Patrick KinsellaBASI-VIRK: Premier Campbell top aide denies BC Liberal insider Patrick Kinsella worked for both CN Rail and BC Rail in $1 billion sale
By Bill Tieleman, 24 hours columnist
Premier Gordon Campbell’s chief of staff strongly denied defence allegations Thursday that B.C. Liberal Party insider Patrick Kinsella was working for both sides at the time of the $1 billion sale of B.C. Rail to CN Rail.
Martyn Brown denied repeated allegations from a lawyer representing one of three former government aides facing corruption charges related to the sale, that Kinsella was “working both ends” in the $1 billion deal.
Brown responded that Kinsella was not only not a lobbyist but was “one of the most community-minded, giving, considerate people that I know who cares very deeply about the future of the government in British Columbia - not just in British Columbia but Canada, who has an active role in politics and supporting government of his political persuasion.”
But Michael Bolton, representing David Basi, alleged that Brown did nothing to determine if NDP opposition charges in the B.C. Legislature about Kinsella – co-chair of the B.C. Liberal 2005 election campaign – were accurate.
“I'm going to suggest to you that it did not suit your purpose or the premier’s purpose to find anything out about that because that’s just what you wanted – you wanted him to be working both ends because the plan was to sell B.C. Rail to CN Rail,” Bolton charged.
Brown rejected the allegation.
“You can suggest that – that’s effectively suggesting I’m being dishonest and I suppose it’s your right to suggest that from your position but the answer is the same – I gave you an honest answer,” Brown replied.
“I don’t recall any awareness of Mr. Kinsella’s role with B.C. Rail at that time. I don’t recall even the issue of him working for CN Rail, let alone B.C. Rail,” Brown said. “I don’t recall being quote ‘lobbied’ by Mr. Kinsella on anything.”
Kinsella was paid $297,000 by BC Rail between 2001 and 2005.
The tense exchange came on the ninth day of testimony from Brown, who was originally expected to be a witness for just two days.
The trial breaks until Tuesday June 22.
UPDATE
In earlier testimony Thursday morning Brown agreed with Bolton's suggestion that the privatization of BC Rail had become a political problem for the government in November 2003 because two bidders - Canadian Pacific and Burlington Northern Sante Fe railway companies - had dropped out, saying the process was unfair.
"I would agree that if even one of the bidders says they have a problem with the bidding process, then that's a public perception problem," Brown responded.
Bolton then returned to the defence theme - its allegations that CN Rail was always the favoured bidder - that "the fix was in" - but that OmniTRAX, another bidding rail company, stayed in the process to make it seem competitive in exchange for getting a promised "consolation prize" of the Roberts Bank spur line.
Bolton: "Do you recall me talking about a 'stalking horse' - a bidder who's staying in the process, knowing they won't win, to help the seller drive up the price?"
Brown: "You said that, yes. I said...that was preposterous."
Bolton: "But not if they were goint to do other business with the BC government?"
Brown: "You'd have to ask them that."
Bolton then raised a dinner meeting between Gary Collins, then-Finance Minister, and two OmniTRAX executives - CEO Pat Broe and VP Dwight Johnson - at the Villa del Lupo restaurant in Vancouver after BC Rail had been announced as sold to CN Rail and before bids closed on the Roberts Bank spur line, worth up to an estimated $70 million.
Bolton noted to Brown that the RCMP had launched extensive surveillance of the meeting.
Bolton: "Was it appropriate for the Minister of Finance to meet with a bidder at that time?"
Brown: " I had and have great confidence in the integrity of Mr. Collins."
Bolton: "I'm going to suggest to you that it was unusual for Mr. Collins to meet Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson between the two bids - between BC Rail and the Roberts Bank subdivision."
Brown: "I don't have any view on why Mr. Collins would meet with them. You would have to ask him."
Bolton: "Did you, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Collins and Deputy Minister [Ken] Dobell meet in December 2003 to discuss the bid?"
Brown replied that they may have met - they had lots of meetings in December because it was "budget crunch time."
Bolton: "I'm going to sugget to you that Mr. Collins told that meeting he was going to meet OmniTRAX executives."
Brown: "If he did I have no recall of that whatsoever."
Bolton: "Well, he'd been advised by Charles River Associates [the BC government's fairness advisor on the sale] not to meet with bidders."
Brown: "You or Mr. [defence lawyer Kevin] McCullough told be that but I don't recall. I don't recall any discussion with Mr. Collins abouit any dinner meeting with OmniTRAX whatsoever."
Bolton: "The consolation prize was to be offered with thanks from the government for staying in the bidding."
Brown: "I would emphatically deny that - I cannot believe the government or Mr. Collins would be in a position to make a promise like that."
Bolton: "They would be told their Roberts Bank bid would be looked at with favour."
Brown: "The government would be grateful for all the bidders who stayed in the process. But in terms of offering a consolation prize - I would strongly say that didn't happen."
Brown added he wouldn't be surprised if Collins discussed the previous bidding process for BC Rail and thank them for their participation.
