Saturday, May 31, 2008
Like Vancouver 15 years ago
.
CRIME WEBS ALARM CITY POLICE CHIEF
Jack Knox
Times Colonist - published 29 Jan 2005
Battershill Likens Emerging Culture Of Gangs To Vancouver 15 Years Ago
They're young, vicious, armed to the teeth, quickly getting rich moving cocaine by the kilo -- and they're giving the cops the willies.
Mid-level organized crime is growing stronger in the capital, said Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill, reminding him of what Vancouver looked like 15 years ago at the blossoming of the gang culture and nightclub shootings that now plague the Lower Mainland.
The same signs, he said, are emerging here. "We're turning up more and more guns that are loaded and ready to go."
Three or four Victoria-area murders in the past year or so are believed to be drug-related hits. Violence in bars, some of them controlled by organized crime, is getting nasty. "If we don't get a grip on that in the next few years, we're going to have the same problems as Vancouver," Battershill said Friday.
He's not talking about street-level dealers selling flaps to kids on the corner. Nor is he referring to the high-up, low-profile criminals raking in fortunes in the international drug trade.
Battershill is concerned about the ones in the middle. There are probably fewer than a score of them in Victoria, an ethnic mix of whites, Indo-Canadians and Asians in their twenties, doing business with a handful of B.C.'s organized-crime gangs.
"The mid-level gang activity is emerging," said the chief. "It's characterized by some degree of organization, firearms and violence."
The men deal in crystal meth and heroin, but mostly in cocaine, anywhere from an ounce to five kilograms at a time.
A kilo of cocaine costs $22,000 to $25,000, earning maybe four times that after being sold by the ounce to street-level dealers.
That leaves the men with a lot of cash, which they like to flash around the bars in which they gather. Just like the guys Battershill remembers from his days with the Vancouver police -- and unlike more disciplined gang members who tend to shy away from anything that puts them in the spotlight - -- they enjoy violence that has no business purpose.
Police warn that one of them will intentionally harass a woman with the goal of picking a fight with her boyfriend, who will suddenly find himself set upon by four or five men.
"They're dangerous," said Battershill. And they're well-armed, eschewing low-end pistols in favour of 9-millimetre and 40-calibre Glocks, Berettas and Walthers, freshly bought in Las Vegas. "When you start to see the semi-automatics, that's another sign that you're into the gang-coke stuff."
The chief is saying all this just days before going to city council to argue for more police officers, but he maintains the timing is irrelevant.
"It's going to seem like this is contrived, but it's not," he said. "We've known for a year or two now that this stuff is starting to grab us."
Police haven't been inactive. This December, as part of a sting in which cocaine and ecstasy was bought from people in five downtown clubs, police negotiated the purchase of a kilogram of cocaine. And the December 2003 legislature raids grew indirectly from a Victoria police investigation aimed at mid-level Indo-Canadian cocaine traffickers. [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.]
Battershill's concern is that he has seen this movie before. Over the last decade or so, the Lower Mainland has seen scores of gang-related murders, often the product of drug rip-offs, territorial disputes among dealers, or old-fashioned machismo.
Gang activity there has spread, drawing in more young men seduced by what they see as a glamorous lifestyle. Lots of money. Lots of babes. Nice cars. Drugs. Action.
"In some respects they become Antichrist-as-role-models," said Battershill.
Not that they last in the life too long. Battershill, who used to lead the team that did take-downs of armed gang members in Vancouver, said many of the criminals he dealt with in the early 1990s are now dead or paralyzed from gunshot wounds.
But Victoria isn't Vancouver yet, he said.
"That's what we want to avoid."
________________________________________________________________
And they get rid of the Police Chief ... over a "personnel issue". - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
CRIME WEBS ALARM CITY POLICE CHIEF
Jack Knox
Times Colonist - published 29 Jan 2005
Battershill Likens Emerging Culture Of Gangs To Vancouver 15 Years Ago
They're young, vicious, armed to the teeth, quickly getting rich moving cocaine by the kilo -- and they're giving the cops the willies.
Mid-level organized crime is growing stronger in the capital, said Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill, reminding him of what Vancouver looked like 15 years ago at the blossoming of the gang culture and nightclub shootings that now plague the Lower Mainland.
The same signs, he said, are emerging here. "We're turning up more and more guns that are loaded and ready to go."
Three or four Victoria-area murders in the past year or so are believed to be drug-related hits. Violence in bars, some of them controlled by organized crime, is getting nasty. "If we don't get a grip on that in the next few years, we're going to have the same problems as Vancouver," Battershill said Friday.
He's not talking about street-level dealers selling flaps to kids on the corner. Nor is he referring to the high-up, low-profile criminals raking in fortunes in the international drug trade.
Battershill is concerned about the ones in the middle. There are probably fewer than a score of them in Victoria, an ethnic mix of whites, Indo-Canadians and Asians in their twenties, doing business with a handful of B.C.'s organized-crime gangs.
"The mid-level gang activity is emerging," said the chief. "It's characterized by some degree of organization, firearms and violence."
The men deal in crystal meth and heroin, but mostly in cocaine, anywhere from an ounce to five kilograms at a time.
A kilo of cocaine costs $22,000 to $25,000, earning maybe four times that after being sold by the ounce to street-level dealers.
That leaves the men with a lot of cash, which they like to flash around the bars in which they gather. Just like the guys Battershill remembers from his days with the Vancouver police -- and unlike more disciplined gang members who tend to shy away from anything that puts them in the spotlight - -- they enjoy violence that has no business purpose.
Police warn that one of them will intentionally harass a woman with the goal of picking a fight with her boyfriend, who will suddenly find himself set upon by four or five men.
"They're dangerous," said Battershill. And they're well-armed, eschewing low-end pistols in favour of 9-millimetre and 40-calibre Glocks, Berettas and Walthers, freshly bought in Las Vegas. "When you start to see the semi-automatics, that's another sign that you're into the gang-coke stuff."
The chief is saying all this just days before going to city council to argue for more police officers, but he maintains the timing is irrelevant.
"It's going to seem like this is contrived, but it's not," he said. "We've known for a year or two now that this stuff is starting to grab us."
Police haven't been inactive. This December, as part of a sting in which cocaine and ecstasy was bought from people in five downtown clubs, police negotiated the purchase of a kilogram of cocaine. And the December 2003 legislature raids grew indirectly from a Victoria police investigation aimed at mid-level Indo-Canadian cocaine traffickers. [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.]
Battershill's concern is that he has seen this movie before. Over the last decade or so, the Lower Mainland has seen scores of gang-related murders, often the product of drug rip-offs, territorial disputes among dealers, or old-fashioned machismo.
Gang activity there has spread, drawing in more young men seduced by what they see as a glamorous lifestyle. Lots of money. Lots of babes. Nice cars. Drugs. Action.
"In some respects they become Antichrist-as-role-models," said Battershill.
Not that they last in the life too long. Battershill, who used to lead the team that did take-downs of armed gang members in Vancouver, said many of the criminals he dealt with in the early 1990s are now dead or paralyzed from gunshot wounds.
But Victoria isn't Vancouver yet, he said.
"That's what we want to avoid."
________________________________________________________________
And they get rid of the Police Chief ... over a "personnel issue". - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Organized Crime: Tempest in a D-Cup
.
'Sexy scandal' cover greets Harper in Italy
David Akin
Canwest News Service - May 28, 2008
Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi shakes hands with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper at Chigi Palace in Rome.
ROME - The "sexy Canadian scandal" made the front page of a major Italian daily newspaper here, just in time for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's arrival to meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The newspaper La Stampa features a half-page colour photo of Julie Couillard, the ex-girlfriend of former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier, on its front page Wednesday. There are more photos and a story inside the paper, although the paper made an error and did not print a picture of Bernier himself, though a cutline identified a man in the photo as Bernier.
La Stampa described Couillard as the "model with the fascinating eyes" and wrote that "anyone who loves her gets in trouble."
Bernier resigned from cabinet Monday after admitting he left classified government documents at Couillard's residence while they were dating.
Couillard, whose former husband and ex-lovers have ties to organized crime in Quebec, told her side of the story in a television interview on Monday night.
That interview, on Quebec network TVA, was picked up and broadcast around the world, including on American all-news channel CNN. Many major newspapers, including the prestigious Financial Times, also ran stories about the trouble with Canada's foreign affairs minister.
According to Montreal-based media watchdog Influence Communication stories about Bernier and Couillard ran in 575 media outlets in 44 countries around the world during the first 48 hours.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ORGANIZED WHAT?
By Robin Mathews
We love Maxime Bernier
and the lady, Couillard -
as we love hens and roosters
in our chicken yard.
One of her men, we are told, was biker Giguere
(and no man on earth was ever more fair).
He was murdered, they say, just as a "sign".
And they say it was done
by Organized Crime.
One biker, Pepin, she married, they say -
who got very mixed up with goods gone astray.
His suicide came at a very hot time.
Some insist it was heated
by Organized Crime.
Then it was Big Max who came up the stairs
bringing the 'cachet' of "Foreign" affairs.
She "came out" (they say) in the big world of Push,
and even (they say) met George W. Bush.
(No one has ever hinted or said of that time
that she really, at last,
had met Organized Crime.)
But, then, (we are told) in a dallying way
Big Max let some papers get badly astray,
leaving classified docs at dear Julie's place
without even thinking to put on a "trace".
Enter Stephen, the slit-eye, to cover it up,
assuring us all there is nothing corrupt.
The story, he says, is not worth a dime,
has nothing that's bad or splattered with slime.
As he says it (and, of course, looks to the side),
Eyes slitting more (as if there's something to hide),
shouldn't someone decide it's just about time
to ask Steve what he knows
about Organized Crime?
~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~
People tell me everything's OK in B.C., and I say no. But how do we know when things have gone too far and little bits of hanky-panky here and there add up to a corrupted society? This news report dated June 10, 2008 reflects many serious symptoms of irreversible damage in everyday life in B.C.:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=fe3641f5-3e1a-494b-ac58-0d8c982232ae
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
'Sexy scandal' cover greets Harper in Italy
David Akin
Canwest News Service - May 28, 2008
Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi shakes hands with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper at Chigi Palace in Rome.
ROME - The "sexy Canadian scandal" made the front page of a major Italian daily newspaper here, just in time for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's arrival to meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The newspaper La Stampa features a half-page colour photo of Julie Couillard, the ex-girlfriend of former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier, on its front page Wednesday. There are more photos and a story inside the paper, although the paper made an error and did not print a picture of Bernier himself, though a cutline identified a man in the photo as Bernier.
La Stampa described Couillard as the "model with the fascinating eyes" and wrote that "anyone who loves her gets in trouble."
Bernier resigned from cabinet Monday after admitting he left classified government documents at Couillard's residence while they were dating.
Couillard, whose former husband and ex-lovers have ties to organized crime in Quebec, told her side of the story in a television interview on Monday night.
That interview, on Quebec network TVA, was picked up and broadcast around the world, including on American all-news channel CNN. Many major newspapers, including the prestigious Financial Times, also ran stories about the trouble with Canada's foreign affairs minister.
According to Montreal-based media watchdog Influence Communication stories about Bernier and Couillard ran in 575 media outlets in 44 countries around the world during the first 48 hours.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ORGANIZED WHAT?
By Robin Mathews
We love Maxime Bernier
and the lady, Couillard -
as we love hens and roosters
in our chicken yard.
One of her men, we are told, was biker Giguere
(and no man on earth was ever more fair).
He was murdered, they say, just as a "sign".
And they say it was done
by Organized Crime.
One biker, Pepin, she married, they say -
who got very mixed up with goods gone astray.
His suicide came at a very hot time.
Some insist it was heated
by Organized Crime.
Then it was Big Max who came up the stairs
bringing the 'cachet' of "Foreign" affairs.
She "came out" (they say) in the big world of Push,
and even (they say) met George W. Bush.
(No one has ever hinted or said of that time
that she really, at last,
had met Organized Crime.)
But, then, (we are told) in a dallying way
Big Max let some papers get badly astray,
leaving classified docs at dear Julie's place
without even thinking to put on a "trace".
Enter Stephen, the slit-eye, to cover it up,
assuring us all there is nothing corrupt.
The story, he says, is not worth a dime,
has nothing that's bad or splattered with slime.
As he says it (and, of course, looks to the side),
Eyes slitting more (as if there's something to hide),
shouldn't someone decide it's just about time
to ask Steve what he knows
about Organized Crime?
~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~
People tell me everything's OK in B.C., and I say no. But how do we know when things have gone too far and little bits of hanky-panky here and there add up to a corrupted society? This news report dated June 10, 2008 reflects many serious symptoms of irreversible damage in everyday life in B.C.:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=fe3641f5-3e1a-494b-ac58-0d8c982232ae
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
He led the investigation, too.
.
Re-visited while searching for federal links ...
... Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill confirmed several other locations were also raided by police officers over the weekend. They included the homes of some of those involved, an accounting firm, and a government relations firm later identified as Pilothouse Public Affairs. The company was begun by former Vancouver Province columnist Brian Kieran, but two of its key officials - Erik Bornman and Jamie Elmhirst -- also have strong ties to the [former Prime Minister Paul] Martin camp.
Also visited by investigating officers, although not formally raided, was Mark Marissen, of Burrard Communications, who was director of the Martin campaign in B.C. - and who's also the husband of Deputy Premier Christy Clark.
Just how all these pieces of the puzzle fit together (if indeed they all do) will have to await the final police report, and charges and trial if any.
Began with police corruption investigation
Battershill said the potential involvement of those in the legislature came relatively late in the investigation as officers from his department and the RCMP followed where the evidence was leading them. It began with the drug information first received more than 18 months ago, he said, and as officers developed the file, they soon realized it could involve an organized criminal operation. The RCMP's experts in organized crime were brought in, as was the provincial Organized Crime Agency. Fairly soon after the file moved to a stage where it was being investigated more actively, the officers realized it also involved the possible corruption of a single police officer, a member of Battershill's own force.
Two weeks before Christmas, Battershill announced that Const. Rob Dosanjh, a 13-year veteran of the department, had been suspended with pay, as required by the Police Act. An investigation involving Const. Dosanjh, 37, was ongoing, he said, involving allegations of obstruction of justice and breach of trust. He provided no details at that time, but has now confirmed that the Dosanjh file and the raids at the legislature are linked. However, he described the relationship between Dosanjh and any of those targeted in the search warrants as "indirect."
As the investigation proceeded, the chief said, the evidence that was being uncovered led officers to want to involve the Commercial Crime Section of the RCMP in a different tentacle of the probe. It was the Commercial Crime portion of the investigation that led to the legislative raids, he said.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
How we forget! It was explained here, on The Legislature Raids all the time, that Victoria's Chief Constable had led not only the historic Legislature raids but also the investigation! It's easy to read between the lines, to see how important Chief Battershill's testimony will be at the trial of Basi Virk Basi. The rest of Barbara McLintock's excellent article, dated December 30, 2004, is at http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/12/30/Raids_How_Big_a_Scandal/
Anytime, on any aspect of BC Rail or The Legislature Raids, type a word or phrase into the Search Box (upper left on this page) and it will automatically find what's been posted on this web-site about it. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Re-visited while searching for federal links ...
... Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill confirmed several other locations were also raided by police officers over the weekend. They included the homes of some of those involved, an accounting firm, and a government relations firm later identified as Pilothouse Public Affairs. The company was begun by former Vancouver Province columnist Brian Kieran, but two of its key officials - Erik Bornman and Jamie Elmhirst -- also have strong ties to the [former Prime Minister Paul] Martin camp.
Also visited by investigating officers, although not formally raided, was Mark Marissen, of Burrard Communications, who was director of the Martin campaign in B.C. - and who's also the husband of Deputy Premier Christy Clark.
Just how all these pieces of the puzzle fit together (if indeed they all do) will have to await the final police report, and charges and trial if any.
Began with police corruption investigation
Battershill said the potential involvement of those in the legislature came relatively late in the investigation as officers from his department and the RCMP followed where the evidence was leading them. It began with the drug information first received more than 18 months ago, he said, and as officers developed the file, they soon realized it could involve an organized criminal operation. The RCMP's experts in organized crime were brought in, as was the provincial Organized Crime Agency. Fairly soon after the file moved to a stage where it was being investigated more actively, the officers realized it also involved the possible corruption of a single police officer, a member of Battershill's own force.
Two weeks before Christmas, Battershill announced that Const. Rob Dosanjh, a 13-year veteran of the department, had been suspended with pay, as required by the Police Act. An investigation involving Const. Dosanjh, 37, was ongoing, he said, involving allegations of obstruction of justice and breach of trust. He provided no details at that time, but has now confirmed that the Dosanjh file and the raids at the legislature are linked. However, he described the relationship between Dosanjh and any of those targeted in the search warrants as "indirect."
As the investigation proceeded, the chief said, the evidence that was being uncovered led officers to want to involve the Commercial Crime Section of the RCMP in a different tentacle of the probe. It was the Commercial Crime portion of the investigation that led to the legislative raids, he said.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
How we forget! It was explained here, on The Legislature Raids all the time, that Victoria's Chief Constable had led not only the historic Legislature raids but also the investigation! It's easy to read between the lines, to see how important Chief Battershill's testimony will be at the trial of Basi Virk Basi. The rest of Barbara McLintock's excellent article, dated December 30, 2004, is at http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/12/30/Raids_How_Big_a_Scandal/
Anytime, on any aspect of BC Rail or The Legislature Raids, type a word or phrase into the Search Box (upper left on this page) and it will automatically find what's been posted on this web-site about it. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Paul Battershill - no date set
.
A date has still not been set for a disciplinary hearing for suspended Victoria police chief Paul Battershill.
Victoria News - May 27, 2008
Mayor Alan Lowe said earlier this month he expected to set a hearing date within 30 days after handing Battershill a summary of findings from an RCMP investigation into an unspecified public trust complaint against him May 8.
Lowe said Monday the hearing has been delayed because Battershill has asked the Office of the Police Complaint Commssioner for information not contained in the summary. As chair of the police board, Lowe is required to serve as discipline authority for complaints involving the chief.
Deputy police complaint commissioner Bruce Brown said there is no deadline for the hearing to be scheduled. But Battershill's information request should not cause a delay.
"I guess you could say it's still in process right now," said Brown.
The discipline hearing will not be public. Only Lowe, Battershill and his counsel and a representative from the OPCC will be permitted.
"We're not required to attend but we often do attend disciplinary proceeding just to observe or monitor the process," said Brown.
If either Battershill or the OPCC disagrees with the outcome, a public hearing would then be convened.
Battershill has been suspended with pay since October 2007. Lowe has only said the complaint, which is not criminal in nature, relates to a "personnel matter."
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/news/19267624.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Chief Constable Paul Battershill
Chief Battershill joined the Vancouver Police Department in 1977
following completion of a B.Sc. in Clinical Biochemistry at UBC.
During a 22 year career in Vancouver, Paul worked in a variety
of operational roles including patrol, traffic, investigations,
surveillance and emergency response.
In the 1980’s Paul served as the elected president of police
labor organizations at a municipal, provincial and national level.
During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s Chief Battershill was the
leader of the Vancouver Regional Emergency Response Teams.
In 1993 Paul served as a member of the Justice Oppal Royal Commission of Inquiry into Policing in British Columbia.
In 1996 AND 1997 Paul was one of the founding Directors of the E-COMM Corporation which
established a multi-jurisdictional dispatch centre for police, fire and ambulance.
In 1999 Chief Battershill was appointed as Chief Constable of the City of Victoria.
In 2002 and 2003 Paul was elected as Chair of the RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services Advisory. Group tasked largely with implementing DNA technology at a national level.
In 2004 Paul was appointed as the Chief Investigator for the study of the use of TASERS in
British Columbia.
www.cacole.ca/Resource%20Library/Conferences/2007%20Conference/CACOLE%20Conference%202007%20Biographies.pdf
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A date has still not been set for a disciplinary hearing for suspended Victoria police chief Paul Battershill.
Victoria News - May 27, 2008
Mayor Alan Lowe said earlier this month he expected to set a hearing date within 30 days after handing Battershill a summary of findings from an RCMP investigation into an unspecified public trust complaint against him May 8.
Lowe said Monday the hearing has been delayed because Battershill has asked the Office of the Police Complaint Commssioner for information not contained in the summary. As chair of the police board, Lowe is required to serve as discipline authority for complaints involving the chief.
Deputy police complaint commissioner Bruce Brown said there is no deadline for the hearing to be scheduled. But Battershill's information request should not cause a delay.
"I guess you could say it's still in process right now," said Brown.
The discipline hearing will not be public. Only Lowe, Battershill and his counsel and a representative from the OPCC will be permitted.
"We're not required to attend but we often do attend disciplinary proceeding just to observe or monitor the process," said Brown.
If either Battershill or the OPCC disagrees with the outcome, a public hearing would then be convened.
Battershill has been suspended with pay since October 2007. Lowe has only said the complaint, which is not criminal in nature, relates to a "personnel matter."
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/news/19267624.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Chief Constable Paul Battershill
Chief Battershill joined the Vancouver Police Department in 1977
following completion of a B.Sc. in Clinical Biochemistry at UBC.
During a 22 year career in Vancouver, Paul worked in a variety
of operational roles including patrol, traffic, investigations,
surveillance and emergency response.
In the 1980’s Paul served as the elected president of police
labor organizations at a municipal, provincial and national level.
During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s Chief Battershill was the
leader of the Vancouver Regional Emergency Response Teams.
In 1993 Paul served as a member of the Justice Oppal Royal Commission of Inquiry into Policing in British Columbia.
In 1996 AND 1997 Paul was one of the founding Directors of the E-COMM Corporation which
established a multi-jurisdictional dispatch centre for police, fire and ambulance.
In 1999 Chief Battershill was appointed as Chief Constable of the City of Victoria.
In 2002 and 2003 Paul was elected as Chair of the RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services Advisory. Group tasked largely with implementing DNA technology at a national level.
In 2004 Paul was appointed as the Chief Investigator for the study of the use of TASERS in
British Columbia.
www.cacole.ca/Resource%20Library/Conferences/2007%20Conference/CACOLE%20Conference%202007%20Biographies.pdf
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Big day ... June 2nd
.
So you thought June 2, 2008 would be the big significant day in British Columbia because of the Basi Virk / BC Rail hearings getting under way again? Well, yes, there's that. A week from Monday, at Vancouver Supreme Court, 9:30 AM.
But perhaps even more significantly, June 2, 2008 is the big day for Premier Gordon Campbell's Invitational Golf Tournament at the Golden Eagle Golf Club at Maple Ridge. You won't believe the invitees unless you see the list with your own eyes. Go to Public Eye Online for May 23 and read about it under the heading Golden Golfing, by Sean Holman. Top o'the list: Alliance of Beverage Licensees of B.C. Big day gets under way at 8:30 AM and runs until 8:00 PM, with breakfast, lunch, dinner, and the $1 million shoot-out provided. I swear I am not making this up.
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/003104.html#more
Thanks to Anon-Y-mouse for the tip-off. - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
So you thought June 2, 2008 would be the big significant day in British Columbia because of the Basi Virk / BC Rail hearings getting under way again? Well, yes, there's that. A week from Monday, at Vancouver Supreme Court, 9:30 AM.
But perhaps even more significantly, June 2, 2008 is the big day for Premier Gordon Campbell's Invitational Golf Tournament at the Golden Eagle Golf Club at Maple Ridge. You won't believe the invitees unless you see the list with your own eyes. Go to Public Eye Online for May 23 and read about it under the heading Golden Golfing, by Sean Holman. Top o'the list: Alliance of Beverage Licensees of B.C. Big day gets under way at 8:30 AM and runs until 8:00 PM, with breakfast, lunch, dinner, and the $1 million shoot-out provided. I swear I am not making this up.
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/003104.html#more
Thanks to Anon-Y-mouse for the tip-off. - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Any news about Paul Battershill?
.
... former Chief of Police Battershill does get to see the findings. He got them May 8 and is given 10 business days in which to respond, or to request a public inquiry. So May 8 + 10 business days means that by May 21, we may hear the first reported words from Paul Battershill since this disturbing affair began.
That's what I wrote a few days ago.
The deadline has passed. It passed yesterday, according to my reckoning.
Has anybody seen Paul Battershill?
Has anybody heard from him? Does anybody know what he'll do next??
