Friday, October 30, 2015

Defeated… But Not Gone By Robin Mathews, Oct. 30 2015

Defeated…  But Not Gone

                                          By Robin Mathews, Oct. 2015

Having led the odious Conservative Party and government to resounding defeat, Stephen Harper has (as might have been predicted) walked away from the mess, leaving it to someone else … anyone else … to clean up, if possible. But (also as might have been predicted) he retains his Calgary seat in the House of Commons – a necessary place to launch a comeback….

If Stephen Harper was aware (even just aware) of the 2006 election in-and-out scandal and attempted robbery of electors’ votes (four faced criminal charges – the Party made a plea-bargain, admitting guilt); if he was aware (even just aware) of the intricate, set-up Robocall Scandal of the 2011 election which brought a criminal conviction to one (only) Conservative worker; and if he was aware (even just aware) of the cheque for $90,172 paid by (bribing?) Nigel Wright to Mike Duffy … then Stephen Harper is a criminal.  I have chosen only three counts upon which he may be a criminal.  Readers will, doubtless, want to supply more (many, many more).

We who think Stephen Harper was aware of – and probably even active in the planning and execution – of the activities mentioned … we believe he is a criminal who has not been fully investigated and charged for his participation in those crimes (and perhaps others not named here).

That being the case, we may all presume Stephen Harper will keep out of sight, will avoid the limelight, will want to “lie low” for a considerable period of time – licking his wounds and waiting for memories to fade. (But he will maintain a seat in the House of Commons for comeback purposes. And doubtless will try to quash any investigations into Conservative government wrongdoing.)

Be Ready To Be Surprised

Or Stephen Harper may disappear, in a short time, into an appointment in the caverns of Barrick Gold to rub shoulders with its black luminaries - like Brian Mulroney, John Manley, John Baird, Andrew Coyne, Peter Munk, Janice Stein and other neo-liberals who participate in one or other in its activities.  Or he may disappear into a neo-liberal Think Tank that pretends to be balanced, fair, and concerned for all Canadians as he, himself, pretended to be through his democracy-wrecking period as prime minister.

Don’t count on it.

Having set up the first anniversary “remembrance” of the deaths of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo (in Ottawa) and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent (in St. Jean sur Richelieu), Stephen Harper likely intended the event as a post-election-win occasion upon which he could make more racist attacks on minorities and push for more powers to add to Bill C51, the legislation many consider repressive, neo-fascist, and a painful attack on human rights in Canada.

None of the Conventional (Harper-supporting) Media mentioned that the Cirillo anniversary event was well-planned in Harperdom to serve Harper’s ideology before election day.  Nor do they point out that about-to-be prime minister Justin Trudeau had almost no choice about being there – to be used for Stephen Harper’s purposes.  Like it or not, the Harper forces used (if they didn’t create) the Cenotaph/Parliament event in order to attempt to validate the growing list of their repressive measures.  The anniversary day was, doubtless, to be used to reinforce those measures.

That first, post-election, public manipulation by Stephen Harper may be harbinger of things to come.  Already offering himself as a shy, smiling, thoughtful, well-wishing, down-to-earth ordinary Canadian, he may be on his way to carefully working to win a new, thunderously approved, over-overwhelmingly supported run at the (a) leadership of the Conservative Party and (b) the prime ministership of Canada.  His lust for power has not dimmed by a simple defeat at the polls, nor – we may assume – has his desire to erase democracy in Canada and replace it with a neo-liberal, neo-fascist dictatorship.

The Harperites Are Still There

Let dummies take over the Party.  Let dummies mess up in the House of Commons.  All the better. Those who have tasted (illegitimate) power and profit from the Harper years will be ready to throw their support, once again, his way, made confident by his cool certainty. He is not likely to change the makeover he was undertaking to Pierre Trudeau’s motto “reason over passion”. With cold calculation he appeared to be making “treason over passion” his own guiding principle.

All the Canadians who formed or were part of organizations concerned in one way or another with ‘Harper watch’ should remain vigilante.  In fact, they should form quiet groups (lawful of course) to track his every move – and to make his every move public. Stephen Harper cannot claim the privacy of ordinary Canadians.  A major public figure (whose honesty is in serious doubt) he is, in a sense, the possession of the Canadian public which can demand to know where he travels, who he meets, who he works for and with, and who pays him for services rendered (especially outside the country).

Stephen Harper is 56.  He has another fifteen years, at least, to work on the destruction of Canadian democracy.  He has strong and wealthy allies (many outside Canada). With his defeat at the polls on October 19, 2015, Canadians may have witnessed what turns out to be merely the first phase of Stephen Harper’s long-term plan to create a despotism in Canada that can neither be voted away nor overthrown.


Contact: Robin Mathews
 

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts: Dimitrios Pilarinos 1999 (Glen Clark); George Gretes 2015 (Christy Clark)


 Beware of Greeks bearing gifts?? 

  1999
Glen Clark resigned as premier in 1999 after police confirmed he was subject of an investigation. He was charged with breach of trust and accepting a benefit of more than $10,000. After a lengthy trial, he was acquitted on both counts, though the judge admonished him for his "poor judgment" in hiring Pilarinos. The judge described Clark's misbehaviour as an "act of folly."

Google:     Dimitrios Pilarinos

The man convicted of offering former B.C. premier Glen Clark a benefit to try to get a casino licence has been ordered to perform community service.

Dimitrios Pilarinos was sentenced Friday to two years less a day of "house arrest" which means he won't be able to leave his residence at night.

The Crown had asked for a "substantial period of incarceration" because he tried to abuse his relationship with the province's highest elected official.

But the judge said Pilarinos has already paid a high personal price, losing his house and family since being arrested two years ago.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett also said Pilarinos is not a danger to the public.

As part of his sentence, he must also perform 240 hours of community service.

2015
Will triple-delete Delete the Premier, Finance Minister and Transportation & Infrastructure Minister?
 

Elizabeth Denham highlighted problems reaching as high as Premier Christy Clark's office, involving the premier's deputy chief of staff.

But she mainly zeroed in on George Gretes, a young political aide to Transportation Minister Todd Stone, who deliberately deleted emails related to safety consultations on the Highway of Tears, and then lied at least six times about it under oath to Denham's investigators.

Gretes resigned Thursday, but not before Denham referred his case to the RCMP. Perjury, the act of lying under oath, is a criminal offence. The RCMP said it's reviewing the case.

Denham's report drew attention to the practice of "triple-deleting" emails by government officials, in which a person can permanently scrub a record from a government server by deleting it from their email inbox, trash folder and then from a special "recover deleted items folder" before it's captured by the automatic monthly backup on the provincial system.

