Tuesday, March 19, 2019

ONGOING GENOCIDE caused by JUDICIAL SUPPRESSION of the EXISTING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the Existing Aboriginal Rights
                                           Part Two
 by Robin Mathews



                                               We turn away, easily, from injustice done to others.

Anyone in Canada who can read should read this book by Bruce Clark.  It opens up such important aspects of history and politics and justice in Canada that it should be required reading by all those in the country who can read. At least two points of focus are present in Bruce Clark’s Ongoing Genocide. Perhaps the most important is the betrayal of the Constitution and laws growing from it by the Courts in Canada and the Legal Establishment in order to impose upon the indigenous peoples an arbitrary and illicit regime that has and does lead to their deracination, alienation, social isolation, unnecessary illnesses and very high levels of suicide.  (Quite apart from robbing them of their real status in law and in the courts.)

Part One of this column, devoted to the subject, reviewed the process by which “as an unvarying constant” the judicial and legal Establishments in Canada have created an illegitimate regime of judge-made law that goes unchallenged and that contradicts the clearest Constitutional statements and flowing from them -  the precedents upon which the fabric of justice is (normally) maintained.

Part One also proposed that bastardized law and adjudication are not confined to indigenous matters but are very frequently almost as a parallel and so, perhaps, in some sort of relation  the rule of actions in the Higher Courts whenever  Established Power, criminal government, and/or large Corporate Power come into contention with the Constitution (and, therefore come into the realm of Canada’s judicial and legal Establishments).

What needs also to be focused upon is Bruce Clark himself, his struggle to gain justice for the indigenous peoples, his having been cited for Contempt of Court, imprisoned, and disbarred and, therefore, prevented, ever again, from engaging in the practice of law.

The reason he was disbarred is simple and in perfect harmony with the large betrayal of the Constitution and laws properly growing with and from it.  The assembly undertaking the adjudication of his status agreed that Clark was serious, articulate, informed, and skillful in his presentation of fact and argument. Brought against him at some point was an allegation that his unpopular opinion had been answered (already) forty times!  If it had been answered even once (by, of course, a judge) a record would be available: none exists. That his position was prevented from being articulated in any way recognizable by the Court is quite another matter. Being denied the right to articulate the position for the court to consider is quite another condition.

And so “with the greatest regret of course” and only because he would not accept the fraudulent denial (and attempted erasure) of the Constitutional realities concerning the indigenous peoples Bruce Clark was, regretfully, disbarred from the practice of law: because of the finding that the solicitor is ungovernable (p. 98)

His story is known by many familiar with indigenous history in Canada.  It is not unknown among judges and lawyers across Canada.  And yet there is no movement among bright young lawyers (or bright old judges!) to re-visit the persecution of Bruce Clark and to seek justice in his case.  Seeking justice apparently has very little to do with the lives and the professional conduct of the members of the Legal and Judicial Establishments in Canada.

Unfortunately, in his description of the usurpations of the Constitutional identity of Canada’s indigenous peoples, Bruce Clark cannot do anything else but point to the (knowing) participation of the Judicial and Legal Establishments in that process.  Judges (and lawyers) have to know when judge-made law is usurping the Constitution and Constitutionally-empowered law.

Populations (not just Canadians) respond to knowledge of serious injustices done to others with remarkable calm.  History has many astonishing precedents. In the 1630s Galileo was forced by the then all-powerful Roman Catholic faith to recant his proposition that the earth moved around the sun and was not the centre of the solar system (or, indeed, of the whole universe). We laugh, now, about the foolishness of power at that time forgetting, perhaps, that Galileo was punished for life and forced to live under continuing house arrest.

In time, perhaps, Canadians will laugh at the stupid Canadian State, the stupid judicial and legal Establishments which engaged in the destruction of Bruce Clark’s career as a lawyer, permanently punishing him (like Galileo) for speaking the truth.

But for anyone with the smallest sense of fair-mindedness and a shred of belief that justice can win out in Canada, justice for Bruce Clark sometime in the future is not good enough.  Where is the lawyer or the judge who will begin, now, the movement to erase the astonishing injustice and indignity visited upon Bruce Clark? Surely there is one man or one woman in the legal and judicial Establishments willing and able to take on that task.  Unless of course being a member of either of those Establishments absolutely rules out such a possibility.

 Contact: Robin Mathew

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Ongoing Genocide and Its Shadow World. by Robin Mathews, March 2019


Ongoing Genocide and Its Shadow World.   

Part I
     Contact: Robin Mathew                                  

Electromagnetic Press has produced a new book by Bruce Clark, scholarly expert and hands-on activist in the matter of North American indigenous peoples history, philosophy, and “especially“ the reality of their present legal being, their rights, and their status in the activity of the higher courts.

