Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Basi-Virk - Justice Bennett written decision on disclosure of Premier Gordon Campbell, cabinet emails

I am indebted to BC Mary at The Legislature Raids and to regular poster North Van's Grumps for finding the link to Justice Elizabeth Bennett's written ruling of July 20, 2009 on the Basi-Virk defence disclosure application.

While I reported on this decision at the time, I believe the full version is of sufficient interest to my readers that I am pleased to include it in full below.

Lastly, while as always this is a free speech blog, I caution any and all posters from drawing conclusions or making comments that are defamatory about any of the information below - they will not be published.

* * * * *



Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi, Bobby Singh Virk
& Aneal Basi

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett

Oral Ruling on Application for Third Party Records

In Chambers
July 20, 2009

Counsel for the Crown
W.S. Berardino, Q.C.

& J. Winteringham, Q.C.

Counsel for the Accused, Dave Basi
M. Bolton, Q.C.

& C. Hatcher

Counsel for the Accused, Bobby Virk
K.G. McCullough

Counsel for the Accused, Aneal Basi
J. Doyle

& E. Dance

Counsel for the Executive Council and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

G. Copley, Q.C.

The Nominee
L. Webster

Place of Hearing:
Vancouver, B.C.

[1] THE COURT: This is the second in a series of applications by the defence for the disclosure of third party records. The application relates to the records of the Executive Cabinet. The application was filed on June 11, 2009, in response to an order I made on March 12, 2009, requiring that the application that was then presently before the Court be narrowed and defined.

[2] The present application reads as follows:

1. That all records, documents and information, including information in electronic form (collectively "the Records") held in any office, storage facility or repository by or on behalf of:

a. the Office of the Premier located in Victoria and Vancouver, particularly the records of Premier Gordon Campbell, Martyn Brown, Mike Morton, Lara Dauphinee, Ken Dobell, Brenda Eaton, Cynthia Haraldsen, Jay Schlosar, Dave Cunningham, Neil Sweeney, Tom Syer and Jessica McDonald;

b. the Public Affairs Bureau, particularly Stuart Chase;

c. the Ministry of Finance, particularly the records of Minister Gary Collins, Paul Taylor, Chris Trumpy, Dave Morhart, and Yvette Wells;

d. the Ministry of Transportation, particularly the records of Judith Reid, Minister Kevin Falcon, and Dan Doyle;

e. the Ministry of the Attorney General, particularly the records of Geoff Plante, Allan Seckel, and Rob Lapper;

f. the Ministry of the Solicitor General, particularly the records of Minister Coleman and Assistant Deputy Minister Kevin Begg;

g. the Ministry of Education, particularly the records of Minister Christy Clark and Ministerial Assistant Kim Haakstad;

h. the Ministry of Advanced Education, particularly the records of Minister Shirley Bond; and

i. the Ministry of Energy and Mines, particularly the records of Minister Richard Neufeld;

which relate to the divestiture of BC Rail Freight Division (hereinafter "BC Rail") and the proposed divestiture of the Roberts Bank Port Subdivision (hereinafter "Roberts Bank") and the bidding process related to same, including but not limited to the BC Rail Steering Committee and the BC Rail Evaluation Committee. The applicants seek such records during the time period from June 5, 2001 to the present;

(ii) the selection of, and duties assigned to Ministerial and Executive Assistants and, in particular, all records relating to efforts of Ministerial and Executive Assistants to influence public opinion through the media with regard to Provincial Government policies or initiatives. The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 to the present;

(iii) the strategy policy and any related decision-making pertaining to the influencing, gauging or monitoring of public opinion through the media and other public forums. The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 to the present;

(vi) public opinion polling reports, including those provided by the B.C. Liberal Party to the Executive Branch of Government, including the Executive Council and the Office of the Premier which pertain to public opinion on transportation, finance and budget surplus and deficit issues, and further, including but not limited to the divestiture of BC Rail and the balancing of the provincial budget. The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 to the present;

(v) the provision by the Executive Branch of Government to Members of Cabinet and their Ministerial and Executive Assistants of cellular telephones, Blackberries, computers and other personal digital assistants, email accounts and other communication devices. The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 through to the cessation of employment of the individuals named at paragraph 1(a) through (i) above, with the Executive Council;

