Thanks Ben,You have made MLA John Rustad look like a complete fool.

Every time Rustad opens his mouth he reminds me of General Custer at the little big horn. Lots of talk, low on substance.

Actually Len2, Mr. Rustad has been able to make himself look foolish his entire political career. I could never understand how he got away with being elected for local or provincial politics. He doesn't seem to be able to make a rational evaluation of anything; but can spout the party line very well. So who is the fool, his electorate? He may be my MLA but he certainly doesn't represent me!

Would have been better if THOSE aspects of the situation had been examined in a 'public inquiry' BEFORE the sale of BC Rail.

If WE, the People, were supposed to be its ultimate 'owners', even though the Crown through the BC Government acts as a Trustee for our ownership, then such a pre-sale 'public inquiry' would have been the equivalent of a 'special shareholder's meeting' in a private Company.

One could well imagine what would happen where any private railway company's top management tried to sell the company based on information only THEY had about future prospects. AND HOW TO BEST BENEFIT THEMSELVES to the exclusion of benefit to the shareholders, and acted on that information without first disseminating it to the 'shareholders' at large.

After those 'shareholders' subsequently found out that the sale had been made at probably something less than what their company was really worth, there'd be lawsuits galore. And in all likelihood they'd be successful.

But what recourse are we left with in this situation? Certainly we can vote that 'top management' out of office when we've the opportunity, but that really doesn't properly redress the situation.

At the very least, if WE were supposed to be the ultimate 'owners' of this Crown corporation, WE, each and every British Columbia citizen at the time of its disposition, should've received an equal share of the proceeds.

Likely as not we can't do anything about that now, short of dismissing the 'wrecking crew'. But we should certainly DEMAND that any FURTHER 'privatisations' of any Crown corporation or government 'operating' assets of this nature be subject to public inquiry FIRST, and if approved, the sale proceeds are returned directly to the real 'shareholders' equitably.

There are a number of issues surrounding the sale of BC Rail and the Port of Prince Rupert.

We can argue the pros and cons of selling BC Rail, however we will never be able to make a case for selling it to CN Rail. If it had to be sold, it should have been sold to CP Rail, or the Burlington Northern Railway, so that we could continue to have some rail competition in the North. As it now stands CN Rail is the only game in town.

When we talk about BC Ports we should keep in mind that the Port of Pr Rupert and the Port of Vancouver (On BC Rail lines) are equidistant from Prince George. So in terms of logistics, it matters little to industry in Prince George which Port they use as long as the freight rates are competitive.

People in Prince George have this mindset that somehow Pr Rupert is a better Port for this area than Vancouver, when in fact the exact opposite is true. At this point in time Containers loaded to Prince Rupert go to one destination only ie; China. When product is shipped to Vancouver Port it can basically go anywhere in the world, Japan, China, Europe, India, etc; So the Port of Vancouver in much more diversified.

While it is true that the sailing time from China to Pr Rupert is one day shorter, once the ship unloads in Pr Rupert it then goes to Vancouver, and then to a US Port before it returns to China, so in effect the one day saved at Pr Rupert is lost to Vancouver and say Portland/Seattle, so the overall tranit route would not necessarily be more benificial from a Transportation point of view. There would certainly be some benefits in Prince Rupert in regards to congestion, and train service to the US East Coast, and I suspect that this is the real reason they built the Container Port in Prince Rupert.

The pulp and lumber loaded in Prince George is the same product that would be loaded into Containers in Vancouver if the Rupert Port had not been built. The thing people should keep in mind is that although we are using a different Port (Pr Rupert) we are shipping the same commodities, so overall there is no increase in production, and therefore no new jobs. In fact one could make a strong case for actually losing jobs because of less trucking to Vancouver to stuff containers, and therefore less, mechanical repairs, new truck sales, truck driving jobs, tire sales, restaurant meals, fuel sales etc;. You dont get any of these benefits from a Railway.

The people who benefit the most from the Port of Prince Rupert, are;

1. The City of Prince Rupert,
2. COSCO Shipping Co.
3. CN Rail
4. Maher Terminals

These people all invested in the project and they will get some benefits, however there is absolutely no benefits to the City of Prince George.

The fact that CN Rail purchased BC Rail has in fact decreased the train service from Prince George to Vancouver via BC Rail, and in fact I suspect that it has been decreased by over 50% since the purchase. All lumber going to the USA now comes throught Prince George, and I beleive that all pulp and Paper is taken on the CN Lines to Jasper, and then down to Vancouver, so there has been a dramatic decrease in traffic South on BC Rail, with the attendent loss of jobs etc;.

