By Black Sheep
Read the Facebook post below and tell me this doesn’t sound familiar.
Different circumstances, but the same demand I have been making in my own case: examine the documents, speak to the witnesses and answer the questions.
In a post shared in the BetterBC Facebook group, Corinne Pereira alleges that employees were directed not to speak with her. She says she intends to give Lorne Doerkson their names, identify where relevant documents are located and provide an RCMP contact.
Those are specific claims that can be examined. They deserve scrutiny based on evidence.
Read the original Facebook post here.
The Facebook post
[SCREENSHOT OF THE ORIGINAL FACEBOOK POST HERE]
Screenshot supplied to Black Sheep. The transcription below preserves the wording shown. The screenshot displays “1d,” rather than an exact publication date.
Now that the trash has taken itself out, I’m writing a letter to Lorne Doerkson. I’m going to let him know everything! I’m going to give him all the employees’ names. Eby’s lawyer directed them not to talk to me but he can’t direct them not to talk to their new boss. I’m going to let him know which branches the documents are in. I’ll let him know whom to contact in the RCMP.
Eby and Sharma are done! You’re welcome.
#BreachOfTrust #MisappropriationOfPublicFunds
#GoDirectlyToJail
Edited: for those of you who don’t know, Eby and Sharma are already under investigation by the RCMP’s Sensitive Investigations Unit. See my profile for more info.
Conservative Party of BC BC NDP
For clarity: these are Pereira’s allegations. I have not independently verified her claim that David Eby and Niki Sharma are under RCMP investigation, or her allegation concerning instructions from Eby’s lawyer. The screenshot itself does not establish either claim.
Why this sounds familiar
What caught my attention was the description of someone trying to get information examined while alleging that access to people with relevant knowledge had been restricted.
That resonates with my experience.
In my own case, I have repeatedly asked authorities and political representatives to address the substance of what I have submitted. My request has been straightforward: read the records, examine the evidence and explain the decisions.
People should be able to raise serious concerns and receive answers that address those concerns. They should be able to understand what was examined, what was concluded and why.
Pereira’s circumstances are different from mine. Her post does not establish a connection between our cases. But I recognise the frustration of believing you have information that warrants scrutiny and struggling to obtain a meaningful response.
Is the accountability problem systemic?
From my perspective, the failures of transparency and accountability I have encountered feel epidemic. Seeing another person raise concerns involving government records, potential witnesses and alleged barriers to communication reinforces my concern.
That is my assessment of the accountability problem. Whether particular conduct constitutes corruption must be established through evidence.
Eby and Sharma should face the same standard of scrutiny as anyone else named in serious allegations. Their positions should neither shield them from examination nor be treated as evidence of guilt.
Pereira says she can identify employees and locate documents. The practical next step is clear: preserve those records and provide the information to an appropriate, independent investigative body.
Questions that deserve answers
- What records support Pereira’s allegations?
- What instruction was allegedly given to employees, by whom and for what stated reason?
- Have the documents and potential witnesses been identified to investigators?
- Can the claimed investigation be independently confirmed?
- What response do Eby, Sharma and the lawyer referred to in the post provide?
The supplied screenshot contains no response from those named.
Examine the evidence
Doesn’t this sound like what I’ve been saying in my case, under different circumstances?
To me, it does.
Another person says there are documents to examine and people who can provide information. The public deserves to know whether those claims withstand scrutiny.
If the evidence establishes wrongdoing, there must be accountability. If the allegations are unsupported, the findings should explain that clearly.
Preserve the records. Interview the relevant witnesses. Give people answers they can assess.
Original source: Corinne Pereira’s Facebook post shared in BetterBC.
This article contains commentary, the author’s account of his own experience and allegations attributed to the Facebook author. The transcription records what was posted; it does not independently establish the allegations.
Leave a Reply