Brown: "They were a good bidder, they were an excellent corporate citizen it sounds like."
After an objection from Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino was resolved with the jury out of the courtroom, Bolton went on to the issue of BC government monitoring of the case in 2007.
Bolton told Brown that in April and May of 2007, BC government Public Affairs Bureau officer Stuart Chase was in the courtroom monitoring the case - a story I first broke at the time in 24 hours newspaper - and sending reports to Victoria.
Bolton: "Did you read those reports?"
Brown: "I don't specifically remember any of them - I could have seen one or more - they did go to the Premier's Office."
Bolton: "Did you meet with Mr. Colllins after receiving those reports?"
Brown: "I don't recall."
Brown added he did meet Collins at various public events."
Brown: "I absolutely would have talked to Gary Collins between 2007 and today on a number of informal occasions."
Bolton asked Brown if he discussed the Villa del Lupo meeting with OmniTRAX.
Brown: "I don't recall having any such discussions with him."
Bolton: "When did you learn about the Villa del Lupo meeting?"
Brown: "I don't recall."
Bolton also asked other questions about Patrick Kinsella's role.
Bolton: "I talked about the problematic issue of Mr. Kinsella working for BC Rail...I suggest to you that there's an obvious optics problem working with BC Rail and CN Rail at the same time."
Brown: "I believe that's true."
Bolton: "I've shown you some excerpts from Hansard this morning to indicate that the Leader of the Opposition [then Joy MacPhail] had raised those matters in the House in questioning the Premier."
Brown: "I don't believe that's a fair, accurate description of what we've just said. I believe she raised speculation that Mr. Kinsella was quote "a lobbyist" for CN. ...That's different from what you've said - her raising the fact that he worked ostensibly for both CN and BC Rail."
Bolton: "Mr. Kinsella was never an official registered lobbyist for CN or anybody else."
Brown: "That's my understanding."
Bolton: "He styles himself as a consultant rather than a lobbyist."
Brown: "I don't know how he styles himself and I'm not going to comment on his characterization. What I think I said earlier in my testimony is that I don't recall ever being quote 'lobbied' by Mr. Kinsella on anything - nothing I would consider lobbying."
Bolton asked why Brown didn't investigate the allegations MacPhail made in the Legislature.
Bolton: "Why did the premier's office not take steps to straighten out that optics problem at the time?"
Brown: "I don't know there was any optics problem - I didn't concede that there was an optics problem. Ms. MacPhail, leader of the opposition at the time and an avowed political opponent hurling about comments in the Legislature that even of themselves would necessarily pose a problem, so I don't accept your characterization."
Bolton returned to the issue again.
Bolton: "My question for you is this - as the Premier's primary political advisor, why on earth would you have not taken steps at this juncture - 13 days after the bid process began - to straighten out the issue of whether Kinsella was working for BC Rail or a consultant for BC Rail and also CN Rail at the same time - why didn't you take steps to straighten that out?
Brown: "Well, you've suggested that he, that as a result of this I would somehow know that Mr. Kinsella was consulting, working for BC Rail - I see nothing in that transcript from the debate would suggest that."
"So that's certainly not something that I was aware of, that I can recall being informed of, and the assertion from Ms. MacPhail that quote 'he's the lobbyist for CN' - I don't know what on earth she was talking about."
"And she used to make an awful lot of allegations and statements and the like - if we followed up on every one it could be a full time job."
.
39 comments:
boy he said it himself,it would be a full time job to follow all those accusations alright,f#$% that's rich.
Martyn continues to know nothing, remembers nothing advised nobody so why are we paying him a salary?
"Martyn continues to know nothing, remembers nothing advised nobody so why are we paying him a salary?"
For the same reason why the Chief of Staff within the former NDP governmen and federal Liberals get paid. The Head Hack doesn't do that as a volunteer.
It's not like it's a full time job or anything!
"It's not like it's a full time job or anything!"
Actually it is.
"I would agree that if even one of the bidders says they have a problem with the bidding process, then that's a public perception problem," Brown responded.
LOL. In other words, it's the public's fault that there's a problem with the bidding process. If thine eye offend thee, strike it out. Brown is making a non sequitur here - it's the other bidders who had a problem with the bidding process being unfair; the public wasn't even informed all this was going on .
Reverse the sale, Justice Mackenzie; repeal the contract(s). There's so much dirt on them that we know about we don't have to wait for this case to conclude. Reverse the sale now. REPOSSESS BC RAIL (time for a FB page to that effect, Bill).
As for "styling himself" as a consultant or a lobbyist, there's not much difference between hot cocoa and hot chocolate, or between a cuba libre and a white rum and coke. "I'm not a duck, I just look like one".
An illegal duck, to boot.
Bill writes that Martyn was to be testifying for only 2 days. I wonder who the next witness will be and if they will set the record for sitting in the witness box?
I believe that these witnesses are not being told what they can expect from experienced trial lawyers who have mountains of documents. Better book weeks off work as each witness will be canvassed in detail.
Martyn Brown is the Tony Hayward of the BC Liberal party.