So in effect we have lost a competitive railway to the Port of Vancouver, we have a decrease in traffic South on BC Rail to the point where one would wonder how long they will actuallly maintain the track South of 100 Mile, we are now operating under a CN Rail monopoly which is not good for business in this area.

The completion of the Panama Canal expansion in 2013/14 will have a huge effect on Container traffic on the West Coast and there will be fierce competition for whatever Container traffic is available. Can Pr Rupert survive after Panama. Who knows. One should keep in mind that Maher Terminals the people who built the Pr Rupert container facilities, main container handling Ports are on the East Coast (New Jersey) and once the Panama opens up, it would be in their best interests to have these ships unload on the East Coast.

Time will tell.

Isn't Rustad just basically saying that much of the dough that the Province received from the sale of BC Rail, was invested into the port expansion in Rupert? I am assuming that the port expansion would not have gone ahead were it not for the Provincial contributions and those wouldn't have been in place has they not had the proceeds from the sale of BC Rail (and by logical extension, CN wouldn't have invested in the loading facilities had the port not been expanded).

This isn't to say that I necessarily agree with the sale of BC Rail or the benefits that the port and container facility have provided.

Ben Meisner, Socredible, Palopu ... thanks for valuable information, much needed as we [sigh ... !] hammer one another in the good ol' democratic traditions, trying to figure out IF ... for cryin' out loud ... IF we really need to have a Public Inquiry into the criminal negotiations which led to the loss of a huge public asset.

And bid-rigging is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada. So is offering bribes, as well as accepting bribes.

It beats me, how anybody can feel OK about having a major public asset stolen, then shrug it off as being too much trouble to put things straight again.

I'd like to correct where Socredible says that Likely as not we can't do anything about that now, short of dismissing the 'wrecking crew' ...

There are reposession clauses built into one of the BCR-CN deals which, on its 5th anniversary -- July 14, 2009 -- stipulated that the government of BC could re-posess BCRail if certain agreed points weren't fulfilled.

Unfulfilled promises such as the upkeep of existing trackage, and CN's promise to replace 600 BCR rail cars with new ones. Both these items were unfilfilled promises and therefore deal-breakers.

My group tried to activate Leonard Krog, Opposition Justice critic, to no avail ... in fact, he stonewalled us, then held a press conference and took credit for the idea.

All I'm saying is that re-possession isn't a futile dream. It can be done. Start early and keep trying.

I'd like to borrow these comments for re-posting at my place, please Ben:

The Legislature Raids

http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/

Happy New Year, everyone.

The above article by Meisner and the responses again show that the entire transaction selling/leasing the BCR made absolutely makes no logical sence. Which means what...well we are missing a critical piece of the puzzle.....once we know (read public enquiry) ........it will all fall in place.
Oh, no suprise, it wont be a pretty picture!!!!!!

The above article by Meisner and the responses again show that the entire transaction selling/leasing the BCR made absolutely no logical sence. Which means what...well we are missing a critical piece of the puzzle.....once we know (read public enquiry) ........it will all fall in place.
Oh, no suprise, it wont be a pretty picture!!!!!!

There must have been some benefit to B.C. and Prince George from the BCRail sale as our former mayor (if I recall correctly) came out as being enthusiastically in favour!

Now when he is running for the federal seat perhaps would be a good time to ask him about it.

Having been to a number of different functions where Rustad spoke,just staying awake was a chore.
He is a Liberal puppet who speaks only the party line,as he is told to do.
He stays out of the limelight and avoids serious debates and questions.
He does however, always show up for photo ops with Pat and Shirley.

Mr. Rustad is living off the taxpayers of B.C. even though he is totally ignorant of the facts of the situation? What a deteriorating political situation we have at all levels in B.C. Rustad has to go!

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to Prince Rupert opened for service in 1914.

Yes, we need a full public enquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail. The Liberals are obviously hiding a lot of facts from the public and they should be questioned under oath.

Re: My newspaper article about common folk being let off the financial hook fer stoopid political decisions?

What is a John Rustad??

John (TILMA) Rustad is the guy that worked in the shadows to 'harmonize' the sovereignty of BC away to the lowest common denominator for investment, environmental, and labor regulations. Selling BC Rail in a corrupted process is par for the course for a guy that cares little about BC sovereignty and views monopoly capitalism as akin to a religion.

The strangest thing to me is that the riding he represents has none of the mega corporations... its a riding of independent farmers, loggers, small business, and sustainable development type folks... yet they buy the line that they have to vote liberal for free enterprise and in the process vote for a guy that really stands for monopoly capitalism. Of all the ridings in BC it might be the best example of one that should support independents, but yet they support one of the biggest party yes men in the entire province. The only explanation is ignorance of politics by the voters in that riding... a people who vote based on name recognition and party platitudes, rather than actual policy and track records.

