![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having no prior knowledge of this string of events, I can assure the contributors who wrote this article that I have only a slight understanding of what occurred having read this entry. This article suffers from a number of editorial problems, not the least of which is an assumption that a reader already has certain level of familiarity with the subject (which is probably not the case the further one goes from BC). I recommend that the contributors take a look at how other significant political and judicial scandals are covered in Wikipedia, and use those articles as a template. As it stands currently, this article is confusing and unfocused. Calarch78 ( talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this needs help. I wrote two sections way back when - scrupulously adding sources - but it is quite the task. So much has happened that it is very hard to get it all in - it doesn't help that I don't have a lot of experience. More experienced wiki editors would be so appreciated on this article! Moonbug ( talk) 07:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You kids need to grow up a bit. All the information on the raids in the Vancouver Sun article and it states who was searched and who was named in the warrants. I mean really, it was right there on the front page of Vancouver's leading newspaper! Keep up the good work Liberals and New Democrats...those of us on the right own the country now! - unsigned comment by IP address user 205.250.69.171 16 April 2006
Not sure what it is - "this article is about a current event" is its text, so could someone please put it in. A POV watch should be maintained closely here, and also someone on the lookout for violations of the publication ban(s). Skookum1 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I just scanned it and it looks pretty much like a p.r. agency bio of Basi for public relations purposes; granted he's been a "man in black" in much regular media coverage. Maybe I didn't read it write and it's not a puff piece, just starts out like one; but if it belongs anywhere it should be on the David Basi page. If we started linking ALL news articles, bios and backgrounders on this case there'd be over 100 entries on just Dave Basi alone; unless the various media profiles of Mark Marissen and Erik Bornman should also be here. Myself, I think the Globe article was inserted here because of its handy title ("There is no substance to this case"), which certainly is the unofficial government position on the proceedings (since they can't have an official one, other than Oppal's ope as A-G, which is controversial to start with). Skookum1 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is suposed to be an encyclopedia and not a scrapbook of breaking news summaries. The sources for almost all of this story are highly questionable. The media are notorious for its inaccuracy and blogs are pure opinion. Information from such sources is in no way encyclopedia-like. I'm not deleting this page because it looks like folks have put a lot of work into it, but this is really a story that should not be added to this site until after the trial. At that time we will have a more encyclopedic understanding of what took place. -unsigned comment by User:IWin4U 19:00, 26 December 2006
I removed this template because of the heavily-neutered content of this page on the one hand, and outright POV claims such as:
...which I would just have removed if not for the ongoing edit war around this and other articles; this appears to have been added by the same crew of SPAs who've been patrolling/sabotaging Erik Bornmann and Mark Marissen. This article is going to need POV watch big-time, especially once the trial begins in a few weeks... Skookum1 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a number at Erik Bornmann which might be used here if references are required. Should he be mentioned in this article? Proto:: ► 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The references flag was removed. I have added it back. Skookum1 was concerned that this was "a hostile edit" because the article does have references. The warning asks people to improve the article by adding sources. I think it is a valid concern. The article on the judge hearing the case is a stub and has 2 references. In comparison, this article has 6 "external links": 1 (Yahoo) of which is dead, 1 (CBC Who's Who) that is 3 years out of date, and 2 to railways (OmniTrax, BC Rail sale news release) that can serve as background but are not focused on the trial. None of the dates or "direct quotes" have explicit footnotes which should be a concern for an article about an ongoing politically-sensitive criminal trial. So I hope the request for references is viewed as a neutral request to improve the article's quality. Canuckle 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This edit caught my eye, and while it's syntactically correct in an absolute sense the title "BC Legislature Raids" had evolved somewhat by consensus as for a working title for an article on this scandal; Basi-Virk Affair redirects here, and others; I created the Ledgegate redirect and see that Tieleman's been using Railgate so I'll create that redirect too. The big media has avoided these term s altogether because, like the cabinet and the RCMP, they wish the scandal would just go away. Not giving it a name ia a way to make it difficult to discuss, or shoved into oblivion behind the news about traffic, sick babies, pedophiles and crystal meth and high fashion and how to eat cheese properly; no need to investgate criminal wrong doing by ublic officials, and dubious behaviour by elected officials; they're good for the markts, don't turf 'em out, that's why this scandal hasn't got a name in the big papers or the networks (including the gutless CBC). But other than that rant, the point here is that the article is not about the raids but about the scandal, court case and evolving revelations of an organized (and illegal) coverup. Therefore, maybe the title of this age has to be reconsidered; and it can't be Basi-Virk Affair b ecause now it's about a lot more than them or their trial; I say we used a google couint for "ledgegate", "railgate" and other options and do it like a show of hands....and seaking of invisible, is it just me or are Mark Marissen, Erik Bornmann and Pilothouse Communications mentioned nowhere on this page. Are they at it again????? Skookum1 ( talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The latest round of procedural/evidentiary wrangling is recounted here in Tieleman's new column in the The Tyee. Makes me wonder how much of what he's talking about wasn't in the Vancouver Sun/Province/Victoria Times-Colonist. Anyway posting this here so someone else maybe will see to condense the factual bits out of the opinion, same with that long content post/addition that had to be taken out as it was "quoted without quotes" directly from Tieleman's column; some of the information deleted was still needed in this article, and should have been vetted/rewritten. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm shocked that this article is rated of "low importance" given the fact that this is a major political event unfolding in British Columbia on the eve of an election.