Central to his argument, Bruce Clark makes clear that the constitutional and (therefore) luminously obvious thread of law (and precedent) leading from the eighteenth century (especially from the Royal Proclamation of 1763) defines the independent and autonomous legal being of today’s indigenous people living on unceded land, land not having been subjected to voluntary sale or other voluntary alienation.

In the very simplest terms, it may be said, Clark observes, that all the courts of Canada [the USA presents another jurisdiction “equally malevolent” all the legal and judicial Establishments of Canada magisterially choose to violate the Constitutionally constructed law and the precedents developing from it and so  violate the rights and persons of indigenous peoples in Canada. Apart from the Constitution and precedents growing from the eighteenth century, the government of John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, created the Indian Act and the Residential Schools structure seen by many as (whatever may have been intended) genocidal actions continuing into the present.  And the Province of B.C. passed (ultra vires) a law alienating indigenous land from indigenous control. Thus we have the title of Bruce Clark’s most recent book: Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the Existing  Aboriginal Rights. (www.electromagneticprint.com)

That primary fact is worth repeating: Bruce Clark alleges the Courts, the Legal, and the Judicial Establishments in Canada act, concerning the indigenous people, in open contempt of the Constitutionally constructed Rule of Law in the country we designate by the name Canada of which those Establishments are a part.

Bruce Clark’s book is made up largely of essays published in Dissident Voices over the past ten years or so. As a result, certain key arguments and presentations of historical and legal fact are repeated in a way that gives them exceptional force.  The historical structure of both the undeniable independence of North America’s indigenous population and the unbroken violation of that status by the ‘settler populations’ is presented in a way that throws light upon the real functioning of the whole Canadian society. Bruce Clark tends to see indigenous legal fact and history as unique, and (in important ways) it is.

But it may be wrong to suggest that the ‘habit of mind’ employed to produce a complete reshaping of law and the ‘judge-making’ of a false reality into which all indigenous matters are placed is unique to what would have been called a few decades ago ‘Indian Affairs’.

One is sorely tempted to make comparisons “which are visibly there“ between the treatment of Canada’s indigenous people under a ‘mangled Rule of Law’ and the attempts (which have already been successful in other ‘democracies’) to vacate gigantic corporations (SNC-Lavalin, and its kind) from criminal prosecution and deliver them to a gray area of what Roman Catholics might call ‘Penance and Absolution’. Indigenous people are mangled in a Corporate-inspired expression of greed and larceny, Clark suggests, transmuted into judge-and-Legal-Establishment-made law.  Corporations like SNC-Lavalin have ‘special’ legislation created for them alone, so that no individual in their ranks will face adjudication under a common Rule of Law ever ... because deferred prosecution agreements will remove them from any universal Rule of Law and its meaningful punishments.

What the Justin Trudeau Liberals passed (semi-secretively) in a budget package of legislation (one of the famous Omnibus bills: 2018) is, I suggest, an attempt to legitimize a special approach, a special jurisdictional and juridical handling of alleged violations of the Rule of Law in Canada which will place large private corporations in a special category subjected to special treatment.  That (according to Bruce Clark) is what has been done, negatively, (without any visible legislation) to the indigenous people of Canada by judge and court-made illegitimate precedent. And instead of lightening the load pressing upon the indigenous people, the dimension of the law which they are forced to inhabit assures that, for instance, a fake (powerless) right of consultation usurps their right of full, independent being. When they appear in a Canadian court, they are subjected to a regime that is unique, and nowhere ratified Constitutionally.

Bruce Clark reports his own dramatic confrontation with Established Power (as distinct from ‘legitimate power’) during which time he was declared in criminal contempt, was jailed for a time, and was disbarred permanently from the elegant and prestigious practice of law in Canada.

His book confronts us with reality. Canadian judicial and legal structures deliver injustice frequently and institutionally often enough to cause major concern to Canadians because of persistent and determined [improper] legal and judicial action undertaken to disallow the clear, independent status and power of the indigenous people and to saddle them with a right of [dependent] consultation.  As a result no action taken by indigenous people can (in the Canadian courts) be adjudicated with respect to their real, historically founded status, Clark argues.  And so they are cheated of justice in every case.

Moving from indigenous reality to provide a comparison in the Nuttall/Korody case (concerning an RCMP faked Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds on July 1, 2013) years of injustice were forced upon the two falsely accused innocents, but both Defence lawyers and B.C. Supreme Court judge, Justice Catherine Bruce, extracted the two from the false accusations by a highly organized RCMP Force.  Justice Bruce wrote a superb judgement exposing the RCMP’s alleged criminal behaviour.  Her judgement was upheld by three B.C. Appellate Division justices in late 2018.

