The Legislature Raids

.

Long-awaited BC Rail case set to cast shadow over Campbell’s first administration

Rod Mickleburgh

Globe and Mail - Wednesday, Apr. 28,

A who’s who of politicians, highly placed bureaucrats, back-room operatives and corporate executives has been subpoenaed to testify in a long-awaited political corruption case that continues to cast a shadow over the first administration of Premier Gordon Campbell.

Among those on the witness list are Mr. Campbell’s chief of staff, Martin Brown, two of the Premier’s former deputy ministers, Ken Dobell and Brenda Eaton, his former finance minister Gary Collins, and key federal Liberal strategist Mark Marissen.

The Crown’s roster of 44 witnesses was read to prospective jurors in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday, providing a tantalizing glimpse of what promises to be one of the most dramatic political trials in the province’s turbulent history. {Snip} ...

While individual premiers and cabinet ministers have been tried before in British Columbia, the Basi-Virk trial appears to cast a wider net than a single politician.

“Wow,” said veteran political commentator Norman Ruff, on hearing some of the names on the witness list. “Those are many of the central players in the first Campbell administration.

“That’s what makes this case so intriguing. It takes in the whole centre of the government. Look for it on the front page. It certainly won’t be dull.”

Also summoned to testify are Claude Mongeau, president and CEO of Canadian National Railway, and the former head of Canadian Pacific, Rob Ritchie.

Canadian Pacific pulled out of the bidding for BC Rail over stated concerns that the government had already decided to award the line to CN.

Judith Reid, provincial transportation minister at the time of the sale, is on the witness list as well.

It took two hours before a jury of seven men and five women was selected from a pool of 133 individuals, who crowded the courtroom, their summons in hand, to be scrutinized by lawyers for all sides in the case.

The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.

Presiding judge Anne MacKenzie, promoted earlier this week to Associate Chief Justice for the B.C. Supreme Court, has imposed a strict publication ban on proceedings, preventing the media from reporting any trial-related material that is not presented with the jury in the courtroom. {Snip ...}

.

.
A Little Time in Courtroom 55,  April 28, 2010

By Robin Mathews

Courtroom 55 was packed today, standing room only - probably about 160 people, present for the process of jury selection.  The three accused in the case Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi were present and replied clearly "Not Guilty" as the charges were read by the court clerk. 

With the presentation of charges and the response of the accused, their counsel standing close by, the trial - so long awaited - in the BC Rail Scandal ... began... in fact. 

Associate Chief Justice Madam Anne MacKenzie counselled the assembled potential jurors that the trial is estimated (roughly) to last six weeks ... but might run a few more.  It is presently scheduled to begin May 17. Since the date has been changed countless times over the more than three years of pre-trial hearings, the beginning date may, of course, change again.

Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie, elevated to that position only days ago, appears to be ready to continue with the trial. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett - upon being raised to the Appeals Court after nearly three years of pre-trial presidence - was removed or removed herself last Fall from the BC Rail Scandal case. Today - in the court lists - Justice Bennett was presiding at a Supreme Court (not an Appeals Court) procedure.

In my mind, Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie will not have an easy time with the trial.  To begin, her arrival took place under less than triumphant circumstances. The vacating of the position by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett did not meet with universal approval.

In addition, recent actions of Associate Chief Justice MacKenzie have brought forward (to me, at least) questions of competence. The first publication ban announcement provided for a ban on and through the trial - an almost unheard of situation in Canadian experience.  The trial is THE OPEN COURT enactment of the administration of justice in our system.  To announce a publication ban on the trial could only have been an error - which should not have occurred.

Then in a recent hearing (involving Mr. Webster) the doors to the courtroom were closed and locked to the public without apparent reason or any announcement by Justice MacKenzie. Since a publication ban is sufficient (and it was in place) the transformation of the procedure into an 'in camera' event can be neither explained nor defended, I believe.

Finally, the question of the acceptability of the Special Crown Prosecutor to proceed with the trial has not gone away.  I believe I presented Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (twice) with formal notice of reasons the Special Crown Prosecutor should be removed from the Basi, Virk, and Basi case (as being improperly appointed by a ministry with an "interested" Attorney General and an "interested" deputy Attorney General - both of whom had been long-time partners and colleagues of the person appointed as Special Crown Prosecutor.)

The only response to my (first) letter was a bland statement of disconnection to the situation, written by an agent of the Court judges addressed.  My second letter on the matter has gone unanswered.

Pre-trial actions by (now) Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie have not been reassuring. She will be under a microscope as the "trial proper" unfolds.

.
Basis, Virk plead not guilty in B.C. Rail case

 By Keith Fraser,
The Province - April 28, 2010


The three men accused in the Basi-Virk case pleaded not guilty Wednesday to the charges they face in connection with the controversial sale of B.C. Rail.

David Basi, Bobby Virk and Basi's cousin Aneal Basi entered the pleas just prior to the start of jury selection in a Vancouver courtroom.

Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie told prospective jurors in the packed courtroom that the case had received some media coverage and if they felt they could not be impartial, they should not sit as jurors.

David Basi and Virk, former government aides, are charged with fraud and breach of trust. Aneal Basi is charged with money laundering. {SNIP} ...

kfraser@theprovince.com

© Copyright (c) The Province

.
File 23299 is included in today's BC Supreme Court events.

.
Reminder:  according to the


Yesterday, in BC Supreme Court, it was recorded that the curtain will go up again on that long-running Gong Show (File #23299) at 10:00 AM on April 28, 2010, in Courtroom 53, for the next Basi-Virk Pre-Trial Hearing. Everybody welcome.

.
Holy crap, I mean, come on ... this stunning maneuver is announced today by  the Prime Minister's office, just as the BC Rail / Basi-Virk-Basi pre-trial hearing gets under way and the actual trial looms ... ?

Seeing is believing (sorta); see for yourselves what the PMO says HERE ...



26 APRIL 2010
Ottawa, Ontario

.
Another Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) for Case #23299 is listed on the official BC Supreme Court's public access web-site for today, April 26, 2010 at 10:00 AM.

Open to the public at 800 Smythe Street, Vancouver, B.C. 

.
By Matthew Bains

Northeast News - April 22, 2010, P.12
Reprinted by kind permission of
Melanie Robinson, editor
250-787-7030

editor@northeastnews.ca

DAWSON CREEK - Farmers and local government officials in the South Peace are not pleased with the quality of rail service offered by Canadian National.

Garnet Berge, area director for BC Grain Producers Association, said he is part of a committee looking at transportation issues affecting farmers. He said he is concerned about what he said is the deterioration of the line between Dawson Creek and Chetwynd.

"We're getting a little worried that if CN don't upgrade that line or keep it maintained from Chetwynd to Dawson Creek, we might lose that, and if we do, we'll be trucking our grain to Rycroft or Spirit River which we don't want to do ... "

He said that rail is the most efficient and cost-effective way for farmers to ship their products, but that there is no alternative besides CN and he said that the service is poor.

"It's car service," said Berge. "They'll come in and drop cars off on a Friday at 4:00 PM, and the elevators in the winter aren't really open, but they'll want them [the cars] loaded that weekend.  Then CN doesn't show up until Monday morning and the guys in the meantime have worked overtime to load all these cars up ... "

The Peace River Regional District also has concerns and have made a joint submission with their local  government counterparts in the Alberta Peace Region to a Rail Service Review Panel [see below] initiated by the federal Ministry of Transportation. Dawson Creek mayor Mike Bernier worked with Charles Johnson, councillor for Clear Hills County, on that submission.

Bernier said that one of their concerns was the state of the line between Dawson Creek and Hythe, Alberta. He said he was under the impression that when BC Rail was sold to CN, part of that agreement stipulated that line was to stay open for 5 years" [YooHoo, Mr Krog, BC Opposition Justice Critic?! What did we tell you, last July 14, 2009? And what did you do? Nothing. - BC Mary.]
"However, upgrades were never done and the train trestles were allowed to deteriorate, making the line unusable.

"Right now, Dawson Creek is like a dead-end road on CN Rail," said the mayor. "We can't get all the people in Grande Prairie, Rycroft, and Spirit River -- all of them who have grain -- have to drive it from their locations to Dawson Creek to put it on our rail cars."

He said with upgrades to the rail lines in the Peace, the region could utilize the expanded port capacities at the terminal at Prince Rupert via the inland container port in Prince George.  He added rail would be significantly beneficial to the entire northeast region ...

He said investments in rail lines need to be made now instead of waiting for them to get to the point where CN would just shut them down.

"We've got one of the biggest agricultural hubs in British Columbia and Alberta," he said. "We're trying to make sure that it [gets] their attention now and not waiting until it deteriorates any more."

CN could not be reached for comment at press time.  

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I looked up the biographies of the 3 men selected for the Rail Service Panel Review.

Quote:

... Mr. Edison was appointed vice-president, Corporate, in July 2003 and led Canadian National Railway's consolidation and integration of the Canadian National Railway and BC Rail partnership. These responsibilities included train service adjustment, realignment of rail yards in North Vancouver, Squamish and Prince George, reconnection of Canadian National's Hythe-Dawson Creek line and workforce planning.

Prior to his retirement in late 2004, Mr. Edison was active on the boards of the Western Transportation Advisory Council, the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council and the Business Council of British Columbia.

Mr. Edison resides in Surrey, British Columbia.

I'd like to add two things.

* These kinds of default on the part of CN are deal-breakers, in my view. They provide reasonable grounds for BC Rail to repossess the line.

* An Opposition worthy of the name would be pressing the government to insist that CN fulfill its obligations to the people of the province [Hi, Mr Krog?] or, failing that, pressing the government to begin action to take back ownership of the railway operation.