(vi) the provision by the B.C. Liberal Party to Cabinet Ministers and their Ministerial and Executive Assistants of cellular telephones, Blackberries, computers and other personal digital assistants, email accounts and other communication devices. The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 through to the cessation of employment of the individuals named at paragraph 1(a) through (i) above, during the same period of June 5, 2001 through to the cessation of the individuals' employment with the Executive Council;

(vii) any communications between Cabinet Ministers and their Ministerial and Executive Assistants and lobbyists Brian Kieran, Eric Bornmann, Jamie Elmhirst, and their companies, including but not limited to Pilothouse, Kieran Consulting, Pacific Public Affairs, K&E Consulting and their respective staff. The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 through to the cessation of the employment of individuals named at paragraph 1(a) through (i) above, with the Executive Council;

(viii) the acceptance or receipt of any gift or benefit by a Cabinet Minister, Ministerial Assistant or Executive Assistant, including but not limited to:

(1) Vancouver Canucks tickets or seating in private boxes;

(2) B.C. Lions tickets or seating in private boxes;

(3) the use of any facilities at General Motors Place;

(4) tickets or admittance to the Cirque de Soleil; and

(5) Famous Players "Big Card".

The applicants seek such records during the time period of June 5, 2001 through the cessation of the employment of the individuals named at paragraph 1(a) through (i) above with the Executive Council;

be produced to this Honourable Court for review pursuant to the procedures set out in R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 (S.C.C.).

2. An Order that such portions of the said Records that this Honourable Court may find likely relevant to an issue at the trial of this matter be produced to the applicants.

[3] The factual matrix for this application and the legal principles applicable are set out in R. v. Basi, June 30, 2009, 2009 BCSC 907, in relation to the third party records of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. I need not repeat them here. This decision should be read in conjunction with that decision.

[4] This is stage one of the O'Connor application. At this point the defence only needs to show that the documents sought are likely relevant to the case before the Court and then the documents will be produced to me. The threshold is low and the defence need not specify the use to which the document may be put (see R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3; 301 D.L.R. (4th) 1). At this stage, I am not dealing with whether the documents still exist or have been destroyed.

[5] This application is similar in wording to the application brought for production of the records of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. Although broadly worded, the records sought, I am told, are emails.

[6] The essence of the charges against the accused is that they accepted gifts from lobbyists Brian Kieran, Eric Bornmann and Jamie Elmhirst, their companies, including Pilothouse, Kieran Consulting, Pacific Public Affairs, K&E Consulting, and their respective staff. When I refer to the lobbyists, it is this group to which I refer. They are also charged with allegations of leaking confidential documents to the lobbyists, again in exchange for gifts and promises of employment.

[7] The charges, and in particular the fraud charges, are broadly worded and encompass a potentially large factual matrix.

[8] The defence says that if they accepted gifts, (which is denied), then it was in the ordinary course of business for Government. I pause to say that I am not commenting on the validity of any defence at this point. Further, the defence says that if Government documents were leaked to the lobbyists, then someone else leaked them. Finally, anything that the accused before the Court did was at the direction of their "political Masters", a term that remains undefined. I assume that it refers to the Minister for whom each worked, as well as the Office of the Premier.

[9] Part of the background for the defence is the contention by the defence that CN Rail was always going to be the successful bidder for BC Rail and that the accused were directed to make efforts to keep OmniTrax in the bidding process to ensure that the bidding process looked legitimate. The lobbyists worked for OmniTrax. This allegation, which has been supported to a degree by documents suggesting that other proponents were concerned about the fairness of the bidding process, makes the process leading up to the sale of BC Rail relevant, including the core review. Further, it is alleged that OmniTrax was to be the successful proponent in the sale of Roberts Bank Port Subdivision (“Roberts Bank”) as a consolation prize for staying in the BC Rail bidding process. Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi are charged with fraud in relation to the Roberts Bank bidding process. As a result, this brings into focus the relevance of the documents relating to the proposed sale of Roberts Bank.

[10] The Crown concedes that any email communication between the lobbyists and Christy Clark, Richard Neufeld, Gary Collins, Judith Reid and Paul Taylor are likely relevant. The Crown submits that the rest of the application should be dismissed.

[11] The defence point to a number of emails which it received from BC Rail to or from a number of Government officials, both elected and non-elected, which were not received by the defence as a result of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165 [FOI] process. This point is well taken. In spite of what appear to be extensive and lengthy efforts by the Government officials to comply with the FOI request, a number of records were not uncovered.