I did scan all BC's CanWest dailies and saw nothing about VicPD-gate. Although ... how surprising is that.
Tips will be much appreciated.
- BC Mary
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Many thanks to Anonymous 9:51 for the following welcome tip:
Tethered teen gets $60000 in lawsuit
Look at the suspended Chief Battershill, facing discipline and still get his ..... The award was for excessive use of force after the teen was detained and ...
www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/ news/story.html?id=d9ab89d4-711c-4518-9053-5711ec258ab7
And here's exactly the same URL which will take you to the original story in Times Colonist.
www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/ news/story.html?id=d9ab89d4-711c-4518-9053-5711ec258ab7
Suddenly I do have the feeling that somebody with a poor grasp of the language has mischief in mind and I don't like it.
But I did like the ONE item I found dated 2004 about Chief Constable Paul Battershill of Victoria Police Department who "recognized the value" of a 4-day "Youth Combating Intolerance Camp" and brought in 4 other police, 7 teachers, 5 Vancouver Island School Districts, and 77 young teens about the same age as Reena Virk who was murdered nearby. The kids heard from speakers such as the mother of Reena Virk and from other perspectives. Kids then went back to their schools to develop action plans to improve tolerance levels in their own communities.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
About 2 hours later, here's that same story again with a new phony lead-in:
Tethered teen gets $60000 in lawsuit
She stood up for all the victims of Police brutality. Look at the suspended Chief Battershill, facing discipline and still get [same grammar error. - BC Mary] his fat salary since November. ...
www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/ news/story.html?id=d9ab89d4-711c-4518-9053-5711ec258ab7
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Please tell me what you think of this? Who could do this? And why would they do it?
- BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Later there was a 3rd revision to that false lead-in. Each time it carried a stronger denunciation of Victoria's former Chief of Police. The article it introduced had nothing to do with the former Chief of Police. The false lead-in still contains a grammar error plus insults which, at very least, make it obvious that it wasn't written by a professional journalist. So how did it happen?
Could this be the answer?
Anonymous wrote:
I don't think this is a change. It has been there for some time. What I am suggesting is what you read didn't really exist except as a coding error. If you read some of the Google new releases they have a part from what is under a picture, part from what is the start of the story and parts from other things that are on the page.
Their bot doesn't read a page the way we read a page. If you were to post you pages using code instead of the blog system that is already set up you could see these differences. I tried and am still trying Dreamweaver but it is a lot harder to use than something like frontpage where I can ignore the code part of the page. If the google bot is reading the code then it's going to go to line (words) that the code tells it to.
For all we know the kid sending in the comment knew enough to put the coding words at the front of his comment so it would be kicked up to the top of the page.
BC Mary said: So ... may I ask, at this point ... do you think Paul Battershill is getting fair treatment this time around??
I don't think he is being treated any different than Jamie Graham the ex-VPD chief who got in a fight with the police commission or the West Van Chief that was let go because some cops were drinking while in uniform. Letting a police chief go always seems like it is far more political than anything else, and most likely it is, but at a City Hall level.
Which is not to say I would trust the Government of BC on anything.
That he is being paid while on leave is a nice thing that a couple of police chiefs have not gotten but had to sue to get. I think the Edmonton one and the West Van had to sue. Every Chief understands that when he becomes Chief he is far less a cop than a political punching bag that will most likely be fired when the honeymoon is over. That's why most other police departments and security groups don't worry too much about hiring a fired police Chief.
It always comes down to what did he do that caused everybody to react. Messing about or leaving a shooting target on a police commissioner's desk aren't up there too high as things to worry about. Taking the pension fund or putting other cops at risk are.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thank you, Anonymous. You've given us a lot to think about. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
May 26,
Anonymous has left a new comment on "Any news about Paul Battershill?":
Most of the police community knows that the RCMP report was favourable to him and they didn't find much to be concerned about. He'll move on and do other things, he's already moved to Kelowna we hear. The sad part is why did it happen and how it was handled. If there was politics behind it that is really bad.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Very likely, CanWest newspapers in B.C. will be silent on the subject of why Victoria's Chief Constable was put out of office. Victoria's Mayor Alan Lowe has said all along that the RCMP report will not be made public unless Paul Battershill chooses to have a public inquiry. So far as we know, he has not made that request. But there must be many other people in B.C., like myself, who will not forget this. Comments, tips, questions, thoughts are very much appreciated. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
... former Chief of Police Battershill does get to see the findings. He got them May 8 and is given 10 business days in which to respond, or to request a public inquiry. So May 8 + 10 business days means that by May 21, we may hear the first reported words from Paul Battershill since this disturbing affair began.
That's what I wrote a few days ago.
The deadline has passed. It passed yesterday, according to my reckoning.
Has anybody seen Paul Battershill?
Has anybody heard from him? Does anybody know what he'll do next??
I did scan all BC's CanWest dailies and saw nothing about VicPD-gate. Although ... how surprising is that.
Tips will be much appreciated.
- BC Mary
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Many thanks to Anonymous 9:51 for the following welcome tip:
-
Anonymous said... We heard he was in Vancouver last week. They gave him an award for bravery from a shooting he was in.
- And I said I'd post anything that Google could tell me. So I typed in "Paul Battershill + bravery award" and oddly enough, there were only 13 hits. The first three had nothing about Battershill's award. I know, I know -- maybe the search engine picked up "award" or maybe they just picked up every Paul or every award, just not the right ones.
- So I wasn't too concerned until I came to this hit. Tell me, if you can, what in blazes this has to do with Paul Battershill. The first 12 words do not appear in the Times Colonist story. The first 12 words could easily be viewed as a smear on the Chief's reputation. So those words seem to have been added in the process of filing the story with Google. Now who would do a thing like that? It even has a grammar error. Have a look ... this is exactly the hit, as it appears in Google:
Tethered teen gets $60000 in lawsuit
Look at the suspended Chief Battershill, facing discipline and still get his ..... The award was for excessive use of force after the teen was detained and ...
www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/ news/story.html?id=d9ab89d4-711c-4518-9053-5711ec258ab7
And here's exactly the same URL which will take you to the original story in Times Colonist.
www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/ news/story.html?id=d9ab89d4-711c-4518-9053-5711ec258ab7
Suddenly I do have the feeling that somebody with a poor grasp of the language has mischief in mind and I don't like it.
But I did like the ONE item I found dated 2004 about Chief Constable Paul Battershill of Victoria Police Department who "recognized the value" of a 4-day "Youth Combating Intolerance Camp" and brought in 4 other police, 7 teachers, 5 Vancouver Island School Districts, and 77 young teens about the same age as Reena Virk who was murdered nearby. The kids heard from speakers such as the mother of Reena Virk and from other perspectives. Kids then went back to their schools to develop action plans to improve tolerance levels in their own communities.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
About 2 hours later, here's that same story again with a new phony lead-in:
Tethered teen gets $60000 in lawsuit
She stood up for all the victims of Police brutality. Look at the suspended Chief Battershill, facing discipline and still get [same grammar error. - BC Mary] his fat salary since November. ...
www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/ news/story.html?id=d9ab89d4-711c-4518-9053-5711ec258ab7
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Please tell me what you think of this? Who could do this? And why would they do it?
- BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Later there was a 3rd revision to that false lead-in. Each time it carried a stronger denunciation of Victoria's former Chief of Police. The article it introduced had nothing to do with the former Chief of Police. The false lead-in still contains a grammar error plus insults which, at very least, make it obvious that it wasn't written by a professional journalist. So how did it happen?
Could this be the answer?
Anonymous wrote:
I don't think this is a change. It has been there for some time. What I am suggesting is what you read didn't really exist except as a coding error. If you read some of the Google new releases they have a part from what is under a picture, part from what is the start of the story and parts from other things that are on the page.
Their bot doesn't read a page the way we read a page. If you were to post you pages using code instead of the blog system that is already set up you could see these differences. I tried and am still trying Dreamweaver but it is a lot harder to use than something like frontpage where I can ignore the code part of the page. If the google bot is reading the code then it's going to go to line (words) that the code tells it to.
For all we know the kid sending in the comment knew enough to put the coding words at the front of his comment so it would be kicked up to the top of the page.
BC Mary said: So ... may I ask, at this point ... do you think Paul Battershill is getting fair treatment this time around??
I don't think he is being treated any different than Jamie Graham the ex-VPD chief who got in a fight with the police commission or the West Van Chief that was let go because some cops were drinking while in uniform. Letting a police chief go always seems like it is far more political than anything else, and most likely it is, but at a City Hall level.
Which is not to say I would trust the Government of BC on anything.
That he is being paid while on leave is a nice thing that a couple of police chiefs have not gotten but had to sue to get. I think the Edmonton one and the West Van had to sue. Every Chief understands that when he becomes Chief he is far less a cop than a political punching bag that will most likely be fired when the honeymoon is over. That's why most other police departments and security groups don't worry too much about hiring a fired police Chief.
It always comes down to what did he do that caused everybody to react. Messing about or leaving a shooting target on a police commissioner's desk aren't up there too high as things to worry about. Taking the pension fund or putting other cops at risk are.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thank you, Anonymous. You've given us a lot to think about. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
May 26,
Anonymous has left a new comment on "Any news about Paul Battershill?":
Most of the police community knows that the RCMP report was favourable to him and they didn't find much to be concerned about. He'll move on and do other things, he's already moved to Kelowna we hear. The sad part is why did it happen and how it was handled. If there was politics behind it that is really bad.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Very likely, CanWest newspapers in B.C. will be silent on the subject of why Victoria's Chief Constable was put out of office. Victoria's Mayor Alan Lowe has said all along that the RCMP report will not be made public unless Paul Battershill chooses to have a public inquiry. So far as we know, he has not made that request. But there must be many other people in B.C., like myself, who will not forget this. Comments, tips, questions, thoughts are very much appreciated. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Inquiry, courts fail accountability tests
.
By Les Leyne
Times Colonist - May 21, 2008
Somewhere along the way, Frank Paul's quiet, pathetic death on a Vancouver street turned from tragedy to farce.
In the whole sad story, there's one fact to keep in mind. It took nine and a half years -- almost a decade -- before there was an independent investigation of his death.
And even the inquiry -- largely a historic exercise -- finished up last week with big holes in the story. The case veered off into an argument about whether Crown prosecutors can be compelled to testify, an issue that could add another year to the story.
The only thing to be learned is that there is very little to be learned when you wait more than nine years to look into something.
It's something to keep in mind as the B.C. Rail corruption scandal wends its fitful way through the courts. Four and a half years after the police raid on the legislature, we're still waiting for some resolution to the case. Waiting, in fact, for the case to start.
The stories are two of the worst examples of how inadequate our official processes can be when it comes to investigating problems.
Or more to the point, how easily they can be stalled when it suits certain people's interests.
{Snipetty-doo-dah!} ...
Meanwhile, that other glacier known as the B.C. Rail corruption scandal continues to inch along.
The police barged into the legislature in December 2003 looking for evidence related to possible breach of trust by ministerial aides involved in the complex B.C. Rail deal. Corruption charges were eventually laid.
But in May 2008, we still await the start of the trial. The timeline on this case is absurd. The Nuremburg War Trials took less time.
The pile of documents that various parties involved have been pushing back and forth is now said to rival the size of the Air India exhibits.
There have been long arguments about disclosure and about protocols for handling documents. They went back and forth for months about what's relevant and what's not.
The Liberals have governed for seven years and more than half the time has been spent under a huge unresolved question mark about criminal allegations related to public business.
The case now might start June 2, although there are still some side issues to argue through.
However it concludes, it's a remarkable lesson -- as is the Paul case -- in how the public's right to prompt outcomes from official inquiries can get subverted by process, process, process.
lleyne@tc.canwest.com
Read the full column at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/business/story.html?id=6bb3ac14-2a40-4697-8942-707137acab68
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Good work, Les! Thank you.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
CBC's Terry Melewski was being interviewed on Newsworld today (Wed., May 21, 2008) about the gambling casinos' way of money-laundering the proceeds of crime. He said he had obtained the information from the government under a Freedom of Information request. And that it took 4 years to get that info. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By Les Leyne
Times Colonist - May 21, 2008
Somewhere along the way, Frank Paul's quiet, pathetic death on a Vancouver street turned from tragedy to farce.
In the whole sad story, there's one fact to keep in mind. It took nine and a half years -- almost a decade -- before there was an independent investigation of his death.
And even the inquiry -- largely a historic exercise -- finished up last week with big holes in the story. The case veered off into an argument about whether Crown prosecutors can be compelled to testify, an issue that could add another year to the story.
The only thing to be learned is that there is very little to be learned when you wait more than nine years to look into something.
It's something to keep in mind as the B.C. Rail corruption scandal wends its fitful way through the courts. Four and a half years after the police raid on the legislature, we're still waiting for some resolution to the case. Waiting, in fact, for the case to start.
The stories are two of the worst examples of how inadequate our official processes can be when it comes to investigating problems.
Or more to the point, how easily they can be stalled when it suits certain people's interests.
{Snipetty-doo-dah!} ...
Meanwhile, that other glacier known as the B.C. Rail corruption scandal continues to inch along.
The police barged into the legislature in December 2003 looking for evidence related to possible breach of trust by ministerial aides involved in the complex B.C. Rail deal. Corruption charges were eventually laid.
But in May 2008, we still await the start of the trial. The timeline on this case is absurd. The Nuremburg War Trials took less time.
The pile of documents that various parties involved have been pushing back and forth is now said to rival the size of the Air India exhibits.
There have been long arguments about disclosure and about protocols for handling documents. They went back and forth for months about what's relevant and what's not.
The Liberals have governed for seven years and more than half the time has been spent under a huge unresolved question mark about criminal allegations related to public business.
The case now might start June 2, although there are still some side issues to argue through.
However it concludes, it's a remarkable lesson -- as is the Paul case -- in how the public's right to prompt outcomes from official inquiries can get subverted by process, process, process.
lleyne@tc.canwest.com
Read the full column at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/business/story.html?id=6bb3ac14-2a40-4697-8942-707137acab68
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Good work, Les! Thank you.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
CBC's Terry Melewski was being interviewed on Newsworld today (Wed., May 21, 2008) about the gambling casinos' way of money-laundering the proceeds of crime. He said he had obtained the information from the government under a Freedom of Information request. And that it took 4 years to get that info. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Monday, May 19, 2008
BC Rail Scandal. Robin Mathews asks: Who is "political"? Who has "violated"?
.
The RCMP investigation now requested by Leonard Krog MLA into alleged violation of the first protocol, for testing if cabinet materials are "privileged" (in effect, denied to the court).
Robin Mathews
Leonard Krog has published the letters of October and November of 2004 which appear to reveal that George Copley, counsel for the cabinet, and Ken Dobell, deputy minister to the premier, were, in fact, violating the terms of the carefully worked out protocol to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of materials sought, and investigative procedures to be undertaken, by the RCMP. Krog has written a letter to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Bass asking for investigation of the alleged violation.
Tracing the change from the old protocol that worked for nearly four years to the sudden and unilaterally imposed protocol by Gordon Campbell opens important questions. Did it happen because Defence was asking for documents revealing pressure on the Campbell government over the BC Rail sale? That is a fair question - as many others would be, since no one in cabinet will explain why a new protocol was put in place unilaterally by the chief political agent of the government, the premier.
I have said that the appointment of deputy attorney general Allan Seckel was political and that Seckel can make no move in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter that is not political, having been a political appointment erasing a protocol constructed to prevent political interference in the court process.
But a question now arises about George Copley. He worked within the established protocol for the nearly four years. In February and March 2007, he gives evidence (in the released documents asked for by Krog) of working with the established protocol without difficulty. Then in May 2007 Gordon Campbell unilaterally changed the protocol, placing Allan Seckel, deputy attorney general, in a position to screen and decide whether cabinet documents will be privileged materials.
Without apparently batting an eye, and - as far as we can see - without asking a single question, George Copley accepted the new system. On June 5, 2007, dealing with an application by the Defence for disclosure by the Provincial Government, Copley reported to cabinet secretary Elizabeth MacMillan that he was "presently seeking instruction from the Deputy Attorney General on what position to take at [the] appearance before the court".
Who gave George Copley instructions to abandon the old protocol and follow the new one? What reasons were given to Copley for the change? Did he consider the change better? Did he consider it a brazen political move? Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Defence to request the right to cross-examine Copley as someone who may not only be a party to violation of the original protocol but a willing actor under the new (dubious) one.
As they say in detective stories the plot thickens. Consider. When I read the two letters published by Leonard Krog, I was surprised. I was sure I had never seen them before. But when Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett released the documents requested by Krog, she stated that they were released generally, to the public. I went to the Criminal Registry desk and asked to have copies. I was told there were many pages and I could read them there and order copies of what I wanted at one dollar per page.
Reading them there meant standing at the counter the whole time because neither Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett nor people in Criminal Registry would think to offer a concerned Canadian a seat at a desk to examine the some 300 pages of material. Nonetheless, I persevered, going through the whole gathering. Not being able to afford the whole batch at one dollar per page, I selected. Anything that mentioned Judith Reid or Gary Collins or questions to be asked about documents found by RCMP was the kind of thing I wanted and would order.
As a reasonable Canadian, I would say that the letters Leonard Krog published were not included in the materials I went through at the Criminal Registry desk. Of course, as they say in detective stories, I couldn't swear in a court of law that they were not in the gathering of documents I went through. But if the letters Krog published were not in the gathering I went through, the integrity of Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is in question. I cannot swear they were not there, as I say.
Perhaps my doubts make a serious point. Charging a dollar a page for the documents was an insult. Making readers stand at the counter to examine the whole gathering was an insult. If I had been allowed the whole gathering for a decent price, there would be no question about whether Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett chose to keep some of the more significant pages out of public hands. That the doubt exists, ironically, is her own fault for making public access so difficult.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The RCMP investigation now requested by Leonard Krog MLA into alleged violation of the first protocol, for testing if cabinet materials are "privileged" (in effect, denied to the court).
Robin Mathews
Leonard Krog has published the letters of October and November of 2004 which appear to reveal that George Copley, counsel for the cabinet, and Ken Dobell, deputy minister to the premier, were, in fact, violating the terms of the carefully worked out protocol to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of materials sought, and investigative procedures to be undertaken, by the RCMP. Krog has written a letter to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Bass asking for investigation of the alleged violation.
Tracing the change from the old protocol that worked for nearly four years to the sudden and unilaterally imposed protocol by Gordon Campbell opens important questions. Did it happen because Defence was asking for documents revealing pressure on the Campbell government over the BC Rail sale? That is a fair question - as many others would be, since no one in cabinet will explain why a new protocol was put in place unilaterally by the chief political agent of the government, the premier.
I have said that the appointment of deputy attorney general Allan Seckel was political and that Seckel can make no move in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter that is not political, having been a political appointment erasing a protocol constructed to prevent political interference in the court process.
But a question now arises about George Copley. He worked within the established protocol for the nearly four years. In February and March 2007, he gives evidence (in the released documents asked for by Krog) of working with the established protocol without difficulty. Then in May 2007 Gordon Campbell unilaterally changed the protocol, placing Allan Seckel, deputy attorney general, in a position to screen and decide whether cabinet documents will be privileged materials.
Without apparently batting an eye, and - as far as we can see - without asking a single question, George Copley accepted the new system. On June 5, 2007, dealing with an application by the Defence for disclosure by the Provincial Government, Copley reported to cabinet secretary Elizabeth MacMillan that he was "presently seeking instruction from the Deputy Attorney General on what position to take at [the] appearance before the court".
Who gave George Copley instructions to abandon the old protocol and follow the new one? What reasons were given to Copley for the change? Did he consider the change better? Did he consider it a brazen political move? Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Defence to request the right to cross-examine Copley as someone who may not only be a party to violation of the original protocol but a willing actor under the new (dubious) one.
As they say in detective stories the plot thickens. Consider. When I read the two letters published by Leonard Krog, I was surprised. I was sure I had never seen them before. But when Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett released the documents requested by Krog, she stated that they were released generally, to the public. I went to the Criminal Registry desk and asked to have copies. I was told there were many pages and I could read them there and order copies of what I wanted at one dollar per page.
Reading them there meant standing at the counter the whole time because neither Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett nor people in Criminal Registry would think to offer a concerned Canadian a seat at a desk to examine the some 300 pages of material. Nonetheless, I persevered, going through the whole gathering. Not being able to afford the whole batch at one dollar per page, I selected. Anything that mentioned Judith Reid or Gary Collins or questions to be asked about documents found by RCMP was the kind of thing I wanted and would order.
As a reasonable Canadian, I would say that the letters Leonard Krog published were not included in the materials I went through at the Criminal Registry desk. Of course, as they say in detective stories, I couldn't swear in a court of law that they were not in the gathering of documents I went through. But if the letters Krog published were not in the gathering I went through, the integrity of Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is in question. I cannot swear they were not there, as I say.
Perhaps my doubts make a serious point. Charging a dollar a page for the documents was an insult. Making readers stand at the counter to examine the whole gathering was an insult. If I had been allowed the whole gathering for a decent price, there would be no question about whether Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett chose to keep some of the more significant pages out of public hands. That the doubt exists, ironically, is her own fault for making public access so difficult.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sunday, May 18, 2008
A public lynching ... posse unknown
.
I don't know. I repeat: I don't know ... I'm just asking: what if we're watching a good person being lynched right before our eyes? What if his "personnel issue" is that he might have become a thorn in Gordon Campbell's side? Like I say: I don't know. But I am impressed and aggrieved by the comments coming in to The Legislature Raids from people who apparently do know more of the facts surrounding former Chief of Police Paul Battershill. This comment (below) in particular, responding to ideas put forward at Victoria Police Department since Battershill got his time-out last October, tells us:
Anonymous wrote on May 18 ...
You can increase street arrests just by making some easy drug arrests, it means nothing. Our union is upset because he was a decent chief and they were hoping he'd go into government and we'd finally have somebody in there who understood the issues. Everybody knew he was getting ready to go in a year, that's the sick part.
Well ... I didn't know that either. But if it's true that Paul Battershill intended to retire from Victoria Police in a year ... and if he could have been persuaded to be a candidate in the next election ... then:
* why attack someone in the final months of his service? It obviously wasn't a constructive complaint about police service. It was something else.
* was he "taken out" because he might be a sure winner in the 2009 race for the next B.C. government?
* was this attack on his integrity connected to his role as co-leader of the police raid on the B.C. Legislature? Was this public challenge over "a personnel issue" a covert attempt to discredit him before he might be called to testify at the Basi-Virk / BC Rail corruption trial?
* was this one of the so-called "dirty tricks" political attacks as discussed in evidence at the Basi-Virk / BC Rail trial? Although more intense, it seems very similar to attacks which have been reported against Paul Nettleton, former Liberal M.L.A. for Prince George who resisted Premier Campbell's privatization of BC Hydro and BCRail; against the Mayor of North Vancouver who resisted BC Rail privatization; against Jim Sinclair and the BCFederation of Labour -- also opponents of BCRail privatization; and against Carole James, Leader of the Opposition.
If any of these questions can be answered with "Yes", then B.C. has been hit hard. If excellence in public service is declared suspect, then a threat reverberates throughout the civil service. Also: the electoral process itself is corrupted if candidates can be dive-bombed even before the voting begins. If "Yes", then the Battershill issue is a sly, politically-motivated, modern-day lynching taking place right before our eyes.
Then the findings of the RCMP's report to the Victoria Police Board will be secret. Of course.
But former Chief of Police Battershill does get to see the findings. He got them May 8 and is given 10 business days in which to respond, or to request a public inquiry. So May 8 + 10 business days means that by May 21, we may hear the first reported words from Paul Battershill since this disturbing affair began.
If those "findings" claim that Paul Battershill did anything short of scraping the gilt off the cupola of the Parliament Building, I hope the former Chief insists upon a public inquiry.
Let this former Chief of Police for B.C.'s capital city have his say. Let the people hear anything he needs to explain, anything his tormentors want to explain. Let the people of Victoria and the rest of B.C. ask all the questions currently tumbling around in our heads.
Let it be Paul Battershill's first public speech of his 2009 electoral campaign.
- BC Mary
_____________________________________________________________
Other comments about this "personnel issue":
Anonymous said on May 16:
The scuttlebut in the Policing World is that Chief Battershill will be exonerated........lets face it the truth WILL come out and we will see who was behind this coup............