Sincere thanks to Northeast News, published at Fort St John and Dawson Creek, B.C., for their informative report.

.
This week's Friday afternoon surprise news announcement:  Associate Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, Patrick Dohm, has  resigned. At age 75, he has retired.

ACJ Dohm, behind the scenes, has played many a riveting role in BC history. In the BC Rail Case, it was he who signed off on the Search Warrants for the police raid on the offices of Dave Basi and Bobby Virk in the BC Legislature. Then it was Dohm  himself (apparently) who went through the 32 boxes of seized documents to decide which were "privileged" and couldn't be shown to the public.

At other times, ACJ Dohm took a starring role at centre stage ... such as in the dramatic and disturbing courtroom scene where he announced (almost over her head) the immediate removal of Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett from the BC Rail Case.Robin Mathews, in a letter to the BC Attorney General dated January 7, 2010, wrote about it as follows:


... The whole matter, in addition, fourthly, is complicated further in the method by which Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett was removed to be replaced - after three years of detailed hearings - by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie on the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter.  On June 4, 2009, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm appeared in court to hear an application by Mr. Berardino that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett be removed in favour of a new (to be trial) judge.  I could not see a rational unfolding of meaning in that appearance.


Mr. Berardino argued that Mr. Dohm had the power to remove Madam Justice Bennett and to appoint a new judge.  Mr. Bolton for the Defence was of the opinion, expressed out of court in answer to questions, that Madam Justice Bennett had power over her situation – to stay or to leave. I never heard that difference resolved in discussion in the courtroom.


In court discussion the word “recused” was misused since Madam Justice Bennett had – in no way – any conflict of interest. 


Why then, I ask, did Mr. Berardino want her removed?


Mr. Dohm made statements revealing he believed he had power to remove Madam Justice Bennett and that he was going to assign the trial judge, but not now.  He said he knew who it was going to be.  But he would not name the replacement that day, he said, because he didn’t want to muddy the waters by appointing a trial judge while Madam Justice Bennett was still engaged with the matter of the case.


Mr. Berardino argued that Madam Justice Bennett couldn’t be in two places at once.  (She was recently raised to the Appeals Court.)  He also stated – as I understood him – that Defence had not been filing motions with all materials and all summaries of learned argument so the Prosecution could reply and respond.  He said that “we” have not been following that process in this case…. He seemed to imply that fact (if it was a fact, and I am reporting it correctly) indicated a failure on the part of Madam Justice Bennett. 


When Mr. McCullough rose to object, Mr. Dohm silenced him.  As I understand the process, no real argument on the motion happened or was permitted to happen.  Mr. Berardino seemed to me to be saying that one of the two reasons Madam Justice Bennett should be removed was that she was not assuring proper process in the hearings.  Mr. Dohm seemed happy to hear that said – and yet Madam Justice Bennett was promoted to the Appeals Court.  The hearing before Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm simply did not – to me – make sense.  I still cannot make sense of it.  And it was a very important hearing.


Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett was removed in fact (as far as I could understand the process) – as a fait accompli – on June 4, 2009 in a brief hearing that was more like a press conference in which Mr. Dohm announced the change.  To this observer, there was no doubt in either Mr. Berardino’s or Mr. Dohm’s mind that Madam Justice Bennett would go.


The potential for a perception of bias was presented without disguise, I believe, when Mr. Dohm stated he knew who the replacement would be and would announce the name later, without, in fact, hearing any significant argument against replacement. The whole event, to me, seemed “cooked up”.

Now Patrick Dohm is gone from BC Supreme Court. Today's story is outlined HERE. But Mr Dohm is well worth a few googles too.  

We must wonder: who will replace him? And what will it mean for the Basi-Virk trial beginning May 3, 2010?

Am I the only one who has sensed the presence of ACJ Patrick Dohm behind some of the actions of Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie -- presumably Dohm's  nominee for this job? - BC Mary.

.
My dear friends,


Earlier today (Thursday, April 22), I checked the completed BC Supreme Court Listings  and saw that the Basi, Virk Defence had made an application on April 21, 2010 for a Stay of Proceedings "pursuant to S.24(1) on the basis of a breach of S. 11 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."


This was repeated 3 times, which I believe indicated that the application was being made on behalf of three people: Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi, Bobby Singh Virk, and Aneal Singh Basi.


With a next appearance scheduled for a Pre-Trial Conference at 10:00 AM on April 26 (next Monday), one might assume, that the Defence Application for a Stay of Proceedings would be considered ... perhaps even ruled upon ... at that time.  In an open courtroom. With the public in attendance.


I'll keep my notes about what I saw earlier today. I'll have them laminated. I'll have them framed.  Because I swear, this ... this sudden and apparently secret maneuver  must surely be an offence under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


 For Files Appearing on 21-APR-2010

.
BC Supreme Court listings for today, April 22, 2010, shows no listing for Basi, Virk, or Basi (Case No. 23299). 