[12] It is important to understand the thrust of the defence in relation to the fraud counts, and that is the question of whether the bidding process was not legitimate from the outset. As noted, there is some documentation which suggests that others were concerned about the same thing.

[13] Thus, documents in relation to the divestiture of BC Rail and the process affecting Roberts Bank will meet the low threshold established in O'Connor and recently affirmed in McNeil. There is evidence filed to support the request for emails on this point from the following people: Premier Gordon Campbell, Martyn Brown, Mike Morton, Lara Dauphinee, Ken Dobell, Brenda Eaton, Dave Cunningham, Tom Syer, Jessica McDonald and Jay Schlosar. There is not a sufficient basis to order the production of the records of Cynthia Haraldsen and Neil Sweeney.

[14] Further, in relation to the divestiture of BC Rail and the sale of Roberts Bank with respect to the Ministry of Finance, there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to find that the emails of Gary Collins, Paul Taylor, Chris Trumpy, Dave Morhart and Yvette Wells are also likely relevant. Mr. Collins was the Minister of Finance at the time and involved in the sale. Chris Trumpy was on the Evaluation Committee and many of his emails have already been produced through BC Rail. Mr. Morhart was also on the Evaluation Committee and advised the police that he retained thousands of his emails. The police did not seek to recover the emails at that time. Ms. Wells has already produced a number of documents through the FOI process, and if she has emails on this subject they also meet the threshold test of likely relevant. Mr. Taylor was the Deputy Finance Minister at the time and was apparently a friend or neighbour of Brian Kieran.

[15] With respect to the Ministry of Transportation, Ms. Reid was the Minister of Transportation at the time of the sale and the Minister who was thought to be in charge of the sale of BC Rail. This concept is challenged with some support. In any event, any email communication by Ms. Reid regarding the divestiture of BC Rail and the sale of Roberts Bank also meets the likely relevant standard. However, the same cannot be said for Mr. Falcon or Dan Doyle. The evidence is insufficient to show that either of these people would have emails that would be likely relevant to the matter before the Court.

[16] The records of the then Attorney General Geoff Plante, the Deputy Minister, Allan Seckel, and Robert Lapper are also sought. The evidence does not support a finding of likely relevance for these records. There is nothing in the documents to suggest that any of these three people communicated information by email that would be likely relevant to any issue before the Court.

[17] The defence also requests the emails of Solicitor General Rich Coleman and Assistant Deputy Minister Kevin Begg. The material filed shows the involvement of some degree by the Solicitor General and Mr. Begg in the search of the Legislature. The evidence supports the fact that any email communication by either of these two individuals relating to the search of the Legislature with anyone, including the RCMP, is also likely relevant.

[18] Ms. Clark was the Deputy Minister and may have expressed concern over the CN Rail dealing at a Cabinet meeting. Further, there is some evidence that indicates that she may have had some dealings with Pilothouse. Emails of Ms. Clark relating to the divestiture of BC Rail and the sale of the Roberts Bank, as well as any contact with Pilothouse, are likely relevant. However, there is insufficient foundation to order that emails of her assistant, Kim Haakstad, be produced.

[19] Ms. Bond and Mr. Neufeld both had significant interest in the BC Rail deal as part of the Northern Caucus and may have been lobbied by Pilothouse, thus any email relating to either the areas of the BC Rail and sale of Roberts Bank and Pilothouse are likely relevant.

[20] A number of documents were obtained by the defence from a news reporter who obtained them pursuant to an FOI request. These documents relate to the conduct of the Public Affairs Bureau of Government and the coverage of this case by Stuart Chase on behalf of the Public Affairs Bureau. Much was made of the fact that Mr. Chase was covering the applications in Court. However, nothing in the material suggests that Mr. Chase's conduct is likely relevant to the issues which will eventually be raised at trial. Simply because something is characterized as political does not make it relevant.

[21] The same may be said for the extensive requests by the defence for the Government's media policy and public opinion as set out in paragraphs 1(ii), (iii) and (iv). Whatever the Government's plan was with respect to the media and the public opinion has little, if anything, to do with the charges before the Court and the defences put forward.

[22] The defence also requests information regarding the supplying of electronic communication devices to Cabinet Ministers and their Assistants by either the Executive Branch of Government and the B.C. Liberal Party. There is insufficient evidence to support this request.