And then: nothing. Nothing. The Crown, the federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of British Columbia, members of the British Columbia legislature in all Parties, members of the Mainstream Press and Media have maintained stoney silence, failing to demand that criminal charges be laid against every RCMP officer and any other Canadian involved in the entrapment, the preparation of a false criminal case, the incarceration, and the trial of the innocent two and demanding full and complete restitution and compensation to the two victims for what is almost certainly a criminal conspiracy by RCMP officers and unnamed others.

What is plain in the matter is that the extraordinary work of Defence Counsel and Justice Catherine Bruce “to prevent the success of major, highly organized criminal activity by the RCMP” is something that Mainstream Power in Canada wishes to mask, to ignore. I would suggest that parallel to the false judicial and legal actions in Canada that create a completely contained corrupt world of law for indigenous people that Bruce Clark argues exists, there also exists in matters involving what may be called the instruments (and the people) possessing real power in Canada  (outside of indigenous issues) - a consistently corrupt legal/judicial administration is at work to prevent action taken to assure that The Rule of Law in Canada prevails. The falsely staged Islamic Terrorist Event at B.C.’s Legislature grounds which viciously victimized two innocent Canadians (and which ALL of the responsible authorities in Canada are trying to ignore) is only one lamentable example.

Though many, many instances might be brought forward to underscore that truth, no case can be more instructive, perhaps, than the huge, multi-million dollar, nearly ten-year history involving the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR and a more than three year trial (2007-2010) of what I choose to call victims chosen to mask the major wrong-doing and the major actors undertaking the wrong-doing who should have been the accused in the case.

The imperfect Wikipedia entry (avoiding the major archived independent website on the issue) about the BC Rail Scandal, employing only ‘acceptable’ Mainstream Press and Media sources, fails to report the absolutely primary fact. Much, much about the scandal can be argued about ‘but not the finding late in the trial’ when Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett had been promoted off the trial to Appeals Court; and the choice was made by Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm (he announced that he had made his choice in my presence) of Justice Anne MacKenzie to complete the Supreme Court trial.

In late 2009 it was revealed that the Special Crown Prosecutor - appointed in 2003 and (therefore, normally) associated with RCMP investigations, with the preparation of charges against Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi, and then with fulfilling the role as primary Crown actor in the trial of the three accused, that he was named Special Crown Prosecutor in clear violation of the legislation creating and declaring the terms of such an appointment.

Stated simply ‘such an appointed person must be free of any possible bias’ and the legislation says in addition ‘must be free of the possibility of even the perception of bias’.  The Special Crown Prosecutor in the case against Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi was for eleven years partner and colleague of the Deputy Attorney General and for seven years partner and colleague of the Attorney General from whose office his appointment was made as Special Crown Prosecutor under the premiership of Liberal Gordon Campbell at whose feet was laid the whole impetus for the so-called sale of BC Rail to the CNR: and, therefore, also, at whose feet were laid many of the allegations of impropriety in the case. (The Attorney General was, of course, a member of the B.C. Cabinet headed by the premier, Gordon Campbell.)

The revealed fact of the illegitimate appointment of the Special Crown Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, and Basi case rendered, in my judgement, everything about the case null and void, without legitimacy erasing every action in the process.  I wrote to the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court and the Associate Chief Justice as responsible in the matter.  In two correspondence attempts to have them assume their responsibilities in the matter, they refused.  I wrote to the judge on the case, and she refused to act in any fashion in relation to the improper appointment and the improper presence in her courtroom of an illegitimately appointed Special Crown Prosecutor.  I wrote to the Canadian Judicial Council, the top appeal body concerning the behaviour of the judiciary in Canada. (The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is the nominal head of the CJC.) I asked them to name the judge on the case as acting improperly in the matter of an illegitimate Special Crown Prosecutor acting in her Court.  The Canadian Judicial Council refused to acknowledge any improper behaviour on the part of the judge on the case.

The picture that appears of the legal and (especially) the judicial Establishments in that short accounting leaves little more to be said.

The brutal findings by Bruce Clark and, indeed, the brutal treatment he, himself, has been subjected to point to a Rule of Law relating to the Indigenous Peoples that needs complete overhaul in fact - complete restructuring. But, alas, in its shadow world - the world in which the Legal and Judicial Establishments act in areas other than those concerning indigenous persons and the rights of their communities “the actions of what must be called the Legal Establishment and the Judicial Establishment “ mirror, I suggest, with depressing regularity, the same dismissal of Constitutional reality.  And they replace it, I believe, with ‘assumptions of purity’ that are used to protect the political and corporate powers enriching themselves and increasing their power at the cost of fundamental justice. The Rule of Law, and the will of the people are blind-sided by the unanimity of evil-doers and their supporters in the Mainstream Press and Media.  That fact suggests the so-called Criminal Justice System, meaning the operation of the Legal and the Judicial Establishments in Canada (including the treatment of indigenous people) must be swept aside. The structure must be trashed. The whole fabric of law and justice “especially as it is practiced within the system in Canada - must be completely reconstructed.