George Gretes was hired (2013) by Finance Minister Mike de Jong one year (2014) before Transportation Minister Todd Stone.  One can only imagine how many Triple-O-Deletes happened under de Jong's watch.


OIC 235   June 10, 2013 Everyone to assist the Ministers were hired, except Gretes

 Page 1 of 3

Page 3 of 3 OIC 235
BRIGGS, Taylor got the nod instead of GRETES, George?




(OIC)  249  June 17, 2013

Executive Assistant to Mike de Jong, Finance, confirmed by LinkedIn



Where to search for Historical OIC:
British Columbia Order in Council  2010  - 2013
British Columbia Order in Council  2013
British Columbia Order in Council  0200  - 0299 
British Columbia Order in Council  249


OIC 454  July 14, 2014  A step down to Ministerial Assistant  Transportation and Infrastructure


*************************
George Gretes Work Experience prior to becoming an Executive Assistant to Finance Minister Mike de Jong and/or demotion as a Ministerial Assistant to Transportation Minister Todd Stone

Zero

Handle 'Gretes'

Favourite movie: Gladiator

George Gretes                     Tim Duncan
Favourite food: steak

Favourite singer: Frank Sinatra

Favourite television show: Law & Order

Favourite actor: James Franco

Four times Executive Officer of the University of Toronto, St. George Campus, Greek Student's Association (Twice as President).

2010 - 2011 Past President of the University of Toronto Campus Conservatives a venerable organization that has produced a wide variety of distinguished alumni in politics, business, and industry.
*******************************



Tim Duncan





A Mother's Letter to PostMedia New York Shareholders Chairman: Dear Son, I know you can't read very fast so I'm writing this real slow for you

The one liner, from what we remember from sitting on our Great Aunt's knee, from Newfoundland, is of her Mother writing to her Son (Aunt's Step Brother) who was residing in the hinterlands of Victoria, BC.


In the Post Media's Vancouver Sun edition this morning there is a Guest Editorial (No Name Brand) from Ottawa entitled:  Canada Post can't just stick with status quo.  We're not complaining that our delivered-to-our-home-door hard copy of the Vancouver Sun is four paragraphs shorter than the eight paragraph On-line version.  It's almost as if Christy Clark and her Versadex software program has been deleting the essence of the intent of the Editorial Author by one-half.   Is the Guest Editorial aware that he has been hacked in half with paper cuts?

Conclusion of the Guest Editorial on Canada Post home delivery sustainability? how about if his/her logic were applied to PostMedia business sustainability:
propping up this dying business model while maintaining five-day-per-week delivery is unjustifiable

After reading the hard copy, and comparing it to the on-line version (more of an Editorial rant from  New York shareholders promoting, once again, the Conservative Party of Canada) the home delivered version is far superior.

What we did was flip 'Canada Post' out and put in 'Canada PostMedia' in its place.

Everything that is written by the Guest Editor on the Liberals election plank, .... Canada Post's halting the move from door-to-door delivery to a community box model is DOUBLY applicable to Canada PostMedia for over ruling local editors contents, AND instead ran a front full page editorial the last delivery days before the ELECTION if Canadians didn't vote for, heed the fear mongering consequences if the Conservatives are not re-elected.

The closing paragraph blames Justin Trudeau's Liberals TODAY and TOMORROW for wasting Canadian public dollars when the money should be spent on 'crumbling infrastructure, strained health services, inadequate child care, low economic productivity - propping up this dying business model while maintaining five-day-a-week delivery is unjustifiable.

YESTERDAYs Conservatives had ten years to get it right, and they wasted Canadian public dollar that should have been spent on the 'crumbling infrastructures etc.', instead, they rewarded the Oil Companies.

**************************
On-line version     Edited (home delivery)

So, Canada Post (Canada PostMedia) has halted the process of moving from door-to-door mail (Newspaper) delivery to a community box (On-line) model. This is a necessary decision on the Crown (Private) corporation’s part in deference to a weak (in an economic sense anyway) plank in the federal Liberal (Shareholders) platform, but so be it. A majority of Canadians (Subscribers), vehemently opposed to higher taxes (Subscription Fees) in principle but ambivalent towards keeping them low in practice, apparently want this — if the polls are to be believed.

In pledging to “stop Stephen Harper’s plan to end door-to-door mail delivery in Canada” however, Justin Trudeau ought to proceed in the most sensible way possible short of continuing with Canada Post’s apparently now obsolete, yet still sound, business decision. If the Liberals Shareholders are insistent on maintaining door-to-door delivery for those who haven’t been switched over yet, Canada Post (Canada PostMedia) should reduce the number of delivery days during the week in order to pay for it.

The facts haven’t changed: Canadians sent 1.2 billion fewer pieces of mail in 2013 than they did in 2006, and that number will continue to fall with each passing year. It stands to reason, then, that current service levels will soon be completely unsustainable (to Canada PostMedia Shareholders).

This is the kind of common sense that appears to elude those critics who argue that the change in policy is, for any number of reasons, dangerous to mail-getters’ (suscription-holders') health (any more than going out to the store?), unfair to people with disabilities (untrue — Canada Post (Canada PostMedia) will continue to deliver to those who can’t get to boxes), and even unconstitutional (we can’t even).

One of those critics, Canadian Union of Postal Workers national president Mike Palecek, ran a victory lap Monday, declaring he and his colleagues were “ecstatic” their stall tactics worked. Not satisfied with that win, however, the CUPW is really reaching for the stars. “We want them to restore home mail (newspaper) delivery to everyone who has lost it,” he declared.

This is ridiculous, and it cannot be allowed to happen. The corporation has already invested a great deal of money installing community boxes (On-line) across the country and countless hours of staffers’ valuable time planning and implementing the transition, and to spend yet more tax (subscription fee) revenue to tear those (On-Line) boxes out and pay people to come up with new plans would be exceedingly wasteful.

And what of the people who’ve been using community boxes (On-Line) for many years, most of whom — if other polls are to be believed — actually support the model? Must we load up the money cannon and blast away at those centralized locations too?

Of all the things Canadians (American) could be spending public (private) dollars on — crumbling infrastructure, strained health services, inadequate child care, low economic productivity — propping up this dying business model while maintaining five-day-per-week (three-day-per-week) delivery is unjustifiable.

Canada PostMedia is about to go from a six day delivery, except Statutory Holidays, to three days: Monday Wednesday Saturday (Vancouver Sun)  Sunday not Saturday (Vancouver Province) AND keep the subscription rates the Same for a Five day home delivery!

Is it possible that the Canadian Auditor General should be looking into Canada Post bottom line because as it stands NOW PostMedia economic brain trust believes the money that should have been spent on crumbling infrastructures, strained health services, inadequate child care, low economic productivity could have was shifted to Canada Post.