[23] In summary, the emails from the following persons in relation to the divestiture of BC Rail and the proposed sale of Roberts Bank are likely relevant:

the records of Premier Gordon Campbell, Martyn Brown, Mike Morton, Lara Dauphinee, Ken Dobell, Brenda Eaton, Jay Schlosar, Dave Cunningham, Tom Syer, Jessica McDonald, Gary Collins, Paul Taylor, Chris Trumpy, Dave Morhart, Yvette Wells, Judith Reid, Christy Clark, Shirley Bond and Richard Neufeld, but not Cynthia Haraldsen, Kevin Falcon, Dan Doyle, Kim Haakstad or Neil Sweeney. The dates within which these records are to be found likely relevant is the parameter of January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2004, for the same reason as stated in the MLA application.

[24] Likely relevance has not been established for the records of Stuart Chase from the Public Affairs Bureau.

[25] Likely relevance has not been established for Geoff Plante, Allan Seckel or Rob Lapper. Likely relevance has been established for the records of Rich Coleman and Kevin Begg from December 1 to December 31, 2003 in relation to the obtaining and execution of the search of the Legislature.

[26] The records of the following are likely relevant with respect to communications with Pilothouse: Christy Clark, Richard Neufeld, Gary Collins, Judith Reid, Paul Taylor and Shirley Bond.

[27] The remainder of the application is dismissed.

This morning when I gave these reasons I overlooked Premier Gordon Campbell’s emails, if any, with the lobbyists. These were found likely relevant on June 30, 2009, in his capacity as an MLA. I intended to include the emails as a member of the Executive Cabinet.

“E. Bennett J.”


The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett


Dawn Steele said...

What on earth could Christy Clark and Shirley Bond (at the time the ministers for education and higher education respectively) have possibly had to do with the sale of BC Rail, I wonder?

BC Mary said...


I'm very pleased that you made further use of the solid research being turned in by North Van's Grumps.

It strikes such a solid note confirming citizens' interest in this trial.

Very encouraging.

Skookum1 said...

Clark was Deputy Premier, a position which would have involved being briefed on everything going on in the P.O. (theoretically). As for Bond, I'm not sure, but I'm sure we're all about to find out (finally)......

DPL said...

Dawn, maybe it's because they were in Cabinet at the time.

The judge will be doing a lot of reading in the next while.

G West said...

I think Paul Nettleton answered that question some time ago...I can't remember exactly when, but I suspect you can find the details at Mary's place

RossK said...


The digging of BC Mary and friends can help you answer at least half of your question.....

Check this out.



Crankypants said...

This ruling by the judge makes very interesting reading. The accounts I remember reading in the local(Province/Sun)media seemed to indicate that the judge gave the defense everything they asked for. My take is that she eliminated a fair amount of what they asked for. Let's hope she gets what she has asked for and maybe we can actually get on to a trial.

Anonymous said...

Well Bill, the big question is who is not on this list of ON-THE-TAKE self-declared elites ?

My only problem with all of this is why did she leave off: Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand & Imelda Marcos, Bernie Madoff and Al Capone from the emails list?


Mistere said...

One questions why the mainstream networks have paid scant attention to this matter... they have a journalistic responsibility to hold our leaders feet to the fire on these matters.

Dawn Steele said...

Thanks for the link, Gazeteer. Nettleton's letter mentions Shirley Bond being at that meeting (along with Pat Bell, who's not named in the court document request) but he's not clear re whether she was just finding out about the BCR plan, like he was, or whether she was part of the inside circle making plans over his head as the BCR critic.

The mention of Doug Walls brought back the very familiar (and in some ways similar) story re what was happening at MCFD at that same time. After promising in the 2001 election to improve child and family services and "stop the endless restructuring" at MCFD, the first thing they did post-election was to launch a major restructuring program (which 9 years later is still in progress) and order budget cuts of 23% to child and family services!

The Walls audit showed that he and other Campbell confidants were merrily going ahead with their own version of MCFD restructuring in the backrooms while stringing our community along on in showpiece consultations. And we all know how well that went...

The audit also noted that he and Bond were very close and were in constant communication in those early days of the new government. One Walls e-mail suggested that Bond had breached Cabinet confidentiality but both denied it and the audit accepted their word for it.

A. G. Tsakumis said...

Christy comes up far too often to have been a simple, peripheral player in this, no? The allegations a re very serious. If there is nothing to them, dedicate an entire editorial on her show to saying so. Her about-to-be ex-husband was questioned and his office searched. Same goes for her brother.

