----------NDP Official Opposition
Room 201 Parliament Buildings
Dec. 28, 2010100 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION SCANDALVICTORIA
– On the seventh anniversary of the B.C. legislature raid, New Democrats are callingon the B.C. Liberals to answer 100 unanswered questions related to the B.C. Rail corruptionscandal. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
Questions 1-30 (originally submitted Nov. 2, 2010):
1. It‘s now clear that the guilty plea by former ministerial assistants Dave Basi and Bob Virkwas contingent on the decision by the government to foot the full tab for their legal fees. Ithas led to a concerns they used $6 million in taxpayer dollars to secure a guilty plea tosweep the B.C. Rail corruption trial under the rug. How does the government explain that?2. Why did the B.C. Liberal government try to hide this information for a week?3. The Attorney General originally stated that the decision to let Basi and Virk off the hook for their legal costs was made by him based on a recommendation made by his DeputyMinister - but later noted he had nothing to do with the decision. Why did the AttorneyGeneral issue contradictory statements and which one is the correct version? Whatevidence can the Attorney General provide to support that claim?4. We have been told that taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars for Basi and Virk’slegal fees - what is the exact final total? Will the government release the amount paid for legal services provided by the Special Prosecutor’s office? What is the final total of theentire trial?5. Has any such deal ever been struck before for civil servants who plead guilty for breachingpublic trust, and committing fraud? Can the government provide a single example of thiskind?6. This plea bargain agreement with Basi and Virk now sets a precedent for all future andcurrent government staff. Did the government consider the precedent set by thisdecision?7. The Attorney General claimed that the defendants had no money to cover these costsdespite evidence of property holdings that appears to contradict this claim - can theAttorney General produce documents showing that the government conducted a full reviewof the defendants’ ability to pay in arriving at this conclusion?8. Can the Attorney General explain the different standards applied to the legal fees owed byBasi and Virk than the approach taken by the government with respect to erroneous claimsby welfare recipients, for example?