Tuesday, February 19, 2008


Nearly 4 months before police searched the Legislature, RCMP met to discuss Finance Minister Collins' phone taps


Basi-Virk defence disclosure application alleges massive failure of Crown to disclose RCMP, other evidence in BC Legislature Raid case

The January 4, 2008 application by lawyers for David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi was made public through the court registry today, thanks to the persistence of Robin Mathews in demanding that transcripts be provided to the public ... and to Bill Tieleman who gave time and effort to putting the 15 eye-popping pages online for anyone to see.

The document - shown in full on Bill Tieleman's site in JPEG form - cites a litany of missing RCMP officers' notes, wiretap transcripts, computer emails, questions about a deal with key Crown witness Erik Bornmann, a former provincial lobbyist and much more.

Read all about it at: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/


by Bill Tieleman
24 HOURS - 19 Feb 2008



Hi Mary,

L.krog asked some questions in question period yesterday to do with BC rail scandal. The questions were near the end.
Many thanks, Anonymous 8:18, but I couldn't find Krog's remarks.

Any chance you could "cut-and-paste" them here, for us?


L. Krog: Early on in the B.C. Rail corruption investigation, a protocol was established to review all material evidence for cabinet, client and parliamentary privilege. The 2004 protocol said Justice Dohm would review documents for material relevance. Mr. Copley would review any relevant material for privilege and then refer what he thought possibly privileged to the cabinet secretary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The same protocol said that the cabinet secretary could consult executive council about these materials. I'll repeat that last part. The cabinet secretary could consult with executive council, the Premier and ministers, before declaring privilege on documents that might be seen as evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption trial. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To the Premier — a simple yes or no: is that his understanding of the process? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. W. Oppal: The member who asked the question is a lawyer, a member of the bar. I would have thought that he would know better than to ask that question. The matter is before the courts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]


Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Continue, Attorney. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. W. Oppal: Madam Justice Bennett has conduct of the trial in the Supreme Court. It is totally inappropriate for any member of this assembly to comment upon anything that's before the Supreme Court. That member knows better. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]


Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I wasn't aware that the Premier's understanding was before the courts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Last week the Attorney General asserted that the process was an independent assessment of the evidence. He claimed that neither he nor anyone in cabinet had any involvement. But a 2004 Vancouver Sun article clearly laid out the process that I have described, a process the government then confirmed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Since then the government has denied any involvement by cabinet, but now we know that cabinet could have a say in what documents would be kept secret. Maybe the Premier can answer this question. Can he tell this House how many documents the cabinet secretary consulted the Premier and cabinet on? How many documents vetted by the Premier and cabinet will now be denied as evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption trial? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue regarding the admissibility of documents and those documents that are clothed with privilege is a matter that will be decided by the Supreme Court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A very nice bit of vigilance, Anonymous 11:23. Thanks very much indeed.

Leonard Krog creates a few pleasant surprises, now and then, doesn't he? I mean, he seems well-grounded in his remarks.

Maybe that's the whole style of this Opposition, and we get impatient with waiting for them to speak up.

Anyway ... nice to see ... thanks again for making this available as I would've missed it, today.

And why would we have missed it, Mary, if it wasn't for this most vigilant Anon-O-Mouse?

Because the pro-media in this province did not tell us about it.

Thanks Anon, for doing he media's job for it.

Post a Comment

<< Home