I wonder what the defence may have seen or know...

Anonymous said...

My only question is knowing all this why can't the court's act or the rcmp ,for the life of me it sure seems like every ones on the take here ,and then they slam us with more taxes,STOP THE INSANITY RCMP DO YOUR FRIGGIN JOB AND ARREST SOMEBODY!!!!!!!!,thats your job for christ sakes!!!!!

Anonymous said...

@ 2:29 some fallguys have been arrested, we are to make do with them, that's how it works. Other folks get deals, reasons are varied and one can't help but speculate as to why that is but that's how it works. We have got this far because of the war on drugs, I guess that makes the war on drugs somewhat of a success? LMAO!

Anonymous said...

So far there is still no smoking gun being produced from the defence and lot’s of fishing going on. I expect when it comes to the Crown’s turn we will find that Pilothouse likely kept very detailed records on exactly what; where and when they had “meetings” with Basi and Virk.

I am with everyone else. I can’t wait for this trial to begin and then hear what the Crown’s s case is made up of. Somehow I don’t see the Crown launching the same kind of fishing trip.

Anonymous said...

Bill BC Mary has a good site albeit it is mostly a cut and paster. More or less a compendium of other peoples work. Although I like her site I take issue with her going on and on about disclosure and transparency, when she ferociously censors her comments section for reasons other than what she states.

BC Mary said...

Anon 6:58 AM,

A kinder, gentler way of describing The Legislature Raids would be to call it an archive ... because that's what it is: an archive so that someday it may be helpful to anyone writing the books or articles about this dangerous period of B.C. history.

Ya want to hear more from BC Mary? Well, shucks ... OK, if you insist. But didn't you just complain that I say too much about honesty and transparency, or some such things??

Thanks for the chuckle as I try to imagine myself "ferociously" censoring comments. Is it any different from quietly deleting someone who is off-topic, or bullying?

Anonymous said...

Mary that guys ignorant continue your great work and your blog and Bills are a must for anyone to read I'm sure one day these fools will see the importance of great people like Bill,YOU,NVG,skookum,leah,Gary E,Gazzeteer and all you others I missed;if not for you I would be an ignorant and just would of carried on not knowing that shit that goes on and EVIL shit it is shame on campbell and all the perpetrators of this great province God bless you all from A to Z.And my hero professor ROBIN MATHEWS!!!!!!!!! God speed all of you.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 10:44;

Your misguided faith in the "crown" is laughable. I can't wait to see what the records of the Pilothouse boys hold for all to see. Who they were meeting, what they were saying, what their billing records will reveal!

I suppose the next thing you will tell us is the rcmp would never taser a man to death at the airport, lie about it, withhold a damaging email and then have it magically appear only when it was discovered, so the rumor goes, when it was about to be leaked to the media.

Anonymous said...

To 7:28pm/ Do not assume my comments to imply I have any faith in the Crown. I am simply speculating that Pilothouse likely will have very precisely documents on where/what/when went on in their meeting with Basi/Virk.

Almost as if maybe one day they might have known the Basi/Virk duo would be hung out. So better make the certain they had all the nails ready to bang into the coffin. After all Pilothouse seem to be walking on water so far in this one and Basi and Virk have so far produced squat.

Reading the judges written ruling is pretty clear that Basi and Virk were trying to cast as big as net as possible to hopefully catch something to help them out. The judge reduced the size of the net in half roughly. The plot thickens and the fishing not so good

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Sorry 11:05 but I am only speculating that I believe that Pilothouse likely will be producing a fair bit more actual documentation than the smoke and mirrors show the defence is putting on. Whatever Pilothouse allegedly offered I am thinking they will have actual proof. It will be interesting how the defence strategy changes when this comes out.

No need to get so defensive. Sooner or later this circus show will get on the road and we can hear the other side. I prefer to keep an open mind. Unlike so many of you here who have already passed judgement for your own wishful thinking political purposes.

Anonymous said...


You can call it an archive, but really it is mostly a compendium of others people work (cut and paste). So my question to you is, it not mostly a cut and paste site?

Like I said I like it (the site) you might of missed that part. Another question, is your comments section free speech like BT’s?
Your criteria of censorship which is really what it is, might be better restricted to defamation, to avoid obvious conflicts with your espoused values. Better say it again as you are not handling the criticism too well, I like your site. Also by calling posters chowderheads which you did recently, is that not a personal attack (bullying) look it up. Criticism is a two way street where I live, how about you? Oh yeah did I mention that I like your site.

