Friday, March 12, 2010
BC Rail: is this the missing link?
When N.V.G. found this item, it had been lying quietly in the Hansard Record of Debates for 6 years.
It explains ...
J. MacPhail: We have a right to expect that the Solicitor General and the Speaker didn't allow the police to raid the Finance minister's office on what Maingot cites as "fishing trips." They're specifically precluded in the Legislature. Indeed, partially based upon direct evidence of Mr. Maingot, a 1980 report on wiretapping in this precinct concluded that there must be evidence that the conduct in the precincts is "directly implicated in the commission of a crime" before the police are allowed in.
Will the Solicitor General please confirm for this House that evidence that someone was directly involved in criminal activity was the test he used to justify allowing a police raid on the Finance minister's office? If he didn't use the standard test, what test did he use to allow the police in the Finance minister's office?"
BC Mary, I understand from your profile above that you are a war history buff, so I needn't explain a possible political version of the Maginot Line of defense mechanmism to you, but its obvious that soon after the BC Liberals took Office they proceeded with plans to sell off BC Rail, which was contrary to their election promise.
It appears to me that once the BC Legislature Offices were raided by the police the BC Liberals built their own "Maginot Line", but the spelling was "Maingot" which is here, buried at the bottom of the Hansard Page:
"Mr. Speaker, your Special Committee on Privileges appointed Tuesday, March 18, 1980, pursuant to a resolution of the House of March 6, 1980, begs leave to report as follows:
"The term of reference of the committee was to consider the matter of the interception of a member' s communications, brought to the attention of the House on March 3, 1980. The committee held seven meetings and heard evidence from Mr. Ian Horne, Q.C., Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and Mr. Joseph Maingot, Q. C., Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to the House of Commons, Ottawa. In addition to the evidence of the two witnesses aforesaid, your committee considered the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act, the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the Criminal Code, general procedures followed for obtaining intercepts and details of the intercepts complained of, including location and scope of intercepts. The committee also considered and examined the range and scope of matters which were discussed by the member in question during the relevant time period."
"Your committee members were unanimous in their opinion that fear of intercepts such as the one examined by your committee obstructed members in the performance of their legislative duties. The committee accepts Mr. Maingot's evidence that the test of obstruction is a subjective test.
"Your committee emphasizes that members of this Legislature cannot receive special immunity from Victo an investigation where there is evidence that the member is directly implicated in the commission of a crime. In this case there was no evidence that the member was under investigation or suspected of criminal activity.
"In conclusion, your committee restates that the beneficiary of the law of privilege is the constituent and the public at large. A member does not have special status. The member holds his privilege in trust for those who have elected him, and privilege exists only to the extent it is interwoven with his role as a legislator.
"Your committee believes that parliamentary democracies flourish only when member and constituent can communicate freely, openly and candidly without having the spectre of interception, such as the one recently examined by your committee, interfering with such communications.
"All of which is respectfully submitted. Brian R.D. Smith, MLA, Chairman; Stuart M. Leggatt, MLA, Secretary. "
I've yet to figure out the WHY of the Maingot or WHO was involved but it was during the time of WAC Bennett and .... the Executive Council was:
The above statement is quite a significant find, North Van's Grumps, especially in regard to the the present BC government's ruthless and arrogant belief in their own "special" entitlement.
This part is especially wonderful to see acknowledged here:
"the beneficiary of the law of privilege is the constituent and the public at large."
Isn't that what democracy is all about?
"MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests to us then, and indeed she has advised the Legislature, that the Deputy Premier- senior political officer for her party -attended an election seminar where addresses were given by two researchers of the caucus advocating phony letters and play-dirty politics, and she remained blissfully unaware of that fact. No one there advised her that this kind of advocacy had taken place, and I believe that shortly thereafter her own personal executive assistant, who worked in her ministerial office by political appointment - not through the public service, but appointed by order-in-council - her personal representative, acted as the distributor of the tapes which were made of the dirty-trick advocacy.
Is the minister advising the House that she was blissfully unaware of the advice and the approach that was being taken at the Bayshore Inn at the seminar? Is she advising the House that she was also blissfully unaware of the fact that her own personal executive assistant, acting solely under her direction as a political representative, distributed those tapes throughout the province to Social Credit local constituency associations? Is the minister asking us to believe that too?"
Search for this phrase:
...." I believe that shortly thereafter her own personal executive assistant, who worked in her ministerial office by political appointment - not through the public service, but appointed by order-in-council - her personal representative, acted as the distributor of the tapes "......
I hope you aren't, and I don't think you are, suggesting that poor Ferret Collins and the seemingly abducted by aliens Judith Reid were taken advantage of by their aides, aides handpicked need I emphasize, by the premier's office. Eerily virtually identical to:
"....by political appointment - not through the public service, but appointed by order-in-council"
I re-iterate, not even apparently by choice/preference of the minister to whom the aide would be responsible. Although everyone in Gordon Campbell's criminal organization does as they are told or they're no longer part of the caucus - or may even need to relocate to somewhere far away, like Iqualit. Their constituents concerns are completely irrelevant.
From evidence and documents that have managed to emerge from the ongoing obstruction of justice, resistance to disclosure and general obfuscation, it is clear that "dirty tricks" engaged in by the "Basi Boys" were at least approved by, if not done under direct ORDERS from the likes of Gary "Ferret" Farrell-Collins!
I just can't understand how the BC Liberals were NOT aware of what was going down in their own Offices in the Legislature. Gary Collins said, somewhere in Hansard, when asked by Joy MacPhail, that he never held a staff meeting, there weren't enough people to do that. They all knew what they had to do..........well I think the Minister should have made it his business to know what his staff were doing, and if he wasn't, he should have resigned right there and then.
The BC Liberals have brought shame upon the BC Legislature because of their lax, laid back attitude of those they hire via Order in Council designations.