Just how much money are we taking about?  Crumbling infrastructure  $40 billion, Strained Health services $100 billion, child care $1, low economic productivity ...  per year

Hell they'll be no different than the thrice weekly North Shore News or the Vancouver Courier!


Monday, October 26, 2015

Amrik Virk: Premier Christy Clark's Directive:HOLD the "Triple-O-Delete-Window Dressing" extended to Parliamentary Secretaries

A Lotus Land Mouthwatering moment: all this talk about Triple-O-Deletes

Finally, an opportunity to sink our teeth into a REAL, honest to goodness home delivery of an FOI, with all the trimmings, instead of hundreds of thousands of BLANK pages sent by Amrik Virk.

Elizabeth Denham, Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC
News Release         THE Report

October 26, 2015  Question Period
Hon. A. Virk: The directive by the Premier was quite clear. The member opposite certainly doesn't want to try to understand or even try to think about it. The directive is quite clear. Regardless of whether a sent e-mail is transitory or not — whether or not it is transitory — a directive has been sent to all ministers, all ministers' staff, and in fact, that has been extended to parliamentary secretaries as well. That is until Mr. Loukidelis has an opportunity to examine the 11 recommendations, to provide guidance on how to take action. We are committed to work with Mr. Loukidelis and take action on all of those recommendations.
Would the words of Virk, 'extended to parliamentary secretaries' imply that they have ALWAYS been EXEMPT from orders on high, say at the BC Liberal Party Office?  Back Channeling communications too, were EXEMPT?   Brian Bonney was EXEMPT?

 *****************

4th Session Blues Debates of the BC Legislature too

Hansard Blues The Report October 22, 2015

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

Update on BC Legislature Triple-O-Delete Window Dressing

October 27, 2015   Hansard Blues Question Period
 
J. Horgan: It always amazes me that when we come in here, it's as if the Liberal government was just born yesterday. There is a sucker born every minute, but it's not the people of British Columbia. They smell a rat. They know something's amiss here, and they're not going to be satisfied with the Premier taking one line about transitory documents out of a 60-page report and claiming that that's the reason we delete everything that comes through our office. Not acceptable.

Let's go through the greatest hits of openness and transparency on the Premier's watch. Mr. Dyble, her handpicked deputy minister, oversaw the investigation of a guy named Ken Boessenkool, who was removed from government — a human resources matter. I think anyone who's worked in the public sector or the private sector understands that when you dismiss someone, you usually come up with something more than a Post-it Note. But when we asked for information about Mr. Boessenkool's departure? No records found.

Marcia McNeil reviewed the despicable treatment of health care researchers in this province, and when we asked for Mr. Dyble's records on that, we had: "No records found." In fact, in Ms. McNeil's report, she was unable to come to a conclusion on accountability because of the dearth of documents.

It may well be that the Premier is transitory, and I'm hopeful that that's the case, but the documents that belong to British Columbians should be available when they're asked for, and that has not been the case on her watch. The most open and transparent government in British Columbia's history is not overseen by her.

My question to the Premier is again with respect to her own office and her own staff. If Ms. Cadario has no records, is that not inconsistent with what the Premier just said a few months ago? I know it's way back there. You've got to get in the way-back machine to go to May. But in May, she said it wasn't tolerable. Why is it tolerable today?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said in answer to the member's question already, the Privacy Commissioner has found that there is not a consistent application in the way we treat transitory documents across government. There is no obligation under the act to make sure that all documents — duplicates and transitory documents — are preserved. In fact, the act specifically allows for them to be disposed of because of the cost — and other reasons — of saving them. But we are making sure that no documents that anyone sends are being deleted while Mr. Loukidelis does his work.

Even if the opposition leader doesn't, I certainly welcome Mr. Loukidelis back to British Columbia. He's an expert in this area. He will make sure that we have the guidance and the training that we need for the consistent application all across government as the Privacy Commissioner has told us we need to. We look forward to doing that work, making sure that it is done as quickly, consistently and professionally as possible, and I have every confidence that Mr. Loukidelis is going to help us get there.

We were just reminded by a commentator about one of our previous Posts June 5, 2015

Black Ops Log - 97

 Vancouver Police Department Has a Who done it manual on the proper handling of   Versadex  Security Clearance Private or Invisible  channels.

Policy

PRIME affords users the opportunity of making either parts of a report or the entire report "Private" or "Invisible". Both these features are powerful tools to control access to sensitive information.

Inappropriate use, however, can have serious consequences to the functioning of the Department by hampering information sharing and the collection of statistics. Members shall meet the requirements stipulated in this section before making a GO report, Flag Record, or Street Check "Private" or "Invisible".

As a policy, members shall refrain from making entire GO reports "Private" or "Invisible" if the objective can be met by making only select parts of the report "Private" or "Invisible".

Procedure

Making An Entire Report Or A Portion Thereof "Private" (Instructions)
Anyone with police supervisory or police investigative status (or higher) in PRIME is authorized to make an entire report or portion thereof "Private". Anyone else wishing to utilize this feature will have to request a supervisor to approve the use of this feature and make a report or portion thereof "Private".

Before making an entire report or portion thereof "Private", the police investigator or supervisor must ensure that the report meets the following criteria:

a. Information being "privatized" is hold back evidence;
b. Report contains sensitive or confidential information;
c. Report contains low or mid level intelligence information; or
d. A major crime investigation is involved.

Once an entire report or portion thereof is "privatized", only the following individuals will have access to the "privatized" information:

a. Member who "privatized" or requested the "privatizing" of the report;
b. The member’s supervisor;
c. Person/s designated by the member/supervisor; and
d. A default group consisting of Central Records Supervisor/Team Leader (so that reports written by other members can be transcribed), Information and Privacy Unit Co-ordinator and the Source Co-ordinator at CIS.
e. Where the report is requesting charges, the default group consisting of Criminal Records/Police Crown Liaison.


4. Only officers of the rank of Inspector and above may authorize the making of a report or a portion of a report "Invisible".

5. Before making an entire report or portion thereof "Invisible", the requesting member and the approving Officer must ensure that the report meets the following criteria:
a. An investigation involving a VPD employee;
b. Confidential or source information, which if compromised may endanger a person’s life; or
c. Extremely sensitive intelligence information.

6. Any other report/information may be made "Invisible" if approved by a Deputy Chief Constable or the Chief Constable.

7. Once an entire report or a portion thereof is made "Invisible", only the following individuals will have access to the information:

a. Requesting member;
b. Member’s supervisor;
c. Approving Officer; and
d. Any other person/s considered necessary by the officer approving the request.

NOTE: Be aware that a report that has been made "Invisible" in its entirety does not "exist" on RMS except for the people who have been given access to it. Central Records will not be able to transcribe any supplementary information to a record that has been made "Invisible" in its entirety.