What goes round.....comes around!
Anonymous said on May 17:
Did they ever find out who broke in to [Paul Battershill's] lawyer's office or in to Tieleman's office?
Anonymous said on May 17:
This is the biggest recent travesty in policing in BC. Absolutely shameful.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I don't know. I repeat: I don't know ... I'm just asking: what if we're watching a good person being lynched right before our eyes? What if his "personnel issue" is that he might have become a thorn in Gordon Campbell's side? Like I say: I don't know. But I am impressed and aggrieved by the comments coming in to The Legislature Raids from people who apparently do know more of the facts surrounding former Chief of Police Paul Battershill. This comment (below) in particular, responding to ideas put forward at Victoria Police Department since Battershill got his time-out last October, tells us:
Anonymous wrote on May 18 ...
You can increase street arrests just by making some easy drug arrests, it means nothing. Our union is upset because he was a decent chief and they were hoping he'd go into government and we'd finally have somebody in there who understood the issues. Everybody knew he was getting ready to go in a year, that's the sick part.
Well ... I didn't know that either. But if it's true that Paul Battershill intended to retire from Victoria Police in a year ... and if he could have been persuaded to be a candidate in the next election ... then:
* why attack someone in the final months of his service? It obviously wasn't a constructive complaint about police service. It was something else.
* was he "taken out" because he might be a sure winner in the 2009 race for the next B.C. government?
* was this attack on his integrity connected to his role as co-leader of the police raid on the B.C. Legislature? Was this public challenge over "a personnel issue" a covert attempt to discredit him before he might be called to testify at the Basi-Virk / BC Rail corruption trial?
* was this one of the so-called "dirty tricks" political attacks as discussed in evidence at the Basi-Virk / BC Rail trial? Although more intense, it seems very similar to attacks which have been reported against Paul Nettleton, former Liberal M.L.A. for Prince George who resisted Premier Campbell's privatization of BC Hydro and BCRail; against the Mayor of North Vancouver who resisted BC Rail privatization; against Jim Sinclair and the BCFederation of Labour -- also opponents of BCRail privatization; and against Carole James, Leader of the Opposition.
If any of these questions can be answered with "Yes", then B.C. has been hit hard. If excellence in public service is declared suspect, then a threat reverberates throughout the civil service. Also: the electoral process itself is corrupted if candidates can be dive-bombed even before the voting begins. If "Yes", then the Battershill issue is a sly, politically-motivated, modern-day lynching taking place right before our eyes.
Then the findings of the RCMP's report to the Victoria Police Board will be secret. Of course.
But former Chief of Police Battershill does get to see the findings. He got them May 8 and is given 10 business days in which to respond, or to request a public inquiry. So May 8 + 10 business days means that by May 21, we may hear the first reported words from Paul Battershill since this disturbing affair began.
If those "findings" claim that Paul Battershill did anything short of scraping the gilt off the cupola of the Parliament Building, I hope the former Chief insists upon a public inquiry.
Let this former Chief of Police for B.C.'s capital city have his say. Let the people hear anything he needs to explain, anything his tormentors want to explain. Let the people of Victoria and the rest of B.C. ask all the questions currently tumbling around in our heads.
Let it be Paul Battershill's first public speech of his 2009 electoral campaign.
- BC Mary
_____________________________________________________________
Other comments about this "personnel issue":
Anonymous said on May 16:
The scuttlebut in the Policing World is that Chief Battershill will be exonerated........lets face it the truth WILL come out and we will see who was behind this coup............
What goes round.....comes around!
Anonymous said on May 17:
Did they ever find out who broke in to [Paul Battershill's] lawyer's office or in to Tieleman's office?
Anonymous said on May 17:
This is the biggest recent travesty in policing in BC. Absolutely shameful.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Friday, May 16, 2008
Television in the Courtroom: where "the citizens, collectively, exercise the function of sovereign by ruling themselves"
.
Judge considers request to tape B.C. trial
from CBC News
In what would be a first for the province, a B.C. Supreme Court judge might allow tape recorders and TV cameras into a courtroom in Victoria ...
I wish that judge could be Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. I wish the B.C. trial could be the Basi Virk Basi / BC Rail trial. And who knows, it might happen. But the quote above is dated July 5, 2000 and concerns the trial of nine Koreans charged with smuggling 131 Chinese migrants into Canada. Nevertheless, a precedent is a precedent and the common law is built upon precedents. That trial did happen in B.C. and it was indeed televised.
Many of us are hoping that Madam Justice Bennett will also rule in favour of allowing British Columbians to observe the unfolding evidence in the Basi Virk Basi / BC Rail trial.
To find the general terms of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Policy on Television in the Courtroom (adopted March 9, 2001) we must go to: http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/02camerafactum.html and scroll down through some dead-boring legal talk until we get to Part II: Summary of common arguments for and against television in the courtroom.
FOR TELEVISION:
* Television opens trials to public scrutiny ...
* enhances fairness of the trial and the appearance of fairness that is essential to public confidence in the system by exposing the participants to public view and criticism
* does not distort – merely "watches" and shows accurately
* knowledge that trial will be televised will cause lawyers to prepare more thoroughly to avoid looking foolish, and will thus produce more effective advocacy and an improvement in the administration of justice
* the courts are public institutions, not the private preserve of judges, and the public has a right to have public proceedings televised
* Television educates the public
* increased public understanding of the system enhances the quality of justice and engenders respect and confidence – will allay the current widespread cynicism
* most people have no direct access to courtrooms and receive their information through television
* an informed public can work to ensure that laws and procedures are fairly and lawfully implemented
* television provides more accurate, balanced, and complete reports of court proceedings than conventional media reports
* tapes of televised trials will be valuable educational tools, particularly for law students
AGAINST TELEVISION
* Television affects the trial participants
* witnesses may be reluctant to testify when faced with the glare of publicity
* witnesses may look and act differently than they would if they did not know they were being televised, thus affecting an assessment of their credibility (The U.S. Federal Judicial Conference evaluation noted that 64% of participating judges reported that, at least to some extent, cameras make witnesses more nervous and 41% found that, at least to some extent, cameras distract witnesses)
* a witness’s testimony may be affected by what he or she sees during televised proceedings before testifying
* witnesses may embellish their testimony to attract media attention to themselves – their "15 minutes of fame"
* television puts unnecessary pressure on jurors and could affect their judgment
* lawyers will be tempted to "grandstand" (e.g., O.J. Simpson)
* television may affect counsel’s conduct of the case ...
These arguments are fully developed in two particularly useful papers. First, arguments in favour of televised trials are developed in a paper by Daniel J. Henry, house counsel for the C.B.C., entitled "Electronic Public Access to Court – An Idea Whose Time Has Come", which can be found at: http://adidem.org/articles/DH1.html . Second, arguments against television of trials are set out in an article by M. David Lepofsky, counsel in the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, who was Crown counsel in R. v. Squires in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal. His paper is entitled "Cameras in the Courtroom – Not Without My Consent", and is published at 6 National Journal of Constitutional Law 161.
___________________________________________
From The Canadian Encyclopedia: Cameras in the Court, another view Pro and Con
Canadian courts are open to any member of the public if there is the space, if the court is near enough to them and if they can find the time to attend. For years Canadian media have argued for television camera access to court proceedings. There has been some televised coverage of Canadian courts [such as the 9 Koreans cited above. - BC Mary] though it is not routine.
The Supreme Court of Canada first allowed a camera in its court in 1981 to broadcast its decision in the Patriation Reference case. Since 2 March 1993 it has permitted the televising of 3 cases - involving the tax deductibility of nanny expenses to a professional (Symes), the right to assisted suicide (Rodriguez) and the tax deductibility of spousal support payments (Thibaudeau). It now records all arguments before it for its own use and for occasional teaching purposes. [My emphasis added. - BC Mary.]
Camera access to courts is not novel. While it has been allowed from time to time in Australia, China, France, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Spain and the European Court of Human Rights, the greatest experience outside Canada is in the United States. Cameras are allowed in the courts of 47 states and were permitted for 3 years in selected civil proceedings of the US Federal Court.
Fundamental Freedoms
In Canada, there are 2 additional elements to the debate. The CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS provides under s2(b) that a fundamental freedom is "freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Unlike the United States, where a constitutional right of camera access to court has not yet been established, judicial decisions in Canada make it clear that the Charter right in s2(b) includes the process of filming generally, and includes, as well, general public access to court.
From the point of view of policy, it is clear the Canadians are now deluged with American justice on television. Advocates argue that television camera access to Canadian courts holds the promise that Canadians could see and hear how their own unique system of justice works.
Proponents
Proponents argue that television is simply another method of making public proceedings public. Electronic reports are more accurate and provide more people with first-hand information. The placement of a single camera and microphone in court at the side of the public gallery without additional light does not affect the proceedings, and the dignity and decorum of the proceedings are preserved. Witnesses who testify are more likely to tell the truth, knowing that viewers are monitoring their testimony. As for certain vulnerable witnesses, such as sexual assault complainants, there are in Canada bans on the publication of any information which would identify them, and these bans apply to all forms of coverage, including television. Lawyers, for their part, are more likely to prepare and present their cases well if they are televised.
If there are concerns about juror anonymity, rules can be developed to ensure that jurors are not the focus of television coverage. Proponents point to a number of studies supporting them. One of the more recent scientific studies, published in 1990, showed that the camera in court did not impair a witness's ability to recall accurately details of a crime or to communicate effectively, and did not adversely affect juror perceptions of the quality of witness testimony.
Opponents
Opponents to camera access maintain that there is a greater tendency to grandstand, and they focus on the use of "misleading" and "sensationalist" clips by the media. They maintain that the media are not interested in educating the public, but rather, exploiting for commercial gain the private tragedies of individuals who are forced to come to court to obtain or participate in justice. Fair trial is inevitably affected by prejudicial publicity. Victims will hesitate to report crime, for fear of having to appear on television. Justice will not be served.
Most agree that televising appellate proceedings is not problematic. Concerns surround the television of the testimony of witnesses at trials. The issue following from that is whether televising should then be permitted with the consent of the parties in the case and the witness concerned. Proponents of greater camera access to court argue that a consent rule, such as that which exists in Ontario, means that there is little or no television coverage of courts, in fact. They suggest that while the position of the participants can be taken into account, the judge should decide whether television should be permitted on the basis of the open court principle, constitutional rights and the public interest.
_____________________________________________________
Continued from Supreme Court of B.C. policy on Television in the Courtroom:
C) The Interests in the Balance
a. The Principle of Open Courtrooms
16. The presumption in favour of open courtrooms is grounded in the fundamental concept of democracy that the citizens, collectively, exercise the function of sovereign by ruling themselves. This ideal requires citizens to retain the ability to observe, deliberate on, and call into account both elected and unelected representatives of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government ...
The freedom of individuals to discuss information about the institutions of government, their policies and practices, is crucial to any notion of democratic rule. The liberty to criticize and express dissenting views has long been thought to be a safeguard against state tyranny and corruption.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 (S.C.C.) at 494; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
17. The interest of the democratic citizenry that underlies the principle of open courtrooms is elevated to constitutional status by section 2(b) of the Charter. As noted by La Forest, J. in CBC v. New Brunswick:
The principle of open courts is tied inextricably to the rights guaranteed by s.2(b). Openness permits public access to information about the courts, which in turn permits the public to discuss and put forward opinions and criticisms of court practices and proceedings.... The full and fair discussion of public institutions, which is vital to any democracy, is the raison d'etre of the s.2(b) guarantees.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 at para.23; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
18. In Edmonton Journal, Cory, J. expressed the preeminent importance free expression in securing the democratic accountability of institutions:
It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society that freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized.
_________________________________________________________________
Coming soon: Why the Basi Virk Basi / BC Rail trial should be televised,
How to initiate a request to Madam Justice Bennett to rule in favour of TV.
- BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Judge considers request to tape B.C. trial
from CBC News
In what would be a first for the province, a B.C. Supreme Court judge might allow tape recorders and TV cameras into a courtroom in Victoria ...
I wish that judge could be Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. I wish the B.C. trial could be the Basi Virk Basi / BC Rail trial. And who knows, it might happen. But the quote above is dated July 5, 2000 and concerns the trial of nine Koreans charged with smuggling 131 Chinese migrants into Canada. Nevertheless, a precedent is a precedent and the common law is built upon precedents. That trial did happen in B.C. and it was indeed televised.
Many of us are hoping that Madam Justice Bennett will also rule in favour of allowing British Columbians to observe the unfolding evidence in the Basi Virk Basi / BC Rail trial.
To find the general terms of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Policy on Television in the Courtroom (adopted March 9, 2001) we must go to: http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/02camerafactum.html and scroll down through some dead-boring legal talk until we get to Part II: Summary of common arguments for and against television in the courtroom.
FOR TELEVISION:
* Television opens trials to public scrutiny ...
* enhances fairness of the trial and the appearance of fairness that is essential to public confidence in the system by exposing the participants to public view and criticism
* does not distort – merely "watches" and shows accurately
* knowledge that trial will be televised will cause lawyers to prepare more thoroughly to avoid looking foolish, and will thus produce more effective advocacy and an improvement in the administration of justice
* the courts are public institutions, not the private preserve of judges, and the public has a right to have public proceedings televised
* Television educates the public
* increased public understanding of the system enhances the quality of justice and engenders respect and confidence – will allay the current widespread cynicism
* most people have no direct access to courtrooms and receive their information through television
* an informed public can work to ensure that laws and procedures are fairly and lawfully implemented
* television provides more accurate, balanced, and complete reports of court proceedings than conventional media reports
* tapes of televised trials will be valuable educational tools, particularly for law students
AGAINST TELEVISION
* Television affects the trial participants
* witnesses may be reluctant to testify when faced with the glare of publicity
* witnesses may look and act differently than they would if they did not know they were being televised, thus affecting an assessment of their credibility (The U.S. Federal Judicial Conference evaluation noted that 64% of participating judges reported that, at least to some extent, cameras make witnesses more nervous and 41% found that, at least to some extent, cameras distract witnesses)
* a witness’s testimony may be affected by what he or she sees during televised proceedings before testifying
* witnesses may embellish their testimony to attract media attention to themselves – their "15 minutes of fame"
* television puts unnecessary pressure on jurors and could affect their judgment
* lawyers will be tempted to "grandstand" (e.g., O.J. Simpson)
* television may affect counsel’s conduct of the case ...
These arguments are fully developed in two particularly useful papers. First, arguments in favour of televised trials are developed in a paper by Daniel J. Henry, house counsel for the C.B.C., entitled "Electronic Public Access to Court – An Idea Whose Time Has Come", which can be found at: http://adidem.org/articles/DH1.html . Second, arguments against television of trials are set out in an article by M. David Lepofsky, counsel in the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, who was Crown counsel in R. v. Squires in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal. His paper is entitled "Cameras in the Courtroom – Not Without My Consent", and is published at 6 National Journal of Constitutional Law 161.
___________________________________________
From The Canadian Encyclopedia: Cameras in the Court, another view Pro and Con
Canadian courts are open to any member of the public if there is the space, if the court is near enough to them and if they can find the time to attend. For years Canadian media have argued for television camera access to court proceedings. There has been some televised coverage of Canadian courts [such as the 9 Koreans cited above. - BC Mary] though it is not routine.
The Supreme Court of Canada first allowed a camera in its court in 1981 to broadcast its decision in the Patriation Reference case. Since 2 March 1993 it has permitted the televising of 3 cases - involving the tax deductibility of nanny expenses to a professional (Symes), the right to assisted suicide (Rodriguez) and the tax deductibility of spousal support payments (Thibaudeau). It now records all arguments before it for its own use and for occasional teaching purposes. [My emphasis added. - BC Mary.]
Camera access to courts is not novel. While it has been allowed from time to time in Australia, China, France, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Spain and the European Court of Human Rights, the greatest experience outside Canada is in the United States. Cameras are allowed in the courts of 47 states and were permitted for 3 years in selected civil proceedings of the US Federal Court.
Fundamental Freedoms
In Canada, there are 2 additional elements to the debate. The CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS provides under s2(b) that a fundamental freedom is "freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Unlike the United States, where a constitutional right of camera access to court has not yet been established, judicial decisions in Canada make it clear that the Charter right in s2(b) includes the process of filming generally, and includes, as well, general public access to court.
From the point of view of policy, it is clear the Canadians are now deluged with American justice on television. Advocates argue that television camera access to Canadian courts holds the promise that Canadians could see and hear how their own unique system of justice works.
Proponents
Proponents argue that television is simply another method of making public proceedings public. Electronic reports are more accurate and provide more people with first-hand information. The placement of a single camera and microphone in court at the side of the public gallery without additional light does not affect the proceedings, and the dignity and decorum of the proceedings are preserved. Witnesses who testify are more likely to tell the truth, knowing that viewers are monitoring their testimony. As for certain vulnerable witnesses, such as sexual assault complainants, there are in Canada bans on the publication of any information which would identify them, and these bans apply to all forms of coverage, including television. Lawyers, for their part, are more likely to prepare and present their cases well if they are televised.
If there are concerns about juror anonymity, rules can be developed to ensure that jurors are not the focus of television coverage. Proponents point to a number of studies supporting them. One of the more recent scientific studies, published in 1990, showed that the camera in court did not impair a witness's ability to recall accurately details of a crime or to communicate effectively, and did not adversely affect juror perceptions of the quality of witness testimony.
Opponents
Opponents to camera access maintain that there is a greater tendency to grandstand, and they focus on the use of "misleading" and "sensationalist" clips by the media. They maintain that the media are not interested in educating the public, but rather, exploiting for commercial gain the private tragedies of individuals who are forced to come to court to obtain or participate in justice. Fair trial is inevitably affected by prejudicial publicity. Victims will hesitate to report crime, for fear of having to appear on television. Justice will not be served.
Most agree that televising appellate proceedings is not problematic. Concerns surround the television of the testimony of witnesses at trials. The issue following from that is whether televising should then be permitted with the consent of the parties in the case and the witness concerned. Proponents of greater camera access to court argue that a consent rule, such as that which exists in Ontario, means that there is little or no television coverage of courts, in fact. They suggest that while the position of the participants can be taken into account, the judge should decide whether television should be permitted on the basis of the open court principle, constitutional rights and the public interest.
_____________________________________________________
Continued from Supreme Court of B.C. policy on Television in the Courtroom:
C) The Interests in the Balance
a. The Principle of Open Courtrooms
16. The presumption in favour of open courtrooms is grounded in the fundamental concept of democracy that the citizens, collectively, exercise the function of sovereign by ruling themselves. This ideal requires citizens to retain the ability to observe, deliberate on, and call into account both elected and unelected representatives of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government ...
The freedom of individuals to discuss information about the institutions of government, their policies and practices, is crucial to any notion of democratic rule. The liberty to criticize and express dissenting views has long been thought to be a safeguard against state tyranny and corruption.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 (S.C.C.) at 494; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
17. The interest of the democratic citizenry that underlies the principle of open courtrooms is elevated to constitutional status by section 2(b) of the Charter. As noted by La Forest, J. in CBC v. New Brunswick:
The principle of open courts is tied inextricably to the rights guaranteed by s.2(b). Openness permits public access to information about the courts, which in turn permits the public to discuss and put forward opinions and criticisms of court practices and proceedings.... The full and fair discussion of public institutions, which is vital to any democracy, is the raison d'etre of the s.2(b) guarantees.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 at para.23; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
18. In Edmonton Journal, Cory, J. expressed the preeminent importance free expression in securing the democratic accountability of institutions:
It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society that freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized.
_________________________________________________________________
Coming soon: Why the Basi Virk Basi / BC Rail trial should be televised,
How to initiate a request to Madam Justice Bennett to rule in favour of TV.
- BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Ken Dobell went through cabinet files before police
.
Premier's top adviser had access to key evidence
Ken Dobell went through cabinet files before police
Michael Smyth
The Province - May 15, 2008
The shocking 2003 raid on the legislature created a bizarre and unprecedented situation for the police, prosecutors, politicians and parliamentarians.
Bashing down the door of a crack house or grow-op is one thing. But this was the legislature, the centre of our democracy, the people's house.
The legislative "precincts," as they're known, operate under their own ancient rules and privileges. At the beginning of every session, MLAs approve a bill called "An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament" to drive the point home: This is the seat of power in B.C.
So what happens when the cops show up with a search warrant and start hauling away the contents of filing cabinets and computer hard drives? Can any flatfoot flash his badge and start rummaging through the cabinet laundry hamper?
Hardly. The cabinet operates in the strictest secrecy. Cabinet ministers swear an oath to ensure its secrets are preserved.
In a system where parliament is supreme, a special process had to be worked out to ensure the evidence collected in the raid was preserved and the investigation allowed to proceed, all while the supremacy of parliament was respected.
That's why the B.C. Supreme Court set up the evidence-vetting protocol I described in Tuesday's column: All the evidence was sealed in a locked room and only four people, who signed a secrecy agreement, were allowed to look at it.
Thus, it could be decided which documents could be turned over to police and which would remain secret due to cabinet "privilege."
Ken Dobell knew about this protocol. Premier Gordon Campbell's deputy minister and closest adviser was kept in the loop during the protocol's development, according to a government e-mail trail.
Dobell also knew the seriousness of the situation: Three former senior government insiders are charged with accepting bribes, influence-peddling and money-laundering in the government's $1-billion sale of B.C. Rail to CN Rail.
The revelation that Dobell reviewed several of the most crucial cabinet documents in the case before releasing them to the police is mind-boggling. He was not covered by the Supreme Court protocol. He did not sign the undertaking not to discuss the evidence.
"This could jeopardize the trial," NDP justice critic Leonard Krog, who revealed Dobell's involvement, told me yesterday.
Now Krog has written to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP asking for a separate investigation into the Dobell bombshell.
The documents that Dobell reviewed were to be used by the police to conduct interviews with former cabinet ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid and three senior bureaucrats, Krog notes.
"Mr. Dobell . . . at no time swore an undertaking not to disclose information about those documents and the use the RCMP intended to make of them," Krog wrote yesterday to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass.
"Mr. Dobell, due to his unique position in the government, had greater day-to-day access to all the parties to the RCMP interviews than almost anyone in government.
"Given the gravity of the implications of these facts, I ask that the RCMP begin a separate criminal investigation immediately." {Snip} ...
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=4237ee97-6f80-405b-bc01-755daeda7da4
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
See also (remember this?):
Before police raided the B.C. Legislature, there was time to destroy evidence.
By Three Concerned Canadians
During the month of December 2003, key people in the B.C. legislature knew that an unprecedented police raid was coming. The public ever since has been asked to assume that the Campbell government and staff sat meekly for 28 days, doing nothing to protect themselves. We question that assumption ...
This full editorial is in the archives of The Legislature Raids. Find it by scrolling down to January 16; or by typing "time to destroy evidence" in the search box (top of this page, left side).
- BC Mary
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Premier's top adviser had access to key evidence
Ken Dobell went through cabinet files before police
Michael Smyth
The Province - May 15, 2008
The shocking 2003 raid on the legislature created a bizarre and unprecedented situation for the police, prosecutors, politicians and parliamentarians.
Bashing down the door of a crack house or grow-op is one thing. But this was the legislature, the centre of our democracy, the people's house.
The legislative "precincts," as they're known, operate under their own ancient rules and privileges. At the beginning of every session, MLAs approve a bill called "An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament" to drive the point home: This is the seat of power in B.C.
So what happens when the cops show up with a search warrant and start hauling away the contents of filing cabinets and computer hard drives? Can any flatfoot flash his badge and start rummaging through the cabinet laundry hamper?
Hardly. The cabinet operates in the strictest secrecy. Cabinet ministers swear an oath to ensure its secrets are preserved.
In a system where parliament is supreme, a special process had to be worked out to ensure the evidence collected in the raid was preserved and the investigation allowed to proceed, all while the supremacy of parliament was respected.
That's why the B.C. Supreme Court set up the evidence-vetting protocol I described in Tuesday's column: All the evidence was sealed in a locked room and only four people, who signed a secrecy agreement, were allowed to look at it.
Thus, it could be decided which documents could be turned over to police and which would remain secret due to cabinet "privilege."
Ken Dobell knew about this protocol. Premier Gordon Campbell's deputy minister and closest adviser was kept in the loop during the protocol's development, according to a government e-mail trail.