I'm not ready to begin tackling the improvement of the references on of much of the article that was already posted when I started adding to it, as the points are largely related to aspects of the case I am unfamiliar with. (I only started following this trial over the last year and a half). I may attempt to improve these sections after I finish with the "recent" section.
There are several major timelines of the trial out there and after perfecting the "recent developments" section, I want to work on getting this article in shape chronologically and informatively. This is a complicated case that has been going on for more than five years. As a result there is a LOT of information and a lot of players involved.
I think it is vital to have a fair, NPOV article on this case so that British Columbians are able to use the evidence to draw their own conclusions.
I've made sure to include a variety of sources for my additions, and I will continue to add sources as I go. (Some contentions are supported by more sources than I link to, I just need to continue to dig and arrange, dig and arrange. Moonbug ( talk) 01:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
See this, which contains info that was in the major media but shuffled aside by intervening/wider world events. See my comments about same at Talk:Paul Nettleton Skookum1 ( talk) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I added some proposed rewording in "hide" mode which is here unhidden, pending fixing/expansion/citation, including a proposed section-heading change:
I "hid" that because I wanted to be sure of the wording/circumstance; the Tsawwassen Treaty connection may only have been observed in blogspace, though I think it's covered in one of Tieleman's columns, maybe even in Palmer's.
[undent]See the section on splitting this article towards the bottom of WP:CANTALK page about my thoughts about whether or not Patrick Kinsella should be separate from Kinsella Affair - because of WP:BLP considerations - and the same applies to David Basi vs Basi-Virk Trial; just now I did a search of canoe.ca for "David Basi" and got a fair range/span of different presslinks - see here. I agree about keeping things one-item-at-a-time, which is one reason I've stayed away from expanding this for a while; the web of information is too vast, although as BC Mary wrote to me (in a final sentence of the quoted passage elsewhere) it's not that complicated - "if [she] can understand it, anybody can". But it is very vast in detail, and that's the deterrent to working on it, as there's so much ground to cover, especially considering the amount of material over 3-4 years....as you can see in the expansion to the lede, I covered a lot of ground, most of it can be cited from tyee and/or Tieleman but it's also mainstream press now, but I suspect to keep NPOV/NOR/NoSynth happy almost every phrase/fact/comment has to be cited....sorry I didn't provide them during that expansion....gotta go (for now) Skookum1 ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
the editor of the Indo-Canadian Times made an allegation that the Basis and Virk were "brown guys taking the fall for their white bosses" (that's a paraphrase, I've forgotten his original wording); that's pretty much a conspiracy theory but among many notable ones that surfaced in the course of the case. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the abuse that this article has taken and was wondering who some of the writers are so that I can slap them or mail them a grammar textbook. It is pretty clear to me that some of the people involved in this case are posting to this site and others related to these raids. The poster above me here has a pretty good point--all this information is on google and in the news already. You guys should have kept your noses clean and read the bible a bit...all the parts about corruption and what god will do to you in the afterlife for being jackasses here. And if you don't believe in God, check out "Karma" here on Wikipedia. Karma is walking around at your law firm, or at your political event and having people continuously talk behind your back. I put "BC Raids" in google and got all sorts of information on all the monkeys involved in this enjoyable piece of BC's history.