Does this mean that there are no discussions ongoing? Not even in the judge's chambers?

We don't know.

We don't know because there's a special Publication Ban laid on this case by the presiding judge: Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie.

You can see her ruling HERE, as well as her corrected version.

And you can see the chilling effects of her cockeyed ruling almost everywhere you look in the news media -- that is to say, you won't find any mention whatsoever of the Basi-Virk case -- except for Bill Tieleman's blog and BC Mary's blog.

The judge provides no reason for this publication ban ... and I believe that any  law, any judicial ruling should be crystal clear for public understanding and acceptance.

But this is not the case with Madam MacKenzie's ruling. On the contrary, this ruling has baffled and inhibited even the professional journalists.

Have we seen a report by Keith Fraser after he was confronted by that locked Courtroom door on April 15? No, we haven't.* Why? That's what I am trying to understand.

Robin Mathews did report on it and declares that by stepping carefully, we can safely cross the ban and discuss the people's business. But should we need to approach the topic of BC Rail with fear and trembling?

Why should our legitimate public concern suddenly be viewed as risky? and  law-abiding citizens be viewed with such suspicion?

It's as if we, the public, are guilty unless somehow proven innocent of a crime we don't even know about.  With every fibre of my British Columbia being, I object to that insult.

I would like to ask the judge: have you found that the people of B.C. are trying to influence the trial process? or the verdict? or the jury?

Going by what people say on this blog, I believe that no, you haven't found such a thing. People on this blog are, in my view, trying their best to understand this trial. That's what dutiful citizens do. That, Madam Justice, should be encouraged. 

I would also suggest to the judge that she  work with us ... not against us ...

It was our railway, remember? The Accused and their bosses were our employees, remember? As are you.

As for who's paying the cost, Case No. 23299 is our trial, too. Ours.

Ours to watch over until, in the end, the BC Rail trial should fulfill its own special duty by enabling us to feel that justice has been done.

Therefore, in my view, those Courtroom doors should be wide open, with reporting un-blocked and encouraged.

- BC Mary

.
I profoundly disagree ... but today I accept the interpretation of a well-informed British Columbian as to what BC Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie means by her publication ban over the You-Know-What-Trial. Today I will follow my honoured mentor's advice. Here goes:

Today, April 21, 2010, there's a listing on the official BC Supreme Court schedule which all British Columbians should know about but I'm not allowed to say what it is. And no, I am not kidding.

I believe I am obeying the intent of the MacKenzie ban that I urge everyone -- everyone -- to check today's court listing and see some familiar names and one startling new one.  Here's the drill:

Go to the left margin of this page. Under LINKS, find "BC Criminal Courts". Click on. Then click on these 3 more things (in pdf):

* Daily court lists - criminal
* Adult Supreme Court Lists
* Vancouver Law Courts - Supreme Court List

The first two pages of the 7 pages are what concerns us today, in this publication ban. And since the BC Supreme Court created the public listing, I must have faith that it's permissible for any member of the public to read the damn thing. 

But remember: if you attend this conference at 10:00 AM, you must not tell us about it. My friend assures me that there's a publication ban over all this. OK?

Despite my own reaction to something which seems so disrespectful of the public interest, I give my special, sincere Thanks to my honoured mentor who tried so hard to explain this to me.

I'm sure we'll all sleep more soundly in our beds tonight, having maintained our silence today.

- BC Mary.

.
Confirmed in today's BCSC listings: Basi, Virk, Basi at 10:00 AM.

No mention of locked Courtroom doors, so we may assume that the people's court is open to the public today April 20, 2010.

.
By Robin Mathews


The ‘No No’ word in the BC Rail Scandal – Racism - has to be looked at. It must be, because it is so totally rejected by “important” people.  [The “Scandal” refers to the corrupt transfer by the Gordon Campbell government of BC Rail to CNR.]                                                                  

The tiniest tip of the iceberg is the up-coming trial of three former cabinet aides – charged (variously) with fourteen counts of fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering.  Investigations were on foot as early as 2002.  Legislature offices of the later-accused were the only ones subjected to search warrant ‘raids’ on December 28, 2003. The accused were charged after yet another year of investigation – in December 2004.

The charges all relate to the BC Rail Scandal – directly.

Offices of the direct bosses of the men accused were untouched in the searches of legislature offices.  The offices of Gordon Campbell, chief architect of the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR, were left in their pristine purity. Through all the investigation, no one else has been alleged to have engaged in wrongful activity.

One has to remember, of course, that from the earliest moment, the RCMP announced that no elected official was under [or would be under] investigation.  Years (literally) of investigation of alleged crimes directly involving the BC Rail Scandal by-passed – carefully avoiding - involved politicians, corporation officers, and the platoons of civil servants at work to effect the tainted “sale” of BC Rail. ALL the effort, apparently, was undertaken to fasten on three men, the accused in the case. 