"Martyn Brown is the Tony Hayward of the BC Liberal party."
So where would that place this particular poster?
Amongst those who try to tie two different people within two different situations.
"I believe that these witnesses are not being told what they can expect from experienced trial lawyers who have mountains of documents. Better book weeks off work as each witness will be canvassed in detail."
Finally a poster gets it right. Brown has been prepared for trial like any witness would be for any trial.
Peel off the political crap and learn from the process of the proceedings. It is a fascinating study.
There's hope for those who post here on a regular basis yet.
"boy he said it himself,it would be a full time job to follow all those accusations alright,f#$% that's rich."
Yeah I guess it would be WAY TOO much to expect 77 LIEberal fence posts with hair, or MLAs, much less political dirty-tricksters like Brown, Basi et. al., to keep up with accusations and/or questions of two women namely Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan.........
All I can say is (in)Justice MacKenzie certainly appears willing to let almost any kind of prevaricating, hedging, fudging, denying or ignoring the truth occur as long as Mr. Bolton, Mr. McCullough or the defendants don't, god forbid, roll their eyes or otherwise inadvertently allow their stunnedness to show!
Let the disbarrment proceedings begin all around, please......
WARNING - from Bill Tieleman - I again remind posters that any comments I regard as libelous will be rejected.
There are fair comments and then there allegations that would be actionable - the latter are welcome, the former are not.
"Let the disbarrment proceedings begin all around, please......"
We'll all be able to buy and use hoverboards and alo be able to scoot around in ion powered George Jetson anti-gravity bubble cars before that even begins to happen.
Too much stress on the politics and not the judicial process.
Because one poster doesn't like how the judge is handling the case she should be disbarred.
Too funny.
"J. MacPhail: That's what our leaks told us too, so I'm glad our sources are exactly accurate."
Source: http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/37th5th/h40426p.htm
Hansard Afternoon Sitting April 26, 2004
The NDP had moles inside the BC Liberal Government?
Could someone explain who the possible sources are in regards to "leaks"?
The Crown Special Prosecutor says its Dave Basi and Bobby Virk, these were hand picked by the BC Liberals to act as PAB.
However from Hansard comes this:
"The fairness adviser raised serious concerns about leaks."
J. MacPhail: "What the minister (Kevin Falcon) has just admitted to is that the leak, which we asked about day after day in the Legislature and in question period…. We now know what it is. It's commercially sensitive information of B.C. Rail that should only go, in the final analysis, to the successful bidder — except that CN got it halfway through the bidding process. If that doesn't give you a leg up, what does?"
It sounds like CIBC World Market leaked information to the CN Rail before they were allowed to have the material.
From a Bill T's Tyee column: Railgate Bombshell: BC Gov't Ethics Scorched by Rail Firms
Angry bidders 'dismayed' by 'unfair' process in $1 billion privatization.
By Bill Tieleman, 3 Mar 2009, TheTyee.ca http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/03/BCRail/
"The Vancouver Sun obtained some letters from CPR to Premier Gordon Campbell's office through FOI requests in March 2004, forcing the government to admit for the first time that confidential information was leaked to CN. But Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said at the time it was "an accident" that had no impact on the fairness of the process.
It's clear from the additional letters now made public that neither CPR nor BNSF believe the leaking was anything but deliberate."
Bolton: "He styles himself as a consultant rather than a lobbyist."
Brown: "I don't know how he styles himself and I'm not going to comment on his characterization. What I think I said earlier in my testimony is that I don't recall ever being quote 'lobbied' by Mr. Kinsella on anything - nothing I would consider lobbying."
Well, what Mr. Brown considers lobbying isn't really relevant in legal terms; what matters is what the law says that lobbying is. Not that we've seen any sign of Mr. Brown having a problem with much that, to the rest of us, is clearly illegal and/or immoral.
Bolton asked why Brown didn't investigate the allegations MacPhail made in the Legislature.
Bolton: "Why did the premier's office not take steps to straighten out that optics problem at the time?"
Brown: "I don't know there was any optics problem - I didn't concede that there was an optics problem.
Once again, what Mr. Brown considers an optics problem isn't really relevant, because he's not the observing eye. WE ARE (we=the public). And once again, he doesn't see anything wrong with something the law actually very clearly spells out as wrong. This man should never have held high office given that inability to understand written law, and his responsibilities (which should be to the law, not to his boss); I submit that "accreditation" hearings be held for people appointed to this position in the future, same as is done in the US with major appointments.
Ms. MacPhail, leader of the opposition at the time and an avowed political opponent hurling about comments in the Legislature that even of themselves would necessarily pose a problem, so I don't accept your characterization."
It's not surprising that someone who partook in a violation of the Constitution by refusing to recognize a Leader of the Opposition also refuses to recognize her rights and role within the House; which is to ask questions of the government, and which according to the traditions of Parliament the government is duty bound to at least waffle on if not answer outright; but to pretend those questions have no right be asked at all because "even of themselves [they] would necessarily pose a problem". By which he's implying that the questions are illegal, perhaps litigious, if they weren't being asked in the House, where members are protected from civil-suit harrassment by their opponents. The role of an opposition MLA, not just the Leader of the Opposition (de jure or de facto), is to ask questions of the government's conduct and practices and expect answers. That's what accountability is supposed to be about; it's not accountability to party hacks, party members, the party brass, the party's bankroll or accountability to the Premier's own ego; it's accountability to the public, and the Crown.