Dobell also knew the seriousness of the situation: Three former senior government insiders are charged with accepting bribes, influence-peddling and money-laundering in the government's $1-billion sale of B.C. Rail to CN Rail.
The revelation that Dobell reviewed several of the most crucial cabinet documents in the case before releasing them to the police is mind-boggling. He was not covered by the Supreme Court protocol. He did not sign the undertaking not to discuss the evidence.
"This could jeopardize the trial," NDP justice critic Leonard Krog, who revealed Dobell's involvement, told me yesterday.
Now Krog has written to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP asking for a separate investigation into the Dobell bombshell.
The documents that Dobell reviewed were to be used by the police to conduct interviews with former cabinet ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid and three senior bureaucrats, Krog notes.
"Mr. Dobell . . . at no time swore an undertaking not to disclose information about those documents and the use the RCMP intended to make of them," Krog wrote yesterday to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass.
"Mr. Dobell, due to his unique position in the government, had greater day-to-day access to all the parties to the RCMP interviews than almost anyone in government.
"Given the gravity of the implications of these facts, I ask that the RCMP begin a separate criminal investigation immediately." {Snip} ...
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=4237ee97-6f80-405b-bc01-755daeda7da4
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
See also (remember this?):
From:
The Legislature Raids - January 16, 2008
Before police raided the B.C. Legislature, there was time to destroy evidence.
By Three Concerned Canadians
During the month of December 2003, key people in the B.C. legislature knew that an unprecedented police raid was coming. The public ever since has been asked to assume that the Campbell government and staff sat meekly for 28 days, doing nothing to protect themselves. We question that assumption ...
This full editorial is in the archives of The Legislature Raids. Find it by scrolling down to January 16; or by typing "time to destroy evidence" in the search box (top of this page, left side).
- BC Mary
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
To RCMP: "I ask you to begin a separate criminal investigation immediately."
.
In a 3-page letter dated May 14, 2008 Leonard Krog, Official Opposition Critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, has described the problems which he believes have compromised the RCMP investigation; and he asks R.C.M.P. Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass "to begin a separate criminal investigation immediately", relating to key officials of the Campbell Government who "may have compromised the RCMP investigation" of the BC Rail Privatization deal which led to the charges against Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Readers will want to see that letter ... but it's in a pdf file which means I cannot cut-and-paste it here and it's way too much (16 pages, with copies of the relevant documents) for me to re-type for you. But here's what you do. Some kind person has put my name on the Opposition's list to receive, by e.mail, copies of things like this, which are very informative.
So if you really want to see a copy of Leonard Krog's letter to the RCMP, and other stuff such as "Protocol regarding Documents removed from the Legislature", send an e.mail to the address given below and ask to be put on their mailing list for documents relating to the BCRail / Basi-Virk-Basi Case.
Neera.Ritcey@leg.bc.ca
(604) 317-4450 Cell
Today in that 16 pages, I also received copies of those 3 vitally important documents including the one which I think is the "Innocence at stake" letter. Plus a copy of today's Hansard in which the Opposition tries to obtain answers directly from the premier (no luck) and the Attorney-General (no luck). - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In a 3-page letter dated May 14, 2008 Leonard Krog, Official Opposition Critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, has described the problems which he believes have compromised the RCMP investigation; and he asks R.C.M.P. Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass "to begin a separate criminal investigation immediately", relating to key officials of the Campbell Government who "may have compromised the RCMP investigation" of the BC Rail Privatization deal which led to the charges against Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Readers will want to see that letter ... but it's in a pdf file which means I cannot cut-and-paste it here and it's way too much (16 pages, with copies of the relevant documents) for me to re-type for you. But here's what you do. Some kind person has put my name on the Opposition's list to receive, by e.mail, copies of things like this, which are very informative.
So if you really want to see a copy of Leonard Krog's letter to the RCMP, and other stuff such as "Protocol regarding Documents removed from the Legislature", send an e.mail to the address given below and ask to be put on their mailing list for documents relating to the BCRail / Basi-Virk-Basi Case.
Neera.Ritcey@leg.bc.ca
(604) 317-4450 Cell
Today in that 16 pages, I also received copies of those 3 vitally important documents including the one which I think is the "Innocence at stake" letter. Plus a copy of today's Hansard in which the Opposition tries to obtain answers directly from the premier (no luck) and the Attorney-General (no luck). - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
About Paul Battershill ... with updates added
.
This anonymous comment came in today, and may be seen following the story on this web-site of Paul Battershill, Chief of Police for Victoria B.C., co-leader of the raids on the B.C. Legislature. [The story is titled $91,000 over 4 years = $22,750 a year. Its date is October 30, 2007.]
The updating comment received today tends to confirms my own hunch right from the start of the Battershill issue. I thought you might like to see it ... so I am posting it up front. This is important. But there are other items added at the end, showing how this news is being reported by CanWest, which are also disturbing.
Anonymous wrote:
The buzz around the station is that the RCMP pretty much cleared Battershill and if they found anything it was pretty minor.
Makes you wonder why or how this all got going. He'll never come back after the way he's been treated.
Victoria couldn't attract a good outside chief now. Lots of good people from the department are quitting or getting ready to.
Pretty sad for the public.
# posted by Anonymous: May 14, 2008
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From today's Times Colonist:
BATTERSHILL INFORMATION COULD COME IN MONTH
Rob Shaw,
Times Colonist - May 14, 2008
It could be another month before the public receives answers about why Victoria police Chief Paul Battershill has been suspended and what, if any, of the allegations against him were substantiated.
Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe said he won't explain the case until it goes through a disciplinary hearing. "I'm hoping it can take place within the next 30 days," Lowe said. "Until the situation has concluded, I will not be able to tell the public very much."
At the hearing, Lowe will decide upon what he called a "range of disciplinary options" facing the chief. He would not say what that range includes or whether one option could be no discipline against Battershill because the allegations were unproven.
Lowe said he is obligated to consider a range of discipline according to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and Police Act legislation, which governs the case.
Battershill has been suspended with pay since November, but the allegations against him have not been made public. Lowe has described them only as a "personnel issue."
The RCMP investigated the case on behalf of Victoria police, under the oversight of the police complaint office. A team of four officers interviewed dozens of people.
Under provincial legislation, Police Act investigations are not public. The full report on Battershill is not expected to be released. Lowe said he would release whatever information his lawyers said he could.
Battershill received a summary of the report last Thursday. It included a factual account of the incidents, a brief account of the investigative steps and a summary of the conclusions, said Bruce Brown, deputy complaint commissioner.
Battershill has 10 days to request any additional information. Lowe then schedules the disciplinary hearing.
Battershill is able to request a public hearing if he is not satisfied with the conclusion. The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner may also call a public hearing or order another investigation if it has any concerns about the case, Brown said.
Meanwhile, Victoria's police board is looking for another police chief. Battershill's contract expires at the end of the year, and Bill Naughton has been serving as interim police chief.
rfshaw@tc.canwest.com
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This is too embarrassing to post. Students of elementary witchcraft might study it:
http://www.cfax1070.com/newsstory.php?newsId=5310
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Over and over, CanWest newspapers speculate on what shoulda, coulda, mighta, or maybe will happen to former Victoria Police Chief, Paul Battershill. I cannot believe that the RCMP's deputy complaints commissioner would lightly make statements like the ones shown below ... when other reports continue to complain that the RCMP are too quick to close ranks and protect their own. Look at this, from today's Vancouver Province:
TOP COP'S HEARING SET [No, it isn't. That hearing is expected within 30 days, date unknown. - BC Mary]
The Province; News Services
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008
A disciplinary hearing for suspended Victoria police chief Paul Battershill will be set in the next 30 days, says Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe.
And that likely means investigators have found something against the chief, says Bruce Brown, B.C.'s deputy police complaint commissioner.
"From a common-sense point of view, you wouldn't hold [a disciplinary hearing] if you were of the view nothing was substantiated," Brown said yesterday.
Battershill has been suspended with pay since November. Lowe has said only that allegations against the chief are "personnel" issues. The RCMP investigated the case on behalf of the Victoria police, under the oversight of the police complaint office.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=1d141de3-6257-4436-89fe-2c4c3b692069
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And Times Colonists chimes in with
SUSPENDED POLICE CHIEF FACES DISCIPLINE HEARING
which, I dunno, pretty much announces that Paul Battershill is guilty, doesn't it?
And is that correct? Is that fair? Is that decent journalism?
Read the CanWest version of the Battershill story at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=a8b25c38-79e4-4b42-a598-68265f76ab5b
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Oh, wow: A makeover for Victoria Police Department
The force -- now to be called "VicPD" -- gets a new look, and sets targets for crime reduction.
The story is at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4d23d447-d563-4a84-9614-d90fc3c8b781
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This anonymous comment came in today, and may be seen following the story on this web-site of Paul Battershill, Chief of Police for Victoria B.C., co-leader of the raids on the B.C. Legislature. [The story is titled $91,000 over 4 years = $22,750 a year. Its date is October 30, 2007.]
The updating comment received today tends to confirms my own hunch right from the start of the Battershill issue. I thought you might like to see it ... so I am posting it up front. This is important. But there are other items added at the end, showing how this news is being reported by CanWest, which are also disturbing.
Anonymous wrote:
The buzz around the station is that the RCMP pretty much cleared Battershill and if they found anything it was pretty minor.
Makes you wonder why or how this all got going. He'll never come back after the way he's been treated.
Victoria couldn't attract a good outside chief now. Lots of good people from the department are quitting or getting ready to.
Pretty sad for the public.
# posted by Anonymous: May 14, 2008
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From today's Times Colonist:
BATTERSHILL INFORMATION COULD COME IN MONTH
Rob Shaw,
Times Colonist - May 14, 2008
It could be another month before the public receives answers about why Victoria police Chief Paul Battershill has been suspended and what, if any, of the allegations against him were substantiated.
Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe said he won't explain the case until it goes through a disciplinary hearing. "I'm hoping it can take place within the next 30 days," Lowe said. "Until the situation has concluded, I will not be able to tell the public very much."
At the hearing, Lowe will decide upon what he called a "range of disciplinary options" facing the chief. He would not say what that range includes or whether one option could be no discipline against Battershill because the allegations were unproven.
Lowe said he is obligated to consider a range of discipline according to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and Police Act legislation, which governs the case.
Battershill has been suspended with pay since November, but the allegations against him have not been made public. Lowe has described them only as a "personnel issue."
The RCMP investigated the case on behalf of Victoria police, under the oversight of the police complaint office. A team of four officers interviewed dozens of people.
Under provincial legislation, Police Act investigations are not public. The full report on Battershill is not expected to be released. Lowe said he would release whatever information his lawyers said he could.
Battershill received a summary of the report last Thursday. It included a factual account of the incidents, a brief account of the investigative steps and a summary of the conclusions, said Bruce Brown, deputy complaint commissioner.
Battershill has 10 days to request any additional information. Lowe then schedules the disciplinary hearing.
Battershill is able to request a public hearing if he is not satisfied with the conclusion. The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner may also call a public hearing or order another investigation if it has any concerns about the case, Brown said.
Meanwhile, Victoria's police board is looking for another police chief. Battershill's contract expires at the end of the year, and Bill Naughton has been serving as interim police chief.
rfshaw@tc.canwest.com
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This is too embarrassing to post. Students of elementary witchcraft might study it:
http://www.cfax1070.com/newsstory.php?newsId=5310
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Over and over, CanWest newspapers speculate on what shoulda, coulda, mighta, or maybe will happen to former Victoria Police Chief, Paul Battershill. I cannot believe that the RCMP's deputy complaints commissioner would lightly make statements like the ones shown below ... when other reports continue to complain that the RCMP are too quick to close ranks and protect their own. Look at this, from today's Vancouver Province:
TOP COP'S HEARING SET [No, it isn't. That hearing is expected within 30 days, date unknown. - BC Mary]
The Province; News Services
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008
A disciplinary hearing for suspended Victoria police chief Paul Battershill will be set in the next 30 days, says Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe.
And that likely means investigators have found something against the chief, says Bruce Brown, B.C.'s deputy police complaint commissioner.
"From a common-sense point of view, you wouldn't hold [a disciplinary hearing] if you were of the view nothing was substantiated," Brown said yesterday.
Battershill has been suspended with pay since November. Lowe has said only that allegations against the chief are "personnel" issues. The RCMP investigated the case on behalf of the Victoria police, under the oversight of the police complaint office.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=1d141de3-6257-4436-89fe-2c4c3b692069
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And Times Colonists chimes in with
SUSPENDED POLICE CHIEF FACES DISCIPLINE HEARING
which, I dunno, pretty much announces that Paul Battershill is guilty, doesn't it?
And is that correct? Is that fair? Is that decent journalism?
Read the CanWest version of the Battershill story at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=a8b25c38-79e4-4b42-a598-68265f76ab5b
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Oh, wow: A makeover for Victoria Police Department
The force -- now to be called "VicPD" -- gets a new look, and sets targets for crime reduction.
The story is at:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4d23d447-d563-4a84-9614-d90fc3c8b781
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Question for BC Auditor General + a reply
.
To:
John Doyle, Auditor General of British Columbia, jdoyle@bcauditor.com
Cheryl Wenezenki Yolland, Comptroller General, Cheryl.WenezenkiYolland@gov.bc.ca
Greetings,
In the matter of B.C. Rail, I ask your assistance with the following question:
One of my readers is asking how the Auditor General of B.C. could have classified the BCR lease as operating.
He informs me that there are criteria that must be met in order to classify a lease this way. One of the criteria, a "bargain purchase" option, is where -- at the end of the lease -- there is no amount that is paid to purchase the asset (or in this case renew the lease).
When a lease is classified as operating, there is no need to disclose the total value of the lease.
But if the lease is capital, a liability must be set up in the financial statements in the amount of the total lease payments.
Your clarification (by email, please) of this question would be very much appreciated.
BC Mary, on behalf of:
The Legislature Raids
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: "Sullivan, Doreen"
Date: Fri May 16, 2008 6:20:46 PM Canada/Eastern
To: bcmary
Cc:
Subject: [Bulk] FW: BC Rail lease classification
Email sent on behalf of Mr. Errol Price, Deputy Auditor General
Dear [BC Mary],
Thank-you for your note enquiring about British Columbia Rail Company
accounting policies.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to answer your question.
First of all, KPMG is the auditor of BC Rail. Further, the choice of
accounting treatment for any individual item within a set of financial
statements is the responsibility of an organization's management, not
its auditors. Management and auditors thoroughly discuss all
significant accounting decisions, and in the case of government
organizations, with the Auditor General. However, because
responsibility for making these decisions rests with management, I
believe your question concerning the details of BC Rail lease accounting
are better put to the company.
Sincerely,
Errol Price, CA, CMC
Deputy Auditor General
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I never imagined that it was BC Rail -- not the government of B.C. -- which entered into this lease agreement with CN. I thought that BCRail would be like "the car" when I leased a car from Toyota and Toyota wrote up the covering lease. Maybe I didn't understand the original question. Would the esteemed Anon-y-mouse who sent me this question, please respond? - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
To:
John Doyle, Auditor General of British Columbia, jdoyle@bcauditor.com
Cheryl Wenezenki Yolland, Comptroller General, Cheryl.WenezenkiYolland@gov.bc.ca
Greetings,
In the matter of B.C. Rail, I ask your assistance with the following question:
One of my readers is asking how the Auditor General of B.C. could have classified the BCR lease as operating.
He informs me that there are criteria that must be met in order to classify a lease this way. One of the criteria, a "bargain purchase" option, is where -- at the end of the lease -- there is no amount that is paid to purchase the asset (or in this case renew the lease).
When a lease is classified as operating, there is no need to disclose the total value of the lease.
But if the lease is capital, a liability must be set up in the financial statements in the amount of the total lease payments.
Your clarification (by email, please) of this question would be very much appreciated.
BC Mary, on behalf of:
The Legislature Raids
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: "Sullivan, Doreen"
Date: Fri May 16, 2008 6:20:46 PM Canada/Eastern
To: bcmary
Cc:
Subject: [Bulk] FW: BC Rail lease classification
Email sent on behalf of Mr. Errol Price, Deputy Auditor General
Dear [BC Mary],
Thank-you for your note enquiring about British Columbia Rail Company
accounting policies.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to answer your question.
First of all, KPMG is the auditor of BC Rail. Further, the choice of
accounting treatment for any individual item within a set of financial
statements is the responsibility of an organization's management, not
its auditors. Management and auditors thoroughly discuss all
significant accounting decisions, and in the case of government
organizations, with the Auditor General. However, because
responsibility for making these decisions rests with management, I
believe your question concerning the details of BC Rail lease accounting
are better put to the company.
Sincerely,
Errol Price, CA, CMC
Deputy Auditor General
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I never imagined that it was BC Rail -- not the government of B.C. -- which entered into this lease agreement with CN. I thought that BCRail would be like "the car" when I leased a car from Toyota and Toyota wrote up the covering lease. Maybe I didn't understand the original question. Would the esteemed Anon-y-mouse who sent me this question, please respond? - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Premier's aide should not have had access to evidence ...
.
By MARK HUME
The Globe and Mail - May 13, 2008
VANCOUVER -- An RCMP political corruption case may have been tainted when a senior B.C. government official got access to confidential documents without first swearing to keep the material secret, the NDP charged yesterday.
Leonard Krog, opposition critic for the Ministry of the Attorney-General, said that when a key official in Premier Gordon Campbell's office was consulted about the highly classified material, it left the police investigation open to compromise.
For several days in the House, Mr. Krog has been asking about the issue.
"This is not an ordinary criminal case, it involves the government of British Columbia and its integrity," Mr. Krog said, explaining why he has been pounding away at the topic even though the matter is before the B.C. Supreme Court.
Mr. Krog said the questions are of urgent public importance.
But Attorney-General Wally Oppal told Mr. Krog in the House that he is going to have to wait for the courts to provide answers, because the government doesn't want to interfere with the course of justice.
"We have made it clear throughout we will not comment on anything that's before the Supreme Court, because it's improper to do so," Mr. Oppal said.
Mr. Krog said outside the House the government is stonewalling - but sooner or later it will have to respond. "The government's going to answer in the court, or in the House, but they are going to answer," he said.
{Snip} ...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080513.BCDOBELL13/TPStory/National
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By MARK HUME
The Globe and Mail - May 13, 2008
VANCOUVER -- An RCMP political corruption case may have been tainted when a senior B.C. government official got access to confidential documents without first swearing to keep the material secret, the NDP charged yesterday.
Leonard Krog, opposition critic for the Ministry of the Attorney-General, said that when a key official in Premier Gordon Campbell's office was consulted about the highly classified material, it left the police investigation open to compromise.
For several days in the House, Mr. Krog has been asking about the issue.
"This is not an ordinary criminal case, it involves the government of British Columbia and its integrity," Mr. Krog said, explaining why he has been pounding away at the topic even though the matter is before the B.C. Supreme Court.
Mr. Krog said the questions are of urgent public importance.
But Attorney-General Wally Oppal told Mr. Krog in the House that he is going to have to wait for the courts to provide answers, because the government doesn't want to interfere with the course of justice.
"We have made it clear throughout we will not comment on anything that's before the Supreme Court, because it's improper to do so," Mr. Oppal said.
Mr. Krog said outside the House the government is stonewalling - but sooner or later it will have to respond. "The government's going to answer in the court, or in the House, but they are going to answer," he said.
{Snip} ...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080513.BCDOBELL13/TPStory/National
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Michael Smyth: Dobell's prints now all over a very sticky pie
.
Will premier's right hand cause case to collapse?
Michael Smyth
The Province - May 13, 2008
Ken Dobell, Premier Gordon Campbell's right-hand man and most trusted adviser, has become legendary for his attitude toward the rules of public conduct. {Snip} ...
Now we discover Dobell was dipping his busy little fingers in the stickiest political pie of them all -- the B.C. Rail corruption case.
Three former senior government insiders are charged with accepting bribes, influence-peddling and money-laundering in the Campbell government's $1-billion sale of B.C. Rail to CN Rail. The trial, postponed many times, is finally set for later this year. [I have asked Michael to confirm this. - BC Mary]
Why has the case taken so long? The main reason is the legal wrangling over evidence seized by the police in their famous 2003 legislature raid.
That day, the cops hauled away dozens of boxes of evidence and computer hard drives, including many cabinet documents about the B.C. Rail deal. Cabinet documents are held in strict secrecy, known as "cabinet privilege."
To protect the integrity of the evidence and the police investigation, the courts set up a special protocol to review the documents for cabinet-privilege concerns.
All the evidence was sealed in a locked room and only four people were allowed to look at it. All four had to sign an agreement to secrecy.
Last week, the NDP Opposition released new records in the case showing that (guess who?!) Ken Dobell stuck his nose into the process back in 2004 and reviewed three crucial cabinet documents in the case.
The government is shrugging this off because Dobell waived any cabinet privilege over the documents, which were then released to police.
But that's not the point. The point is Dobell was not covered by the original evidence-vetting protocol. He did not sign an agreement not to talk about the evidence with others.
Ken Dobell should not have been anywhere near the evidence in this case and you can bet defence lawyers will now jump all over this and say the investigation is tainted and the case should be thrown out.
This is an extremely troubling development for anyone who wants to see the truth finally emerge. That should include everyone in this province. [Yes, Michael, WooHoo!! - BC Mary in the peanut gallery]
The three documents Dobell got involved with go to the heart of the B.C. Rail scandal. The police wanted to use the documents to interview former cabinet ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid.
Curiously, within weeks of Dobell seeing these secret documents and knowing why the police wanted to talk to Collins about them, Collins announced he was quitting politics. You think the defence won't be raising that little coincidence? Think again.
Sadly, I'm sure there are people in the government secretly happy about all this. They would like to see the case collapse rather than have dirty laundry strung on the line before the next election.
I only hope Justice Elizabeth Bennett can work through the government's bungled handling of the evidence and ensure the case goes forward. The public deserves the truth.
msmyth@direct.ca
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=ac8abf6a-28de-4cf1-b3c3-d0525ed2ac3d
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Say what you like about CanWest's general performance, this particular column is a good piece of journalism. Sure it's a bit late. Sure the media should've been the ones to get those court transcripts long ago, but at least Michael doesn't insult the NDP Opposition (which did get the transcripts, sorted and grouped them, then made them available to the public online). So, in the crazy world we inhabit these days, Michael Smyth deserves many bouquets for coming through with a fair analysis like this. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Will premier's right hand cause case to collapse?
Michael Smyth
The Province - May 13, 2008
Ken Dobell, Premier Gordon Campbell's right-hand man and most trusted adviser, has become legendary for his attitude toward the rules of public conduct. {Snip} ...
Now we discover Dobell was dipping his busy little fingers in the stickiest political pie of them all -- the B.C. Rail corruption case.
Three former senior government insiders are charged with accepting bribes, influence-peddling and money-laundering in the Campbell government's $1-billion sale of B.C. Rail to CN Rail. The trial, postponed many times, is finally set for later this year. [I have asked Michael to confirm this. - BC Mary]
Why has the case taken so long? The main reason is the legal wrangling over evidence seized by the police in their famous 2003 legislature raid.
That day, the cops hauled away dozens of boxes of evidence and computer hard drives, including many cabinet documents about the B.C. Rail deal. Cabinet documents are held in strict secrecy, known as "cabinet privilege."
To protect the integrity of the evidence and the police investigation, the courts set up a special protocol to review the documents for cabinet-privilege concerns.
All the evidence was sealed in a locked room and only four people were allowed to look at it. All four had to sign an agreement to secrecy.
Last week, the NDP Opposition released new records in the case showing that (guess who?!) Ken Dobell stuck his nose into the process back in 2004 and reviewed three crucial cabinet documents in the case.
The government is shrugging this off because Dobell waived any cabinet privilege over the documents, which were then released to police.
But that's not the point. The point is Dobell was not covered by the original evidence-vetting protocol. He did not sign an agreement not to talk about the evidence with others.
Ken Dobell should not have been anywhere near the evidence in this case and you can bet defence lawyers will now jump all over this and say the investigation is tainted and the case should be thrown out.
This is an extremely troubling development for anyone who wants to see the truth finally emerge. That should include everyone in this province. [Yes, Michael, WooHoo!! - BC Mary in the peanut gallery]
The three documents Dobell got involved with go to the heart of the B.C. Rail scandal. The police wanted to use the documents to interview former cabinet ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid.