Monday, March 11, 2019

BC Auditor General Bellringer's next task? BC Liberal Minister of Finance having used internal auditor for Partnerships BC report


Internal Audit

Report on - Government of B.C.

"More than half of the contract files reviewed did not contain adequate documentation."



Table of Contents. Section. Page No. Abbreviations . ..... Internal Audit and Advisory Services evaluated Partnerships BC's governance, mandate, roles and ..
*************************
 That should have resulted in a FULL Audit of Partnerships B.C. in 2015
 ***********************

Video of Question Period



Blain, Larry and  Partnership BC

Question Period: Leader John Horgan asks about conflict-of-interest ...



Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST
CONCERNS REGARDING LARRY BLAIN AND PARTNERSHIPS B.C.

J. Horgan: Yesterday we were discussing in question period the conflict of interest that was unearthed with Michael Graydon, the former chair of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and we reviewed the conflict-of-interest rules. The minister assured us that a review was done.

According to the conflict rules for members of government boards…. This is what the document says: “A director should not use his position with the organization to pursue or advance their personal interests.” It seems a reasonable proposition. I think most British Columbians would be assured that government is doing their level best to ensure that insiders don’t get special treatment.

So it’s with some satisfaction, I suppose, that I bring another issue to the floor for the minister and the Premier to respond to. That’s one Larry Blain, who would be known to the government as the transition coordinator of the 2001 Liberal election victory and later went on to become the CEO, and later the chair, of Partnerships B.C.

My question to the Premier is: did Larry Blain comply with the rules, as I just articulated them, with respect to members of government bodies ensuring that they were not in a conflict of interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this, first of all, about the organization, one that we are immensely proud of, Partnerships B.C., which has really set the standard in Canada for the advancement of 3P procurements. Let me further say this about Mr. Blain and the time that he spent involved with that organization, which was a key time. His contribution to the advancement of 3Ps was incredibly important. The success of those programs speak for themselves in terms of the countless projects that were delivered on time and on budget.

Madame Speaker (Linda Reid): The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: A ringing endorsement from the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Blain’s career at Partnerships B.C. began when he was appointed the CEO in 2003. He remained in that position until the fall of 2010, when he stepped down as CEO and then became chair of the board. Then, five days later, Partnerships B.C. awarded a $95,000 contract to a company called Aardvark Insights.



Now, Aardvark Insights has one company director, and his name is Larry Blain. So that means, as I read it, that the chair of Partnerships B.C. and the board gave a contract to a contractor named Larry Blain. The chair of the board is also named Larry Blain. Perhaps the Premier or the Minister of Finance can clear up if that is, in fact, one and the same person.



Hon. M. de Jong: There are very clear guidelines in place that apply to Crown agencies, Crown corporations, that stipulate the circumstances under which procurements for both services and products must occur. We expect all agencies, Partnerships B.C. included, and all leaders within those agencies to comply with those guidelines.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Partnerships B.C., in defending what, in my opinion, is the indefensible, said that Mr. Blain recused himself from board meetings whenever they were discussing issues that he might have been consulting for on behalf of Partnerships B.C. So we did an inventory of the contracts that were let to Mr. Blain and the projects that he was working for. It seems odd to me that he would have recused himself from more meetings than he actually chaired, because he had so much involvement in each and every one of the projects.

As the minister outlined, Mr. Blain really was Partnerships B.C. It was his idea. The Liberals created Partnerships B.C. because he said it was a good idea. They paid him a princely sum — if princes are paid modest millions, a princely sum — over the course of a decade, and then, to put a cherry on top, when he stepped down from his service to the people of British Columbia and moved from the executive suite into the chairman’s suite, he gave himself a contract. That rings conflict of interest.

To the Premier: is this the type of government that she’s going to continue to run, one where insiders can give contracts to themselves?

Hon. M. de Jong: The code of conduct and the expectations of the government are clear. They require all agencies and the leadership within those agencies to comply with the very strict requirements around the procurement process.
The standard actually extends beyond that. Not only are the requirements complied with to ensure that there is no conflict but also that there not be any appearance of conflict. That is the standard that we expect of all agencies. That is the standard that we expect of all those who lead those agencies.

C. James: The Finance Minister said this is about appearances and appearances of conflict. Well, appearances of conflict are all over this entire story. As a consultant for Partnerships B.C., Larry Blain advised other Crown corporations on various projects. In fact, in late 2011 B.C. Hydro billed Partnerships B.C. for work done by Aardvark Insights on Site C. One of the directors of B.C. Hydro was — wait for it — Larry Blain.