Brown's remarks are those of someone in autocratic authority, who has neither concern for nor an education in the democratic institutions he's helping helm (or rather, hijack).
Doesn't seem to me that this man has ever taken a course in civics. Or political ethics.
HMTQ is in Canada during this next week, I really hope some of this reaches her eagle eyes.....(BC Rail as a whole, not my own humble barbs). I think they should do here what they did in Jamaica or wherever it was; revoke independence and take the Last Colony back under direct rule, or at least with a viceroy appointed by London and empowered to watch over and prevent corruption (and amorality such as Mr. Brown's) in the courts and civil service.
"HMTQ is in Canada during this next week, I really hope some of this reaches her eagle eyes.....(BC Rail as a whole, not my own humble barbs). I think they should do here what they did in Jamaica or wherever it was; revoke independence and take the Last Colony back under direct rule, or at least with a viceroy appointed by London and empowered to watch over and prevent corruption (and amorality such as Mr. Brown's) in the courts and civil service."
Someone is obviously reading far more into Brown's presentation than most.
Would be interested to know what aspects of the COnstitution has been violated? The Opposition can and does present questions of concern to the Legislature. The Government in response is duty bound to provide an answer, but not nessesarily to act on the question in the way presented by the Opposition.
The NDP for example was faced with many questions by the Opposition and the NDP goverment at the time was not compelled to resolve issues to the comfort of the Oppositionl Same goes for the federal Liberals when they were in power, and the Conservatives now.
HM does not have any powers of revoking of provincial power and cannot appoint any viceroy to oversee. The power of revoking a sitting Legisature rests with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and Lt. Gov Lam had clearly stated he was almost at that point during the last years of the VanderZalm government.
Would have been much easier if many of the posters such as that one who is crying to HM had come out to help us get Carol and the NDP MLAs elected as government.
What is the next thing this poster is going to support? Complaints to the United Nations about the governance of B.C. and that the UN should recommend economic sanctions?
Since the anti-HST drive is almost over, Bill, how about getting the more frequent posters of yours to actually come out and do volunteer work for us in the NDP? We could always use more, and as much as we like your blog, posting to it isn't going to help build our party and get real policies in place that everyone (not just the left wingers in your blog) can live with.
" I submit that "accreditation" hearings be held for people appointed to this position in the future, same as is done in the US with major appointments."
Accredition hearings are not held in the United States for White House Staff positions reporting to the President directly since these are political appointments made at the pleasure of the President.
Hearings are held for those positions such as Attorney General
members of the Supreme Court, Surgeon General, since under the United States system, Cabinet positions and Department positions are not made by the President in the same way that Cabinet Positions are made by the Prime Minister / Premier here under the Westminster system.
Such accreditation hearings would be lengthy and costly, and under our adversial polarized system, a person favoured by the NDP Premier would no doubt be vigeriously opposed by those who don't like the NDP being government.
It simply would not work in our system of government.
But if the poster wants such a system, would it be to his comfort to have such a system in place once the NDP returns to being government once again? I think not.
Think of the opposition to the many political appointments the NDP used to make to Crown Corporations such as Marc Eliesen to BC Hydro.
Bill Tieleman wrote:
There are fair comments and then there allegations that would be actionable - the latter are welcome, the former are not.
12:04 PM PDT
--------
????!
????!
Bill is saying becareful what you post. He has a responsibility to this blog and anything against the
Rules of the Court could get him in court. As the accused.
Never ever get a Judge of the Court mad at you. We're not talking TV judge like Judge Judy here.
reply to Anonymous 5:21:
"Someone" (me) was very specific about WHICH violation of the Constitution, which was the refusal of the government to recognize the existence of either an Official Opposition, or a Leader of the Opposition, on the premise that the four-seat minimum for a party's official status had something to do with the status of the Loyal Opposition. It does not. The Leader of the Opposition is a constitutional position, something that has to exist in order for the Privy Council to be properly constituted; it's not in Trudeau's constitution (directly) and not in the British Columbia Act (directly), but it IS fundamental as a convention, and in general practice, in countries and other jurisdictions which have inherited the British parliamentary system.
In the case of what Campbell and his cronies pulled, it was also mean-spirited, pushing the remaining NDP to the far end of the House, not seated opposite the Premier as they should be, and refusing them decent office space as well as, in Joy McPhail's case, the extra salary the LOO is supposed to get.
This was illegal but, like so much else in the way of constitutional wrongdoing in Canada and especially in British Columbia, was swept under the rug with the assistance of a compliant media and no shortage of hubris and arrogance on the part of the newly-minted Premier, arrived in office as we was by dint of fraudulent campaign promises.