As for BC Rail... its gone, we could never rebuild the rolling stock and the business without huge costs. A huge crime. But we still own the tracks and BC should simply make them open tracks maintained by an independent crown corporation. Allow CP and Burlington Northern, or CN, or anyone else including Canfor themselves to operate their own trains on that line for a per-mile usage fee... open it right up to free enterprise competition and let the industry in the north benefit from the competition and lower shipping rates.

As for the BC liberal party... they didn't pay a $6 million dollar bribe to convicted criminals to shut down the BC Rail trial without a good reason. They have skeletons in their closet and everyone in the province knows this.

A full independent inquiry should be done and if wrong doing is documented through discovery, then Elections BC should ban the BC liberals as a party from the next election just like what Elections BC did to the reform party for a much much smaller offense.

Perjury punishable by a lose of accreditation to run in the election. In BC the ndp have never, and never will be the majority... so what would likely happen is a couple of parties would benefit from homeless voters much the same as the BC liberals did when the 26% that supported reform BC lost their vote... the end result could be a minority government in BC that we so desperately need to restore the principles of democracy... even if it was an ndp minority government.

If the BC liberals were banned from the next election for perjury... then existing BC liberal MLA's and candidates would have to run under a different party. And that would be the absolute best thing that could ever happen to BC... dismantles the mafia control from the top and reasserts primacy of the MLA over the party structure. Plus, not all would agree on the same 'new party' so some might opt for a far right, while others might opt for a more centrist approach... in the end we would have a truly multi-party parliamentary system again.

Of course that is if people truly believed that Elections BC was actually independent and a watch dog for the sanctity of the democratic process in BC... namely the right for people to know what they are voting for through truthful and honest policy debates at election time... as well as above board open transparency to follow the democratic protocols between elections.

If BC wants to blame anyone for the criminal nature of our politics in this province than Election BC is the one that should take most of the blame IMO.

It's a nice notion, banning the Liberal Party, Eagle. But like the man said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Only in this case, a skunk's piss would stink just as bad even if you called him a polecat.

That may be so socredible, but they would all be tarred and feathered and may not all want to hang out together sharing the same ignominious distinction. To create a new party they would have to create a new platform and set of policy... and for this they would have to have input from a wider circle of people than currently run the show... and in this one defuses this power structure even if only temporary.

Politicians would think twice before ever wanting to rebuild like that again in the future. Why is a political party held sacred? Shouldn't the process be about the people we elect? Perjury in politics (especially from unaccountable party insiders) would then be seen as the crime that it is, and the punishment would be well known by all the actors in the political scene... honesty would then again have a chance to survive in politics, and people would then again have faith in the value of voting.

Leaving it to the voter like when the liberals came to power and the ndp were wiped out as a recognized political party leaves the province vulnerable to dictatorship, which is exactly what Elections BC set BC up for when it banned the reform party and left alone the real criminals of perjury (ndp, in the 90's) that the people wanted gone. Had Elections BC banned the ndp instead for perjury (ie fudget budget) we might have seen them form new groups, some of which would have went centrist, and we would have a viable option to Gordon Campbell... possibly a minority government... and he would not have had his free ride to dictator powers that he did.

Elections BC has done everything they can going out of their way to enable the corpratist agenda of Gordon Campbell and nothing to protect the sanctity of democracy in BC.

Perjury in politics should not be rewarded with impunity. Perjury in politics should be punishable by banishment from the trade. There has to be accountability for perjury otherwise democracy is dead.

To promise not to sell BC Rail, not to privatize BC Hydro, not to privatize BC Ferries, not to bring in the HST, and to say one has a balanced budget for an election when in fact its a two billion dollar deficit... those are all acts of perjury to the voter for ill gotten political gain, and that undermines the whole political relevance of democracy. That has to be regulated to end the corruption, or we simply do not have a democracy anymore.

Well, an effective "Voter's Veto" would quite likely be the best way to reign in those 'honourable' people we elect to represent us when they no longer do.

Trying to govern by way of "Initiative", as is done in many of the US States, is, in my opinion, fraught with danger. There is no opportunity for debate, or means of improving what may well be a worthwhile measure. It has to be accepted or rejected by the voters exactly as the Initiative is written, and this can lead to innumerable problems with 'interpretation' later. Also, too often those who can raise the most money for advertising are going to prevail, and that's not always the side that's got the public's best interests in mind.