Back to work monkeys.
Darkfalz1
It is a fact. Visiting BC Rail's webpage, their Annual Reports will confirm the change from 365 million to 415 million. Note BC Rail sale Annual Report did not disclose the tax indemnity. Also goodle search BC Rail tax indemnity http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bc+rail+tax+indemnity&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Took several years, now made it into province's main newspaper yesterday. And it's even bigger 505 million. More than double what was debated in the Legislature. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Rail+time+bomb+still+ticking+taxpayers/1517685/story.html Wow. Not no longer orginal research, in the newspapers finally.
Kinsella involved in entering the 415 million dollar ( now 505 million) BC Rail tax indemnity (refund) on the books at 255 million.
Wiki BC Rail tax indemnity fact The sale of BC Rail involved a 505 milion BC Rail tax indemnity. If CN is not refunded 505 million from the Federal Government, the Province will return this amount. Reduces the sale price of BC Rail from 1.05 to under 500 million. The BC Rail tax indemnity was taken off the Public Accounts in January 2005, before the May 2005 election, when it was reclasified a contingent liability. The BC Rail sale Annual Report was defective and did not cite the indemnity when it was disclosed at 255 million, and recorded these tax credits at zero bookvalue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.181.136 ( talk) 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit reason for change to 500. Award winning CanWest journalist. BC's top reporter. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/viewfromtheledge/archive/2009/05/09/the-neverending-story-bc-rail-of-course.aspx
Quote" Once the Liberal promise-breakers got into the swing of the selling game, they became quite creative, particularly in the way they made use of the railway's estimated $2 billion worth of accumulated losses over the years. [Income Statement loses from special depreciations. BC Rail always ran an operating profit.] Only CN, among four initial contenders for the BCR, was prepared to bid on the value of the losses and did so "aggressively." The giant railway, with operations across the continent, figured it could realize savings of about a quarter of a billion dollars in taxes paid to the federal government as well as several Canadian provinces. "We're quite good at pushing out the envelope," as the CN chief financial officer Claude Mongeau put it in a conference call to investors after the deal was announced. But Mongeau and his colleagues were nobody's fools. In case the tax collectors didn't go for their envelope-pushing interpretation, they insisted that the province indemnify their company for every penny of the anticipated reductions in corporate and other taxes. The Liberals, desperately wanting to make the deal look as rich as possible and confident that there was little risk in making the indemnity, agreed.
When the deal was announced in November 2003, it saw CN pay $750 million to "buy the business" (as CEO Hunter Harrison put it) and another $250 million for the putative value of tax credits. In return, the province supplied the indemnity, pegged to the "maximum present value" of the credits in the year in which they could be claimed (discounted future tax dollars into past dollars, plus a hefty annual escalator clause, lately reckoned at nine per cent.
The indemnity has grown dramatically since it was first recorded on the provincial books after the deal closed in July 2004. From $367 million for the 2005-05 financial year to $505 million for the year ended Mar. 31 2008. [BC Rail tax indemnity removed from the Province's Accounts, back on.]