As for the rest of you anonymooses, "this poster" and "this one" has a name, or a pseudonym and you should be polite so as to use it (as well as sport one yourselves). There is someone else around here who wants this to go the United Nations, which would be entertaining but pointless. But I have, over and over, insisted that the fraudulent and rigged sale of BC Rail should be brought before everything from the SEC to NAFTA tribunals to GATT hearings and US congressional committees (and courts).
And at one time, long ago before the rejigging of the civil service along partisan lines, the Chief of Staff as head of the civil service was a grandfathered appointment, not something to serve as a sinecure for a party loyalist as it is now. The civil service used to be kept apart from electoral politics....another constitutional violation related to this is the practice of using ministers only as figureheads, and appointing apparatchiks as deputy ministers who report to the Premier (or rather to the Premier's head flunky).
All this, like so much else, was swept under the rug and gotten away with by "convention", which means "if you pull something and get away with it, it becomes the constitution".
Constitutional amendments of this kind - reorganizing the powerflow within the Executive in particular - are not meant to be so easily pliable.
The British Constitution to work properly required a respect for tradition, and also for not doing anything too rashly, or too importunate. It also required a sense of honour, and justice, which clearly is as lacking in the Chief of Staff as it is in his boss.
Another very important constitutional convention that has been broken by this regime, time and time again, is that when a minister, particularly a first minister, is implicated in wrong doing, they should step aside and more preferably resign outright; even if it was only one of their underlings or appointees who did wrong. Both Campbell and Brown should have resigned long ago, to prevent exactly the kind of expensively protracted juridicial examination of wrongdoing, so that government may proceed without taint of corruption. Instead, they have anointed themselves with muck and shit, all the while saying they "cannot comment because the matter is before the courts".
In the conventions and customs of the British parliamentary tradition, the matter NEVER should have come before the courts in the first place. Heads should have rolled, voluntarily.
If the L-G doesn't have the jam to insist on such resignations, that's why a higher power is needed to do the deed. There is no recourse in our system when a politician or a civil servant violates their constitutional roles or otherwise changes the constitution to suit their whim. THAT is why HMTQ is needed, or someone very like her since she now has a "hands off" approach to her Canadian realms. We need recourse to remove corrupt politicians, and to enforce the constitution, and we have none. THAT is the problem.
But apparently all you anonymooses are in the business of making excuses and distractive comments; it's pretty clear who YOU are....
Someone" (me) was very specific about WHICH violation of the Constitution, which was the refusal of the government to recognize the existence of either an Official Opposition, or a Leader of the Opposition, on the premise that the four-seat minimum for a party's official status had something to do with the status of the Loyal Opposition. It does not. The Leader of the Opposition is a constitutional position, something that has to exist in order for the Privy Council to be properly constituted; it's not in Trudeau's constitution (directly) and not in the British Columbia Act (directly), but it IS fundamental as a convention, and in general practice, in countries and other jurisdictions which have inherited the British parliamentary system.
In the case of what Campbell and his cronies pulled, it was also mean-spirited, pushing the remaining NDP to the far end of the House, not seated opposite the Premier as they should be, and refusing them decent office space as well as, in Joy McPhail's case, the extra salary the LOO is supposed to get.
The NDP at the time had only two seats, not four. The NDP was granted Official Opposition subsidies later on. That was in 2002.
Social Credit on the other hand in 1991 elected more than four members (actually six) so they were granted Opposition status as they met the minium requirments.
"If the L-G doesn't have the jam to insist on such resignations, that's why a higher power is needed to do the deed."
There isn't one. Under our traditions, the Lt-G is the last stop when it comes to the Legislature in B.C.
"There is no recourse in our system when a politician or a civil servant violates their constitutional roles or otherwise changes the constitution to suit their whim. THAT is why HMTQ is needed, or someone very like her since she now has a "hands off" approach to her Canadian realms."
She does not have any inherent constitutional power. That ended with the Cdn. Consitutition she signed in c. 1982. Her role is ceremonial.
"We need recourse to remove corrupt politicians, and to enforce the constitution, and we have none. THAT is the problem."
Would that apply to any party in government or just those awful evil BC Liberals. If such a rule
was in place, it would have to apply to all parties in government, not just one.
There needs to be a revision in goverance I agree, but such revisions cannot apply to just one party of government, it would have to apply to ALL parties that become government, no exceptions.
Social Credit messed up, as did the federal Liberals and the NDP, so any new revisions woul have to apply to all parties.
That one, and ours (the NDP)and theirs (the BC Conservatives)
No exceptions.
"Actionable"
Give me a break, where did you get that word from Bill T?
Let me guess, your good buddy and puke breath AGT.
There needs to be a revision in goverance I agree, but such revisions cannot apply to just one party of government, it would have to apply to ALL parties that become government, no exceptions.
Social Credit messed up, as did the federal Liberals and the NDP, so any new revisions woul have to apply to all parties.
DID I SAY ANY DIFFERENT??
