Friday, May 13, 2016

For The Record....Another Conversation In Clarkland.

TheirConversations
WereShortAndSweetVille


Yesterday, we were talking about the 'conversations' that Premier Christy Clark and her brother Bruce Clark had with Massett Village Chief Councillor Ken Rea that helped make $150,000 in public money appear out of (according to an empty FOIR response) out of thin air.

All of which got me to thinking about a 'conversation' that Mr. Clark had with a former member of the Gordon Campbell government that Ms. Clark herself ran away from as fast as she could back in the days of yore.

Neither of which had anything to do with anything untoward whatsoever.

Here is a transcript of that long ago conversation, for the record, based on a recording made by the RCMP for no reasons of untowardness whatsoverest, even if the discussion in the call was focussed on a draft  'requests for proposal' (RFP) for a certain railway spur line whose proposed  'sale' (which was to be based, presumably, on responses to the 'RFP') would later be cancelled based on completely, totally and absolutely unrelated reports of any and all potential untowardness from that very same RCMP:


David Basi: "So basically, um, what we have is the draft RFP." 



Bruce Clark: "Okay."

Basi: "Um, that uh, we have t' make changes and y'know, uh, um, we can draft it anyway we want now, right: so..."

Clark: "Whose, wh', whose hands is it in?"

Basi: "It's, it's in our hands right now."

Clark: "Okay."

Basi: "Uh, and then it'll go back to transportation. And then they'll look at it and then they'll uh, um, issue the official RFP."

Clark: "Okay. What are the time lines like?"

Basi: "Uh, two weeks."

Basi: "So, I can sit on this thing for two weeks. So if you come back next week then you can take it and look at it, show it to them. They can, they can, y'know, change some of the words around, that's obviously, some buzz words they wanna see in there, right?"

Clark: "Yeah."

Basi: "And these, these companies know how to, how to, y'know, get the fluff out of this shit and how to tailor it to themselves, right?"

Clark: "Of course." 


...{snippety doo-dah}... 


Clark: "Wonder, wonder if it would be better if you got it couriered from here or not?"

Basi: "I don't care. Whatever you want. I don't care."

Clark: "Okay, well maybe I'll get you to courier it to Europe for me, or something."

Basi: "You want me to courier it to Europe?"

Clark: "Sure, you could do that."


...{snippety doodle-dandy}...


Clark: "Or uh, or, or can it be faxed or something or?"

Basi: "Oh it can be faxed, yeah. Do you wanna give me a fax, secure fax number?"

Clark: "Yeah, I'll get you a secure fax number and we can do it that way."

Basi: "Yeah, you get me a fax number and I'll fax it to you.

Clark: "Sounds great my friend."



Gosh.

Wonder if there are any other 'conversations' recorded by the Horsemen from days of yore that we have never heard thanks to the sudden emergence (out of thin air again and/or the prying eyes of the cabinet or the treasury board) of $6,000,000 in public money?



.

1 comment:

Lew said...

RossK, speaking of for the record, I submitted a comment April 03, 2012 to the post you link to. In that post I reference a letter from the Legal Services Branch advising me the fee waiver was granted before the guilty pleas were made in court, and before any liability for the legal fees existed.

I would like your readers to know that the letter was in fact from then Assistant Deputy Attorney General Richard Fyfe (he is now Deputy Attorney General), and that letter and another he sent me don’t appear to be entirely accurate.

First, the waiver the Deputy Finance Minister signed October 20, 2010 was backdated to October 12 in an attempt to make it appear he had authority to sign because there had not yet been pleas triggering the liability clauses in the indemnity agreements. The Auditor General stated this was okay because he signed within the 30-day window allowing the defendants to appeal after sentence. But the Crown’s obligation to sign the waiver under the terms of the October 14, 2010 agreement between the defendants and the Crown was conditional on the defendants first signing a waiver dated October 12, 2010 in which they effectively surrendered their right to appeal sentence. The effect of this is that the defendants became liable for the accumulated legal fees as soon as the court convicted them on October 18, 2010. The Deputy Finance Minister did not possess the requisite authority for that $6.2 million amount.

Second, I suggested to Mr. Fyfe that the Crown was obligated by the plea agreement (and it was quite clear we were discussing the October 14, 2010 agreement) to sign the waiver after the guilty pleas were made and convictions entered. He responded, “Contrary to the inference in your letter, I can confirm that the plea agreement was arranged by the special prosecutor who had no knowledge of any discussions regarding the issue of legal fees for the two defendants.”

He wrote that knowing full well that not only was there such an agreement (remember, this was long before the agreement was leaked to the public), but he had signed it.

Silly me for trusting the Attorney General’s ministry. It won’t happen again.