So just to recap, Partnerships B.C., chaired by Larry Blain, contracted with Aardvark Insights, owned by Larry Blain, which did consulting work for B.C. Hydro, governed by Larry Blain. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how, possibly, conflict-of-interest rules could have been followed with these intertwined relationships?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may or may not be aware that the internal audit in the advisory services division conducted a review, as it has of a number of Crown agencies. It does so with the specific objective of ensuring that proper processes and procedures are being applied across the fold, including the procurement process.

Whilst one can suggest that by recusing and taking steps that are provided for that that is a means of ensuring that the procurement process is properly followed, the standard that we set and expect of agencies and the leadership within those agencies goes beyond that. There must not, not only not be a conflict; there must be no appearance of a conflict.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.



C. James: Let’s take a look at the B.C. Liberal standard. Between 2003 and 2010 Larry Blain was paid nearly $4 million as the CEO for Partnerships B.C. Then, as the chair, he billed $188,836 in fees and expenses. But that’s not all. Mr. Blain also served on the boards of the Transportation Investment Corporation, Powerex and B.C. Hydro, which paid him $264,000 for his services at the same time. So between director fees and expenses and Partnerships B.C. consulting contracts, Larry Blain received $621,000 from taxpayers over four years, all wearing different hats.



Can the Minister of Finance explain how Larry Blain was able to keep all of those various roles and reporting relationships appropriately separated?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think it bears emphasizing that the roles performed by Mr. Blain and the remuneration that he received were all in the public domain. So I would caution or at least observe that it would be inaccurate and unfair to suggest today that somehow this represents some kind of a revelation.

I will further say this about the work that Mr. Blain undertook on behalf of the province at Partnerships B.C. I can go through a list that begins with the Interior heart and surgical centre, the Cancer Centre for the North, the Canada Line….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The examples of Partnerships-led projects that have set the standard for 3P procurement right across Canada, that ensured the taxpayers of British Columbia were well served, that saw those projects come in on time, on budget — sometimes ahead of schedule and under budget — is lengthy and one that we are very proud of in British Columbia.


B. Ralston: There’s more. While wearing his Aardvark Insights hat and working as a consultant for Partnerships B.C., Mr. Blain also consulted for SaskBuilds, which is the Saskatchewan equivalent of Partnerships B.C. SaskBuilds paid Partnerships B.C. $150,000 to advise them on two long-term care and hospital projects, but it appears that Mr. Blain was also working as an independent consultant who obtained a contract directly from SaskBuilds for $18,000 on the very same projects.

The minister has spoken of no conflict and no appearance of conflict, so can he explain how Mr. Blain was able to work as chair of Partnerships B.C., as a contractor for Partnerships B.C. and a contractor with companies directly connected to Partnerships B.C. all at the same time?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, let me say to the member and members opposite that I hope it’s no secret to them that the work undertaken by Partnerships B.C. garnered the attention of agencies right across Canada. We’re proud of that fact.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should think that members would celebrate the fact that, for example, Canada’s furthest-northern airport sought advice from Partnerships B.C. on how to advance that procurement and construct the new airport in Nunavut. I don’t think there’s any secret. We’re very proud of the fact that Partnerships B.C. undertook their work in a way that garnered positive attention from not just across Canada but elsewhere in North America, and that’s a testament to the success of the 3P model here in British Columbia.



B. Ralston: Clearly, the Minister of Finance doesn’t want to grapple with the essence of these questions. When you wear as many hats as Larry Blain, things get quite confusing. He was working for SaskBuilds as a contractor. He’s working for SaskBuilds as a partnerships B.C. consultant and also serving as the chair of Partnerships B.C. He expensed trips to Saskatchewan in April, June and October of 2013 to Partnerships B.C.

The question to the Minister of Finance is multiple choice. Did Larry Blain bill Partnerships B.C. for his travel to Saskatchewan as (1) the chair of Partnerships B.C., (2) the president of Aardvark Insights, his company, contracted by Partnerships B.C. or as president of Aardvark Insights, consulting directly for SaskBuilds?




Hon. M. de Jong: The answer and the commitment remain the same, and the expectation remains the same — that agencies, Crown agencies, operating in British Columbia will do so and uphold the highest possible standard with respect to conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest. That is the expectation of the agencies themselves and those that lead them.

K. Corrigan: What the minister is demonstrating is having absolutely no understanding of the importance of the separation of public and private in British Columbia. You’d think that Partnerships B.C. would have gone to great lengths to make it clear how Mr. Blain’s contract work was separate from his role as board chair, but when you look at the contract we obtained under FOI, what stands out is how utterly vague it is.

In 2010 Partnerships B.C. gave a half-page description outlining the services they expected, and after that, nothing. They amended the contract five times to increase the total value to $219,000 but never described what was expected for that money.