Consideration should be given to submitting supplementary reports only through DRE by members who have been permitted access to the "Invisible" file, thus eliminating the transcription queue.

8. Whenever an entire report or portion thereof is made "Invisible", the privatizing member shall notify the Prime System Administrator, of the fact by providing the following information:

a. GO number of report being made "Invisible";
b. Investigating member; and
c. Name of approving Officer.

9. The Records Administrator shall maintain an up-to-date log of all files containing "Invisible" entries and the assigned investigator associated to each file.

10. The Records Administrator shall issue a request every three months through the PRIME system to the approving Officer who shall review the file to determine the need to maintain the "Invisible" status.

11. The approving Officer may grant the Information and Privacy Unit Co-ordinator access to the file, as deemed necessary to enable the Department to comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

12. If only a portion of a report is made "Invisible", the report will be accessible by all members except for the part of the report that was made "Invisible".
Review of File Status

 

Thursday, October 22, 2015

BC Hansard House Blues October 22, 2015 Morning Sitting. Questions? Any questions? Retention and Disposal Tactics?


 Investigation Report F15-03
Access Denied: Record Retention and Disposal Practices of the Government of British Columbia
Elizabeth Denham, Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC
October 22, 2015

4th Session Blues Debates of the BC Legislature too

If you've ever wondered how the Government of British Columbia is able to spar with the Opposition during Question Period, well today was a great example of the Researchers working below the scenes in the Bunker where the sign on the wall is still painted in Red   IT'S WAR!!!

That's how they treat any questions from the Public
British Columbia Legislative Internship Program

It only feels like a life time ...        
June 2010

Inside Government Caucus Research

By: Rahim Mohamed

A sign that reads "IT'S WAR" in bold red lettering hangs prominently in the Government Caucus research office.  This is a perfect touch.

The ascetic fits somewhere between political campaign office and military bunker.  The ceiling is patterned with crisscrossing pipes, austere walls plastered with newspaper clippings, old campaign posters, and a fain smell of stale coffee in the air.  It is fitting that the room sits across the hall from an actual jail cell, once used to hold prisoners in the bowels of the Parliament Buildings.

It is Monday morning, which means that it is time to set the research agenda for the week.  Research officers begin to trickle into the War Room.  The meeting officially starts at 7:30 am, when Head of Research Blair Phelps enters the room, notepad in one hand, paper cup of coffee in the other.  "What do we have?" he asks.

It is like a scene from TMZ.  Research officers scan their notepads and Blackberries, pitching one idea after another.  Blair listens keenly.  He nods approvingly of some ideas and mercilessly shoots down others.  The research officers then scurry to their respective cubicles.  From then on, the perpetual clack of keyboards fills the room punctuated by sporadic chatter.

Blair can be heard barking at his troops, demanding statistics, quotes and fact checks.  The interns are not spared from the mayhem.

At about 9:00 am, a research officer greets me with an instant message, asking for a statistic that I am not sure exists.  I take a big chug of my luke warm coffee and spend the next thirty minutes chasing the virtual needle in a haystack.  As the office saying goes, "Google is my best friend."

The pace slackens in the afternoon.  Today the office football comes out.  Research officers riff on humours moments from the day's debate while tossing the pigskin back and forth.  The team has survived another day.  As the workday nears its close Kris, my fellow intern, tapes a sign that reads "6 sessions to go" to the back table.

"It's like cramming for a final exam everyday," says Blair of his job.  The end of a frantic session is near and signs of fatigue are written on his face.  Nevertheless, I get the sense that there is nowhere else he would rather be.
 October 22, 2015 

   Honourable Amrik Virk is in the hot seat of Question Period where Today's BC Liberals still treat the Public as if ....its a rerun of 2010        IT'S WAR!!!



GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

J. Horgan: When the Premier took office some four years ago, she promised families would be first. We've been asking questions of the Minister of Children and Family Development for weeks and weeks now, and it's quite clear that families with children in care certainly don't come first.

We also heard from the Premier that she would run the most open and transparent government in Canada, yet today we have a report from the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner that says that we have probably the least open and least transparent government in Canada.

In fact, her report says the following: "In the course of this investigation, we uncovered negligent searches for records, a failure to keep adequate e-mail records, a failure to document searches and the willful destruction of records responsive to an access request. Taken together, these practices threaten the integrity of access to information in British Columbia." I don't think you can be more scathing than that.

When the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner began her three investigations — one into the Minister of Transportation's office, one into the very office of the minister responsible for freedom of information, and then lastly, into the heart of government, the Premier's office — the response from the 
Premier was: "Violations will not be tolerated."

Well, we have violations in the Premier's office, violations in the Minister of Transportation's office and violations right under the nose of the minister responsible for the act.

My question, absent anyone else who can answer it, is to the minister responsible: what are you going to do about it?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

Hon. A. Virk: Commissioner Denham's report is indeed comprehensive. First of all, she makes a number of findings. Commissioner Denham also makes a number of recommendations. Government is committed to take action on all of her recommendations. In fact, on a number of those recommendations, action has already been taken.

In fact, just this morning I spoke to the previous Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, a well-respected individual in the privacy circles all across Canada. David Loukidelis will provide advice and advise government on two factors. He will advise government on how to take action on the recommendations, and secondly, Mr. Loukidelis will provide advice on how to strengthen freedom of information and privacy in British Columbia.

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

J. Horgan: I know that British Columbians will be heartened to hear that the minister responsible for freedom of information has grave concerns about what's going on in his own office. I hope he has the same concerns about what's going on across government because that's the scathing indictment we got from Ms. Denham today. A scathing indictment. A culture of deception, a culture of deceit and a culture of delete, delete, delete.

Tim Duncan worked briefly in the Minister of Transportation's office. After that, he was working directly for the Liberal research team, and he said that there was a culture within the B.C. Liberal Party of not giving out information. He made reference to a popular television program that said to just win. It's all about winning.

I think most people on this side of the House and the independents on this side of the House felt that we came here to do public service, not to cover up for misdeeds in the government of British Columbia, but that's clearly what the minister is doing.

Now, with respect to the Premier's office, her deputy chief of staff, Michele Cadario, broke fundamental rules with respect to destroying government documents. In fact, the commissioner said the following: "From my investigator's review of her account, we can confirm that she has not personally retained a single e-mail she has ever sent from her government e-mail address."

I know it's not Back to the Future. I know it is really 2015, and everyone in the known universe sends e-mails all the time. In fact, it's the foundation of transmitting information quickly back and forth within government, outside of government. How is it possible that the deputy to the Premier has not retained one single record — not one single record in her time working for the Premier of British Columbia? It seems to me, again, a pattern.

The last deputy chief of staff to the Premier was fired because she blended the B.C. Liberal Party and the government of British Columbia. Again, a pattern of deceit, a pattern of deception.

