Hey, Look!....BC Rail Was NOT In The News This Week.

AllTheCultsThatFitInTheFadingPublicConsciousness
RailGateRe-BuriedVille


But that does not mean that there weren't things going down.

Or not going down as it were.

Norm Farrell, with an assist by reader Lew, has the story.

Here's a chunk of that story (but I highly recommend you go read the entire thing):

This week, NDP MLA Kathy Corrigan, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, made a motion,

"That Mr. David Loukidelis and Mr. Graham Whitmarsh be requested to appear before the committee with respect to additional questions relating to the committee’s continued consideration of the Auditor General’s report titled An Audit of Special Indemnities."

The vote, with NDP MLA Bruce Ralston in the Chair, was predictable, with BC Liberals against and others in favour:

• marc.dalton.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Maple Ridge-Mission
• greg.kyllo.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Shuswap
• mike.morris.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Prince George-Mackenzie
• linda.reimer.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Port Moody-Coquitlam
• sam.sullivan.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Vancouver-False Creek
• laurie.throness.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Chilliwack-Hope
• john.yap.mla@leg.bc.ca - LIB, Richmond-Steveston

• Kathy.Corrigan.mla@leg.bc.ca - NDP, Burnaby-Deer Lake
• david.eby.mla@leg.bc.ca - NDP, Vancouver-Point Grey
• selina.robinson.mla@leg.bc.ca - NDP, Coquitlam-Maillardville
• shane.simpson.mla@leg.bc.ca - NDP, Vancouver-Hastings
• vicki.huntington.mla@leg.bc.ca - IND, Delta South

Ms. Huntington, a thoughtful and effective independent MLA, said this to the committee,

"Undoubtedly, the Auditor General's office did an enormous amount of work. It was with a narrow question in mind, however. It did not pursue the relationship between the plea bargaining and the lifting of the indemnity — or the indemnity. Thus, it leaves open the questions that are being pursued right now.

"All that being said and my discomfort that this committee would be pursuing it in this manner, I do think there are issues here that have never been explained to the public, which the public is deeply concerned about — always have been and still bring it up if the issue arises in any way, shape or form, at least to me.

"I think there is an issue of transparency here that if we can resolve would be to the benefit of the public. As difficult as the decision has been to me, I will support it — the motion — because I believe the public deserves the transparency that this discussion might provide them."

Lew, a reader and occasional commenter, has been following this issue closely and expressing himself to members of the Legislature. I think his recent correspondence is worth repeating:

"This is written in regard to the September 30, 2014 proceedings of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts considering the Auditor General Report: An Audit of Special Indemnities. You have all been previously copied on my January 20, 2014 letter to the Auditor General, and I wrote you on July 07, 2014 with further observations and questions, so I will not repeat them here.

"When I wrote him with questions on his report, the Auditor General responded that he was not at liberty to provide any answers except to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, within the scope of the audit or his mandate. I therefore forwarded my questions to the Committee with a request that my questions be asked. To this date the questions have not been asked of him, nor of any other persons before the Committee. In addition, several members of the Committee have expressed that they have outstanding questions. This is obviously a very unsatisfactory situation given the public’s right to know.

****

So.

What's it all about this time Alfie?

Well...

It's about that small matter of what is supposed to have, and what is supposed to have not, been a prior inducement for Mess'rs Basi and Virk to plead guilty according to all kinds of fine folks, including Mr. Gordon Campbell's former Attorney General Mr. Geoffrey Plant, who wrote the following on his 'blog' (gasp!) back in the spring of 2012:

..."The defendants pleaded guilty. What is clear is that there was no legally binding deal. There couldn’t be. The waiver of recovery of fees was not and could not be an inducement to plead guilty. As a matter of law they were not connected. But that was of course the outcome. It was done very, very carefully, to make sure the rules were followed."...

Most interestingly, Mr. Plant also wrote the following, which is something I, and Paul Willcocks too, took great umbrage to at the time:

..." But it was understood that with guilty pleas, the claim to fee recovery would be waived."...

And never forget the following....

Which is that this 'deal' came down just as the good Mr. Gary Collins, who went to work at the very same private company that the above-named Mr. Graham Whitmarsh in the wake of his quick exit from Mr. Gordon Campbell's Railgate government, was set to take the stand.

And finally, ask yourself the following...

Did the judge in the case know about the prior understanding and the six million dollar chunk of change that underpinned said understanding  when she accepted the plea deal that kept Mr. Collins from taking the stand and answering direct questions from the defense in open court while under oath?

(not to mention the rest of the Railgate Top 40)


________
As for the sub-header to this post....Well....You know.


.