NDP. I don't know who those people are, but only the brain dead believe that Carol James is a winner.

Krog is certainly not a vehicle for meaningful change. Too bad the party doesn't have a good replacement.


BC Mary: We saw that poster too, which was their announcement of a meeting being held on July 7 on the topic of TAKE BACK THE PARTY. So obviously there is serious uneasiness about the listless Opposition, and in fact about the current NDP itself. I agree that Krog isn't the vehicle for meaningful change. But with time so short, let's keep our focus on the injunction needed ... it should come from the B.C. Opposition ... and it should come from Krog. He can do it, if we push him hard enough. So please, if you made a call or sent a message to him yesterday, send it again today, with a cc to Carole James, and to your local MLA.

Can't they see that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain if they step up now, to champion the people's right to see that secret BCRail-CN deal which is still clawing away at BC's public assets to give to CN? (With Bill Gates the largest CN shareholder.)
_________________________________________________________