Curiously, within weeks of Dobell seeing these secret documents and knowing why the police wanted to talk to Collins about them, Collins announced he was quitting politics. You think the defence won't be raising that little coincidence? Think again.
Sadly, I'm sure there are people in the government secretly happy about all this. They would like to see the case collapse rather than have dirty laundry strung on the line before the next election.
I only hope Justice Elizabeth Bennett can work through the government's bungled handling of the evidence and ensure the case goes forward. The public deserves the truth.
msmyth@direct.ca
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=ac8abf6a-28de-4cf1-b3c3-d0525ed2ac3d
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Say what you like about CanWest's general performance, this particular column is a good piece of journalism. Sure it's a bit late. Sure the media should've been the ones to get those court transcripts long ago, but at least Michael doesn't insult the NDP Opposition (which did get the transcripts, sorted and grouped them, then made them available to the public online). So, in the crazy world we inhabit these days, Michael Smyth deserves many bouquets for coming through with a fair analysis like this. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Monday, May 12, 2008
"This partnership is a $1Billion investment." What does that mean?
.
Does this sound right?
This is Premier Gordon Campbell's announcement at the time the deal was signed with Canadian National Railway. At this time, I would much appreciate if people would re-read it carefully and tell me if you believe that BCRail was sold and, if so, for how much and on what terms. What exactly is an "Investment Partnership" anyway? What does it mean, that it "moves forward"? - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2003OTP0103-001046
Nov. 25, 2003
[From] Office of the Premier
Ministry of Transportation
$1-BILLION BC RAIL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP MOVES FORWARD
VICTORIA – The Province announced it has selected CN as the successful proponent for a new BC Rail Investment Partnership that will generate $1 billion in investment for B.C., help to revitalize the BC Rail system and create opportunities for economic development and job creation in the North.
“This partnership is a $1-billion investment in the future of B.C.,” said Premier Gordon Campbell. “It will provide lower rates, faster service, new transportation infrastructure, new jobs and new resources for economic development in the North.
“Northern communities, shippers, and resource industries have made clear that BC Rail is failing them. This partnership directly addresses the needs that mayors and shippers told us must be met. By providing better service, an expanded Port of Prince Rupert and significant new community investments for Prince George and the North, the partnership will be a major new source of economic development for our entire province.”
Investing in the BC Rail System:
The addition of 600 new rail cars to the fleet, an average rate reduction of seven per cent for interline shippers, and 30 per cent faster transit times from Prince George to Vancouver will all benefit shippers. The partnership will provide access to a seamless, integrated North American rail network, including the introduction of a “Chicago Express” in the first quarter of 2004 that will transport freight from Prince George to Chicago two days faster. This will reduce costs for shippers, improve their competitiveness, generate stronger demand for B.C. products, and foster more secure jobs in the forest sector.
More: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/archive/2001-2005/2003OTP0103-001046.htm
___________________________________________________________________
For balance, here's an editorial from Prince George Free Press 15 months later:
Discussing rail sale 'betrayal'
By Sage Birchwater
Prince George Free Press - Apr 08 2005
Northern media commentator Ben Meisner, and Prince George businessman Ron East are kicking off a series of town hall meetings to discuss the sale of BC Rail and its impact on communities in the BC Interior. Their first stop is in Williams Lake, Monday, April 11, at 7 p.m. in the city hall council chambers.
East, a founding member and spokesperson of the Committee to Save BC Rail, has been a long time critic of the BC Liberals' "broken promise" to not privatize BC Rail.
"The sale of BC Rail was a betrayal of rail dependent communities," he says. "The provincial government ignored the interests of 30,000 northerners who signed a petition against the sale, over 100 small business owners who publicly opposed the sale, and the 13 city councils who called on the Campbell government to keep its promise."
Meisner says local communities have been abandoned. "We've been left with no passenger rail service and today industrial shippers and our local economy are suffering."
Since the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail, Interior shippers are left with fewer rail cars to export manufactured goods, primarily pulp and lumber.
In an interview with the Tribune this week, Meisner said the sale of BC Rail is akin to selling the house to pay for the paving of the driveway. And he's hopping mad.
"It's important for people to know what happened. We got sold a bill of goods. I think it's a travesty." Meisner says the purpose for the town hall meetings is to create political pressure.
"I was the guy who launched the fight against Kemano II, and I was right. Now nobody has jobs in Kitimat. There's going to be a repeat performance with CN."
Meisner predicts that once the railbed is paved between Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympics, the rail line will never get reopened. "Everything in the Cariboo will get hauled north to Prince George."
He says if the rail link is ever built to Alaska, it will follow the Alaskan Highway to Fort St. John, then head south through Alberta.
"It won't come through Williams Lake. Politically we need to make people aware of that. People were hoodwinked. The B.C. government didn't hold CN's feet to the fire."
Meisner insists there may still be some options for the province to get out of the lease with CN, which he says has no guarantee for the people of Williams Lake.
"You got $15 million out of the deal. What's that worth? You've already lost one of your trains that used to pass through the city. It's been diverted through Tete Jaune down the CN line to Vancouver." He says if the people don't squeal, the provincial government will continue to roll over communities and sell off our assets.
Asked if he and East are just a couple of disgruntled NDP hacks, Meisner says, "Heck no." He says he was asked to run for the Liberals in the last election and East was the campaign manager for Prince George MLA Pat Bell, the Minister of State for Mining.
Meisner wanted to know if the MLAs representing the Cariboo supported the sale of BC Rail.
"The local MLAs shouldn't get away with making a brain-dead decision without being made accountable. The railway was built for a reason, to support Interior communities with the benefits automatically flowing to the people who owned it. Why change that?"
Ironically, he says, one of the main problems the sale to CN Rail was supposed to fix is still unresolved. "There's a shortage of rail cars and nobody wants to talk about it. The big mills received tax concessions to support the BC Rail sale, so they're not saying anything."
At earlier meetings, these two men provided additional information:
"... A contract based on fraud is not valid," he said. Meisner blasted the deal, and denied the argument BC Rail was losing money, as the Liberals have suggested.
"That, pardon my vulgarity, is bull----," he said. "In its last year, it made $98 million (in profit)."
He also questioned who knew about the re-emergence of coal mining in Tumbler Ridge, leading to the shipments of coal by rail, and more business for the railroad.
"Who knew the deal was on its way?" he asked. "Did CN know it and keep quiet, or is the B.C. government that stupid? I think it's a bit of both."
He also suggested parts of the rail system would be shut down in coming years.
East told the audience they were shareholders in Crown corporations, and Meisner went further, telling them "unless you stand up and be counted, you're no more than dust in the wind."
The meeting, moderated by city councillor and pulp mill engineer Brian Skakun, followed two similar meetings in Williams Lake and Quesnel earlier this week.
There's more at: http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_pgbcrail.htm
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Noted in passing:
GROWING WITH ENERGY
Business in Vancouver - 16 May 2008
Excerpt: CN railcar shortage
Does this sound right?
This is Premier Gordon Campbell's announcement at the time the deal was signed with Canadian National Railway. At this time, I would much appreciate if people would re-read it carefully and tell me if you believe that BCRail was sold and, if so, for how much and on what terms. What exactly is an "Investment Partnership" anyway? What does it mean, that it "moves forward"? - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
2003OTP0103-001046
Nov. 25, 2003
[From] Office of the Premier
Ministry of Transportation
$1-BILLION BC RAIL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP MOVES FORWARD
VICTORIA – The Province announced it has selected CN as the successful proponent for a new BC Rail Investment Partnership that will generate $1 billion in investment for B.C., help to revitalize the BC Rail system and create opportunities for economic development and job creation in the North.
“This partnership is a $1-billion investment in the future of B.C.,” said Premier Gordon Campbell. “It will provide lower rates, faster service, new transportation infrastructure, new jobs and new resources for economic development in the North.
“Northern communities, shippers, and resource industries have made clear that BC Rail is failing them. This partnership directly addresses the needs that mayors and shippers told us must be met. By providing better service, an expanded Port of Prince Rupert and significant new community investments for Prince George and the North, the partnership will be a major new source of economic development for our entire province.”
Investing in the BC Rail System:
The addition of 600 new rail cars to the fleet, an average rate reduction of seven per cent for interline shippers, and 30 per cent faster transit times from Prince George to Vancouver will all benefit shippers. The partnership will provide access to a seamless, integrated North American rail network, including the introduction of a “Chicago Express” in the first quarter of 2004 that will transport freight from Prince George to Chicago two days faster. This will reduce costs for shippers, improve their competitiveness, generate stronger demand for B.C. products, and foster more secure jobs in the forest sector.
More: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/archive/2001-2005/2003OTP0103-001046.htm
___________________________________________________________________
For balance, here's an editorial from Prince George Free Press 15 months later:
Discussing rail sale 'betrayal'
By Sage Birchwater
Prince George Free Press - Apr 08 2005
Northern media commentator Ben Meisner, and Prince George businessman Ron East are kicking off a series of town hall meetings to discuss the sale of BC Rail and its impact on communities in the BC Interior. Their first stop is in Williams Lake, Monday, April 11, at 7 p.m. in the city hall council chambers.
East, a founding member and spokesperson of the Committee to Save BC Rail, has been a long time critic of the BC Liberals' "broken promise" to not privatize BC Rail.
"The sale of BC Rail was a betrayal of rail dependent communities," he says. "The provincial government ignored the interests of 30,000 northerners who signed a petition against the sale, over 100 small business owners who publicly opposed the sale, and the 13 city councils who called on the Campbell government to keep its promise."
Meisner says local communities have been abandoned. "We've been left with no passenger rail service and today industrial shippers and our local economy are suffering."
Since the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail, Interior shippers are left with fewer rail cars to export manufactured goods, primarily pulp and lumber.
In an interview with the Tribune this week, Meisner said the sale of BC Rail is akin to selling the house to pay for the paving of the driveway. And he's hopping mad.
"It's important for people to know what happened. We got sold a bill of goods. I think it's a travesty." Meisner says the purpose for the town hall meetings is to create political pressure.
"I was the guy who launched the fight against Kemano II, and I was right. Now nobody has jobs in Kitimat. There's going to be a repeat performance with CN."
Meisner predicts that once the railbed is paved between Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympics, the rail line will never get reopened. "Everything in the Cariboo will get hauled north to Prince George."
He says if the rail link is ever built to Alaska, it will follow the Alaskan Highway to Fort St. John, then head south through Alberta.
"It won't come through Williams Lake. Politically we need to make people aware of that. People were hoodwinked. The B.C. government didn't hold CN's feet to the fire."
Meisner insists there may still be some options for the province to get out of the lease with CN, which he says has no guarantee for the people of Williams Lake.
"You got $15 million out of the deal. What's that worth? You've already lost one of your trains that used to pass through the city. It's been diverted through Tete Jaune down the CN line to Vancouver." He says if the people don't squeal, the provincial government will continue to roll over communities and sell off our assets.
Asked if he and East are just a couple of disgruntled NDP hacks, Meisner says, "Heck no." He says he was asked to run for the Liberals in the last election and East was the campaign manager for Prince George MLA Pat Bell, the Minister of State for Mining.
Meisner wanted to know if the MLAs representing the Cariboo supported the sale of BC Rail.
"The local MLAs shouldn't get away with making a brain-dead decision without being made accountable. The railway was built for a reason, to support Interior communities with the benefits automatically flowing to the people who owned it. Why change that?"
Ironically, he says, one of the main problems the sale to CN Rail was supposed to fix is still unresolved. "There's a shortage of rail cars and nobody wants to talk about it. The big mills received tax concessions to support the BC Rail sale, so they're not saying anything."
At earlier meetings, these two men provided additional information:
"... A contract based on fraud is not valid," he said. Meisner blasted the deal, and denied the argument BC Rail was losing money, as the Liberals have suggested.
"That, pardon my vulgarity, is bull----," he said. "In its last year, it made $98 million (in profit)."
He also questioned who knew about the re-emergence of coal mining in Tumbler Ridge, leading to the shipments of coal by rail, and more business for the railroad.
"Who knew the deal was on its way?" he asked. "Did CN know it and keep quiet, or is the B.C. government that stupid? I think it's a bit of both."
He also suggested parts of the rail system would be shut down in coming years.
East told the audience they were shareholders in Crown corporations, and Meisner went further, telling them "unless you stand up and be counted, you're no more than dust in the wind."
The meeting, moderated by city councillor and pulp mill engineer Brian Skakun, followed two similar meetings in Williams Lake and Quesnel earlier this week.
There's more at: http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_pgbcrail.htm
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Noted in passing:
GROWING WITH ENERGY
Business in Vancouver - 16 May 2008
Excerpt: CN railcar shortage
... There is simply not enough train track or port capacity in Australia to accommodate coal delivery.
“It’s a problem we don’t have here in Canada. Here we have the rail and port capacity, but our problem is the availability of rolling stock. In the case of Peace River Coal, a shortage of CN rolling stock was overcome by PRC leasing two aluminum train sets,” said Slater.
www.bivinteractive.com - Hillsborough Resources Limited
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Question to the premier
.
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE
Hansard - Question Period
BC Legislature - Monday May 12, 2008
L. Krog: On Friday, the Premier's former deputy minister confirmed that he reviewed and discussed documents seized by the RCMP in the B.C. Rail corruption case. Mr. Dobell also confirmed he did not sign an undertaking that would have given him the ability to see those documents. In other words, Mr. Dobell was not entitled to see or discuss those documents. These undertakings were sworn in order to protect the integrity of the RCMP investigation into the B.C. Rail corruption case while seized documents were vetted for privilege.[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Question to the Premier: Can he explain why Mr. Dobell received access to these confidential documents contrary to the undertaking sworn in court?
Hon. W. Oppal: The member opposite is obviously referring to evidence that he's heard in the trial that's before the Supreme Court. We have made it clear throughout: we will not comment on anything that's before the Supreme Court because it's improper to do so ...
L. Krog: The documents shared and discussed with Mr. Dobell all deal with the second round of the bidding process, the round where the issue of the consolation prize arose. That means those documents go to the heart of the B.C. Rail corruption trial. When Mr. Dobell reviewed
those documents, he was also told that the RCMP was going to interview Ministers Collins and Reid about the documents. The special prosecutor instructed that this information not be shared; yet we know it was.
Does the Premier agree that sharing this information with Mr. Dobell may have provided the means for Mr. Collins, Ms. Reid and others to be informed about the nature of the RCMP's concerns prior to the interviews, and does the Premier not agree that this is a serious breach in the integrity of the RCMP investigation?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm somewhat disappointed in the member opposite, who is a member of the bar. He obviously has .… He's obviously ignored the well-established principle of judicial independence. We will not ignore that principle on this side of the House.
B. Ralston: The Premier felt comfortable enough to discuss these issues last spring in estimates debate here in this very room. Mr. Dobell confirmed Friday that he was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect to these documents. He had not signed an undertaking to the court. During the period in question, there were at least four cabinet meetings involving many of the people who were to be interviewed by the RCMP.
The Attorney General must see that the disclosure to Mr. Dobell tainted the investigation. This wasn't a leak from the RCMP. This wasn't a leak from the special prosecutor's office. It occurred between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Premier's office. What is the Premier going to do about it?
Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. She will make the appropriate findings, and we'll live by them ...
B. Ralston: The issue of the documents before the court was discussed here in estimates debate in spring 2007, so that excuse simply doesn't wash. The Ministry of Attorney General informed the Deputy Minister to the Premier about key documents that the RCMP wished to use to question Ministers Collins and Reid. This was contrary to a protocol approved by the Supreme Court restricting access to the documents to four people only.
These actions of the Ministry of Attorney General may well have tainted the integrity of the RCMP investigation. If the Attorney General won't act, will he at least agree that the matter be referred to the RCMP for their investigation?
Hon. W. Oppal: If the process was tainted, we'll let the judge make that finding. We don't have to make that finding here.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE
Hansard - Question Period
BC Legislature - Monday May 12, 2008
L. Krog: On Friday, the Premier's former deputy minister confirmed that he reviewed and discussed documents seized by the RCMP in the B.C. Rail corruption case. Mr. Dobell also confirmed he did not sign an undertaking that would have given him the ability to see those documents. In other words, Mr. Dobell was not entitled to see or discuss those documents. These undertakings were sworn in order to protect the integrity of the RCMP investigation into the B.C. Rail corruption case while seized documents were vetted for privilege.[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Question to the Premier: Can he explain why Mr. Dobell received access to these confidential documents contrary to the undertaking sworn in court?
Hon. W. Oppal: The member opposite is obviously referring to evidence that he's heard in the trial that's before the Supreme Court. We have made it clear throughout: we will not comment on anything that's before the Supreme Court because it's improper to do so ...
L. Krog: The documents shared and discussed with Mr. Dobell all deal with the second round of the bidding process, the round where the issue of the consolation prize arose. That means those documents go to the heart of the B.C. Rail corruption trial. When Mr. Dobell reviewed
those documents, he was also told that the RCMP was going to interview Ministers Collins and Reid about the documents. The special prosecutor instructed that this information not be shared; yet we know it was.
Does the Premier agree that sharing this information with Mr. Dobell may have provided the means for Mr. Collins, Ms. Reid and others to be informed about the nature of the RCMP's concerns prior to the interviews, and does the Premier not agree that this is a serious breach in the integrity of the RCMP investigation?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm somewhat disappointed in the member opposite, who is a member of the bar. He obviously has .… He's obviously ignored the well-established principle of judicial independence. We will not ignore that principle on this side of the House.
B. Ralston: The Premier felt comfortable enough to discuss these issues last spring in estimates debate here in this very room. Mr. Dobell confirmed Friday that he was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect to these documents. He had not signed an undertaking to the court. During the period in question, there were at least four cabinet meetings involving many of the people who were to be interviewed by the RCMP.
The Attorney General must see that the disclosure to Mr. Dobell tainted the investigation. This wasn't a leak from the RCMP. This wasn't a leak from the special prosecutor's office. It occurred between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Premier's office. What is the Premier going to do about it?
Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. She will make the appropriate findings, and we'll live by them ...
B. Ralston: The issue of the documents before the court was discussed here in estimates debate in spring 2007, so that excuse simply doesn't wash. The Ministry of Attorney General informed the Deputy Minister to the Premier about key documents that the RCMP wished to use to question Ministers Collins and Reid. This was contrary to a protocol approved by the Supreme Court restricting access to the documents to four people only.
These actions of the Ministry of Attorney General may well have tainted the integrity of the RCMP investigation. If the Attorney General won't act, will he at least agree that the matter be referred to the RCMP for their investigation?
Hon. W. Oppal: If the process was tainted, we'll let the judge make that finding. We don't have to make that finding here.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The Billion-Dollar Cheque and BCRail's option to repurchase
.
An interested observer has spent some time trying to chase down the payment from CN for the purchase of BCRail shares (noted in the CN financial statements and referenced earlier here at TLR) to its final resting place in the Province's bank account(s).
He writes, "I know some readers would have expected such an infusion of cash would have been accompanied with a 'media moment' photo of a CN Rail officer handing over a big cardboard cheque to the Premier and his friends but, as far as I can ascertain, there is no such moment in the 'public' record." Our "Interested Observer" continues:
However, the sale is recorded in the Summary Financial Statements for 2004/05.
These records are available here:
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/04_05/PA_2005_Summ.pdf
In the NOTES to the Financial Statements - SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (note 33) the reader will find the following (among other things):
"The gain on the BC Rail/CN Transaction is $199 million, calculated as follows:
The balance of the note (it's on page 66 of the printed text -
page 44 of the online text) - is also interesting - particularly this:
The Revitalization Agreement has an initial term of 60 years and gives CN the option to renew the lease for an additional 30 years at no cost to CN, and allows for further extensions to the term of the Revitalization Agreement should BCRC not exercise its option to repurchase the rail operations. The maximum term of the Revitalization Agreement is 990 years.
"I note this in passing not least because of some recent speculation about what events in New Zealand might say about things back here in British Columbia."
There are more details about the disposition and uses of funds in the transaction.
Interested Observer says that - when he gets time - he'll post something about them as well. Meanwhile, he suggests that we open the pdf and have a look at note 33.
The interesting thing, he says, would be to do some hypothetical illustrations of what has happened since the 'sale' and how the financial side has changed because of the sale - the 333 million payment to the government is also interesting although I'm not going to deal with it in this first posting.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"... should BC Rail not exercise its option to repurchase the rail operations" ... it says. WooHoo! Many thanks to Interested Observer for all this information ... specially for that one particular line. Many thanks indeed!!!
Special thanks also to Kootcoot from http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/ for improving legibility in the accounting segment (above). - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
An interested observer has spent some time trying to chase down the payment from CN for the purchase of BCRail shares (noted in the CN financial statements and referenced earlier here at TLR) to its final resting place in the Province's bank account(s).
He writes, "I know some readers would have expected such an infusion of cash would have been accompanied with a 'media moment' photo of a CN Rail officer handing over a big cardboard cheque to the Premier and his friends but, as far as I can ascertain, there is no such moment in the 'public' record." Our "Interested Observer" continues:
However, the sale is recorded in the Summary Financial Statements for 2004/05.
These records are available here:
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/04_05/PA_2005_Summ.pdf
In the NOTES to the Financial Statements - SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (note 33) the reader will find the following (among other things):
"The gain on the BC Rail/CN Transaction is $199 million, calculated as follows:
The balance of the note (it's on page 66 of the printed text -
page 44 of the online text) - is also interesting - particularly this:
The Revitalization Agreement has an initial term of 60 years and gives CN the option to renew the lease for an additional 30 years at no cost to CN, and allows for further extensions to the term of the Revitalization Agreement should BCRC not exercise its option to repurchase the rail operations. The maximum term of the Revitalization Agreement is 990 years.
"I note this in passing not least because of some recent speculation about what events in New Zealand might say about things back here in British Columbia."
There are more details about the disposition and uses of funds in the transaction.
Interested Observer says that - when he gets time - he'll post something about them as well. Meanwhile, he suggests that we open the pdf and have a look at note 33.
The interesting thing, he says, would be to do some hypothetical illustrations of what has happened since the 'sale' and how the financial side has changed because of the sale - the 333 million payment to the government is also interesting although I'm not going to deal with it in this first posting.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"... should BC Rail not exercise its option to repurchase the rail operations" ... it says. WooHoo! Many thanks to Interested Observer for all this information ... specially for that one particular line. Many thanks indeed!!!
Special thanks also to Kootcoot from http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/ for improving legibility in the accounting segment (above). - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Misha Glenny exposes global network of organized crime
By Brian Lynch
The Straight -
The Straight -
How B.C. became a world crime superpower
.
Special thanks to a commentor who suggested: Mary, log onto Macleans magazine and find the article "How BC became a world crime superpower".
I did. It's not happy reading but I read it all. I hope you do too. An excerpt:
" ... examine the fuzzy line between B.C.'s criminal and legitimate economies. One car dealer in Vancouver told the National Post a few years ago that a quarter of his business involved selling luxury cars for cash to those involved in the drug trade. That helps explain the absurd number of Maseratis, Mercedes and Hummers that roam the streets.
It's estimated that more people are employed in the marijuana industry than in traditional sectors like forestry. Is it any wonder the trade in illicit goods seems to show up in the economic statistics?
B.C. is the only province to have posted a negative, and falling, personal saving rate for 10 years running. One bank economist suggests this reflects the growing size of B.C.'s black market, which doesn't get captured in the data.
Likewise, a 2005 RCMP report found that if marijuana production was factored into provincial accounts, B.C.'s trade surplus would jump 230 per cent to $8.6 billion.
"The general public is completely ignorant of the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated B.C. communities and the business environment," says Michael Chettleburgh, author of Young Thugs, a book examining gang violence in Canada.
Even the booming real estate market — B.C.'s favourite fixation — has been caught up in criminal schemes. In the E-Paragon bust police seized nine multi-million-dollar homes allegedly bought with the proceeds of crime. Ye himself lived on a lovely riverfront street lined with cherry blossoms and fastidiously trimmed lawns.
According to police, even young and unsophisticated street gangs have been caught sinking cold hard cash into properties as a way to launder money and generate seemingly easy returns. "You really have to look at the price of real estate in the Lower Mainland and ask 'Who is buying?' " says Supt. John Robin with the B.C. integrated gang task force ...