Does the Minister of Finance consider it to be best practice that Mr. Blain was given a four-year-plus consulting contract with no description of the services to be provided?
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what I have learned over the years is to be a little bit suspect about the documentation and the selective quotation from documentation that we are inclined to hear from the opposition in this chamber. I am more inclined to, at this stage, rely upon the findings of the internal audit review and report that was conducted with respect to Partnerships B.C. If the member has additional information that she wants to provide to me, I’m happy to look at it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I have seen that audit, and it expresses concern about conflict of interest. After the Michael Graydon conflict-of-interest fiasco, the minister pledged to ensure that other Crown corporations and government agencies were operating according to the highest standards. He pledged to ensure that the public would not be forced to question whether people in positions of authority were working in their own interests or in the public interest.

Can the minister tell the House how many other government agencies have made cozy contracts like Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, interesting that we learned in the supplemental question that the hon. member opposite has seen the report, or claims to have seen the report, and chooses to ignore the portions of the report that focus specifically on the issue that she has raised and indicate that those issues were generally well managed. The member can selectively try to present a story here.

I will repeat for her what I have said a few moments ago. The standard expectation of every single member of this government is that the highest code of conduct, as it relates to every feature of conducting public affairs, will be upheld by the agencies of government and by those who lead those agencies. That has been the case and will continue to be the case under this government.


 *****************
Auditor General Search Results:   Partnerships B.C.


 *****************

BC Legislature Hansard:
  • Comments on school district projects (Corrigan) 8465
  • Transition from CEO position and potential conflict of interest (Corrigan) 8445 (de Jong) 8443-6 (Horgan) 8443-4 (James) 8444 (Ralston) 8445


*********************
By Andrew MacLeod 22 Apr 2008 | 
The Tyee’s Legislative Bureau chief in Victoria. You can reach him here.

'How Many Bottles of Wine to Build a Hospital?' | The Tyee




Apr 22, 2008 - After it was revealed last year that Partnerships British Columbia Inc.'s CEO Larry Blain and others had enjoyed much wine and good food at ...

 ..... instead of judging whether the expenses were appropriate, the auditors checked to make sure the amounts paid out matched the supporting documentation, the approved forms were used and “that items are paid in accordance with policy.” They also compared the agency’s policies to the provincial government’s.

However, they carefully noted, “The above procedures do not constitute an audit of Partnerships British Columbia Inc.’s corporate and staff expenses and therefore we express no opinion on these amounts or on any of its individual account balances.”

‘Not an explanation’

Finance Minister Taylor and PBC’s board of directors had agreed on the limited scope of the investigation, said Davies. “That is all that’s planned.”

“It’s not an explanation, based on what you’ve just told me,” said the NDP’s Ralston. “What certainty do you have the items are even selected randomly? If you’re selecting randomly, who selected randomly? You could select to avoid the most embarrassing ones.”

More explanation is needed, he said, but the government is unlikely to insist on getting one. “It’s pretty typical of the political protection they apply to Partnerships B.C. It’s a favoured agency.”
 ....................

************************

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Leader by example: Speaker Darryl Plecas!!!! vs Speaker Geoff Regan????

BC's Clerk of our House Craig James (partisan) was reeled in by Speaker Darryl Plecas (Independent);

Canada's Clerk of our House Michael Wernick (partisan) needs to be reeled in by Speaker Geoff Regan (Liberal)

Monday, March 4, 2019

BC Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson misquoted by press and politicians alike: RIGHT of Passage not RITE of passage

  right 
  rite
   sound the same, but have different meanings.

Right of passage, in international law, means (approximately) a country's right for its ships to pass through the territorial seas of foreign states and straits used for international navigation.

vs

Rites of passage usually involve ritual activities and teachings designed to strip individuals of their original roles and prepare them for new roles.

or

Rites of passage. Ceremonies that mark important transitional periods in a person's life, such as birth, puberty, marriage, having children, and death. 


**********

Since January 1, 2005 the BC Liberal Party has accepted donations of  $136,348,319.84

Saturday, March 2, 2019

SNC-Lavalin: The Tip Of An Enormous Deep State Iceberg. - Robin Mathews



SNC-Lavalin: The Tip Of An Enormous Deep State Iceberg.

                    By Robin Mathews .  March 2019



SNC-Lavalin, the large Canadian engineering firm at the centre of the present Liberal government crisis engendered by the treatment of former Attorney General/Minister of Justice and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Jody Wilson-Raybould, is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg.



The gyrations of SNC-Lavalin to have a law passed (obscurely in a Liberal Omnibus Bill in 2018) that permits it (and giant firms like it) to write deferred prosecution agreements (in what is called a remediation regime) may be seen as nothing more than another private/corporate attack on the Rule of Law  supported by the present Canadian (Liberal) government in power.