They make up “the tiniest tip” of the iceberg. The huge, portion hid from view, I believe, involves corporate and government wheelers and dealers who are being shielded from investigation – and have been from the beginning. 

The one word that has been unspoken, and to people like RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass is “unspeakable” in the case is the word ‘Racism’.

The three accused men, you see, are Sikhs.

No ‘white’ person has been charged.

Indeed, what would be a hilarious development (if it weren’t so serious) is that the key Crown witness in the case, lily-white Eric Bornmann, Liberal operative, lobbyist, etc. was, allegedly, an active participant in the key allegation of bribe-offered and bribe-received.  He was extracted from the action, given blanket immunity it seems, and will testify at the trial. 

When I wrote to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass asking for an RCMP investigation of Gordon Campbell and associates in the transfer of BC Rail to CNR, he refused. (And in refusing, I believe, is derelict in his duty to justice and the people of British Columbia.) The only part of my letter to him that brought Deputy Commissioner Bass to emotional speech was the suggestion that the accused men might be the victims of Racism. 

I think the response of Bass reveals touchiness on the subject, perhaps … possibly because he knows or suspects that the targetting of the three accused does, in fact, involve racism. 

In my view, Deputy Commissioner Bass is a large part of the iceberg invisible under the water in the BC Rail Scandal.  His failure to undertake full and open investigation of Gordon Campbell and associates in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR is of cardinal importance.  And, alas, Mr. Bass does not have a fine reputation.  If one looks only at the Robert Dziekanski case, Mr. Bass had to have assented to the alleged false reporting on the events at Vancouver International Airport when Robert Dziekanski was allegedly killed by RCMP officers.  As top B.C. officer, he had to be a part of an alleged cover-up that has shaken confidence in the RCMP across the nation.

Deputy Commissioner Bass comes to us in B.C. from strange origins, moreover. He was a favourite of disgraced former RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli.  One remembers that Zaccardelli was forced to resign the top job in a hail of allegations.  One of the funniest [though appalling as well] occurred in Parliamentary Committee when a committee member asked Zaccardelli if he had perjured himself this time – or was it last time when his tailored story was totally different! Alleged perjury?  From the top police officer in Canada?

Zaccardelli appointed his favourites to top jobs, we are told. The favourites recognized themselves so clearly, [Paul Palango, Dispersing the Fog, Key Porter, 2008] they apparently called themselves (after Zaccardelli’s old division) ‘the J Division mafia’.  The appointment of Gary Bass as assistant commissioner in B.C. is referred to by Palango as “incestuousness” (p. 24).

As if to poison any attempt to see him in virtuous terms, Bass responded to RCMP Commissioner William Elliott regarding Dziekanski.  With imprudence of a kind one might expect from Robert Mugabe, Elliott had telephoned the four RCMP officers involved in the death of Dziekanski to express his support!!  The reply Bass sent was that the calls by  Commissioner Elliott “were a big hit” at the Richmond detachment where the four men were employed!

Such behaviour cannot be believed – except it is on the record.  As is the chummy conversation Bass had at the time with premier Gordon Campbell who also expressed support for the officers – who were plainly engaged in behaviour of the most questionable kind!

I have no record of Deputy Commissioner Bass saying, at any time, that there is zero tolerance in his Division for improper violence – though examples of alleged cover-up of such behaviour under his watch are there to examine.

When I mentioned racism to him in connection with the charges against Basi, Virk, and Basi, Mr. Bass recoiled.  But the likelihood increases. 

‘White’ Special Crown Prosecutor William Berardino was appointed in violation of all the legislation covering the role.  Neither the Attorney General nor the top officers of the Supreme Court will act in the matter or recognize its importance.

‘White’ cabinet ministers vacated their jobs in 2005 perfectly innocently … when the BC Rail Scandal was getting hot.  Deputy premier Christie Clark, Attorney General Geoff Plant [whose ministry had wrongfully appointed William Berardino], Gary Collins, finance minister – deep in the BC Rail fiasco, Judith Reid, transportation minister.  All were among the leavers.  None has been investigated since the legislature raids of 2003.

The list of people outside the legislature “searched” as a result of search warrants issued (December 28, 2003) is long.  The warrants have never been fully opened – which is not usual practice.  When they were, finally, partially opened in 2004, the only people whose search warrants were completely unsealed were the not-yet, at the time, accused Sikhs.  All the ‘white’ folk continued to be – strangely and especially – protected.

Racism?  Or something else?  I don’t know what to conclude.  What do you conclude?

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

HST And The Crack In The Door

By Peter Ewart
Opinion 250 - April 19, 2010

... But there is something else that is eating away at the credibility of the government in regards to the HST. And that is the method by which it was brought in. It is here that the government is weakest, its arguments most feeble and illogical.

Prior to and during the provincial election in May of 2009, the Campbell government made no bones about it – BC Liberals were steadfastly against the HST. And the Liberals won the election ...

