Tuesday, April 14, 2009
BC Mary's 2009 Campaign promise
.
Beginning today, April 14, 2009, we apparently now have an "official" election campaign. Who knew.
I thought -- and I'm pretty sure CanWest thought -- that election campaigns never stop in British Columbia. Sigh ... so, OK, here's my election promise ...
It's the same promise I made when I started this blog 3 years ago:
This is a non-partisan BC Rail site.
That means: no politics, no campaigning, no "You bad, me good" stuff on The Legislature Raids.
Yes, I'll keep watching the BC Rail Case with the same intensity and dedication, no matter who "wins" the vote-count.
Yes, I sure as heck am mad at G. Campbell who I do hold responsible for what happened to BC Rail (and BC Hydro).
But in my view, that act of treachery has nothing to do with party politics. It has everything to do with prudent government, fair play, natural justice, democracy, a free press, and social responsibility. We're all in this together. In my view, we'll only get out of this mess if we pull together.
For that reason, this web-site will be looking at the record. What were the first signs of danger? How did we miss the signals? Can we re-possess BC Rail if it's proven that it was illegally taken from public ownership?
Yes, the danger signals were there from 2001. We know that now ... and, I believe, only now. At the start of the new millenium, most of us simply couldn't imagine the enormity of what was unfolding, and didn't recognize the warnings.
Some will remember that in the forefront, standing virtually alone, was the remarkable figure of Paul Nettleton, M.L.A. representing Prince George-Omineca, the North-Central hub for BC Rail.
Others joined the fray ... Mayors, unions, citizens. Was it a fair fight? Let's look back with our new understanding and ask: were the people of BC considered? What does it mean, that the deal is still secret?
Is this what "railroading" really means?
Nettleton, a lawyer, when first elected was part of Campbell's Opposition. In fact, he was Campbell's choice as critic for BC Rail. Nettleton took it seriously that his leader had publicly proclaimed during the 2001 election campaign that he would not ... repeat, not sell BC Rail.
Readers may recall a recent column by Michael Smyth (The Province) in which Paul Nettleton was mentioned for the first time in many years. After reading that, I contacted Nettleton and asked the simple question: When did you first realize that BC Rail was being offered for sale?
In the next while, I will share some new things with you, including Nettleton's replies. I do this with his permission. As one of TLR's commentors recently said, "... Nettleton didn't fit with any political party."
And, in my opinion, very few of us do. But the fact is: our beloved British Columbia is in crisis, and we're all in it together.
- BC Mary
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Beginning today, April 14, 2009, we apparently now have an "official" election campaign. Who knew.
I thought -- and I'm pretty sure CanWest thought -- that election campaigns never stop in British Columbia. Sigh ... so, OK, here's my election promise ...
It's the same promise I made when I started this blog 3 years ago:
This is a non-partisan BC Rail site.
That means: no politics, no campaigning, no "You bad, me good" stuff on The Legislature Raids.
Yes, I'll keep watching the BC Rail Case with the same intensity and dedication, no matter who "wins" the vote-count.
Yes, I sure as heck am mad at G. Campbell who I do hold responsible for what happened to BC Rail (and BC Hydro).
But in my view, that act of treachery has nothing to do with party politics. It has everything to do with prudent government, fair play, natural justice, democracy, a free press, and social responsibility. We're all in this together. In my view, we'll only get out of this mess if we pull together.
For that reason, this web-site will be looking at the record. What were the first signs of danger? How did we miss the signals? Can we re-possess BC Rail if it's proven that it was illegally taken from public ownership?
Yes, the danger signals were there from 2001. We know that now ... and, I believe, only now. At the start of the new millenium, most of us simply couldn't imagine the enormity of what was unfolding, and didn't recognize the warnings.
Some will remember that in the forefront, standing virtually alone, was the remarkable figure of Paul Nettleton, M.L.A. representing Prince George-Omineca, the North-Central hub for BC Rail.
Others joined the fray ... Mayors, unions, citizens. Was it a fair fight? Let's look back with our new understanding and ask: were the people of BC considered? What does it mean, that the deal is still secret?
Is this what "railroading" really means?
Nettleton, a lawyer, when first elected was part of Campbell's Opposition. In fact, he was Campbell's choice as critic for BC Rail. Nettleton took it seriously that his leader had publicly proclaimed during the 2001 election campaign that he would not ... repeat, not sell BC Rail.
Readers may recall a recent column by Michael Smyth (The Province) in which Paul Nettleton was mentioned for the first time in many years. After reading that, I contacted Nettleton and asked the simple question: When did you first realize that BC Rail was being offered for sale?
In the next while, I will share some new things with you, including Nettleton's replies. I do this with his permission. As one of TLR's commentors recently said, "... Nettleton didn't fit with any political party."
And, in my opinion, very few of us do. But the fact is: our beloved British Columbia is in crisis, and we're all in it together.