Is there anyone over there that's prepared to be accountable today for the most appalling government in the history of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said before, the report is comprehensive. The recommendations that the commissioner makes are in administrative areas, operational areas, technical areas, policy and legislation.

With the assistance of Mr. Loukidelis, the specific areas will be actioned. I've already written a letter to the Chair of the special committee that's comprised of both sides of the House here and that's studying the freedom-of-information legislation. I have made recommendations in those areas that…
Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: …require suggestions for legislative change that have been referred to that committee. I further asked that committee to look at the practices and policies, as to how those particular areas are also done across Canada, and I'll look forward to those findings.

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

J. Horgan: For those who are new to this chamber and new to these proceedings, you're going to hear the words "the report was comprehensive" for the next 20 minutes because that's all — the only fig leaf, I guess — the minister can find here.

It's also interesting that oftentimes when I hear members on that side speak, it's as if they just arrived yesterday and they're not responsible for the past 15 years of deceit and deception.

I'll read further from the commissioner's report. "It's difficult to overstate the seriousness of the problems that my office discovered in the course of this investigation." These problems include either wilfully or negligently failing to produce records; failing to keep any sent e-mails, irrespective of the topic; and failing to tell the truth to an officer under oath.

Now, I appreciate that that may well be administrative and technical to the former member of the RCMP. But I would suggest that if that minister was still an officer of the RCMP, he wouldn't accept that as technical and administrative. It's a lie, a lie. That's what it is. There's no getting around it.

Madame Speaker: I will caution all members on the use of parliamentary language.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Hon. Speaker, but I'm just referring to someone who failed to tell the truth under oath. That's the words coming from the commissioner. I don't know how to call that anything other than what it is.

Madame Speaker: Mr. Leader, it's never appropriate to do indirectly what you're not permitted to do directly.

J. Horgan: I'm not impugning the motives of the minister. I'm telling the House what the officer of the Legislature said she heard when she talked not to administrative and technical staff but political staff in the Premier's office and in the minister's office.

Again, my question to the minister responsible for the integrity — the integrity — of freedom of information and privacy in this province. Certainly to goodness, you can do better than you've done so far. Try to be comprehensive with accountability.

Madame Speaker: I will caution all members that commentary is directed through the Chair.

Hon. A. Virk: While the commissioner's report indeed puts a spotlight on a number of issues, my expectations and government's expectations are very clear. Government's expectations are that all….
Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. A. Virk: The government's expectations are very clear that all employees at all levels throughout government abide by all applicable legislation. That cannot be stressed more. That one particular individual, as the member opposite refers to, has tendered his resignation, and that resignation has been accepted. My expectations are clear that everyone follows the legislation.

D. Routley: This is about credibility and integrity, of which this government has none, apparently. Time and time again, this minister and ministers before him have stood up in this House and promised this House, promised British Columbians, of what they expect.

They expect employees of government to follow the law. I think that British Columbians expect their government to follow the law. I can hear them revving up the bus outside to throw people under, rather than face the accountability themselves.

Last May, Tim Duncan, the former executive assistant to the Minister of Transportation and former B.C. Liberal caucus research officer made troubling allegations about how the B.C. Liberals' flagrant disregard for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act functioned. Mr. Duncan said that ministerial staff, political staff, routinely delete records contrary to the act if they feel those records would be embarrassing to government.

This morning, the Information and Privacy Commissioner confirmed that Mr. Duncan's allegations were true. In fact, it confirmed something he said about this government's culture of avoiding rules they don't like. They do what it takes to win.

In fact, the commissioner found that Mr. Gretes lied to the commissioner, and as a result, this case has been referred to the RCMP. Lest we miss the gravity of these findings, let me repeat that.

Madame Speaker: Question.

D. Routley: The ministerial assistant to the Minister of Transportation deleted government records, lied to the commissioner…

Madame Speaker: Does the member have a question?

D. Routley: …and his conduct is now being referred to the police. When we asked the Premier about this in May….

Madame Speaker: I would ask the member to pose the question.

D. Routley: Thank you.
She said: "If that rule isn't being observed by staff who are currently here or who are no longer in the employ of government, they have not abided by the regulations and rules."

My question is to the minister responsible for freedom of information. Your staff are breaking the rules, the law and the public trust. What are you going to do about it?

Madame Speaker: All members know to pose their questions through the Chair.

Hon. A. Virk: The commissioner's report did make a number of findings and did make a number of recommendations. My expectations and government's expectations stay the same: that all members, all employees at all levels follow all applicable legislation. If there are incidences where that has not occurred, that individual has tendered his resignation, and that resignation has been accepted.

This government has received over 43,000 freedom-of-information requests in the last five years, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pages of information have been put out and are available for the public to see in an open and transparent way. We are committed to continue that.

D. Routley: It's not about one individual. It's not about two individuals. It's not about any number of individuals this government could throw under their bus. It's about the integrity of this government again and again. And again and again they fail. The commissioner took testimony from Mr. Facey about his rather cavalier approach to his legal duties under the act that his office is mandated to enforce.

She said: "It is difficult to understand how the chief of staff would have thought he had no responsive records in these circumstances. The request covered all e-mails he would have sent to his minister during the period ending…one week before he received the request" — one week. It is pretty clear that the reason Mr. Facey didn't find any records is because he didn't want to find any records.

The Premier said that she would not tolerate staff who broke the rules. What is this minister responsible for open government, responsible for freedom of information, going to do about Mr. Facey and all of the others who have broken the rules under this government's watch?

Hon. A. Virk: Two of the recommendations made by Commissioner Denham request the release of e-mails as they refer to two different individuals and two different ministries. Work has progressed immediately to provide not only the e-mails from the Ministry of Transportation but the Ministry of Advanced Education to be provided forthwith, and those will be provided forthwith.

M. Karagianis: The commissioner made a damning observation regarding the culture among government's political staff. Let's remind the minister that this goes right into the Premier's office. This is not about two individuals in other ministries. This goes to the very heart of government, the highest office, the Premier's office.

I quote from the commissioner's report: "The majority of problems witnessed in this investigation occurred in offices that are inherently political in nature. While this investigation is not broad enough to be truly be systemic, it does raise concerns for me that ministerial offices are more likely to suffer from some of the problems illustrated in this report than other offices within government."

Again, to the minister responsible for freedom of information. How is it possible that this government has been in power for 14 years and yet right under the nose of the Premier, we are seeing flagrant disregard for the Freedom of Information Act? And how is it that this government is incapable of ensuring that their own political staff do follow the rules and obligations under the very act that this minister is trying to defend?

Hon. A. Virk: While this report certainly highlights some issues, it also provides remedies — remedies in the form of a number of recommendations. And I have said we are committed to act on those recommendations and have started the process to act on those recommendations immediately.