An especially alarming line in the Maclean's article says that people in B.C. have no idea of the implications of the "Pacific Gateway" concept ...
Read the article. We can't fix a problem if we don't know what it is.
- BC Mary.
Full story: How B.C. became a world crime superpower
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080507_26032_26032
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
See also:
Realtors help combat organized crime and terrorism
Vancouver Sun - May 15, 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c84c1a57-b211-42dd-8910-f08b7ac3335b
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Special thanks to a commentor who suggested: Mary, log onto Macleans magazine and find the article "How BC became a world crime superpower".
I did. It's not happy reading but I read it all. I hope you do too. An excerpt:
" ... examine the fuzzy line between B.C.'s criminal and legitimate economies. One car dealer in Vancouver told the National Post a few years ago that a quarter of his business involved selling luxury cars for cash to those involved in the drug trade. That helps explain the absurd number of Maseratis, Mercedes and Hummers that roam the streets.
It's estimated that more people are employed in the marijuana industry than in traditional sectors like forestry. Is it any wonder the trade in illicit goods seems to show up in the economic statistics?
B.C. is the only province to have posted a negative, and falling, personal saving rate for 10 years running. One bank economist suggests this reflects the growing size of B.C.'s black market, which doesn't get captured in the data.
Likewise, a 2005 RCMP report found that if marijuana production was factored into provincial accounts, B.C.'s trade surplus would jump 230 per cent to $8.6 billion.
"The general public is completely ignorant of the extent to which organized crime has infiltrated B.C. communities and the business environment," says Michael Chettleburgh, author of Young Thugs, a book examining gang violence in Canada.
Even the booming real estate market — B.C.'s favourite fixation — has been caught up in criminal schemes. In the E-Paragon bust police seized nine multi-million-dollar homes allegedly bought with the proceeds of crime. Ye himself lived on a lovely riverfront street lined with cherry blossoms and fastidiously trimmed lawns.
According to police, even young and unsophisticated street gangs have been caught sinking cold hard cash into properties as a way to launder money and generate seemingly easy returns. "You really have to look at the price of real estate in the Lower Mainland and ask 'Who is buying?' " says Supt. John Robin with the B.C. integrated gang task force ...
An especially alarming line in the Maclean's article says that people in B.C. have no idea of the implications of the "Pacific Gateway" concept ...
Read the article. We can't fix a problem if we don't know what it is.
- BC Mary.
Full story: How B.C. became a world crime superpower
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080507_26032_26032
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
See also:
Realtors help combat organized crime and terrorism
Vancouver Sun - May 15, 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c84c1a57-b211-42dd-8910-f08b7ac3335b
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Marijuana + $6Billion + B.C.
.
Try Googling "marijuana + $6Billion + BC" and you get 961 items if searching Canada or 15,600 items if searching world-wide. So pot production is hardly an unknown or even a modest industry.
In B.C., Marijuana alone would equal 5% of the total BC budget if we counted it, which we don't. Which is astonishing, because that's $6Billion cash being drained out of the economy every year.
This thriving BC export -- involving the harvest from an estimated 15,000 grow-ops in B.C. [http://www.cfdp.ca/export.htm] -- is rarely mentioned in terms of understanding the basis of the financial chaos gripping the world.
United States government officials (and sometimes even Canadian officials) have made many claims that Canada is a major supplier of cannabis to the US. However, the available evidence, including reports from the Auditor General of Canada, the RCMP, joint Canada-US task forces, and the United Nations, suggests that Canada in fact is only a minor supplier of cannabis to the United States; the United States supplies a significant portion of its demand for cannabis through its own domestic production; and the United States itself exports cannabis to Canada, sometimes by acting as a transit country for cannabis from other countries. So it's safe to assume that every country faces the same problems. [BC's Organized Crime Agency.]
But it's not marijuana, really; it's the cash. $6Billion in cash every year. The equivalent of 5% of the current provincial economy goes on under the table and unaccounted for.
Canada's 3rd largest railway, BCRail, was sold for $1Billion. Premier Campbell called this particular $1Billion a great boon for the province. Can he also claim that losing six times as much money has no influence on British Columbia?
Where do those $6Billion unaccounted-for dollars go, each year? What do they buy?
This morning's Toronto Star carries an interview with the Canadian who is Attorney-General of Afghanistan. Odd, isn't it, that he can speak freely about corruption there. He blames "the multi-billion-dollar tsunami of international aid" for creating the cash bonanza. Odd omission, too, that there's no mention of Afghanistan supplying 90% of the world's heroin.
Certainly, he's under no illusions about trying to enforce the law. He told The Star: "Not a single authority in [Afghanistan], right up into the president's office, has the clout to oppose a powerful alignment of forces that are a law unto themselves. It is very frustrating," sighs the AG. "In theory, I have the power to arrest anyone in this country if he's involved in corruption But in practice, there are some people who are above the law ... I cannot bring them to justice. I call them The Untouchables. [Afghanistan's Untouchables by Rosie Dimanno. Toronto Star (free online), May 10, 2008]
"They are in the central government, the provincial government, the district centres, police stations, army garrisons, the banks, the aid agencies -- not a sector of Afghan society is without contamination of corruption ... " Even within his own department.
In the past 20 months he has arrested some 300 top-echelon Afghan officials and charged them with corruption. How many are in jail? Not one.
What makes us think that such contamination hasn't happened in British Columbia? Is it the speed with which we in Canada bring suspects to justice? No, one of the Accused (a high-level government employee) after the police raids on the B.C. Legislature who had originally been charged with drugs trafficking, has had those drug charges dropped. Have police charged the other suspect, Jasmohan Singh Bains (not a government employee but allegedly hoping to become one), who was heard on the same wire-taps and who was thought to be Mr Big on the West Coast in 2003? Yes, Bains was charged. Has Bains been put on trial? No.
What makes us think that people sit with folded hands, bags over heads, waiting sweetly year after year to be brought to justice?
And so the black market exports continue: $6Billion x 4 years = $24Billion and counting.
$24 corrupt Billions could buy votes, or special attention, or legislation, or interesting employment, or even the keys to the treasure-house in anybody's bailiwick.
At least Afghanistan knows what their problem is. Do we? Or are we just kidding ourselves that we don't have the very same problem in British Columbia?
- BC Mary.
Ref. United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
See also:
Realtors help combat organized crime and terrorism
Vancouver Sun - May 15, 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c84c1a57-b211-42dd-8910-f08b7ac3335b
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Try Googling "marijuana + $6Billion + BC" and you get 961 items if searching Canada or 15,600 items if searching world-wide. So pot production is hardly an unknown or even a modest industry.
In B.C., Marijuana alone would equal 5% of the total BC budget if we counted it, which we don't. Which is astonishing, because that's $6Billion cash being drained out of the economy every year.
This thriving BC export -- involving the harvest from an estimated 15,000 grow-ops in B.C. [http://www.cfdp.ca/export.htm] -- is rarely mentioned in terms of understanding the basis of the financial chaos gripping the world.
United States government officials (and sometimes even Canadian officials) have made many claims that Canada is a major supplier of cannabis to the US. However, the available evidence, including reports from the Auditor General of Canada, the RCMP, joint Canada-US task forces, and the United Nations, suggests that Canada in fact is only a minor supplier of cannabis to the United States; the United States supplies a significant portion of its demand for cannabis through its own domestic production; and the United States itself exports cannabis to Canada, sometimes by acting as a transit country for cannabis from other countries. So it's safe to assume that every country faces the same problems. [BC's Organized Crime Agency.]
But it's not marijuana, really; it's the cash. $6Billion in cash every year. The equivalent of 5% of the current provincial economy goes on under the table and unaccounted for.
Canada's 3rd largest railway, BCRail, was sold for $1Billion. Premier Campbell called this particular $1Billion a great boon for the province. Can he also claim that losing six times as much money has no influence on British Columbia?
Where do those $6Billion unaccounted-for dollars go, each year? What do they buy?
This morning's Toronto Star carries an interview with the Canadian who is Attorney-General of Afghanistan. Odd, isn't it, that he can speak freely about corruption there. He blames "the multi-billion-dollar tsunami of international aid" for creating the cash bonanza. Odd omission, too, that there's no mention of Afghanistan supplying 90% of the world's heroin.
Certainly, he's under no illusions about trying to enforce the law. He told The Star: "Not a single authority in [Afghanistan], right up into the president's office, has the clout to oppose a powerful alignment of forces that are a law unto themselves. It is very frustrating," sighs the AG. "In theory, I have the power to arrest anyone in this country if he's involved in corruption But in practice, there are some people who are above the law ... I cannot bring them to justice. I call them The Untouchables. [Afghanistan's Untouchables by Rosie Dimanno. Toronto Star (free online), May 10, 2008]
"They are in the central government, the provincial government, the district centres, police stations, army garrisons, the banks, the aid agencies -- not a sector of Afghan society is without contamination of corruption ... " Even within his own department.
In the past 20 months he has arrested some 300 top-echelon Afghan officials and charged them with corruption. How many are in jail? Not one.
What makes us think that such contamination hasn't happened in British Columbia? Is it the speed with which we in Canada bring suspects to justice? No, one of the Accused (a high-level government employee) after the police raids on the B.C. Legislature who had originally been charged with drugs trafficking, has had those drug charges dropped. Have police charged the other suspect, Jasmohan Singh Bains (not a government employee but allegedly hoping to become one), who was heard on the same wire-taps and who was thought to be Mr Big on the West Coast in 2003? Yes, Bains was charged. Has Bains been put on trial? No.
What makes us think that people sit with folded hands, bags over heads, waiting sweetly year after year to be brought to justice?
And so the black market exports continue: $6Billion x 4 years = $24Billion and counting.
$24 corrupt Billions could buy votes, or special attention, or legislation, or interesting employment, or even the keys to the treasure-house in anybody's bailiwick.
At least Afghanistan knows what their problem is. Do we? Or are we just kidding ourselves that we don't have the very same problem in British Columbia?
- BC Mary.
Ref. United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
See also:
Realtors help combat organized crime and terrorism
Vancouver Sun - May 15, 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c84c1a57-b211-42dd-8910-f08b7ac3335b
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Friday, May 09, 2008
Robin Mathews on The NDP Affidavits
.
The NDP Affidavits. Gordon Campbell, Ken Dobell, and Delay in Disclosure of Evidence in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case. The BC Rail Scandal.
By Robin Mathews
The NDP has organized and analysed the materials Justice critic Leonard Krog, MLA, requested from Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. When he could get no answers from cabinet members or from Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel concerning the shift in disclosure protocol made unilaterally by Gordon Campbell in May of 2007, Krog sought help from the court.
On March 10, 2008, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett ordered release of "the affidavits [six of them] filed by the government on the application for disclosure of documents seized by way of the execution of the search warrants of the Legislature".
The NDP has made important comments about the involvement of Gordon Campbell's office in the disclosure decisions, quoting Campbell to the effect that neither he nor his office has been in any way involved. The NDP points to the involvement of Campbell's chief and closest aide, Ken Dobell. The NDP points to evidence that counsel for cabinet, George Copley, sought the advice of Dobell. And more.
The NDP, in the legislature, subsequently, freshly separated the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi from the actions of the Gordon Campbell cabinet in the corrupt sale of BC Rail. (If the sale, indeed, was carried out. BC Mary asks pointedly what evidence exists that a sale was completed, and she asks where the evidence is that a billion dollars was received for the Rail and where the amount is recorded. BC Rail has been alienated from its legitimate owners - the people of B.C. Has it been "sold"?)
In separating those two portions of the BC Rail Scandal the NDP has begun to put long overdue pressure on the legislature to open wide examination of the dubious (and perhaps criminal?) actions of the Gordon Campbell cabinet in the alienation of BC Rail from its legitimate owners: the people of B.C.
Wally Oppal, Attorney General, answering questions directed at Gordon Campbell, looks disingenuous and even deliberately uncooperative. His repeated claim that the Basi, Virk, and Basi charges, moving towards trial, place the whole BC Rail transaction and all cabinet actions involved sub judice (outside possible discussion and action outside the court) is hollow nonsense.
More will, doubtless, be argued and revealed as the NDP makes headway.
So far the NDP has trained its sights on Gordon Campbell and the premier's office. But other important information is revealed in the affidavits that should not be overlooked or forgotten.
As early as 2004 the Special Crown Prosecutor William Berardino and George Copley, counsel for the cabinet, and even, apparently, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm were aware of, and seemed openly or tacitly to agree not to draw attention to RCMP delay.
In addition, the affidavits seem to suggest that much preliminary planning for the legislature "raids" was undertaken consciously to avoid recorded evidence. That is to say, when RCMP officers made contact on the matter with cabinet or high civil servants, communication, often, may have been, intentionally, only verbal, and no clear records appear to have been kept of the communications.
The questions opened by the unilateral change of protocol by Gordon Campbell must be answered. On May 28, 2007 Campbell said in the legislature: "In terms of the screening of cabinet documents, all those documents will be available to the Deputy Attorney General. He will make the decision vis-à-vis cabinet confidentiality or any of those issues in consultation with the special prosecutor." Seckel does not seem to have acted in that capacity until August of 2007.
Why was the change made? Why did Allan Seckel brush aside the questions of Leonard Krog and direct him to the affidavits? As the chief politician in B.C., Gordon Campbell could not change the protocol for any other than highly political reasons - by the nature of his office - unless he gave a full and complete and convincing public explanation for the change. He has said nothing.
Indeed, if such a change was fairly warranted, the person to make it, I suggest, would be the "highest law officer of the Crown", Attorney General Wally Oppal, girding himself round and showing absolute legal (not political) motivation by publishing a document explaining the reasons for the move from the old protocol and setting out a rigid and politics-proof protocol that could not be questioned as to its integrity. He did not, of course, do that.
As I have written before, the action by Gordon Campbell transforms Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel into a highly political instrument of the cabinet. His work as screener of cabinet documents can only - I allege - be seen as political work. Thus, I allege Gordon Campbell has entered the Basi, Virk, and Basi case and has transformed it into a political arena.
The cabinet (through Wally Oppal) says that the legislature cannot discuss the BC Rail Scandal because the legislature cannot be seen to enter the activities of the court in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case. While saying that, the cabinet, I allege, has entered the activities of the court. It has placed a personal appointee of the premier (with what verbal orders we cannot know, and - incidentally - without a publicly written document to define unequivocally his duties) in charge of deciding what cabinet documents may be released to the Defence.
Finally, the RCMP is identified as delaying matters as early as 2004. Since then, the RCMP, it has been alleged by Defence, has delayed and delayed in matters of clean and full disclosure of materials. I have pointed to what I believe is the painful and continuing failure of Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett to order - and to give teeth to the order - that the RCMP disclose promptly, in an organized and meaningful way.
In Canada today some members of the RCMP are under suspicion of a large number of unacceptable (when not criminal) activities. That background only complicates interpretation of the unsatisfactory role of the RCMP in the BC Rail Scandal. Eventually, I believe, the NDP in the legislature is going to have to come to grips with that, mostly silent, but hugely important matter. If a Public Inquiry into the BC Rail Scandal is finally undertaken, the role of some members of the RCMP is going to have to face close investigation and scrutiny. What has been their role in relation to cabinet members and high civil servants? What has their role been in relation to the Special Crown Prosecutor, to judges of the B.C. Supreme Court?
The materials released by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett in answer to Leonard Krog's request flood light onto the behaviour of political actors in the B.C Rail Scandal. But they open as many questions as they answer.
One of those questions has haunted all the proceedings. How much more would the people of B.C. know about the BC Rail Scandal if documents on public record kept in the care of the court, arising out of the legislature raids, were regularly made available for public scrutiny? Are the Patrick Dohm protocols denying access to documents on public record (allegedly) created to protect the innocent in fact serving to protect the guilty?
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The NDP Affidavits. Gordon Campbell, Ken Dobell, and Delay in Disclosure of Evidence in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case. The BC Rail Scandal.
By Robin Mathews
The NDP has organized and analysed the materials Justice critic Leonard Krog, MLA, requested from Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. When he could get no answers from cabinet members or from Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel concerning the shift in disclosure protocol made unilaterally by Gordon Campbell in May of 2007, Krog sought help from the court.
On March 10, 2008, Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett ordered release of "the affidavits [six of them] filed by the government on the application for disclosure of documents seized by way of the execution of the search warrants of the Legislature".
The NDP has made important comments about the involvement of Gordon Campbell's office in the disclosure decisions, quoting Campbell to the effect that neither he nor his office has been in any way involved. The NDP points to the involvement of Campbell's chief and closest aide, Ken Dobell. The NDP points to evidence that counsel for cabinet, George Copley, sought the advice of Dobell. And more.
The NDP, in the legislature, subsequently, freshly separated the trial of Basi, Virk, and Basi from the actions of the Gordon Campbell cabinet in the corrupt sale of BC Rail. (If the sale, indeed, was carried out. BC Mary asks pointedly what evidence exists that a sale was completed, and she asks where the evidence is that a billion dollars was received for the Rail and where the amount is recorded. BC Rail has been alienated from its legitimate owners - the people of B.C. Has it been "sold"?)
In separating those two portions of the BC Rail Scandal the NDP has begun to put long overdue pressure on the legislature to open wide examination of the dubious (and perhaps criminal?) actions of the Gordon Campbell cabinet in the alienation of BC Rail from its legitimate owners: the people of B.C.
Wally Oppal, Attorney General, answering questions directed at Gordon Campbell, looks disingenuous and even deliberately uncooperative. His repeated claim that the Basi, Virk, and Basi charges, moving towards trial, place the whole BC Rail transaction and all cabinet actions involved sub judice (outside possible discussion and action outside the court) is hollow nonsense.
More will, doubtless, be argued and revealed as the NDP makes headway.
So far the NDP has trained its sights on Gordon Campbell and the premier's office. But other important information is revealed in the affidavits that should not be overlooked or forgotten.
As early as 2004 the Special Crown Prosecutor William Berardino and George Copley, counsel for the cabinet, and even, apparently, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm were aware of, and seemed openly or tacitly to agree not to draw attention to RCMP delay.
In addition, the affidavits seem to suggest that much preliminary planning for the legislature "raids" was undertaken consciously to avoid recorded evidence. That is to say, when RCMP officers made contact on the matter with cabinet or high civil servants, communication, often, may have been, intentionally, only verbal, and no clear records appear to have been kept of the communications.
The questions opened by the unilateral change of protocol by Gordon Campbell must be answered. On May 28, 2007 Campbell said in the legislature: "In terms of the screening of cabinet documents, all those documents will be available to the Deputy Attorney General. He will make the decision vis-à-vis cabinet confidentiality or any of those issues in consultation with the special prosecutor." Seckel does not seem to have acted in that capacity until August of 2007.
Why was the change made? Why did Allan Seckel brush aside the questions of Leonard Krog and direct him to the affidavits? As the chief politician in B.C., Gordon Campbell could not change the protocol for any other than highly political reasons - by the nature of his office - unless he gave a full and complete and convincing public explanation for the change. He has said nothing.
Indeed, if such a change was fairly warranted, the person to make it, I suggest, would be the "highest law officer of the Crown", Attorney General Wally Oppal, girding himself round and showing absolute legal (not political) motivation by publishing a document explaining the reasons for the move from the old protocol and setting out a rigid and politics-proof protocol that could not be questioned as to its integrity. He did not, of course, do that.
As I have written before, the action by Gordon Campbell transforms Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel into a highly political instrument of the cabinet. His work as screener of cabinet documents can only - I allege - be seen as political work. Thus, I allege Gordon Campbell has entered the Basi, Virk, and Basi case and has transformed it into a political arena.
The cabinet (through Wally Oppal) says that the legislature cannot discuss the BC Rail Scandal because the legislature cannot be seen to enter the activities of the court in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case. While saying that, the cabinet, I allege, has entered the activities of the court. It has placed a personal appointee of the premier (with what verbal orders we cannot know, and - incidentally - without a publicly written document to define unequivocally his duties) in charge of deciding what cabinet documents may be released to the Defence.
Finally, the RCMP is identified as delaying matters as early as 2004. Since then, the RCMP, it has been alleged by Defence, has delayed and delayed in matters of clean and full disclosure of materials. I have pointed to what I believe is the painful and continuing failure of Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett to order - and to give teeth to the order - that the RCMP disclose promptly, in an organized and meaningful way.
In Canada today some members of the RCMP are under suspicion of a large number of unacceptable (when not criminal) activities. That background only complicates interpretation of the unsatisfactory role of the RCMP in the BC Rail Scandal. Eventually, I believe, the NDP in the legislature is going to have to come to grips with that, mostly silent, but hugely important matter. If a Public Inquiry into the BC Rail Scandal is finally undertaken, the role of some members of the RCMP is going to have to face close investigation and scrutiny. What has been their role in relation to cabinet members and high civil servants? What has their role been in relation to the Special Crown Prosecutor, to judges of the B.C. Supreme Court?
The materials released by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett in answer to Leonard Krog's request flood light onto the behaviour of political actors in the B.C Rail Scandal. But they open as many questions as they answer.
One of those questions has haunted all the proceedings. How much more would the people of B.C. know about the BC Rail Scandal if documents on public record kept in the care of the court, arising out of the legislature raids, were regularly made available for public scrutiny? Are the Patrick Dohm protocols denying access to documents on public record (allegedly) created to protect the innocent in fact serving to protect the guilty?
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Television to carry the BCR trial?
.
Soon, we will be hearing from our newest B.C. Blogger about this. It's tempting to blurt it all out now -- or, at least, what I know of it -- but other people are involved. It's best that we allow destiny to unfold as it should. Besides, there's no hurry. Not the way the Basi Virk Basi trial is creeping along.
Meantime, I found this bit of legal poetry to lift the heart of every red-blooded citizen. This excerpt flows from a "Factum" on the topic of why television is often -- though not invariably -- a good thing to have in the courtroom. This is especially true for British Columbians living in central and northern B.C. who were also the most closely tied to BCRail. With courtroom TV, they could follow every hour of the proceedings.
From Court File No. 28823 in the Supreme Court of Canada ...
... C) The Interests in the Balance
a. The Principle of Open Courtrooms
16. The presumption in favour of open courtrooms is grounded in the fundamental concept of democracy that the citizens, collectively, exercise the function of sovereign by ruling themselves. This ideal requires citizens to retain the ability to observe, deliberate on, and call into account both elected and unelected representatives of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government ...
The freedom of individuals to discuss information about the institutions of government, their policies and practices, is crucial to any notion of democratic rule. The liberty to criticize and express dissenting views has long been thought to be a safeguard against state tyranny and corruption.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 (S.C.C.) at 494; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
17. The interest of the democratic citizenry that underlies the principle of open courtrooms is elevated to constitutional status by section 2(b) of the Charter. As noted by La Forest, J. in CBC v. New Brunswick:
The principle of open courts is tied inextricably to the rights guaranteed by s.2(b). Openness permits public access to information about the courts, which in turn permits the public to discuss and put forward opinions and criticisms of court practices and proceedings.... The full and fair discussion of public institutions, which is vital to any democracy, is the raison d'etre of the s.2(b) guarantees.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 at para.23; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
18. In Edmonton Journal, Cory, J. expressed the preeminent importance free expression in securing the democratic accountability of institutions:
It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society that freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized.
Etc.
http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/02camerafactum.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Soon, we will be hearing from our newest B.C. Blogger about this. It's tempting to blurt it all out now -- or, at least, what I know of it -- but other people are involved. It's best that we allow destiny to unfold as it should. Besides, there's no hurry. Not the way the Basi Virk Basi trial is creeping along.
Meantime, I found this bit of legal poetry to lift the heart of every red-blooded citizen. This excerpt flows from a "Factum" on the topic of why television is often -- though not invariably -- a good thing to have in the courtroom. This is especially true for British Columbians living in central and northern B.C. who were also the most closely tied to BCRail. With courtroom TV, they could follow every hour of the proceedings.
From Court File No. 28823 in the Supreme Court of Canada ...
... C) The Interests in the Balance
a. The Principle of Open Courtrooms
16. The presumption in favour of open courtrooms is grounded in the fundamental concept of democracy that the citizens, collectively, exercise the function of sovereign by ruling themselves. This ideal requires citizens to retain the ability to observe, deliberate on, and call into account both elected and unelected representatives of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government ...
