...... One had only to look at the schedule for the technical hearings to see a large contingent of industry experts and an equally large number of government bureaucrats that will between them bring a bias to the hearing. No government employee would risk his future by suggesting that any course of action other than that ordained by the party line be followed. - David Anderson, CommissionerIf anything has been learned from the Commission study in 1990, its that today's government bureaucrats are "encouraged" to bail out of their current employment and move onto the private sector of which they originally were the overseers of, Trillions of dollars Royalties .... LNG.
Members of the BC Legislature don't have that luxury, leaving, unless of course the AG of BC feels an Earthquake tremor of 8.0 coming on. MLAs, Cabinet Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries who has had access to insider information, co-wrote, made into law, have to wait until two years has passed. The public servants, no such limitations.
There should be a LAW regarding Public Servants.
Commission of Inquiry into Fraser Valley Petroleum Exploration
Special Report on Allegations of Witness Tampering at the Commission Hearings
David Anderson, Commissioner
November 1990, Victoria, British Columbia
The Allegations. Page 7 of 20Appendices provide here.
The text of the press release in question will be found in the appendices. For the purposes of this report, the following quotations are of note on page two:
.... we were able to make significant inquiries in Illinois, Washington, Michigan and Wyoming, but persons within the industry in those areas who talked to us or suggested further lines of investigation, have been contacted by the proponents and pressured and embarrassed into withdrawing their support.
Again, on page four:
Although our industry contacts in the United States have been silenced....
The allegation that civil servants did not testify honestly before the Commission is found at the bottom of page two and continues on page three. It reas as follows:
... the Ministry regards itself as the handmaiden of the petroleum industry, whose principle objective is to advance the interests of the industry ....
and later on page three:
One had only to look at the schedule for the technical hearings to see a large contingent of industry experts and an equally large number of government bureaucrats that will between them bring a bias to the hearing. No government employee would risk his future by suggesting that any course of action other than that ordained by the party line be followed.
These are very serious allegations of wrongdoing. If true, they would in all probability lead to criminal charges of obstruction of justice, and criminal charges of perjury; if false, there is the possibility of charges of obstruction of justice, as well as private suits for defamation. Such criminal charges or private litigation are not, however, of direct concern to the Commission, and will not be commented on in this report other than as they affect the Commission's activities.
From the Commission's point of view these allegations cast serious doubt on whether a group of witnesses who were invited to testify and who did testify at the technical hearings of the Commission properly covered the issues of interest to the Commission. If the allegations have substance, it will be necessary to reopen the technical hearings, to obtain the information that allegedly had been suppressed by the activities of the proponents. If the second allegation has substance, it will be necessary to reject the testimony of one or more of the numerous civil servants from the governments of Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Washington and Michigan who testified at the technical hearings of the Commission between 27 August 1990 and 6 September 1990.
It is also obvious that if the allegations have substance, I would find it very difficult to proceed with and inquiry into the exploratory drilling proposals until the question of the proponents' possible criminal activity had been looked into by the appropriate authorities. It would be bizarre indeed to continue with this inquiry into exploratory drilling when the proponents of that drilling were under investigation for criminal activity designed to mislead this very Commission. It would be even more bizarre to expect to have the subsequent regulation of any possible drilling conducted by the same civil servants who had committed perjury in an effort to improperly aid those proponents in obtaining permission to drill.
Clearly, these allegations called for a full investigation. Accordingly, following the termination of the technical hearings on 6 September 1990, Commission Counsel, Mr. Douglas MacAdams, and I devoted ourselves to investigating these charges. SNIP
No Evidence of Witness Tampering Page 19 and 20 of 20
No comments:
Post a Comment