In fact, the responsibility of the administrative area of freedom of information — tracking those requests in the Premier's office — has immediately been assigned to the deputy minister's office. We are committed to take action on each and every one of those recommendations and have started that process immediately.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

HIGHWAY 16 BUS SERVICE
IMPLEMENTATION AND GOVERNMENT
CONSULTATION RECORDS

M. Karagianis: You know, this report today is explosive on what it tells us about the internal cynical workings of this government. We need to ask a bigger question: how deep does this go? How wide does this go? I'm sure in the coming days, those questions will be asked.

Let me just say that one of the things that really upsets me is the really cynical attitude this government has around the sort of genesis of this, which was questions asked on the Highway of Tears. You know, the event that triggered this was someone within the Ministry of Transportation coming clean and revealing to us this systemic culture of deleting e-mails and getting rid of information that may be embarrassing to government.
Every time we've raised this question about a bus on the Highway of Tears, the minister has laughed us off and treated it like a joke. Now we know that what was happening inside that office, the time and energy and effort that went into recklessly deleting e-mails, could have been put to better use protecting women along the Highway of Tears and putting a bus in place. So instead of doing the right thing….

I'd like the Minister of Transportation to explain why the kind of effort that went into deleting e-mails was not used to put a bus along that highway.

Hon. T. Stone: I will reiterate a number of comments that the minister responsible for FOI has said this morning. I certainly expect, as I know everyone in government does, that staff within our offices and staff more broadly within the bureaucracy adhere 100 percent to the act, both in spirit and in the law. Now, the….
Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: The original request, the 36 pages of records…. As the minister responsible mentioned a moment ago, those records will be provided. It also is worth noting that back in March, a number of other memos and records were proactively provided to the requesters, records that were deemed by staff in the ministry to be very relevant to the requests that came in.

At the end of the day, I also want to make sure that we don't lose sight of the fact that this government is working extremely hard to engage with communities, stakeholders, First Nations up and down Highway 16 to ensure that all options are being explored to make that corridor as safe as it possibly can be.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST ON
KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

D. Eby: On several occasions in this House, I rose to ask the former Minister of Advanced Education and current minister responsible for freedom of information about his involvement in a scheme to overpay senior executives at Kwantlen University. He called the questions outrageous and outlandish — outrageous until leaked records, including his own e-mails, showed his direct involvement.

In level on level of cover-up, we find out today from the commissioner that his chief of staff was hiding key records on the scandal through gross negligence. First, the minister forgot about his own e-mails. Then his chief of staff helped, through negligence, to hide records about the scandal. This goes all the way into the Premier's office.

To the minister. How can anyone believe that he is the guy to hold this Premier accountable to the freedom-of-information rules in this province?

Hon. A. Virk: There are some 200 million e-mails yearly in our government. In the last five years alone, over 43,000 freedom-of-information requests have been processed. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pages of information have been released and posted publicly for all British Columbians to see.


The Privacy Commissioner has made recommendations that a number of e-mails that were not provided be released immediately, and those e-mails are being released as expeditiously as possible.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Two hundred million e-mails. The minister's chief of staff can't find one, and the Premier's chief of staff can't find one. In fact, she doesn't even have any.

The minister covered up his own involvement in the scandal at KPU. He forgot about his own e-mails until somebody leaked them. He brought in a chief of staff who was grossly negligent, helping hide from the public important records about the scandal. Now, as head of freedom of information for the entire province, he has overseen conduct that has been referred to the police for investigation.

The commissioner writes — and this is very true: "It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of the problems that my office discovered in the course of this investigation and the resulting effect on the integrity of the access-to-information process in our province."

Again, to the minister. How can anyone in the public believe that he is the guy that is going to hold this Premier to account to her office's legal duties to British Columbians?

Hon. A. Virk: As I've said — and wait for it — the commissioner's report is comprehensive. It is comprehensive. It does make…. While it highlights some issues, it suggests a number of areas and recommendations where we can strengthen the legislation and we can strengthen our responses.

As I've said before, I've spoken to Mr. David Loukidelis. We're going to find ways to strengthen not only the manner in which we act on the recommendations but the training that is going to be provided, and is being provided, to staff all across core government.

We are committed to strengthening freedom of information across British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

S. Simpson: This isn't about an isolated incident. It isn't about a one-off. It's three investigations, including the Premier's office, and three findings of destruction of documents, an investigation that speaks of deceit, that speaks of cover-up, that speaks of lying under oath.

This is about a culture in this government that will do anything to win. This is a culture that starts right at the top. It starts in the Premier's office, and it starts with people sitting on the front bench of that government — a culture where political staff reflect their political masters. Many in the public are already cynical about politics, and this government has validated that cynicism.

Will the minister first apologize for the conduct of his government, and then will he ask the Information and 
Privacy Commissioner to investigate the rest of the ministerial offices where this is going on?

Hon. A. Virk: The Privacy Commissioner has done this report. The Privacy Commissioner has a role. As citizens across British Columbia request information, that information is processed by trusted and well-respected and well-trained public servants. In those rare circumstances — and we're talking tens and tens of thousands of FOI requests — where one does not agree with the manner in which an FOI request is processed, they can certainly lodge that inquiry with the Privacy Commissioner, who has a role to ensure that

she can look into it and make recommendations.
The Privacy Commissioner has made 11 recommendations, and we are committed to act on those recommendations.

HIGHWAY 16 BUS SERVICE
IMPLEMENTATION AND GOVERNMENT
CONSULTATION RECORDS

M. Mungall: What is absolutely clear here is that we have a culture of contempt from this government, and it comes from the top. This culture is to deny, to delete, to cover-up and to wilfully ignore their legal obligations.

In all of this, we have a bus that is desperately needed on the Highway of Tears, but this government is too busy covering up its misdeeds that they can't even be bothered to do the right thing and get that bus up there for the northern communities that need it.

This is why what they're doing…. Denham is very clear: the wilful destruction of records responsive to an access request. That's the legacy of this government.

British Columbians want to know: when is this government going to apologize for this utter lack of integrity, and just what more are they hiding? How deep does this go in this government?

Hon. A. Virk: The commissioner, within her authority in the legislation, conducted interviews, did examination across government and made findings and recommendations. Those recommendations, as I said, are operational, administrative, technical, policy and legislative. We are committed to take action on each and every one of those recommendations that the commissioner has provided in this report.

[End of question period.]

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

… After Sleep…. by Robin Mathews, Oct.21, 2015

… After Sleep….
                           by Robin Mathews, Oct.21, 2015

“Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing itself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks.  Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam.”   [John Milton  (1608-1674) Areopagitica]

In the impossible construction called a democratic nation every evil that arises in community can gather itself into a single force and seem to spread without hindrance: greed, bribery, flagrant breach of public trust, oppressing fear, racism, cynical exploitation of the weak and vulnerable, cronyism, manufactured militarism, organized corruption ….