The freedom of individuals to discuss information about the institutions of government, their policies and practices, is crucial to any notion of democratic rule. The liberty to criticize and express dissenting views has long been thought to be a safeguard against state tyranny and corruption.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 (S.C.C.) at 494; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
17. The interest of the democratic citizenry that underlies the principle of open courtrooms is elevated to constitutional status by section 2(b) of the Charter. As noted by La Forest, J. in CBC v. New Brunswick:
The principle of open courts is tied inextricably to the rights guaranteed by s.2(b). Openness permits public access to information about the courts, which in turn permits the public to discuss and put forward opinions and criticisms of court practices and proceedings.... The full and fair discussion of public institutions, which is vital to any democracy, is the raison d'etre of the s.2(b) guarantees.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 at para.23; Appellant's Brief of Authorities, Vol.I, Tab 2
18. In Edmonton Journal, Cory, J. expressed the preeminent importance free expression in securing the democratic accountability of institutions:
It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society that freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be overemphasized.
Etc.
http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/02camerafactum.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Press clippings May 9, 2008
.
THE LEGISLATURE RAID
Dobell defends his perusal of seized files in BC Rail probe
Premier's remarks still stand, he says
MARK HUME
The Globe and Mail - May 9, 2008
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080509.BCBASI09/TPStory/National
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sorry, Wally, but your latest caper (described below) really ticks me off. Today's Times Colonist carefully explains the role expected of an open and transparent government when evidence is needed for fairness before any B.C. court. The Campbell government needs this reminder because it is also fighting to prevent disclosure of evidence in the BCRail Case.
So let's hear a few of your grandiose speeches about your government doing everything it can to disclose the evidence it is holding in the Basi-Virk / BC Rail case, eh? Wouldn't that be a nice change? You've had every opportunity in the Legislature to say even a little bit but no, you can barely bring yourself to admit that there actually is a Case #23299, HMTQ v. Basi, Virk, Basi under way in B.C. Supreme Court because that might interfere with justice being done, you say. That's why people began calling you "Stonewally", isn't it?
And lemme tell you, Wally: the battle against disclosure of your government's documents is interfering with justice being done. For heaven sake, stop stonewalling the BCRail case. Get on side and help get this issue out in the open where the people of B.C. -- and the three Accused -- can deal with it.
Don't get me started. I mean ...
Choosing people for this inquest (below) who have no direct knowledge of the case in question? Yeah. So isn't that pretty much how your AG Ministry chose a Special Prosecutor for Basi-Virk whose specialty was mediation and litigation ... not criminal law? That was way back, before your time, but didn't you think it looked like setting the BCRail trial up for failure? How about that, Wally? Speak for the people of B.C. and tell us what you think. Because this whole evasive, obstinate, passive-aggressive attitude can tick anybody off.
Looks like you've finally got the Opposition ticked off, at least. Good.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LET PROSECUTORS TESTIFY AT INQUEST
Times Colonist
Editorial
Published: Friday, May 09, 2008
Premier Gordon Campbell promised that an inquest into the murders and suicide that claimed five lives in Oak Bay would deal with all the questions raised by that terrible case.
Now his government is fighting to withhold important evidence. Its actions have forced the coroner to shut the inquest down. It could take months or years before it resumes.
The government is fighting to keep two Crown prosecutors from testifying. It insists the jury should be content to hear from managers who were not directly involved.
The jury considered that unsatisfactory. So did coroner Jeff Dolan, who ordered the prosecutors to testify.
A critical issue in this case is the prosecutors' decision not to seek Peter Lee's detention after he drove his vehicle into a pole in what Sunny Park, his wife, described as an attempt to kill her. She told police she feared for her life and had been abused. Experts have testified that the available information suggested Lee was a serious threat to his family.
But prosecutors did not seek his detention.
After Lee was released, he violated several conditions of his release. Lee's bail supervisor warned she was having trouble tracking his movements.
Yet his release was not revoked. A hearing on one of the issues was adjourned for a week because Lee did not appear. He killed his family on the day it was to be held.
The government has provided two managers from the Crown prosecutor's office to testify. One said the prosecutors did everything correctly and shifted blame to the police. The second refused to answer a string of questions, citing her lack of involvement.
Which is the point. The jury needs to hear from the prosecutors about the information they received from police, the impact of heavy workloads on their actions, their training in recognizing threats to families and their understanding of government policies. Their evidence is vital.
The government has taken the position that Crown prosecutors can never be questioned. They are like judges, the province argues.
That ignores the fact that judges' decisions are routinely reviewed by higher courts. The government proposes to leave prosecutors entirely unaccountable.
And the position is inconsistent with past practice in many inquiries in which Crown prosecutors have testified.
The government has taken the same position in an attempt to keep prosecutors from obeying an order to testify at the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul,. He died after being dumped in an alley by Vancouver police. It will fight both orders in the B.C. Supreme Court later this month.
In Oak Bay, Five people died. The community wants answers about whether those deaths could have been prevented. It's shameful that the government is fighting to withhold important evidence.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=159cd1b7-f442-4eec-8570-7166ac3edc4b
THE LEGISLATURE RAID
Dobell defends his perusal of seized files in BC Rail probe
Premier's remarks still stand, he says
MARK HUME
The Globe and Mail - May 9, 2008
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080509.BCBASI09/TPStory/National
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sorry, Wally, but your latest caper (described below) really ticks me off. Today's Times Colonist carefully explains the role expected of an open and transparent government when evidence is needed for fairness before any B.C. court. The Campbell government needs this reminder because it is also fighting to prevent disclosure of evidence in the BCRail Case.
So let's hear a few of your grandiose speeches about your government doing everything it can to disclose the evidence it is holding in the Basi-Virk / BC Rail case, eh? Wouldn't that be a nice change? You've had every opportunity in the Legislature to say even a little bit but no, you can barely bring yourself to admit that there actually is a Case #23299, HMTQ v. Basi, Virk, Basi under way in B.C. Supreme Court because that might interfere with justice being done, you say. That's why people began calling you "Stonewally", isn't it?
And lemme tell you, Wally: the battle against disclosure of your government's documents is interfering with justice being done. For heaven sake, stop stonewalling the BCRail case. Get on side and help get this issue out in the open where the people of B.C. -- and the three Accused -- can deal with it.
Don't get me started. I mean ...
Choosing people for this inquest (below) who have no direct knowledge of the case in question? Yeah. So isn't that pretty much how your AG Ministry chose a Special Prosecutor for Basi-Virk whose specialty was mediation and litigation ... not criminal law? That was way back, before your time, but didn't you think it looked like setting the BCRail trial up for failure? How about that, Wally? Speak for the people of B.C. and tell us what you think. Because this whole evasive, obstinate, passive-aggressive attitude can tick anybody off.
Looks like you've finally got the Opposition ticked off, at least. Good.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LET PROSECUTORS TESTIFY AT INQUEST
Times Colonist
Editorial
Published: Friday, May 09, 2008
Premier Gordon Campbell promised that an inquest into the murders and suicide that claimed five lives in Oak Bay would deal with all the questions raised by that terrible case.
Now his government is fighting to withhold important evidence. Its actions have forced the coroner to shut the inquest down. It could take months or years before it resumes.
The government is fighting to keep two Crown prosecutors from testifying. It insists the jury should be content to hear from managers who were not directly involved.
The jury considered that unsatisfactory. So did coroner Jeff Dolan, who ordered the prosecutors to testify.
A critical issue in this case is the prosecutors' decision not to seek Peter Lee's detention after he drove his vehicle into a pole in what Sunny Park, his wife, described as an attempt to kill her. She told police she feared for her life and had been abused. Experts have testified that the available information suggested Lee was a serious threat to his family.
But prosecutors did not seek his detention.
After Lee was released, he violated several conditions of his release. Lee's bail supervisor warned she was having trouble tracking his movements.
Yet his release was not revoked. A hearing on one of the issues was adjourned for a week because Lee did not appear. He killed his family on the day it was to be held.
The government has provided two managers from the Crown prosecutor's office to testify. One said the prosecutors did everything correctly and shifted blame to the police. The second refused to answer a string of questions, citing her lack of involvement.
Which is the point. The jury needs to hear from the prosecutors about the information they received from police, the impact of heavy workloads on their actions, their training in recognizing threats to families and their understanding of government policies. Their evidence is vital.
The government has taken the position that Crown prosecutors can never be questioned. They are like judges, the province argues.
That ignores the fact that judges' decisions are routinely reviewed by higher courts. The government proposes to leave prosecutors entirely unaccountable.
And the position is inconsistent with past practice in many inquiries in which Crown prosecutors have testified.
The government has taken the same position in an attempt to keep prosecutors from obeying an order to testify at the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul,. He died after being dumped in an alley by Vancouver police. It will fight both orders in the B.C. Supreme Court later this month.
In Oak Bay, Five people died. The community wants answers about whether those deaths could have been prevented. It's shameful that the government is fighting to withhold important evidence.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=159cd1b7-f442-4eec-8570-7166ac3edc4b
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Read the Affidavits here ...
.
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/new_democrats_release_key_bc_rail_corruption_trial_documents
www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/bcrailcorruptiontrial
MEDIA ADVISORY
May 7, 2008
B.C. RAIL COURT DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY NDP RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF PREMIER CAMPBELL'S OFFICE
VICTORIA -- Key court documents in the B.C. Rail corruption case obtained through an NDP request to the court are now available online at:
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/new_democrats_release_key_bc_rail_corruption_trial_documents
Summaries and analyses at: http://bcndpcaucus.ca Here's an example from the leader of the official opposition, May 07, 2008:
Bill Tieleman's blog makes these documents easy to access, too, at: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/new_democrats_release_key_bc_rail_corruption_trial_documents
www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/bcrailcorruptiontrial
MEDIA ADVISORY
May 7, 2008
B.C. RAIL COURT DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY NDP RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF PREMIER CAMPBELL'S OFFICE
VICTORIA -- Key court documents in the B.C. Rail corruption case obtained through an NDP request to the court are now available online at:
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/new_democrats_release_key_bc_rail_corruption_trial_documents
Summaries and analyses at: http://bcndpcaucus.ca Here's an example from the leader of the official opposition, May 07, 2008:
Navigating the Affidavits
Front PageAfter petitioning the court, the Official Opposition received copies of the Government affidavits on April 2, the same day they were made available to the public at the court registry. These affidavits are now published on this website [NDP website] in their entirety. Each affidavit can be accessed as it was presented to the court. Additionally, material from the affidavits can be accessed using the subject indexes, which group together similarly themed material from all of the affidavits.
The 6 affidavits made available by Madam Justice Bennett in response to [the NDP] request are:
1) A June 6, 2007 affidavit from Sue Filion , legal secretary with the Legal Services Branch, which sets out correspondence relating to the defence disclosure application. This affidavit also includes correspondence between the RCMP and senior civil servants regarding the raid on the Legislature. Emails from Kevin Begg of the Solicitor General’s office state that his office had avoided producing a paper trail regarding the RCMP investigation in the days leading up to the Legislature raids.
2) An affidavit from Nancy Reimer , assistant to George Copley, dated October 23, 2007. This affidavit sets out the Government’s position on disclosure of a number of documents, including assertions of solicitor-client privilege. Also includes material related to the FOI request made by defence counsel.
3) A second affidavit from Nancy Reimer , introduced in court on December 14, 2007, which includes the 2004 document review protocol that has the Deputy Cabinet Secretary making decisions regarding assertions of privilege. This affidavit also includes material relating to the initial screening of documents by Associate Chief Justice Dohm.
4) A second affidavit from Sue Filion , dated January 7, 2008. This affidavit comprises the contents of a binder of materials from George Copley’s office, and includes email and other correspondence relating to document review, claims of privilege, and disclosure. Materials in this affidavit show the roles of Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel, Deputy Minister to the Premier Ken Dobell and Deputy Cabinet Secretaries Joy Illington and Elizabeth MacMillan in the document review process.
a) An email of January 12, 2004, from Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel indicates that Seckel and Premier Gordon Campbell’s key advisor Ken Dobell discussed a process for disclosure prior to submission of the final protocol.
b) An email of November 24, 2004, from George Copley to Ken Dobell, reveals that on at least one occasion Copley received instructions from Dobell on whether to waive or assert privilege over documents seized during the raid on the Legislature.
c) In a January 13, 2006 email from George Copley to Elizabeth MacMillan, it becomes clear Copley expected instruction to come from someone in the ‘Premier’s Office’.
d) It appears that Copley first approached Seckel for instructions on whether or not to continue to assert privilege in a memorandum of August 24, 2007.
5) An affidavit from Government lawyer Maria Coley , dated January 20, 2008, which sets out most of the materials that inventory documents seized during the raid on the Legislature. Included here is the inventory of documents reviewed by Madam Justice Bennett, in which she indicates a document as related to the “consolation prize”.
6) A third affidavit from Sue Filion , filed in court on February 15, 2008. This affidavit sets out the Government position on disclosure of the three emails Madam Justice Bennett ruled as “significantly relevant”, including the email that goes to the “innocence at stake” principle.
Back to BC Rail Corruption Trial main page
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Bill Tieleman's blog makes these documents easy to access, too, at: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
"Affidavits completely contradict the premier ... who's telling the truth?"
.
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN B.C. RAIL INVESTIGATION
Hansard - May 6, 2008
L. Krog: In 2007 during debates in this Legislature, the Premier repeatedly told this House that neither he nor anyone in his office had anything to do with the disclosure of government documents in the B.C. Rail corruption trial or investigation. He said: "The Premier's office does not have a direct input into that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Court affidavits recently obtained by the opposition completely contradict the Premier. The RCMP wanted to question various government officials and cabinet ministers including Gary Collins and Judith Reid about three specific documents.
The court affidavits show that these three documents were discussed with Ken Dobell, the Premier's deputy and closest adviser. He made the decision to disclose them just to the RCMP. My question to the Premier: does he stand by his assertion that his office, that his deputy, that his political staff had no involvement with the disclosure of the documents?
Hon. W. Oppal: We've been very clear about this. We're not going to engage in any specifics as to what took place. This matter is before the courts. The opposition members know about it. We're not going to talk about it.
L. Krog: I would have thought integrity is just the thing we'd want to talk about in this Legislature. In an e-mail from the government's own lawyer George Copley to Ken Dobell, Mr. Copley states: "After discussing these documents, your instructions were to waive privilege with respect to these confidential documents for the limited purpose of the proposed investigative reviews."
That is absolutely unequivocal. There is nothing to interpret. Ken Dobell gave very specific instructions about the disclosure of documents, documents that went to the heart of this corruption investigation. It completely contradicts everything the Premier has said.
Again to the Premier: who's telling the truth? Who's right? The Premier or the government's own lawyer?
Hon. W. Oppal: Let me quote from what the member for Nanaimo said on November 2, 2006: "It is essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in the public that were later deemed prejudicial.
L. Krog: The questions are not about the documents, and they're not about the outcome of the corruption trial. They are about the Premier's credibility and his integrity in this House. They are about comments this Premier made in this House.
The government's own lawyer has directly contradicted statements the Premier has made. Mr. Copley is now on record as saying that Mr. Dobell discussed documents and issued instructions about their release. The RCMP then used those documents to interview Ministers Collins and Reid.
Will the Premier finally come clean and tell British Columbians what he and his office were trying to hide and who they were trying to protect?
Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. They will be judged in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as they should be discussed and judged in that court, not in this House.
B. Ralston: The Attorney General has a unique constitutional position in the government and in the cabinet. He, in one respect, is a political member of cabinet and participates in political debate, but he has a second part of his duties which is as the guardian of the public interest. He is to exercise that in a non-partisan way. His job goes beyond running political interference for the Premier.
The Premier said here in this Legislature in 2007 that the Premier's office did not have direct input into that — referring to the disclosure of documents. Why did the Premier try to hide the fact that Mr. Dobell, his deputy minister, his alter ego, reviewed crucial documents in this case?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the….
Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that member got it partly right. I do have a special role, and part of my distinctive role in government is to protect the integrity of the process and the independence of the courts. For that reason, we don't comment on whatever takes place in the courts. The member is a lawyer. He knows better
B. Ralston: Part of the difficult job of the Attorney General is when questions like this arise and involve other members of cabinet. He has the duty at that point to exercise his independent jurisdiction. That's something that he's not prepared to do, obviously, and it's shameful.
Mr. Dobell reviewed crucial documents in this case. He did not sign an undertaking, as did the other four people who had access to these documents. That protocol requiring the signing of those undertakings was to protect the integrity of the investigation and the integrity of the evidence.
How can the Premier convince anyone that Mr. Dobell didn't speak to him about those documents?
Hon. W. Oppal: Whatever Mr. Dobell did or didn't do is something that will be determined in a court of law, and we should wait for the judge to determine what he did or he didn't do and if it did impact on the system. That's entirely within the…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Attorney.
Hon. W. Oppal: It's entirely within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We don't comment on those matters. That's pretty basic.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN B.C. RAIL INVESTIGATION
Hansard - May 6, 2008
L. Krog: In 2007 during debates in this Legislature, the Premier repeatedly told this House that neither he nor anyone in his office had anything to do with the disclosure of government documents in the B.C. Rail corruption trial or investigation. He said: "The Premier's office does not have a direct input into that." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Court affidavits recently obtained by the opposition completely contradict the Premier. The RCMP wanted to question various government officials and cabinet ministers including Gary Collins and Judith Reid about three specific documents.
The court affidavits show that these three documents were discussed with Ken Dobell, the Premier's deputy and closest adviser. He made the decision to disclose them just to the RCMP. My question to the Premier: does he stand by his assertion that his office, that his deputy, that his political staff had no involvement with the disclosure of the documents?
Hon. W. Oppal: We've been very clear about this. We're not going to engage in any specifics as to what took place. This matter is before the courts. The opposition members know about it. We're not going to talk about it.
L. Krog: I would have thought integrity is just the thing we'd want to talk about in this Legislature. In an e-mail from the government's own lawyer George Copley to Ken Dobell, Mr. Copley states: "After discussing these documents, your instructions were to waive privilege with respect to these confidential documents for the limited purpose of the proposed investigative reviews."
That is absolutely unequivocal. There is nothing to interpret. Ken Dobell gave very specific instructions about the disclosure of documents, documents that went to the heart of this corruption investigation. It completely contradicts everything the Premier has said.
Again to the Premier: who's telling the truth? Who's right? The Premier or the government's own lawyer?
Hon. W. Oppal: Let me quote from what the member for Nanaimo said on November 2, 2006: "It is essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in the public that were later deemed prejudicial.
L. Krog: The questions are not about the documents, and they're not about the outcome of the corruption trial. They are about the Premier's credibility and his integrity in this House. They are about comments this Premier made in this House.
The government's own lawyer has directly contradicted statements the Premier has made. Mr. Copley is now on record as saying that Mr. Dobell discussed documents and issued instructions about their release. The RCMP then used those documents to interview Ministers Collins and Reid.
Will the Premier finally come clean and tell British Columbians what he and his office were trying to hide and who they were trying to protect?
Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. They will be judged in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as they should be discussed and judged in that court, not in this House.
B. Ralston: The Attorney General has a unique constitutional position in the government and in the cabinet. He, in one respect, is a political member of cabinet and participates in political debate, but he has a second part of his duties which is as the guardian of the public interest. He is to exercise that in a non-partisan way. His job goes beyond running political interference for the Premier.
The Premier said here in this Legislature in 2007 that the Premier's office did not have direct input into that — referring to the disclosure of documents. Why did the Premier try to hide the fact that Mr. Dobell, his deputy minister, his alter ego, reviewed crucial documents in this case?
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the….
Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that member got it partly right. I do have a special role, and part of my distinctive role in government is to protect the integrity of the process and the independence of the courts. For that reason, we don't comment on whatever takes place in the courts. The member is a lawyer. He knows better
B. Ralston: Part of the difficult job of the Attorney General is when questions like this arise and involve other members of cabinet. He has the duty at that point to exercise his independent jurisdiction. That's something that he's not prepared to do, obviously, and it's shameful.
Mr. Dobell reviewed crucial documents in this case. He did not sign an undertaking, as did the other four people who had access to these documents. That protocol requiring the signing of those undertakings was to protect the integrity of the investigation and the integrity of the evidence.
How can the Premier convince anyone that Mr. Dobell didn't speak to him about those documents?
Hon. W. Oppal: Whatever Mr. Dobell did or didn't do is something that will be determined in a court of law, and we should wait for the judge to determine what he did or he didn't do and if it did impact on the system. That's entirely within the…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Attorney.
Hon. W. Oppal: It's entirely within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We don't comment on those matters. That's pretty basic.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Breaking news from Bill Tieleman
.
NEW DOCUMENTS EMERGE IN BASI-VIRK
Bill Tieleman - May 6, 2008
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
[I would copy a small preview, but am having a bit of computer/ISP trouble this a.m., sorry.
- BC Mary.]
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
NEW DOCUMENTS EMERGE IN BASI-VIRK
Bill Tieleman - May 6, 2008
| Please go to Bill's blog for this ... and another set of startling revelations about Premier Campbell from the Opposition. "Here we go ..." said Bill, in announcing 1,000 new documents obtained by the NDP from court records. |
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
[I would copy a small preview, but am having a bit of computer/ISP trouble this a.m., sorry.
- BC Mary.]
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Two years ago ... TLR
.
Two years ago today, The Legislature Raids first appeared. The Basi Virk trial was scheduled to begin on June 5, 2006 ... and Judge Bennett told us: "but not later than December 4, 2006".
This is TLR's 631st posted item. With some items containing multiple news items, that's fresh news almost every day. All posts arise from the police raids on the B.C. Legislature or about people and events relating BC Rail.
NOTHING CAN COMPARE TO BC RAIL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPc85XO5UKQ&NR=1
"The final lap on the Squamish Sub"
For 75 years BCRail (first as PGE) was a legendary part of our history. Our experienced mountain trainmen brought BCRail trains safely through our wild, upended terrain.
Readers can click on the dates in the left column to review any week from our first 2 years. Type the name into the SEARCH box to see any TLR post on a person or event. We've taken on every aspect surrounding BCRail and its wide influence as a BC icon.
This web-site has become a useful archive. In addition, at least twice TLR has brought news to the public which they might otherwise not have known:
1) the CN head-on train wreck on the banks of the Fraser River at Prince George,
2) the "Bait-and-Switch" maneuver in Supreme Court on May 2, 2008.
Item #1 illustrated that big corporations can bamboozle the media. We told the story that the head-on collision couldn't have happened in the downtown CN railyard as they said because Citizen Journalists had actually videoed the CN trainwreck showing contaminants spilling into the Fraser River.
Item #2 illustrates that mainstream journalists can work with bloggers like us to real advantage. As these two items show: sometimes we can find out things faster and better; sometimes they can. Sometimes, too, we can say things that Big Media can't or won't say. It's a bonus for the public.
TLR's general news focus has gradually shifted away from allegations of drugs trafficking because the charges against Dave Basi were dropped -- a mistake, I believe, given the early reports that Jasmohan Singh Bains was overheard on wiretaps phoning his cousin Dave Basi at the Ministry of Finance. Basi was allegedly trying to get Bains a government job, and police believed Bains at the time was Mr Big on the West Coast.
Let's not forget that two years ago, Bill 23 was being rushed through the Legislature, designed to maintain secrecy on the findings of any Public Inquiry. Bill 30 was also rushed into law, designed to maintain secrecy over agreements made between government and corporations. Both these new laws could have a disastrous effect on this important case.
Our focus has swung around to the premier's office because defence lawyers for Basi-Virk seem convinced that any premier would know if a major public asset like Canada's 3rd largest railway was being privatized and sold; it would have been his decision to do so; He'd know why, how, when, and to whom. He would vet every detail. Be that as it may ... whatever Gordon Campbell does know is, he says, "privileged" information which he cannot discuss with us. TLR keeps returning to that.
Right now, we are working on questions like: Was B.C. ever paid that $1Billion? If so, when? How? Has CN fulfilled all its contractual obligations, such as the purchase of 600 new railcars and repair of 1500? If not, has a formal complaint been laid? Because failure to upgrade the railcars is a major deal-breaker.
The Legislature Raids will continue to ask questions and to gather information as best we can. But we hope to be reporting on the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi before another year goes by. That's where we'll find the best answers to our questions about BC Rail.
And yes, I say "we" because others have given generously of their expertise, advice, and information. They are a very important part of TLR and they are much appreciated.