That government, I suggest, is acknowledging the growing reality of A Regime For The Very Rich Outside The Law and a law for us, the unimportant others.  The move should be seen, I suggest, as a full-scale attack on The Rule of Law in Canada.



In briefest words: the kinds of agreement (already at work in some other Western nations) permit wrong-doers to escape criminal conviction by paying large sums of money and repenting their sins ! ! !  (Remember that Fraud Charges may  normally occur in such matters, pointing to fairly long jail sentences for individuals, real people involved in the criminal charges normally set in motion.)  The Remediation Regime works to erase that possibility completely so that individuals are never guilty of criminal acts!



Might the process be seen as the bribery of governments by ˜wink-wink-nudge-nudge friends who “ anyway (as with SNC-Lavalin) give large sums to the Party that has become the government in power?  Might the process be seen as the actual codification of the separation of powerful (Deep State) organizations from the Rule of Law in national jurisdictions? The answer is, probably, YES.



Canadians should observe the huge consideration that was given to SNC-Lavalin through the whole process.  The Corporation sought and received dozens and dozens of meetings [more than 50 times, Globe and Mail, A-11, Mar.1, 2019] with MPs, cabinet ministers over months and months to "in effect“ move huge Private Corporations outside The Rule of Law while claiming they are merely assisting in a change in the application of The Rule of Law.



And then SNC Lavalin appears to have used more lobbyist meetings in order to have Liberal sympathizers (including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) pressure the Attorney General of Canada to impose a deferred prosecution agreement against the decision of the Prosecutor Office.



In that regard, the highest Civil Servant in Canada supposedly clean of political colouring Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, entered the fray on behalf of SNC-Lavalin in attempts to force the hand of Jody Wilson-Raybould.  As an important member of a council much misunderstood the Canadian Privy Council to the Queen of Canada (not to the Queen of the United Kingdom), and as highest Civil Servant (the actively non-political arm of government servants) Michael Wernick like some grubby hack-lobbyist debased the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and of all Canadian Civil Servants, many will say, and should resign immediately to restore the confidence Canadians have in their historically admirable body of Civil Servants.



If huge bribes are necessary to get contracts in some foreign countries which act outside The Rule of Law, then SNC-Lavalin and the Liberal Party of Canada seem to be saying don't work to bring those countries under The Rule of Law.  Instead, degrade Canada to their level of criminal behaviour as the normal state of doing business.



That is a fact of present government (and Deep State criminal influence) in the Western World  that must be stopped in its tracks. That is the nine-tenths of the SNC-Lavalin Iceberg out-of-sight. That is, quite simply, the smoke-and-mirrors effort to con Canadians into thinking the removal of large corporations in Canada from the Rule of Law is, in fact, bringing them through special recognition into full relation to the Rule of Law! !



The tendency across the Western World (notably in Europe) is towards the creation of apparently democratic neo-liberal governments which not long ago in history were called proto-fascist governments.  Whatever their apparent focus national or international their basic loyalty was and is to big Capital; their basic intention is to release great wealth from the restriction of the Rule of Law, their basic goal is to create a New World Order characterized by domination of a Deep State over all of the rest of life: human, ecological, spatial.



Canadians are indebted to Jody Wilson-Raybould and her integrity bringing to the attention of the population not only the shabby values of the PM and PMO and of the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick but also the destructive and possibly highly criminal actions of large corporations in league with a Canadian government to pervert and/or by-pass The Rule of Law in Canada.



The deferred prosecution legislation for large corporations must be erased from Canadian legislation.  Which Party will promise that in the coming election??

                                     

[Thirty Liberal MPs registered their opinions of the treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould in the March 2 Globe and Mail. None saw her as being unfairly pressured by the PM or PMO or others to impose a deferred prosecution regime upon the Prosecutions Office. None mentioned that she was dumped from the position of Justice Minister and Attorney General when she refused to buckle to the pressure which, they are all confident, was never applied.]

 Contact: Robin Mathew

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Puzzling: Why would Fa"S"ken Law Firm use a Toys'R'Us product to convey ..... 'solving complex business problems' .. is easy?

Four pair of hands (possibly eight people)(count visible fingers for more accuracy for billing purposes)(two fingers from a fifth person), manicured, working on a twenty-four piece puzzle designed for children.... prop purchased from a recent bankruptcy case.

Why are Fasken's charging so much for their services?

Why do their clients pay so much?

One Answer? advertising costs money!


Vancouver Sun, NP5, 2019-02-28


The amount of money that Fasken, as but one example of a law firm in British Columbia,  has billed its clients (BC Government included) so that their corporation could donate to a political party of their choice as a tax write-off, could have been used  by successive provincial governments to fund Legal Aid in the first place.



Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun

In a shakedown submission to Attorney-General David Eby on Feb. 15, the Association of Legal Aid Lawyers (A.L.L.) said the strike was necessary because the rule of law was threatened by the chronic underfunding of services for the needy.