Heartbreaking is the ease with which the single force seems to be accepted as … well … ‘the way of the world’.

All those who can benefit seem to choose to do so as the wrecking ball swings through the democracy.  The others, mostly, seem to cower in fear. Here and there voices are raised.  Records are kept.  Violations are recorded and broadcast by means possible.  Many of the ordinary means are bribed or coerced into silence, closed to what is real.  Even so … the word goes round.

The single force concentrating evil in a democracy is not to be confused with the dark evil that controls despotisms, dictatorships … and that violently erases opposition.  The single force doesn’t have that power in a democracy but works to achieve it, to turn the impossible construction called a democratic nation into a real, full-fledged despotism. It wants to do so. It works tirelessly to do so.  It is like a poisonous boil that grows and pains and weakens the whole body. The pain is the warning sign … the call for remedial action.

In the impossible construction called a democratic nation the single force is usually given a name … and here in Canada it has been called Harperism, the name adopted from the chief (fronting) instigator, controller, manager, designer, and  implementer of the steps that have been undertaken to turn this democracy into a despotism. And – as is usually the case – the beneficiaries of the single force actively deny its existence. Of course.

Our society – the kind of community talked about here – “the impossible construction called a democratic nation” possesses  an almost magical ability to respond.  Apparently a gathering of disconnected individuals, it is greatly and deeply more  than that. We speak of “the body politic” (“polis”in Greek meaning “the people”) as if the whole nation is, at rare times,  a single organism, a body … which thinks and acts.

As it did on October 19, 2015.

Word went round … and round.  People talked.  Books were written. Articles were exchanged.  ‘Strategic’ organizations formed. Opposition parties spoke of ‘change’ to avoid open condemnation of incipient (and shaping) despotism. They were careful … almost complicit….

But “…like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks” Canadians took hold.  They watched, towards the close, as “Harperism” employed one of the most unlovely political advisors in the English-speaking world.  They watched  “Harperism” goad on racism, attack a minority … and then (upon advice?) promise to mount greater racist attacks on that (and any other slandered ‘odious’) minority.  They watched Stephen Harper declare (in campaign) the outright, bald falsehood that Canada is “the largest per capita refugee receiver in the world”, as he also declared the simple flat lie that, of the CBC, “there are no cuts” … lying openly, easily, casually, readily, frequently since lying has become second  nature to him: his special skill - his sign of contempt for Canadians, his testimony of loyalty to thug corporations … and  to thuggery. 

In that behaviour is revealed such a closeness to madness that the Canadian organism – the impossible construction called the Canadian democratic nation – made up its mind. 

It would remove Harperism.  It would go around the fundamentalists – Corporate, Christian, neo-liberal, “Conservative”, Monetary, Media. It would remove Stephen Harper and “Harperism”. 

And so the Canadian body politic “kindling her undazzled eyes”, watched and listened, weighed and worried.  And then the  impossible construction called a democratic nation made a choice.  It didn’t make the ideal choice, perhaps.  It didn’t choose even what it might have chosen if given a wide-open set of choices … and time to consider, perhaps.  It may even  have chosen wrongly… for the impossible construction called a democratic nation has, always, to work within the possible.

But the magic of Canadian democracy happened (despite Harper and Harperism using every fraudulent tactic to prevent it from doing so).  The indefinable thing called Canadian history went into play; the indescribable thing called Canadian culture – deep and invisible – showed its face.   And so … from the possible … it took the major step and lanced the boil from the body politic as an intentional act.  It removed Harper and Harperism.  For the moment … a possible (and likely) despotism  was removed by “a noble and puissant nation, rousing itself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks  ... kindling her undazzled eyes ….”

The other political leaders thanked Harper for his “contribution” to Canadian life.  The neo-fascist-supporting major media   began white-washing, ‘retrospective’ looks at Harper and Harperism. Paid ‘historians’ began the task of writing volumes of lies.

Contact: Robin Mathews

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Why is Premier Christy Clark using her Office Budget for Privileged Partisan politics: all expense paid trip for Party lottery winner for a wined and dined lunch!


Strange title that the BC Liberal's Pamela Martin uses, RoundUp, but its no different than Premier Christy Clark poisoning the Treasury with absurd invoices for reimbursement to her party purse without realizing, not recognizing the similarities to the false assumptions made by Brian Bonney, who is now facing the Courts in regards to the Ethnic Scandal of 2013.

What are we taking about?

February 2015
  ....if you join right now, you'll be entered to win an all-expenses-paid trip to Vancouver to meet with the Premier over lunch. We'll announce the winner in May.


Pamela, bless her, keeps all the YouTube videos rolling, and she can't hide her follies by merely overwriting the file name on the BC Liberal Party Website   News 'Today's BC Liberals'

 RoundUp

That's poisonous to grass root organizations, right?


British Columbia Liberals Roundup with Pamela Martin


LNG in BC - Facts
 The 2015 International LNG in BC Conference is designed to help British Columbia seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Here’s what you need to know:



What does it mean when the BC Liberals use the phrase once-in-a-lifetime?     a lottery?
one-off, in/at one fell swoop, on-shot, (just) this once, isolated, unrepeatable, once

How much is this conference costing British Columbia taxpayers?


Pamela is also the Host for promoting Christy Clark while the two of them make promises, and more promises, more so to the party faithful than the faithless.

For example:

'http://www.bcliberals.com/news/' website puts layers upon layers of news bulletins using the same file name.  Yesterday & Yesteryears promotions that Pamela Martin has written, choreographed for Today's BC Liberals are gone, except, with the means of the WayBack Machine, and depending upon how many times the 'machine' has crawled through the website ..... the overwritten same name files are accessible.



How would you like it if you were shown that Premier Christy Clark has been using her Government Office Budget to promote the BC Liberal Party, at the BC Liberal Party headquarter, welcoming new members, while she is supposedly working for the citizens of British Columbia?

Back to Pamela's RoundUp



If in doubt as to the quality of the WayBack machine, because of the   'Read More...' all you have to do is use the one sentence, highlighted in bold blue above and you'll find it via Google.

Or just read the last sentence out loud:
The Premier also stops by party headquarter to make some important phone calls to our newest members.



Christy Clark's mixing partisan politics with Government responsibilities, paid for by taxpayers, is no different than what Brian Bonney who has been formally charged by a Special Prosecutor.   To make matters worse, BC Liberal Premier Christy Clark saw the problem, and then with her Party Leader hat on she signed the cheque from the BC Liberals coffers and returned 50% of Bonney's salary that was paid for, totally, from the Premier Office budget.