Another nine per cent atop last year's figure would boost the indemnity to about $550 million, more than half the value of Campbell's original such-a-deal for the railway, albeit in today's dollars." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This article needs so much work! What with disappearing emails and other wonders worthy of Houdini - the wiki-monkeys need to ensure that the average Joe can keep up with this story. I have some time off. Expect at least one more scrupulously referenced paragraph. Moonbug ( talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This material is ancillary to the CN Rail/BC Rail matter and while partly an example of why that material should be a separate article (using the current Railgate redirect as its title), it's also material related, albeit indirectly, to this case. See Talk:CRA International#Why?. Skookum1 ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been linked in teh article yet; this is the article in the Vancouver Sun giving links to the full texts of the warrants, including Bornmann's information to the police. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I could only laugh when I saw the "introduction may be too long" template....this is not a story that can be made short, or simple, is one thing for certain; how to come up with a better introduction, which is also understandable for those not familiar with the swampland of BC politics, is a good question.....this page has been in need of serious updating - and splitting - for a long time. BC Rail Scandal shoudl be split off, Regina v. Basi, Virk, Basi/ Basi-Virk Trial also, and bios are needed, especially Dave Basi, Bill Berardino, Michael Bolton (lawyer). As for the lede being too long, this whole escapade has taken far too long to get only to a dead-end....but what a ride it's been. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I wrote something nasty but I'll try to make it to the point. This article has a lot of problems, it should be possible to fix them, but the way it is going the neutrality seems to be seriously questionable. There just seems to be too much politics even in what is written on this talk page. PatrickDunfordNZ ( talk) 06:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a huge and ever growing story - this article needs an army of editors - and as I am not a professional - I can only do my best. This is a difficult topic for an inexperienced wiki folk like myself - so I would love some help. I don't necessarily have the time or the expertise to make this good on its own - however it is a significant event in B.C. history. The Parliament was raided. That is pretty huge. I will try to clean this up a bit but I'm just a joe schmoe. If you think this can be better please help make it so Moonbug ( talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And sorry I just saw this line a-fresh:
I think Moonbug would agree that there's too much politics in BC, period. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that this should either be a spin-off "prequel" article, or part of the introduction here in shorter form (if it's possible be short); it was the drug investigation that led to the warrants to search the Leg, based on wiretaps between Dave Basi and Jasmohan Singh Bains, the "Mr Big" of cocaine dealing on VAncouver Island in the wake of a rearragnement of BC's crimescape following murders in LA and outside Gotham Restaurant in Vancouver....this is just a vast subject, from the drug investigation down to current events/follow-ups/revelations about it, and is not an easy narrative to tell....or to keep from sounding POV.... Skookum1 ( talk) 08:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This link and this one will get you started on the basics, as I note you've so far only added sect-unref and refimprove tags.....the information on the page is as terse as possible; the basic facts can be round on those pages, though one dates from 2008, the other from 2009, and both from teh same online news-zine. The Globe and Mail had something similar in more recent times, but not as thorough, i.e the "A to Z" one; and even that is by no means complete. And the mainstream media by and large avoided covering this at all through most of the proceedings (even the CBC, from whose news director I heard "it's not news, it's not even at trial yet" and Chantal Hebert accused BC Mary of "making it all up"...for which I hope she's been trying out recipes for crow pie). I realize you may like to see individual citations for each sentence/fact......but for starters maybe fact templates could be added to particular items you want cited, and I'll see what I can do.....this is a full-time job, really, and none of us get paid for it, obvioiusly..... Skookum1 ( talk) 09:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's getting to be time for a major overhaul/revision of this article; new material on it surfaces every day:
More to come....I'm hoping to not be the only (real Wikipedian) working on this article expansion, so I can't be accused of being on a vendetta here as I have been, repeatedly, by the SPA/COI contributor currently trying to control the Adrian Dix, Christy Clark and other articles... Skookum1 ( talk)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having no prior knowledge of this string of events, I can assure the contributors who wrote this article that I have only a slight understanding of what occurred having read this entry. This article suffers from a number of editorial problems, not the least of which is an assumption that a reader already has certain level of familiarity with the subject (which is probably not the case the further one goes from BC). I recommend that the contributors take a look at how other significant political and judicial scandals are covered in Wikipedia, and use those articles as a template. As it stands currently, this article is confusing and unfocused. Calarch78 ( talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this needs help. I wrote two sections way back when - scrupulously adding sources - but it is quite the task. So much has happened that it is very hard to get it all in - it doesn't help that I don't have a lot of experience. More experienced wiki editors would be so appreciated on this article! Moonbug ( talk) 07:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You kids need to grow up a bit. All the information on the raids in the Vancouver Sun article and it states who was searched and who was named in the warrants. I mean really, it was right there on the front page of Vancouver's leading newspaper! Keep up the good work Liberals and New Democrats...those of us on the right own the country now! - unsigned comment by IP address user 205.250.69.171 16 April 2006