That was, in fact, my point. I wasn't asking for something that applied only to the BC Liberals. I was asking for something that would force the BC Liberals to obey the constitution like anybody else. But looking to the Trudeau amending formula is pointless, and defining and organizing such an amendment and its passage is a multi-billion dollar project, and only the (corrupted) current system has that kind of money and then there's that pesky problem of the Big Media's control of debate.
And they (all of them, the first ministers I mean) went ahead after the last constitutional-amendment vote (Charlottetown) and implemented by fiat all the consolidation and centralization powers they wanted for themselves, even convening the Council of the Confederation without having electoral approval to do so.
But back to BC; although I was only speaking initially of the constitutional violation during Campbell's first session, the refusal to recognize an Opposition, it's not that only where the Libs have "crossed the line" constitutionally. Another item is, in the BC Rail contracts, the clauses exempting CN from any legal or other court challenge to the contract or to themselves; granting them, effectively, immunity from Canadian law that no other citizen has. Whether those contracts are actually legal because of the presence of those clauses would maybe need to be tested in court; but it's shocking that any sitting government would even presume to include them.
But how can you take something to court when the justices of that court, and the prosecutorial system, are clearly politically coopted, as are the police? If you dispute that they're not, how can it be, then, that all the various wrongdoings that have been disclosed in the course of the pre-trial hearings have not resulted in suitable investigations and charges (including the destruction of evidence by someone in the Premier's office, a fact which ALONE in a functioning parliamentary democracy should have resulted in the immediate resignation of the Premier; who instead continued the election campaign unruffled.
And then what do you do when you have a man like Brown, or any number of other Campbellites, who see nothing wrong with government contracts going to their political benefactors, either without tender or through a corrupted tendering process. "I don't see anything wrong with that" is a weaseling that's comparable to "I don't remember anything about what I did as the most powerful civil servant in the province".
Also "we ignored Ms. McPhail because she was a political enemy", which was the gist of Brown's comments about the de facto (if not de jure) Leader of the Opposition" is another way of saying "it's our ball and bat and we don't want anyone else playing the game". These are autocrats, not democrats, and have no interest in seeing a reformed political system.
And there are those, yes, in the NDP, who don't either, which is why STV wasn't brought in despite the first referendum being passed in 75 of 77 ridings and by well over 3/5 of the population. And of course NDP politicians get hounded out of office by the media even when they haven't done anything wrong; but the same media "go after" critics of their pet government (the BC Libs, and the Socreds before them) instead of treating government corruption with the same fire and brimstone they reserve for bingo profits and country-cabin sundecks.
"But back to BC; although I was only speaking initially of the constitutional violation during Campbell's first session, the refusal to recognize an Opposition, it's not that only where the Libs have "crossed the line" constitutionally"
Old news. The NDP got over it as did everyone else, the NDP got back to a respectable number of seats in 2005, and we had hoped to take out the Liberals in 2009, but we didnt have enough volunteers to do it.
"And at one time, long ago before the rejigging of the civil service along partisan lines, the Chief of Staff as head of the civil service"
He was never was head of the civil service. That is the Deputy Minister. Adrian Dix was never a head of the civil service as the positions in the Premier's Office in that role were political. Must be way back when Barrett was Premier.
"And there are those, yes, in the NDP, who don't either, which is why STV wasn't brought in despite the first referendum being passed in 75 of 77 ridings and by well over 3/5 of the population"
That wasn't the criteria of how the STV was won or lost. It had to have 60% of the total number of voters in the entire province to pass jsut like the First Nations referendum did and others. I personally did not support it because I saw no need for large ridings with multiple members. STV can exist within single member ridings, all STV is just a conveyance of choice. Many NDP friends did not support it for the same reason.
But rahter than wimpering about the past, we need to look ahead to the future and build our NDP Party. Right now the public doesn't see much value with it, and it is up to us to provide a viable alternative and something the public will go for. The NDP missed an opportunity on the file and I am hoping that James will do the smart thing and get rid of the HST otherwise she and the NDP will look like hypocrites.
Anonymous at 4:58 wanted to know where I am "placed" because of a comparison I made between Tony Hayward and another fellow, Martyn Brown; neither of who can remember things very well, even though they're both in well paid positions.
Mind you, Mr. Hayward makes way more money than Mr. Brown.
Both smart men. Both have lousy memories. I would have thought it should be a qualification for the job.
Would you keep your job if you couldn't remember things?
The NDP got over it as did everyone else
The NDP's lack of constitutinoal perspicacity and/or perseverance is, like so much else you're equivocating about, totally irrelevant to the fact that this was a constitutional violation of the first order. Not something "to be gotten over with" and which I know from talking to Joy about it in an accidental personal encounter many years later, not something she takes as lightly as you have.
The NDP were cop-outs in 1983, and also during Oka and Gustafsen Lake. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're cop-outs about this, and willing to downplay it as "wimpering about the past" (sic). Letting the Liberals, and the Socreds before them, get away with constitutional hubris by "getting over it" is part of the problem with our system; both parties are content with its failings and with the lack of any mechanisms to block or reverse those failings.