Anonymous said...

No arguments here 10:28. I agree with you and well said.

Anonymous said...

And by the way who's influence were they peddling? That's the question,and we all know the answer to that,so why doesn't anybody acknowledge?

Anonymous said...

what ever happened to the saying lets sacrifice the few for the salvation of the masses?In this case the opposite is the fact!And the few that are being shielded,are not worthy of any efforts!

Bill Tieleman said...

I have removed a comment after an observant reader contacted me to point out that it drew a conclusion that is still before the courts. I regret that I had missed that earlier.

As always, I caution posters that comments are always welcome and this is a free speech blog as much as possible but defamatory comments or those that are obscene are not tolerated.

I moderate comments but sometimes miss a point so I welcome readers' ensuring I'm aware.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Bill, It was not a conclusion,but an impression that is left or speculated,that's why these answers are needed,it is proven time and time again,that the impression or even a notion,of improprieties is enough!Why no answers!If they are innocent,why stonewall the process?

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 4:21

The counter spin boiler room must be going full bore in anticipation of whats going to happen on August 17. I would like to refresh your memory, do you recall the "blabby deputy minister" email from your friends at Pilothouse?

Stay tuned, much more to come!!

Skookum1 said...

Anonymous 8:40, you've got PAB written all over you forehead....either that or you're buddies with Pilothouse....bore us some more with your allegations that Mary focuses on defamation, or that her site is just a "cut and paste"'re a fool, or somebody's fool anyway.....

And to Dawn - about Shirley Bond, wasn't her riding a "BC Rail riding"? one of the Prince George ridings? That would be reason enough for her to involve; her portfolio is incidental. We know the Education ministry wasn't offering courses in railway safety management to CN executives.....

Anonymous said...

Please re-read the post. If I am working for PAB (which I'm not) I will be fired for telling all my friends and associates about the scandal of BCR. I have been following the case since the raid with disgust at the time delays and seeming obfuscation. BCMary does run a cut and paste site, that is obvious to anyone, I would think? However it is a good place to go for the scoop du jour(s).
So no there is no PAB logo on my melon, otherwise please keep up the good work and your insightful sleuthful observations.


Anonymous said...

Isn't that what news is a cut and paste cut being all the information and paste to tell everyone about it,an opinion of your own,(editorial),then sit back and wait for other peoples opinions,then edit (moderate) ,then post all the pertinent and confirmed information you have gathered so whats,the problem?And by the way it's a damn good site and thank everyone there for all the news on this case!

Anonymous said...

@ 8:04
News used to be about journalism, about investigation of the issue, about fact checking, about follow-up, about perserverance...

Citizen journalism on the other hand is not to be confused with cut and paste, although when cut and paste is done properly it is useful reading and a great service of convenience like BCM's site. I think BCM falls into the last description for the most part.

To BCMary:

The following still stand as open public questions to BCMary:

1) Would you agree your site (as good as it is) is mostly a cut and paste compendium of other peoples work(s)?

2) Is your comments section of your blog a free speech area (barring defamation of course)?

3) Will you admit you called posters chowderheads, and how do you reconcile that with your stance against bullying?

OK BCM, the shoe being tossed around your site is on your foot now let's see if you can model the open and transparent behaviour required to answer the above questions and demonstrate that which is so lacking in the BCR scandal...honesty.

Come on we know your reading this....

BC Mary said...

Well, hello again, Anonymous 2:51:

I was thinking of you, the other day, when I posted two editorials of my very own, on the topic of whether or not Madam Justice Bennett will decide to continue presiding over the BC Rail Case.

As I checked them over, it did cross my mind that my original work might not be up to your high bloggerdom standards but, heck, I told myself, you asked for it.

Do you live in Vancouver? If so, how about attending the Monday Aug 17 session of the Basi Virk pre-trial hearings and sending in your comments? Like the rest of us Citizen Journalists, you won't get paid for that -- but you might enjoy the feeling of doing something to help us understand the ins and outs of this important case.

CanadianMalcontent said...

So have the emails been turned over? No one is reporting this other than the fact the Judge needs to be replaced as the current one is moving to the appeal courts.

Anonymous said...

Let's all join forces and make sure this HST gets to referendum.