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Two years ago today, The Legislature Raids first appeared. The Basi Virk trial was scheduled to begin on June 5, 2006 ... and Judge Bennett told us: "but not later than December 4, 2006".
This is TLR's 631st posted item. With some items containing multiple news items, that's fresh news almost every day. All posts arise from the police raids on the B.C. Legislature or about people and events relating BC Rail.
NOTHING CAN COMPARE TO BC RAIL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPc85XO5UKQ&NR=1
"The final lap on the Squamish Sub"
For 75 years BCRail (first as PGE) was a legendary part of our history. Our experienced mountain trainmen brought BCRail trains safely through our wild, upended terrain.
Readers can click on the dates in the left column to review any week from our first 2 years. Type the name into the SEARCH box to see any TLR post on a person or event. We've taken on every aspect surrounding BCRail and its wide influence as a BC icon.
This web-site has become a useful archive. In addition, at least twice TLR has brought news to the public which they might otherwise not have known:
1) the CN head-on train wreck on the banks of the Fraser River at Prince George,
2) the "Bait-and-Switch" maneuver in Supreme Court on May 2, 2008.
Item #1 illustrated that big corporations can bamboozle the media. We told the story that the head-on collision couldn't have happened in the downtown CN railyard as they said because Citizen Journalists had actually videoed the CN trainwreck showing contaminants spilling into the Fraser River.
Item #2 illustrates that mainstream journalists can work with bloggers like us to real advantage. As these two items show: sometimes we can find out things faster and better; sometimes they can. Sometimes, too, we can say things that Big Media can't or won't say. It's a bonus for the public.
TLR's general news focus has gradually shifted away from allegations of drugs trafficking because the charges against Dave Basi were dropped -- a mistake, I believe, given the early reports that Jasmohan Singh Bains was overheard on wiretaps phoning his cousin Dave Basi at the Ministry of Finance. Basi was allegedly trying to get Bains a government job, and police believed Bains at the time was Mr Big on the West Coast.
Let's not forget that two years ago, Bill 23 was being rushed through the Legislature, designed to maintain secrecy on the findings of any Public Inquiry. Bill 30 was also rushed into law, designed to maintain secrecy over agreements made between government and corporations. Both these new laws could have a disastrous effect on this important case.
Our focus has swung around to the premier's office because defence lawyers for Basi-Virk seem convinced that any premier would know if a major public asset like Canada's 3rd largest railway was being privatized and sold; it would have been his decision to do so; He'd know why, how, when, and to whom. He would vet every detail. Be that as it may ... whatever Gordon Campbell does know is, he says, "privileged" information which he cannot discuss with us. TLR keeps returning to that.
Right now, we are working on questions like: Was B.C. ever paid that $1Billion? If so, when? How? Has CN fulfilled all its contractual obligations, such as the purchase of 600 new railcars and repair of 1500? If not, has a formal complaint been laid? Because failure to upgrade the railcars is a major deal-breaker.
The Legislature Raids will continue to ask questions and to gather information as best we can. But we hope to be reporting on the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi before another year goes by. That's where we'll find the best answers to our questions about BC Rail.
And yes, I say "we" because others have given generously of their expertise, advice, and information. They are a very important part of TLR and they are much appreciated.
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Some things you can say ... some things take longer
.
There are, they say, two sides to every story.
In the matter of the cancelled pre-trial Basi-Virk / BC Rail hearing which we had expected on May 2nd, our best information had come from several sources (on-the-spot Citizen Journalist, unidentified Supreme Court Sheriff, big-name journalists) and I published them all.
I did not have any information from the Crown Prosecutor to publish. Now we do.
He, we were told in good faith (and I told you), had been the one who revised the schedule "to avoid the public". Well ... that appears not to be true.
By a roundabout and quite marvelous route (which is not my story to tell), BC Mary has learned the Crown Prosecutor's side of what we had begun to call the "Bait and Switch Plan".
It seems that the pre-trial conference was changed from May 2, 2008 at 9:00 to May 1, 2008 at 4:00 at the request of defence counsel, not by the Special Prosecutor's office at all.
When the pre-trial conference was initially scheduled at the last court appearance, the May 2 date was tentative, we were told. The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett had advised that the May 2 date was subject to cancellation or a date change if required.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Bobby Virk's lawyer, Kevin McCullough advised the Special Prosecutor that defence counsel wanted to change the date of the pre-trial to May 1, 2008.
Apparently Case #23299 appeared in the Supreme Court Listings on Thursday May 1 but I missed seeing it. I don't know of anybody who saw it.
In terms of the proposed cross-examination, and whether that was dealt with on May 1, we are told that it was addressed only with respect to scheduling of the motion continuation. That motion is now scheduled to continue at the end of June after the completion of some document vetting motions.
The issue of whether certain individuals (the premier's name may leap to mind) will be cross-examined will be addressed at that time. We Citizen Journalists were told that no person has advised that they do not want to be cross-examined in court-- and that the issue at this stage is whether there is a more efficient way to provide defence counsel with the information they are seeking.
Also, there is currently no filed motion to cross-examine anyone.
The next court appearance is on June 2 for discussion of the vetting motions and the procedure for those motions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My invaluable source will be providing a fuller explanation. At that time, I'll be able to display the name of that person to whom I'd like to express the fullest appreciation and congratulations for good investigative journalism. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
There are, they say, two sides to every story.
In the matter of the cancelled pre-trial Basi-Virk / BC Rail hearing which we had expected on May 2nd, our best information had come from several sources (on-the-spot Citizen Journalist, unidentified Supreme Court Sheriff, big-name journalists) and I published them all.
I did not have any information from the Crown Prosecutor to publish. Now we do.
He, we were told in good faith (and I told you), had been the one who revised the schedule "to avoid the public". Well ... that appears not to be true.
By a roundabout and quite marvelous route (which is not my story to tell), BC Mary has learned the Crown Prosecutor's side of what we had begun to call the "Bait and Switch Plan".
It seems that the pre-trial conference was changed from May 2, 2008 at 9:00 to May 1, 2008 at 4:00 at the request of defence counsel, not by the Special Prosecutor's office at all.
When the pre-trial conference was initially scheduled at the last court appearance, the May 2 date was tentative, we were told. The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett had advised that the May 2 date was subject to cancellation or a date change if required.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Bobby Virk's lawyer, Kevin McCullough advised the Special Prosecutor that defence counsel wanted to change the date of the pre-trial to May 1, 2008.
Apparently Case #23299 appeared in the Supreme Court Listings on Thursday May 1 but I missed seeing it. I don't know of anybody who saw it.
In terms of the proposed cross-examination, and whether that was dealt with on May 1, we are told that it was addressed only with respect to scheduling of the motion continuation. That motion is now scheduled to continue at the end of June after the completion of some document vetting motions.
The issue of whether certain individuals (the premier's name may leap to mind) will be cross-examined will be addressed at that time. We Citizen Journalists were told that no person has advised that they do not want to be cross-examined in court-- and that the issue at this stage is whether there is a more efficient way to provide defence counsel with the information they are seeking.
Also, there is currently no filed motion to cross-examine anyone.
The next court appearance is on June 2 for discussion of the vetting motions and the procedure for those motions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My invaluable source will be providing a fuller explanation. At that time, I'll be able to display the name of that person to whom I'd like to express the fullest appreciation and congratulations for good investigative journalism. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Monday, May 05, 2008
NZ govt buys back rail, ferry systems
.
New Zealand government buys back national rail, ferry system for US$519 million
- May 5, 2008
WELLINGTON, New Zealand: The New Zealand government will pay NZ$665 million (US$519 million; 336 million) to Australia's Toll Holdings Ltd. to buy back rail and sea ferry operations that were privatized in the 1990s, the finance minister said Monday.
The government decided that buying the rail and sea operations from Toll Australia's subsidiary, Toll New Zealand, was the best way to increase investment in the industry, Michael Cullen said.
"The selling of our public rail system in the early 1990s and the running down of the asset afterward has been a painful lesson for New Zealand," he said in a statement.
The publicly owned national rail network was sold to private sector owners in 1993 for NZ$400 million. Australian transport concern Toll Holdings bought a majority stake in 2003, naming the company Toll New Zealand.
"Running a commercially viable business that was able to contribute to the economic and environmental development of New Zealand was proving extremely difficult without government support," Cullen said.
He plans to explore options for significant modernization investment in the coming months, he said. Details of the new operating structure had still to be worked out, he said.
Prime Minister Helen Clark said the Labour-led government's plan to modernize the national rail system was a step toward building a sustainable transport network.
"With rising fuel prices and growing awareness about the challenge of global climate change, many nations are looking to rail as a central part of 21st century economic infrastructure," Clark said.
A modern rail system could reduce the emissions of the overall transport network, take pressure off roads, and allow trucking and shipping to operate more efficiently, she added.
Settlement of the purchase is expected on June 30.
In 2001 the government stepped in with nearly NZ$1 billion (US$780 million; 505 million) to rescue privatized national carrier Air New Zealand from bankruptcy. The now-profitable airline remains 76 percent government owned.
Friday, May 02, 2008
What? What?? You say June 2nd ???
.
Anonymous has left a new comment :
MARY,
I HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM COURT WHERE I WAS INFORMED THAT TODAY'S HEARING WAS MOVED UP A DAY EARLY.
THERE ARE MORE DELAYS FROM SPECIAL PROSECUTOR BILL BERARDINO.
A SHERRIF TOLD ME THAT THE HEARING WAS MOVED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO AVOID THE PUBLIC!!!
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks, Anonymous. But holy smoke, what kind of run-around is this?
Does this mean that this particular pre-trial hearing took place yesterday, May 1st?? They call this "accountability" (see below)???
Back soon, when I find out more ...
- BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I have checked all 58 pages of Vancouver Law Courts
Public Access Completed - Supreme Court List (Adult)
For Files Appearing on April 30, 2008 and on May 1, 2008
(Best place to find the URL is the home page: House of Infamy)
And, sure enough, it's listed ... not as Her Majesty the Queen vs Udhe Singh Basi, Bobby Singh Virk, or Aneal Basi ... but only as Case #23299, as follows:
Case #23299-5 - 28 April 2008. Application for records in the possession of the Province of British Columbia. Next appearance: 4:00 PM in Courtroom 65.
And on May 1, 2008 this is repeated, with next appearance - May 5, 2008 at 9:00 AM.
At this point, I'd like to add this comment from "Gary E" ...
Gary E said...
Is McCullough the lawyer for Basi?
As I reported here earlier in the comments and on Bill T's blog, there was some discussion at the end of the last April hearing, which I attended,about a letter to the premier and others. McCullough wanted the premier to answer some written questions without any help from lawyers or others. Copeley's answer was a simple "no".
It was finally agreed that if McCullough did not get a satisfactory answer they would appear again in court today, May 2 2008.
By this scheduling I assume that nothing satisfactory to defense was worked out. Of course at this writing they (the government)still has about 15 mins. to change their mind. Thus wasting more taxpayers money.
Question: What is the government so afraid of, that they don't want 4 people including the premier to answer simple questions on their own?
May 2, 2008 8:59 AM
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Very big THANK YOU to Gary E., who is doing yeoman service in the BCRail Case. He has also launched his own blog now at http://howbadistherecord.blogspot.com/
Without Citizen Journalism like this, we might never have known that there's a letter involving Premier Gordon Campbell which could possibly be the cause for these diversionary actions in Supreme Court. The cause. No, I didn't say it excuses the diversionary actions; no damn way. That was our railway. It's our right to know every detail, sooner rather than 4, 5, 6 years later. - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
How do they say in h'English: I 'ave it on the 'ighest authority that ...
it was indeed the special prosecutor who requested the change in date. At the hearing (which was essentially an update on disclosure progress for the judge) the special prosecutor said there was still more disclosure to come.
As a result, a tentatively scheduled May hearing has been or will be rescheduled to June (I would bet it would be after the June 9th-11th court of appeal hearing on the special prosecutor’s attempt to have a secret witness testify without defence lawyers being present).
So it looks like everything is on hold until after that appeal hearing (indeed, either side may appeal THAT ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. If so, that could delay the trial many more months, as I speculated in December).
As for a Basi name not being on the registry or docket, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Those public postings are routinely full of errors for all kinds of proceedings.
Hope this helps.
Baldrey, Keith (Global BC)
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A big "Thank you!" to Keith Baldrey, who searched out this information for us. And yes, it does help.
Also thanks to Bill Tieleman who is searching out clues on this, too. The help is much appreciated by all of us.
- BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
AND THE GRAND FINALE: BY BILL TIELEMAN!
You just couldn't make this stuff up!
Hi Mary - had some trouble tracking down what happened and is happening - thanks to Keith Baldrey for his update - here's what I heard back from one of my informed but unofficial sources:
"They canceled yesterday morning's sitting. Instead, they said the court decided to meet a day earlier - at 4 pm briefly on Thursday (second time they've done it now, as you will recall).
"And the next date isn't until June 2nd. Trial scheduling characterized June 2 as "the next pre-trial conference". So basically, no May 5th at this point either.
"All of it was quite strange as Friday morning's court list indicated a 9:30 start but I [was told] they were looking into rescheduling."
So - as near as I can tell - no court session Monday morning, probably a court session on June 2, but don't be surprised by yet another change!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thanks very much, Bill. Very good of you to take the trouble to find all this out for us.
So I guess that's it ... nuthin' to see here, folks ... just keep movin' along until June 2, 2008. No, no, ain't nuthin' to worry about ... everything's just fine ... if you will just keep movin' along ...
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Crown Counsel Policy Manual, P. 3 - 5
.
F.y.i., from:
Criminal Justice Branch, Ministry of Attorney General
CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL, Page 3
Mandate of the Criminal Justice Branch:
The Crown Counsel Act affords significant prosecutorial independence to the Branch and, at the same time, balances that independence with accountability. The mandate of the Branch is set out in Section 2 of the Crown Counsel Act, where it states:
The Branch has the following functions and responsibilities:
(a) to approve and conduct, on behalf of the Crown, all prosecutions of offences in British Columbia; ...
(d) to advise the government on all criminal law matters; ...
(f) to provide liaison with the media and affected members of the public on all matters respecting approval and conduct of prosecutions of offences or related appeals; ...
Role of Crown Counsel:
... The position held by counsel for the Crown is not that of a lawyer in civil litigation. His functions are quasi-judicial. His duty is not so much to obtain a conviction as to assist the judge and jury in ensuring that the fullest possible justice is done. His conduct before the Court must always be characterized by moderation and impartiality. He will have properly performed his duty and will be beyond all reproach if ... he presents evidence to the jury without going beyond what it discloses ...
It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented. [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.] ... the role of the prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty ... It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness, and the justness of judicial proceedings.
Relationship of the Branch with other Justice Agencies (Page 4):
Police:
The independence of the investigative and prosecutorial functions has been acknowledged as an important aspect of the administration of justice. In particular, the police must be free to conduct investigations and to form their own theories and opinions about who committed the offence which has been alleged. [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.] The police have a unique and well recognized role. Historically, the notion that the police make decisions about who, what, and how to investigate, free from government interference, can be traced back over 1,000 years. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that principle.
Crown Counsel exercise a role which is distinct from the investigation in order that their objectivity is not, and is not seen to be, compromised, so that they can properly discharge their quasi-judicial roles in making an objective ad principled decision on the initiation or conduct of a prosecution.
At the same time, there can be no question that cooperation between the police and Crown Counsel is absolutely essential to the proper administration of justice.
Police and prosecutor are in a symbiotic relationship. Evidence gathered by the police during the investigative stage is the lifeblood of a prosecution. If it is anaemic or tainted, no amount of forensic brilliance can save the prosecution. Conversely, an incompetent prosecutor can render the most probing and meticulous police investigation impotent. For the criminal justice system to fully realize its goal of apprehending, convicting and sentencing the guilty (but not the innocent) by means of a process that complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, police and prosecutors must have an effective working relationship.
When a police officer lays an Information, he or she must swear on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe and that the officer does in fact believe, an offence has been committed. ...
... police have the authority to lay an Information; however, Crown Counsel have the ultimate authority to direct a stay of proceedings. Therefore, it is expected that the police will lay an Information only after the approval of charges by Crown Counsel, or, if charges are not approved, upon exhaustion of an appeal of that decision by the police.
Recognizing that the charge assessment responsibility of Crown Counsel and the investigative responsibility of the police are mutually independent, cooperation and effective communication between Crown Counsel and the police are essential to the proper administration of justice. In serious cases, or those of significant public interest, Crown Counsel discuss with the police, where practicable, their intention to not approve a charge recommended by the police ... or to direct a stay of proceedings, and also resolution discussions.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Although it is not completely clear to me from the Crown Counsel Policy Manual's 248 pages, I take it to mean that a Special Prosecutor, such as Bill Berardino in the Basi Virk Basi trial, is appointed for a specific trial only, but otherwise comes under the same terms as Crown Counsel described here. Stated simply: that a Special Prosecutor is, in fact, a Crown Counsel within a narrowed field.
The manual does explain, as follows:
Directions from Attorney General on specific prosecutions:
Special prosecutors
(1) If the ADAG considers it is in the public interest, he or she may appoint a lawyer, who is not employed in the Ministry of Attorney General, as a special prosecutor.
(2) A special prosecutor must carry out his or her mandate, as set out in writing by the ADAG, and in particular must
(a) examine all relevant information and documents and report to the ADAG with respect to the approval and conduct of any specific prosecution, and
(b) carry out any other responsibilities respecting the initiation and conduct of a specific prosecution.
(4) If, after a special prosecutor receives the mandate under subsection (2), the AG, Deputy AG, or ADAG gives a direction to a special prosecutor in respect of any matter within the mandate of the special prosecutor, that direction must be given in writing and be published in the Gazette.
(5) Subject to the mandate given to the special prosecutor by the ADAG or to a directive referred to in subsection (4), the decision of a special prosecutor with respect to any matter within his or her mandate is final, but a decision not to approve a prosecution may be appealed by a law enforcement officer under the process established by Section 4 (4).
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Has anybody been following these Gazette entries?? - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comment received, with thanks, from Gary E:
Mary, sometime ago I decided to look for entries in The BC Gazette and found that like everything else in this province you have to pay through the nose. Although the federal Gazette is free and I beleive it is online.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Does B.C. still have an Ombudsman?? - BC Mary.
F.y.i., from:
Criminal Justice Branch, Ministry of Attorney General
CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL, Page 3
Mandate of the Criminal Justice Branch:
The Crown Counsel Act affords significant prosecutorial independence to the Branch and, at the same time, balances that independence with accountability. The mandate of the Branch is set out in Section 2 of the Crown Counsel Act, where it states:
The Branch has the following functions and responsibilities:
(a) to approve and conduct, on behalf of the Crown, all prosecutions of offences in British Columbia; ...
(d) to advise the government on all criminal law matters; ...
(f) to provide liaison with the media and affected members of the public on all matters respecting approval and conduct of prosecutions of offences or related appeals; ...
Role of Crown Counsel:
... The position held by counsel for the Crown is not that of a lawyer in civil litigation. His functions are quasi-judicial. His duty is not so much to obtain a conviction as to assist the judge and jury in ensuring that the fullest possible justice is done. His conduct before the Court must always be characterized by moderation and impartiality. He will have properly performed his duty and will be beyond all reproach if ... he presents evidence to the jury without going beyond what it discloses ...
It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented. [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.] ... the role of the prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty ... It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness, and the justness of judicial proceedings.
Relationship of the Branch with other Justice Agencies (Page 4):
Police:
The independence of the investigative and prosecutorial functions has been acknowledged as an important aspect of the administration of justice. In particular, the police must be free to conduct investigations and to form their own theories and opinions about who committed the offence which has been alleged. [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.] The police have a unique and well recognized role. Historically, the notion that the police make decisions about who, what, and how to investigate, free from government interference, can be traced back over 1,000 years. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that principle.
Crown Counsel exercise a role which is distinct from the investigation in order that their objectivity is not, and is not seen to be, compromised, so that they can properly discharge their quasi-judicial roles in making an objective ad principled decision on the initiation or conduct of a prosecution.
At the same time, there can be no question that cooperation between the police and Crown Counsel is absolutely essential to the proper administration of justice.
Police and prosecutor are in a symbiotic relationship. Evidence gathered by the police during the investigative stage is the lifeblood of a prosecution. If it is anaemic or tainted, no amount of forensic brilliance can save the prosecution. Conversely, an incompetent prosecutor can render the most probing and meticulous police investigation impotent. For the criminal justice system to fully realize its goal of apprehending, convicting and sentencing the guilty (but not the innocent) by means of a process that complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, police and prosecutors must have an effective working relationship.
When a police officer lays an Information, he or she must swear on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe and that the officer does in fact believe, an offence has been committed. ...
... police have the authority to lay an Information; however, Crown Counsel have the ultimate authority to direct a stay of proceedings. Therefore, it is expected that the police will lay an Information only after the approval of charges by Crown Counsel, or, if charges are not approved, upon exhaustion of an appeal of that decision by the police.
Recognizing that the charge assessment responsibility of Crown Counsel and the investigative responsibility of the police are mutually independent, cooperation and effective communication between Crown Counsel and the police are essential to the proper administration of justice. In serious cases, or those of significant public interest, Crown Counsel discuss with the police, where practicable, their intention to not approve a charge recommended by the police ... or to direct a stay of proceedings, and also resolution discussions.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Although it is not completely clear to me from the Crown Counsel Policy Manual's 248 pages, I take it to mean that a Special Prosecutor, such as Bill Berardino in the Basi Virk Basi trial, is appointed for a specific trial only, but otherwise comes under the same terms as Crown Counsel described here. Stated simply: that a Special Prosecutor is, in fact, a Crown Counsel within a narrowed field.
The manual does explain, as follows:
Directions from Attorney General on specific prosecutions:
Special prosecutors
(1) If the ADAG considers it is in the public interest, he or she may appoint a lawyer, who is not employed in the Ministry of Attorney General, as a special prosecutor.
(2) A special prosecutor must carry out his or her mandate, as set out in writing by the ADAG, and in particular must
(a) examine all relevant information and documents and report to the ADAG with respect to the approval and conduct of any specific prosecution, and
(b) carry out any other responsibilities respecting the initiation and conduct of a specific prosecution.
(4) If, after a special prosecutor receives the mandate under subsection (2), the AG, Deputy AG, or ADAG gives a direction to a special prosecutor in respect of any matter within the mandate of the special prosecutor, that direction must be given in writing and be published in the Gazette.
(5) Subject to the mandate given to the special prosecutor by the ADAG or to a directive referred to in subsection (4), the decision of a special prosecutor with respect to any matter within his or her mandate is final, but a decision not to approve a prosecution may be appealed by a law enforcement officer under the process established by Section 4 (4).
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Has anybody been following these Gazette entries?? - BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comment received, with thanks, from Gary E:
Mary, sometime ago I decided to look for entries in The BC Gazette and found that like everything else in this province you have to pay through the nose. Although the federal Gazette is free and I beleive it is online.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Does B.C. still have an Ombudsman?? - BC Mary.
Confirmed: today's Supreme Court Hearing is on, at 9:00 AM. Only it wasn't. See What? What?? You say June 2nd??
.
But there's a change: only Aneal Basi and Bobby Singh are listed today, on a much shorter list including:
* Accepting bribe
* Fraud over $5,000.
* Breach of trust
* Offering to influence public official
* Application for records in the possession of the province of B.C.
* Full disclosure.
There's no mention of Dave Basi.
Early start: 9:00 AM., Friday May 2, 2008, in BC Supreme Court, 800 Smythe Street, Vancouver BC.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
But there's a change: only Aneal Basi and Bobby Singh are listed today, on a much shorter list including:
* Accepting bribe
* Fraud over $5,000.
* Breach of trust
* Offering to influence public official
* Application for records in the possession of the province of B.C.
* Full disclosure.
There's no mention of Dave Basi.
Early start: 9:00 AM., Friday May 2, 2008, in BC Supreme Court, 800 Smythe Street, Vancouver BC.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Battershill has an amazing resume when you do searches on him. A famous SWAT commando and on the other hand a strong advocate for the homeless, drug addicted and prostitutes. Then a national union leader and on the other hand a management leader. Then on a royal commission. They've sure damaged his reputation but this guy isn't going to have any trouble working anywhere in the world.
May 27, 2008