Just a couple of months later, BC voters woke up one day to hear this same Liberal government announce that ... it would, indeed, be bringing in the dreaded HST. All of this was done in such a tawdry, slipshod way - arrogance breeds its own clumsy style – as if the government knew that it would, once again, get away with, not just breaking, but smashing to smithereens another election promise.

Just like it got away with the controversial sale of BC Rail after promising – again, before an election – that it wouldn’t sell the railway. But history has its own cunning. Like that hornet’s nest under the pile of lumber in the backyard, the BC Rail scandal won’t disappear no matter how much water is squirted on it. In early May, the trial of the political aides charged with breach of trust is scheduled to begin, and who knows which government leader or minister could get stung by a soggy, wayward hornet ...
 

Peter Ewart's full column is HERE.

.

.
This is a new book:



by Dale Sanders
White River Productions, Kansas City
US$79.95

Blurb: Northern Light is an all-color portrait of one of North America’s most fascinating railways — BC Rail.

With 303 full color photographs and 12 lavishly illustrated maps, this volume presents a retrospective of the entire BC Rail system during its 20-year life span between June 1984 and July 2004. [Surely they jest ... the railway was incorporated in 1908, and publicly-owned since 1912; the name-change from Pacific Great Eastern (PGE) to BCRail took place in 1984. - BC Mary.]

In ... Northern Light may be found all the elements that made BC Rail so interesting. From its locomotives (including steam, diesel, and electric) to its unique Budd RDC passenger operations, BC Rail was a railway like no other.

Besides just machinery, BC Rail’s right-of-way passed through some of the most beautiful and diverse scenery in North America. Perhaps the railway’s most valuable feature were the railroaders who performed their assigned duties with professionalism and a passion for railroading.

The photographs of the machines, landscapes, and people included in Northern Light tell the whole story of British Columbia’s own railway. From the familiar to rare images of remote trackage never before photographed, it’s all here in one amazing volume.

.
Lawsuit of the week   
Business in Vancouver -  April 8, 2010

Rail operator seeks switching charges

U.S.-based BNSF Railway Co. has sued Teck Metals Ltd., 6317057 Canada Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. for switching charges it claims it is owed related to the movement of zinc and lead concentrates and railcars to Vancouver Wharves through various track interchanges.

According to the statement of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court on February 10, since November 1, 2007, CN has been billing and continues to bill switching charges to BNSF for the Vancouver Wharves switching services and the CN switching services – the movement of concentrates and railcars between the terminal facility and BC Rail/CN Rail interchange and between the terminal facility and the CN/BNSF interchange – and BNSF has paid those switching charges, and in turn, billed Teck Metals. In turn, Teck Metals has reimbursed BNSF for those switching charges.

It is alleged that BC Rail [huh?] was receiving payment from Vancouver Wharves for the Vancouver Wharves switching services and was also invoicing and receiving payment from BNSF for the same Vancouver Wharves switching services.

It was further alleged that the transport agreement between BNSF and Teck Metals would pay or otherwise be liable for any and all switching charges incurred and paid by BNSF for the Vancouver Wharves switching services and the CN switching services.

In August 2008, BNSF invoiced Teck Metals for the switching charges paid by BNSF to CN ($3,822,311) for the period of April 1, 2005, to September 30, 2007. In July 2009, BNSF invoiced Teck Metals for the switching charges paid by BNSF to BC Rail ($1,181,366) for the period of January 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005. Teck neglected or refused to pay the invoices.

BNSF is seeking an accounting of all switching charges it paid to BC Rail from July 1, 1990, to September 30, 2007, an accounting of switching charges it paid to CN during the same period as well as orders for payment by Teck Metals and CN to BNSF of all monies found due.

BNSF is also seeking $1,181,366 for switching services provided between January 1, 2004, and March 31, 2005; and $3,822,311 for switching services provided between April 1, 2005, and September 30, 2007, against Teck Metals.

A statement of defence had not been filed by press time.

.
This Globe and Mail editorial makes a West Coaster think of Basi, Virk, and Basi ... and to wonder how far ahead the BC Rail trial would be, right now, if we addressed the RCMP in these terms.  Or if the RCMP had felt confident enough to have done so themselves.

The Guergis-Jaffer affair is a small thing by comparison with the BC Rail affair. Very, very small. And yet we never saw in all these years (6 years) this kind of approach to the vital elements leading up to the trial ... except when we read Prof. Mathews' statements about the necessity for police to act in the BC Rail case. I have to wonder why, how, who is  behind the BC Rail scenes making that kind of baffling difference in our vital affairs? 

So far as I can see: Robin Mathews is our West Coast Globe and Mail on the subject of RCMP integrity in the BCRail affair.

Have a look ... and please share your thoughts.  - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Let the Mounties explain ...