I'm not interested in rebuilding the NDP; it's sat on its hands throughout this, or waffled as Krog has done; the leadership I've seen has been Paul Nettleton's.....
(and lately the BVB defence team).
Oh, and Robin and BC Mary and koot and others. They've been providing the truth and analysis that nearly all public-figure NDPers are sitting on their hands over (with the notable exception of Bill Tieleman).
The sale of BC Rail was an illegal contract, containing irregularities of the constitution and without public consultation of any kind; only public lying.
But to you, that's "wimpering about the past" and you're only interested in rebuilding a party that has been so ineffective this last several years that it's shameful.
Joy and Jenny did more with their hall-closet office and two seats than the lot of you have done since.
Shame.
"The NDP's lack of constitutinoal perspicacity and/or perseverance is, like so much else you're equivocating about, totally irrelevant to the fact that this was a constitutional violation of the first order."
This had since been resolved in 2002. Besides I would place fault partially with the NDP. How is it that a party that ran BC for ten years could end up just two seat?
"Not something "to be gotten over with" and which I know from talking to Joy about it in an accidental personal encounter many years later, not something she takes as lightly as you have."
Well she should have made sure our Party was able to win more seats than it did by ending some of the more idiotic things they did. WHy do you figure the NDP ended up with just two seats in the first place? The same reason why the BC Liberals would probably end uo six six or ten in 2013.
She also was very blind in regards to the Fastcat fiasco and should have stepped forward like Dan Miller did eventually. Dan realised the erfors far more than McPHail did and her "apology" was pathetic.
The NDP were cop-outs in 1983, and also during Oka and Gustafsen Lake. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're cop-outs about this, and willing to downplay it as "wimpering about the past"
That is going back quite a bit. Oka wasn't even within the BC NDP's geographic file.
"Letting the Liberals, and the Socreds before them, get away with constitutional hubris by "getting over it" is part of the problem with our system; both parties are content with its failings and with the lack of any mechanisms to block or reverse those failings."
Interesting comment. Are you some sole protector of the constitution? If this bothered you that much why did you not assist in the resolution when it could have helped? Bringing this up 8 years later isn't going to do much.
Again, those had since been resolved the last one in 2002. We can also go back to the antics of Bill VanderZalm and his Property Transfer Tax, and his private business dealings with Faye The Hat Lady Leung.
The NDP is starting to rebuild come and join us to build the party, or just sit there and whine about the past.
"Oh, and Robin and BC Mary and koot and others. They've been providing the truth and analysis that nearly all public-figure NDPers are sitting on their hands over (with the notable exception of Bill Tieleman)."
WHat BC Mary and the others are providing are observances of the court procedings. Not much more than what Bill is doing, but Bill does a much better result at it than the others. I've read BC Mary's blog and it's not as good as Bill Tieleman's observances.
The only thing missing from Bill Tielman is a coat grey fedora hat and a black on white card in the hat band that says "Press".
J. Jonah Jamieson would be proud to have Bill Tieleman as a reporter for his newspaper.
Bill would be in the running for a Jack Webster award no doubt.
I guess I must disagree on something Skookum1 says about Gustafsen Lake and the NDP government. I know we have strayed quite away off the subject, but the NDP didn't cop out on Gustafsen lake. Ujjal made it clear that laws exist for everyone involved. I was at a conference shortly after the lake deal,( as a non Indian home owner on land set aside, my non paying job was to represent the owners) a large number of the participants were Indians and they mostly supported the position taken by the AG (Ujjal) at the time.I was never a big supporter of Ujjal. The ones who got complained about most, was the RCMP and especially their media spokesman
A couple of us folks who lived on land set aside attended many such meetings, conferences and treaty meetings.The NDP provincial government did a lot to bring bands to the table for meaningful negotiations. I only recall a couple of students from the aboriginal studies group that figured the government had let them down. Most supported the thought that laws do exist and for everyone.So the nice thing about Bill's blog is that folks can and do have different opinions and can voice them without getting "flamed". At this time political options in BC are few.
get back to work Bill
This had since been resolved in 2002.
IT WAS NOT RESOLVED. It was shoved into the journalistic crxypt, the Libs pretended they got away with it, and Jenny and Joy were too busy setting themselves up as the practical Opposition to dispute the legal/constitutional problem fully. Nothing was resolved; if the Speaker or the L-G rendered a verdict on it I did not hear; I heard a lot of equivocation, but I heard no resolution of any kind.
As for your slag of BC Mary, that tells me everything I need to know about your agenda and purpose here....
The NDP got over it as did everyone else
The NDP's lack of constitutinoal perspicacity and/or perseverance is, like so much else you're equivocating about, totally irrelevant to the fact that this was a constitutional violation of the first order. Not something "to be gotten over with" and which I know from talking to Joy about it in an accidental personal encounter many years later, not something she takes as lightly as you have.
The NDP were cop-outs in 1983, and also during Oka and Gustafsen Lake. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're cop-outs about this, and willing to downplay it as "wimpering about the past" (sic). Letting the Liberals, and the Socreds before them, get away with constitutional hubris by "getting over it" is part of the problem with our system; both parties are content with its failings and with the lack of any mechanisms to block or reverse those failings.