They have seen a raise only once since 1991 — a 10 per cent boost in 2006, lifting the $80-an-hour tariff to an average of $88 an hour.
****************************





Saturday, February 23, 2019

Craig James: Meet my friend Terry from Scotland

According to the Second installment of Speaker Plecas report, Craig James' fellow travelers are Tommy Lynch and Martin Fenlon.

Based on that report, names and their job descriptions, there is a Tommy Lynch working for the 'Scottish Parliament' having managed to meet twice in four months to talk about the same topic, once 'here', once near 'here' (Washington state for a sightseeing tour of the effects of a tsunami on the whale population, followed up with emergency preparations required to evacuate a baseball game in full swing) and once, twice or thrice, out there in jolly old England.  How many other times around the world have these three met up for more discussion?  And what about the MI5 meet and greeting of James, Lenz and Plecas?  Were the MI5 'security officials' executives bewildered by the visit' or is it an acceptable practice?
  Plecas, Lenz and James went to London in December 2017 to meet with MI5 security officials - Times Colonist

If its proven that these two are guilty, not just in public opinion, then what of all those 'others' that are out there, globe trotting, meeting up with the same circle of friends? 

********************
 

Speaker Plecas' Second Report:

C. SAME TOPICS, SAME PEOPLE

Tommy Lynch and Martin Fenlon. Mr. Lynch is the “Business Continuity Manager” at the Scottish Parliament. Mr. Fenlon was described as “Head of Business Continuity” at the Emergency Planning College, and an “Advisor” to the UK Government.

9. In our December 2017 trip to Scotland, we had a number of meetings on the topic of business continuity and disaster preparedness. We met with various people, Mr. Lynch among them. Mr. James characterizes this as, “Meetings with the Scottish Parliament regarding business continuity and crisis planning. The individuals we met with are absolute experts in their areas and are recognized as such around the world. They (and we) are part of a group called the Legislative Assemblies Business Continuity Network…”
*************************



Google Search Criteria: Tommy Lynch, Business Continuity Manager, Scottish Parliament
 
https://holaconnect.com/profile/tommy-lynch-c2e7be35





********************


Two honourable mentions of Speaker Darryl Plecas' travels in 2017
Whereas the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms has had six years of traveling around the ....
************


Google Search Criteria:
Martin Fenlon, Head of Business Continuity at the Emergency Planning College


 *************
 ****************************
 5
11. To be clear: Washington State is not a member of LABCoN. There was no prearranged “conference” which required travel to Washington  to attend. This was an initiative organized by Mr. James and almost entirely paid for by British Columbia taxpayers. It took place in Washington because Mr. James decided the group should visit Washington.


14
  (a) In his response, Mr. James states that meetings in Victoria included “earthquake preparedness.” The Agenda states that at 3:30 pm on Sunday,  August 13, delegates attended “Tsunami Watch: Guided tours of Haro Strait and Juan de Fuca Strait with explanations of aquatic life and seismic activity.”   The actual activity was in fact a whale watching expedition: a receipt shows that a staffer in the Sergeant-at- Arms’ office booked “Victoria Ocean Magic.


 (c) The itinerary lists, at 12:40 pm on Wednesday, August 16,“

Safe passages: Large-Scale Evacuations”, at Safeco Field in Seattle. In fact, at 12:40 pm on that day, the Seattle Mariners hosted the Baltimore Orioles. British Columbia paid for 13 tickets to that game, at a cost of US $1,073.32.

 C. SAME TOPICS, SAME PEOPLE
17. Throughout their responses, Mr. James and Mr. Lenz emphasise how important it is to develop relationships and compare best practices with other parliamentary officials. I don’t  disagree with that, in principle: but what they do not mention is that these meetings tend to be with the same people, discussing the same topics, sometimes many times per year, in different locations around the world. 18. Two of the foreign visitors for the LABCoN conference [sic] referred to above were Tommy Lynch and Martin Fenlon. Mr. Lynch is the “Business Continuity Manager” at the Scottish Parliament. Mr. Fenlon was described as “Head of Business Continuity” at the Emergency Planning College, and an “Advisor” to the UK Government.

9. In our December 2017 trip to Scotland, we had a number of meetings on the topic of business continuity and disaster preparedness. We met with various people, Mr. Lynch among them. Mr. James characterizes this as, “Meetings with the Scottish Parliament regarding business continuity and crisis planning. The individuals we met with are absolute experts in their areas and are recognized as such around the world. They (and we) are part of a group called the Legislative Assemblies Business Continuity Network…”

ETC.



Check out  Bob Mackin reporting because he has a lot more at his website than the others from the mainstream press (newspaper division)(probably electronic version too)