Editorial
The Globe and Mail - April 12, 2010

The RCMP should expeditiously make public the nature of the serious allegations against Helena Guergis, the former minister of state for the status of women and the now independent MP for Simcoe-Grey. It is one of the functions of police forces, rather than of first ministers or other members of the cabinet, to clearly but prudently summarize to the public what a suspected, or charged, person is thought to have done.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper acted properly in passing on the claims made against Ms. Guergis to the RCMP. It is not within the normal duties or skills of a prime minister to formulate and announce suspicions of criminal wrongdoing, while avoiding the shoals of prejudicing a possible future trial, on the one hand, and of compromising a current investigation, on the other. This task is rightly to be expected from the expertise of the police.

Ms. Guergis was a minister of the Crown, and the Canadian public are indeed entitled to be informed of the character of the allegations against her. The RCMP should do so sooner rather than later. It is true that the force revised its procedures after its investigation of possible leaks by politicians of a prospective change of policy on income trusts, but that was in the midst of the 2005 election, which is not the present situation.

Thanks to a sensible policy of the law, police are sheltered by a legal privilege from defamation lawsuits for announcement of investigations and charges, for good reason. It is their duty to inform the public of what they believe to be well founded suspicions, and citizens need to be able to scrutinize the conduct of the police and of the judicial process as a whole.  [Emphasis added. - BC Mary.]

Indeed, members of Parliament are also sheltered from defamation actions for what they say in the House of Commons. But that is to enable free debate – always subject to the House’s own rules – on matters of public policy, rather than to denounce individuals, though this may often be reasonably incidental to legislative discussion. Parliament is not usually the proper place to unveil criminal investigations or charges.

Moreover, Ms. Guergis’s former portfolio, concerned as it is with gender-based analysis, was not one of those most vulnerable to criminal behaviour or consequently of the most urgent interest to the public. A minister of justice may try to obstruct prosecutions; a minister of finance may try to use budgetary measures for corrupt purposes. A minister of public works may be tempted to award government contracts to cronies.

Mr. Harper acted rightly by communicating the allegations against Ms. Guergis to the police. In their turn, the RCMP should be prompt in disclosing these allegations. Though they might be well advised to err on the side of speed in this case, they must still exercise their judgment.

Full editorial and comments HERE.

.
Did I tell you about my macabre joke -- the one where I was momentarily devastated to learn (at the 2nd medical consultation after ALL the test results were in hand) that I am NOT going to die soon??  For 3 weeks, I had accepted the prospect of death. and I was comfortable with that -- if that's what was in the cards. And I certainly didn't want my darling daughter to cry all night ever again. I wanted my last weeks to be happy weeks.

Why did I think my life was ending? First was being told I have cancer. 2) Then the Oncologist's remark that there are a few dark patches showing on the bone scan. 3)  finding cancer in two other places. 4) the Oncologists' decision not to operate.

The part I missed, I guess, is that all the doctors and techs were so upbeat. Yes, the doctors are wonderful (it's a teaching hospital where I'm treated, so everything is spelled out twice -- once for me and again in medical terminology for the M.D. student accompanying us) and at no time did they speak of or imply that The End is Nigher Than I Thought. [Only the A-hole (precise medical terminology) spoke of doom as he - let's call him #5) -  rejoiced at my early demise.]

Fact is: I was completely comfortable with knowing I would soon die. A bit scared about how it would all end ... yes ... but there were several major changes happening in my life and this seemed like part of the pattern. I was OK with the news. I wanted my family to be OK too, and to treat this as an interesting journey.  The prospect of dying does concentrate the mind wonderfully (just as Samuel Johnson said, in the 18th century).



As I wondered how to make best use of my remaining time,  bammo: thoughts of the huge publication ban which Madam Justice MacKenzie had just flung like a toxic cloud over Basi-Virk issues.

The very morning I was to attend that final big medical consultation I had an idea. The way I figured it, Madam J-Mac. had just aimed a toxic spray over

EVERYBODY in the BC Rail trial ... lawyers, the accused, the media and the public ...

and we had all been floored, planked, buzzing in circles

asking "Oh Lord, what does it all mean?"

when in fact we should be declaring our honest views, our deeply-held opinions about our railway, our court, our government.

I mean wtf not??? Isn't that what good citizens do? I think so. 

There may in fact be nothing wrong with her ruling -- coming, as it does, from the Great Book. But the way she issued that edict ... why did she issue an edict which (some say) doesn't depart from normal routine?? Which, of course, kept people asking "What does it all mean?"

And then she re-proclaimed it, with a minor correction. I am convinced that Madam J-Mac was issuing a serious warning -- of some kind -- because people still didn't feel certain that they understood its meaning ... they still felt threatened by it. And to be on the safe side, they tried to avoid mention of BC Rail and/or Basi-Virk. Read Bill Tieleman's good reports on this. He figured he wasn't allowed to even mention who was in court (lawyers or the public) on the last day of public hearings. Imagine that ... and do the words "Zimbabwe" or "Somalia" spring to mind? 