I'm not interested in rebuilding the NDP; it's sat on its hands throughout this, or waffled as Krog has done; the leadership I've seen has been Paul Nettleton's.....
(and lately the BVB defence team).
Oh, and Robin and BC Mary and koot and others. They've been providing the truth and analysis that nearly all public-figure NDPers are sitting on their hands over (with the notable exception of Bill Tieleman).
The sale of BC Rail was an illegal contract, containing irregularities of the constitution and without public consultation of any kind; only public lying.
But to you, that's "wimpering about the past" and you're only interested in rebuilding a party that has been so ineffective this last several years that it's shameful.
Joy and Jenny did more with their hall-closet office and two seats than the lot of you have done since.
Shame.
"Joy and Jenny did more with their hall-closet office and two seats than the lot of you have done since."
Sure Joy ran for the leadership of the NDP and bombed. Even Bill here didn't support her big time.
Jenny just squeals. Not leadership material.
But granted both were alot better than if Margaret Birrell was in that position. Now there's a real left winger's left winger.
Where's Dan Miller when we need him?
How did Martyn Brown get the position, Chief of staff? His mind is like a sieve. How old is the parliament system? It seems antiquated and too full of holes, and far too easy to manipulate. It seems, judge can use manipulation, either for you or against you. The Constitution, doesn't seem to apply in BC. Civil Rights and Liberties, are squashed. Democracy and Freedom, seem null and void. Ordinary BC people, have no faith in the Judicial system, nor the RCMP. Campbell, Hansen and the BC Liberals, are malevolent, full of hate, spite and vendetta's. Anyone opposing Campbell, finds themselves out of a job. He is seen as a dictator, and, absolutely not someone, that instills trust. The masses, must be controlled, not won.
How did Martyn Brown get the position, Chief of staff?
Same way that Adrian Dix got his political position.
His mind is like a sieve. How old is the parliament system?
Goes back centuries.
It seems antiquated and too full of holes, and far too easy to manipulate. It seems, judge can use manipulation, either for you or against you. The Constitution, doesn't seem to apply in BC. Civil Rights and Liberties, are squashed.
Not really.
Democracy and Freedom, seem null and void. Ordinary BC people, have no faith in the Judicial system, nor the RCMP. Campbell, Hansen and the BC Liberals, are malevolent, full of hate, spite and vendetta's.
and where would that place the NDP?
Anyone opposing Campbell, finds themselves out of a job.
A bit far fetched there. Campbell has no say if the truck driver working for Beyers out of Kelowna who doesn't like Campbell gets to keep hauling to Kamloops or Vancouver.
Same thing with the office manager at the local real estate office in Williams Lake or Port McNeil.
He is seen as a dictator, and, absolutely not someone, that instills trust. The masses, must be controlled, not won.
So where were you when the NDP needed help last year?
Was the NDP not dictatorial when they were in government? The federal Liberals with Martin, and Chretein? The Conservatives?
I have found a article
Subject: [KCUTS] Campbell's Chief of Staff profiled
This very long article was sent to me recently, it provides an interesting insight into Campbell's chief of staff....
Jane
---------
The gatekeeper: The unknown man behind the Liberal revolution in B.C.
Times Colonist (Victoria)
Sunday, December 2, 2001
Monitor
Jody Paterson
This is worth a read, here are some excerpts.
Brown's hand is said to be all over Campbell's New Era document, his
influence felt in every corner of government. He's a driving force behind
the contentious treaty referendum. His blessing is sought before Campbell
makes a move, and he's widely credited by insiders for the Liberal win this
spring.
.....``He's the guy who bosses British Columbians around,'' says Nisga'a
negotiator and elder Joe Gosnell, who has tangled with Brown on treaty
issues. ``He's a very powerful man for someone who has never been elected.''
Brown cites his ongoing desire to stay out of the spotlight in declining to
be interviewed for this article.
"I'm not elected,'' he says. "I don't think it's the role of staff to be
talking about themselves or their role in government.''
The increasingly tight leash on government communications staff speaks to Brown's distaste for others' loose lips as well, as does his edict forbidding anyone but ministers from being quoted in the press. Ruffremembers him as a "micro-manager,'' which would explain the current rumour
that Brown vets every detail right down to the design of staffers'
business cards.
But Brown isn't above a little vindictiveness. Reportedly still brooding
over the rough treatment and cramped quarters accorded the Socreds after
Social Credit lost the 1991 election to the New Democrats, Brown has in turn
made life extremely difficult for the remnants of the NDP.
While lesser mortals usually tend to the details of divvying up office space after an election, Brown himself decided where the New Democrats would go --
jammed into one small office and a room in the basement.
"I'm not proud that it was New Democrats who did that to the Socreds back then,'' says one disgruntled NDP staffer. "But you'd think there'd be some
magnanimousness in the man.''
Read the whole article here.
http://www.kootenaycuts.com/archive/?660
EM
Post a Comment