But a "Voter's Veto" enabled by a process similar to that used with the HST Petition, only with a Referendum that is BINDING at the end of the process, would provide a mechanism for the electorate to express their disapproval of the type of sneaky measures the BC Liberals have opted to implement by introducing policies they had no mandate to implement. And ones that would've almost certainly met with widespread voter resistance had one been sought.

As I see it, this would allow the public to reject the direction that the government has chosen to go on any issue where there is clearly no majority of the electorate on side. And it does it in a way that doesn't overturn that government itself, which most people still might not want to do.

If a government feels it needs to still go ahead with whatever specific policy it was trying to implement that the Voters subsequently vetoed ~ that such a policy was absolutely necessary to its continued ability to govern ~ then let them call a general election on that issue.

And if they're returned to office, the results of the Voter's Veto are overturned, and that's that. I think if we had such a sanction there would be a much greater forthrightness from those running for office about the direction they want to take the Province.

I can't argue with that proposal. Sounds like a very good and democratic idea.

My idea of an Election BC run polling site would be none binding only as a way to measure voter interest in proposals from politicians before they ever came to the legislature for a vote.

Both ideas would vastly improve citizen participation in the process and provide effective checks and balances on rouge political mischief.

Coming back to what BC Mary has said above about the "re-possession clause" and that CN has violated it in at least two areas.

Seems to me that Leonard Krog, (and by inference the NDP as a Party itself ) don't seem to all that anxious to use information Mary's group has provided to aid in actually reversing the BC Rail deal.

But they're more than happy to try to get any political brownie-points out of criticising the failings of private enterprise vs. the supposed abscence of those same failings had the railway remained a Crown corporation.

I think this is reminiscent of the 'privatisation' of highways maintenance that took place when Bill Vander Zalm was Premier.

The New Democrats roundly criticised that action, but they never made any attempts at reversing it when they assumed office later on. Seems they were no more anxious to resume 'publicly-owned' maintenance of public roads than they are of really re-possessing BC Rail.

And, of course, this begs the question, "Why?"

Personally, I think the answer to THAT, which may well come out, and should definitely come out, in any properly constituted Public Inquiry, might well reveal something the NDP 'guiding lights' don't want us to hear.

Something that challenges their core ideology about "public ownership" and its "benefits".

In fact, I believe they may well be so anxious to "leave sleeping dogs lie" in that particular area that their call for a much needed delving into any criminal actions, which seem to have obviously occured amongst those involved in the BC Rail sale outcome, is about as forceful as their call for axing the HST once it had been implemented. Half-hearted at best, and probably really not even that.

It's a pity, for us, that our politics has descended to such a level. Where such blind adherence to failed and failing ideologies on the part of BOTH major Parties, and ALL the currently active minor ones, allows the criminal element free reign to profit with complete impunity.

If our MLAs were truly interested in being "our" representatives they would have their "ear to the ground" in regards to what was going on in their ridings in regards to what people want.

WAC Bennett seems to have been our last Premier to have ever understood this, and what their proper role should be. He would regularly make unannounced trips by car all around the Province, just him and his driver, and stop in various towns and actually talk with people ~ no cameras, no media crews, no big bus, no publicity ~ just one person engaging another in converstion, one to one, and actually LISTENING to what he was being told.

And then comparing it to what the MLA from that same area was telling him, to determine if they were both hearing the same thing. Contrast THAT with what we've had since.

Federally, when the Reform Party first got going, it made a point of trying to ascertain what was on the mind of the public. I think that's one of the reasons why they gained such a large following in the West as fast as they did. Their mail-outs used to solicit YOUR actual opinion, what YOU were interested in seeing the government do.

Look at the mail-outs from their successors, the governing federal Conservative Party today. And from their Opposition, too. Ones that blight every mailbox with increasing regularity. THEY all "tell" you what is supposed to be important to you, from a pre-selected list.

One from which you can select what is "most" important to you, AS IF NOTHING ELSE NOT ON THAT LIST WAS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE AT ALL. Self-serving mush they can then use for THEIR own purposes in TELLING us that they're listening to the "will of the People".

The ONLY thing ANY of them listen to are the dictates of "Finance". Those who hold the purse-strings, who have appropriated PUBLIC CREDIT as their own property, and have stealthily replaced their rightful role of 'administrators' of that Public Credit, with the notion that it's solely their private 'possession'. Until we wake up to that FACT, and move to rectify it, we'll never really have a fully functioning democracy. We'll always fall short of our full potential 'economically', and as a result, 'politically' too.

Eagleone, I live in John Rustad's riding and I think you nailed it in your analysis of the voters in our riding, that have supported this clown.