So I began to think that B.C. citizens must not sit quietly with bags over our heads while Madam J-Mac tells us to "Keep movin' along ... silently." Why the heck should we? It's our railroad and our court.

Frankly, the more I concentrated my mind on the BC Rail trial, the more I found Madam J-Mac's court contemptible. Not all courts. Not the Canadian court system. Her specific court hearing this specific trial.  Much, much more admirable was Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett's remark in the self-same trial that the public interest was a top priority.

So I began to draft my inflammatory editorial, telling myself that I wouldn't live to see myself cited, arrested, and facing a Supreme Court trial for Contempt of Court. I'd be sorta, like, safe. Ha!


My wonderful little family had gathered beside me. Even my little grandson (12) asked to stay home from school so he could be with me. My darling daughter. And my ex-husband.  Maybe it was that image: 3 generations looking toward the future ... a future in which governments could with a wink and a nod, shut down the courts of justice with publication bans.

So ... just before we left the house, I looked again at the draft editorial which I had written about MacKenzie's cockeyed ruling (yep, that's what I had called it) ... and thinking w.t.f. not? ... I punched the PUBLISH button before I ran out the door to attend this critical medical conference.

I was smiling. "Maybe I'll be cited for Contempt of Court," I thought, "but the way BC courts move, I'll be long gone before it gets to trial ... ha!"

And so we gathered -- my precious little family seeming so small in the huge hospital -- and then the reports, the summary, the advice ... those dark bits on the bone? probably arthritis. The big, big news was that the treatment -- only a tiny pill taken once a day -- was shown to be 100% responsive ... so that I'd be kept on it -- nothing more -- for "two or three years" and then, if necessary, "we'd consider chemo."  To monitor progress, another CT Scan in 3 months.

"You mean ... ? "  But I knew already ... I ain't gonna die anytime soon. I had outwitted myself. Dang! Oh come on now ... I thought. If you had enough courage to face death a few hours ago and to write a bit of truth to power ... wouldn't you be even better able to do that now? Well yeah ... so here goes with another re-write. My original posting doesn't seem so inflammatory now ... which just goes to show the effect of Madam J-Mac's draconian warning. Intended or not, I had felt intimidated. Others did too.  

Good people are still revisiting, revising, and trying to properly understand Madam Justice MacKenzie's huge publication ban on Basi-Virk (BC Rail) issues. Mainstream media seem only too happy to stop saying anything about the case, the railway, the accused men, or the trial. A co-incidence? I don't think so.

But in my opinion, the main damage has been done: there's apparently no plan whatever for mainstream media coverage of the BC Rail Trial -- such as was laid on for the Pickton Pig Farm Trial.  And the excuse for that? There's a publication ban.

Why is there a publication ban? Shouldn't Justice MacKenzie have to give a reason ... and a very good reason ... before she tries to muzzle the media on Case #23299?

And doesn't the tainted sale of a large, vital railway once owned by the citizens of B.C. require a full and open testing at trial? 


Well, I wasn't cited ... nor will anyone be cited, if you ask me ... because I'm pretty sure Justice MacKenzie's edict couldn't possibly stand up in court.  Also ... who in power would challenge a ruling to silence the evidence of corruption in the unpopular sale of BC Rail?

Who indeed ... except for the people who once owned the railway which some have called "the steel backbone of British Columbia"? The people can challenge this Supreme Court's anti-democratic ruling simply by speaking up and speaking out. (Remember she said we couldn't. At least, I think that's what her cockeyed ruling says.)

If you ask me, I believe that Anne MacKenzie has placed herself in a position where contempt for the BC Supreme Court is the only reasonable response. And here's an excellent example from a citizen responding to a Vancouver Sun article:

THE NEW BC LIBERAL OWNED AND OPERATED JUDGE ON THE BASI-VIRK TRIAL HAS ISSUED A COMPLETE MEDIA BAN ON ALL COMMENT ON THE BASI-VIRK TRIAL, NO MATTER HOW BIZARRE AND CONVOLUTED THE PROCEEDINGS, UNTIL THE TRIAL IS OVER? HOW'S YOUR $10 A WEEK TAXCUT NOW,


It would be very good for a healthy democracy if people from all corners of British Columbia wrote or spoke out forthrightly about anything that tries to prevent the people of B.C. from knowing what's going on in the BC Rail trial.  Don't wait, as I did, for the day when you think your life is over and it's the last best thing you can do for the future.

The good news is that if Madam J-Mac cites us for Contempt of Her Court because we've expressed our opinions ... well then, wouldn't we have real evidence of the suppression of news? Right out in the open? News that justice in B.C. can be seen NOT being done?

But suppose we sit quietly obeying an outrageously boneheaded edict which bans citizens showing responsibility for justice in an informed democracy. That would mean B.C. may never again hope to see a free press or a fair trial. -- BC Mary.