Why is it that Christy Clark doesn't see the same conflict as Bonney, with his sitting at his GCPE desk and Clark sitting in the BC Liberal Party headquarters making phone calls promoting the Party as something that the Treasury shouldn't be paying?  A return of her Salary paid by us, would be the right 'Bonney' thingy, but then that would be two Strikes against her.... three if one counts running a red light.

Leader Christy Clark is exercising her well thumbed copy of the Manhattan Experiment formula, using the financial resources of the Government to make IMPORTANT phone calls to her newest members and not realizing that she needs to reimburse her Treasury for the use of Government GCPE expenses, diverted transportation costs, and the designated RCMP officer(s) who attends to her every need.
Premier Christy Clark for a Photo Op

Hi, I'm Christy Clark and I'm the Premier 1:17 / 3:47

Youtube phone calls



The Privileges of Membership with the BC Liberal Party

Published on Feb 2, 2015
What happens when you join Today's BC Liberals?
Watch as Premier Christy Clark phones new members just to say thanks for their membership.

It's just one of the privileges of membership - getting to connect with the leaders of the province who are working hard to build a stronger British Columbia. You can join those leaders by signing up with just a few simple clicks here: bclib.ca/join.

Plus, if you join right now, you'll be entered to win an all-expenses-paid trip to Vancouver to meet with the Premier over lunch. We'll announce the winner in May.


What does it mean when the BC Liberals use the phrase once-in-a-lifetime?    
one-off, in/at one fell swoop, on-shot, (just) this once, isolated, unrepeatable, once

This Culture of Entitlement, this Perk, this Privilege, of an all expense paid trip of being a member of the BC Liberal Party, to be wined and dined with Premier Christy Clark, in the 'oval' office, photo op any different than Premier Bill Vander Zalm using his Office to promote the sale of Fantasy Garden for a financial reward? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Will the Boston Bar Little League be offered the same all expense paid trip to Vancouver to meet the Premier over lunch?

Will Williams Lake?

Will Terrace?

Will Fernie?




Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Christy Clark's Believe it or Not: 456,390 citizens standing belly to belly and back to back will form a line for 278 kilometres: Whistler to Hope

Ever wonder why Premier Christy Clark likes her GCPE staff so much?

The GCPE are able to  translate gobbly-geek research papers into something that is more palatable for the plebeians to grasp.

For example the report on  "Economic Burden of Injury in British Columbia" co-authored by
F. Rajabali, MSc; A. Ibrahimova, MD; B. Barnett, Team Member; I. Pike,   BSPE, M.Sc., PhD

Their findings in a nutshell, unadulterated, paper?

The bottom left hand paragraph highlighted with 456,390   on pages Four, Five and Sixty-Nine.


Rajabali F, Ibrahimova A, Barnett B, Pike I. (2015). Economic Burden of Injury in British Columbia. BC Injury Research and. Prevention Unit: Vancouver, BC.
Main Findings

Injury outcomes by intent (Table 1)

There were 2,009 lives lost due to injury in BC in 2010; 70% resulted from unintentional injuries and 28% of the deaths were intentional. There were 34,998 who were hospitalized for treatment and 456,390 who received emergency department treatment.

To the GCPE the bold blue number is a known quantity that can be used to the BC Liberals advantage as an example, to the disbelievers, in British Columbia when it comes to fair representation of facts.


First and foremost, voters understand themselves and how they measure up against politicians.  eg. Rich Coleman.  Voters know that if they were to stand on their tippy-toes and stretch their arms wide apart, Premier Christy Clark would come along and run a tape measure from one index finger tip, extended horizontally, to the other and come up with six feet.  She would then divide that six by six (because there are 6), and come up with ONE (Abbot and Costello: Who's on First).

Christy's Unchained Dreams
Christy Clark, or maybe it was her GCPE staff, used that one foot space to represent one British Columbian adult if he/she were to stand belly to belly, back to back and therefore they would occupy two feet.  Two people Two feet.  There are exceptions and exemptions allowed for in the GCPE rule book.

The GCPE came up with a nifty graphic artwork using those 456,390 people who required emergency medical attention for their injuries as being equivalent to a line 278 kilometres long, in other words, Hope to Whistler.  Those numbers are backed up in their artwork, paid for by you, and me.

GCPE version
Burnaby's population?  223,218
Vancouver's population?  603,502  (2011)   147,112 wouldn't be required to stand on the highway


The 278 kilometres would be correct if the GCPE had used 456,390 OBESE voters standing belly to belly and buttocks to buttocks as contained in the GCPE rule book.  However, the problem with using OBESE people is that Health Minister Terry Lake would have to come with an astronomical amount of cash to cover the added health costs.

For the 278 kilometres to work, the GCPE staff should have approached the co-authours of "Economic Burden of Injury in British Columbia" to find a way to double their numbers to 912,073 or approach the Health Ministry to pad their accounting methods which they do anyway when it comes to firings, and reports of said firings, and one death.

The easy way out for Christy Clark's GCPE would be to just admit that 456,390 British Columbian citizens standing belly to belly and back to back would equate to a mere  139 kilometres.   In other words from Whistler to where Brunette (Coquitlam) intersects with Highway One.


One could easily jump to the wrong conclusion by assuming that the GCPE staff's preferred route to stand these 456,390 souls so a majority of Metro Vancouverites could see the awesome numbers would be along the Sea to Sky Highway as being the shortest distance between Whistler and Hope  @ 273 kilometres.  Not so, there is another way which is four kilometres shorter and its practically deserted, no Photo Ops for the Premier waving from her Cadillac of just how stupid her GCPE are.

Whistler's secondary route to Hope is achievable via Mount Currie and then along the shores of Harrison Lake to Harrison Mills and then up to Hope.  269 kilometres.



Converting 278 kilometres into feet is equal to 912,073 people who used the hospital services in 2010, but who knows, maybe Rajabali F, Ibrahimova A, Barnett B, Pike I. (2015). Economic Burden of Injury in British Columbia. BC Injury Research and. Prevention Unit: Vancouver, BC. got it all wrong?

 What is tantalizing here is whether anyone should be required to verify if the other numbers on the info sheet from the GCPE and Christy Clark are valid examples.  Or are they downright wrong, therefore intentionally misleading.

If you take 80 Average Size Hospitals in British Columbia and load them up with 34,998 people with serious injuries, each of those 80 Average Size Hospitals would be required to have 437 beds.

Serious injuries would mean more than an overnight stay, maybe weeks or months

Lions Gate Hospital In-patient beds 260

Vancouver General Hospital   In-patient beds 1000+

Burnaby General Hospital  In-patient beds  314

Map of all 112 Hospitals in British Columbia



Wikipedia and GPS links to all 112 hospitals