- BC Mary
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Mary - any word on whether Berardino will allow his appeal to be televised?
# posted by 
: April 14, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.
: April 14, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.
.
As I understand these things (and usually, I don't understand the things the Courts do), ALL Supreme Court of Canada hearings are televised.
In fact, aren't they the things we often see on CPAC??
Good point. Can you check that for us??? Many thanks, if you can.
.
As I understand these things (and usually, I don't understand the things the Courts do), ALL Supreme Court of Canada hearings are televised.
In fact, aren't they the things we often see on CPAC??
Good point. Can you check that for us??? Many thanks, if you can.
.
Here's a definition of "railroaded" from the internet:
a. To rush or push (something) through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction.
a. To rush or push (something) through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction.
# posted by : April 14, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.
: April 14, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.
Wikipedia's definition of 'RAILING',
'sexual intercourse'!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!
'sexual intercourse'!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!
# posted by : April 15, 2009 at 9:48 a.m.
: April 15, 2009 at 9:48 a.m.
CPAC wont be televising the SCC April 22nd. There is a sealing order/publication ban.
SCC page on webcast states "sealing order"
Access to Court Materials
At the Court Registry
As a general rule, all court documents are a matter of public record unless a legislative provision or court order restricts public access. Documents subject to a sealing order (these are rare) cannot be inspected by the public, including members of the media. Documentation pertaining to cases subject to a publication ban, may be inspected.
@ the SCC site, I find it strange that the BC Law Society wanted to intervene, made a request April 9th.
"Motion for leave to intervene, (motion to extend time filed April15/09-original affidavit filed April 16/09), Completed on: 2009-04-09
Decison April 16,2009
Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, Ro, UPON APPLICATION by the Law Society of British Columbia for an order extending the time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND UPON the application for leave to intervene having been filed on April 9, 2009, but without the necessary motion for an extension of time; the motion for an extension of time having been filed on April 15, 2009;
AND UPON the hearing of this appeal being scheduled for April 22, 2009;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene is dismissed.
There is a list of people who will be attending
and April 20th Joseph J. Blazina
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Reading the website
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Interesting article by one of their staff member's, re conflict apprehension of bias, gifts, ........A number of complaints with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal have alleged conflicts of interest where a evaluators impartiality has been said to be compromised,whether by being on too familiar terms with the bidders or by having been improperly influenced by a particular bidder. Under the Provisions of NAFTA or the agreement on Internal Trade,a contract must be awarded on the sole basis of merit,the specified requirements,and the evaluation scheme set out in the tender documents,among others. A reasonable apprehension of bias in favor of a particular bidder can form grounds for potential complaints with teh CITT. Actual bias does not have to be demonstrated; it is teh mere reasonable apprehension of bias that is objectional. (is this just federal law?)... "A perception that a public servant may have been influenced by gifts or hospitality to award a contract could be fatal to the contract.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.asp?32719
Post a Comment
SCC page on webcast states "sealing order"
Access to Court Materials
At the Court Registry
As a general rule, all court documents are a matter of public record unless a legislative provision or court order restricts public access. Documents subject to a sealing order (these are rare) cannot be inspected by the public, including members of the media. Documentation pertaining to cases subject to a publication ban, may be inspected.
@ the SCC site, I find it strange that the BC Law Society wanted to intervene, made a request April 9th.
"Motion for leave to intervene, (motion to extend time filed April15/09-original affidavit filed April 16/09), Completed on: 2009-04-09
Decison April 16,2009
Decision on the motion for leave to intervene, Ro, UPON APPLICATION by the Law Society of British Columbia for an order extending the time to apply for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;
AND UPON the application for leave to intervene having been filed on April 9, 2009, but without the necessary motion for an extension of time; the motion for an extension of time having been filed on April 15, 2009;
AND UPON the hearing of this appeal being scheduled for April 22, 2009;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to intervene is dismissed.
There is a list of people who will be attending
and April 20th Joseph J. Blazina
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Reading the website
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Interesting article by one of their staff member's, re conflict apprehension of bias, gifts, ........A number of complaints with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal have alleged conflicts of interest where a evaluators impartiality has been said to be compromised,whether by being on too familiar terms with the bidders or by having been improperly influenced by a particular bidder. Under the Provisions of NAFTA or the agreement on Internal Trade,a contract must be awarded on the sole basis of merit,the specified requirements,and the evaluation scheme set out in the tender documents,among others. A reasonable apprehension of bias in favor of a particular bidder can form grounds for potential complaints with teh CITT. Actual bias does not have to be demonstrated; it is teh mere reasonable apprehension of bias that is objectional. (is this just federal law?)... "A perception that a public servant may have been influenced by gifts or hospitality to award a contract could be fatal to the contract.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.asp?32719
# posted by : April 21, 2009 at 9:21 a.m.
: April 21, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. << Home