Not sure what it is - "this article is about a current event" is its text, so could someone please put it in. A POV watch should be maintained closely here, and also someone on the lookout for violations of the publication ban(s). Skookum1 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I just scanned it and it looks pretty much like a p.r. agency bio of Basi for public relations purposes; granted he's been a "man in black" in much regular media coverage. Maybe I didn't read it write and it's not a puff piece, just starts out like one; but if it belongs anywhere it should be on the David Basi page. If we started linking ALL news articles, bios and backgrounders on this case there'd be over 100 entries on just Dave Basi alone; unless the various media profiles of Mark Marissen and Erik Bornman should also be here. Myself, I think the Globe article was inserted here because of its handy title ("There is no substance to this case"), which certainly is the unofficial government position on the proceedings (since they can't have an official one, other than Oppal's ope as A-G, which is controversial to start with). Skookum1 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is suposed to be an encyclopedia and not a scrapbook of breaking news summaries. The sources for almost all of this story are highly questionable. The media are notorious for its inaccuracy and blogs are pure opinion. Information from such sources is in no way encyclopedia-like. I'm not deleting this page because it looks like folks have put a lot of work into it, but this is really a story that should not be added to this site until after the trial. At that time we will have a more encyclopedic understanding of what took place. -unsigned comment by User:IWin4U 19:00, 26 December 2006
I removed this template because of the heavily-neutered content of this page on the one hand, and outright POV claims such as:
...which I would just have removed if not for the ongoing edit war around this and other articles; this appears to have been added by the same crew of SPAs who've been patrolling/sabotaging Erik Bornmann and Mark Marissen. This article is going to need POV watch big-time, especially once the trial begins in a few weeks... Skookum1 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a number at Erik Bornmann which might be used here if references are required. Should he be mentioned in this article? Proto:: ► 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The references flag was removed. I have added it back. Skookum1 was concerned that this was "a hostile edit" because the article does have references. The warning asks people to improve the article by adding sources. I think it is a valid concern. The article on the judge hearing the case is a stub and has 2 references. In comparison, this article has 6 "external links": 1 (Yahoo) of which is dead, 1 (CBC Who's Who) that is 3 years out of date, and 2 to railways (OmniTrax, BC Rail sale news release) that can serve as background but are not focused on the trial. None of the dates or "direct quotes" have explicit footnotes which should be a concern for an article about an ongoing politically-sensitive criminal trial. So I hope the request for references is viewed as a neutral request to improve the article's quality. Canuckle 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This edit caught my eye, and while it's syntactically correct in an absolute sense the title "BC Legislature Raids" had evolved somewhat by consensus as for a working title for an article on this scandal; Basi-Virk Affair redirects here, and others; I created the Ledgegate redirect and see that Tieleman's been using Railgate so I'll create that redirect too. The big media has avoided these term s altogether because, like the cabinet and the RCMP, they wish the scandal would just go away. Not giving it a name ia a way to make it difficult to discuss, or shoved into oblivion behind the news about traffic, sick babies, pedophiles and crystal meth and high fashion and how to eat cheese properly; no need to investgate criminal wrong doing by ublic officials, and dubious behaviour by elected officials; they're good for the markts, don't turf 'em out, that's why this scandal hasn't got a name in the big papers or the networks (including the gutless CBC). But other than that rant, the point here is that the article is not about the raids but about the scandal, court case and evolving revelations of an organized (and illegal) coverup. Therefore, maybe the title of this age has to be reconsidered; and it can't be Basi-Virk Affair b ecause now it's about a lot more than them or their trial; I say we used a google couint for "ledgegate", "railgate" and other options and do it like a show of hands....and seaking of invisible, is it just me or are Mark Marissen, Erik Bornmann and Pilothouse Communications mentioned nowhere on this page. Are they at it again????? Skookum1 ( talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The latest round of procedural/evidentiary wrangling is recounted here in Tieleman's new column in the The Tyee. Makes me wonder how much of what he's talking about wasn't in the Vancouver Sun/Province/Victoria Times-Colonist. Anyway posting this here so someone else maybe will see to condense the factual bits out of the opinion, same with that long content post/addition that had to be taken out as it was "quoted without quotes" directly from Tieleman's column; some of the information deleted was still needed in this article, and should have been vetted/rewritten. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm shocked that this article is rated of "low importance" given the fact that this is a major political event unfolding in British Columbia on the eve of an election.
I'm not ready to begin tackling the improvement of the references on of much of the article that was already posted when I started adding to it, as the points are largely related to aspects of the case I am unfamiliar with. (I only started following this trial over the last year and a half). I may attempt to improve these sections after I finish with the "recent" section.
There are several major timelines of the trial out there and after perfecting the "recent developments" section, I want to work on getting this article in shape chronologically and informatively. This is a complicated case that has been going on for more than five years. As a result there is a LOT of information and a lot of players involved.
I think it is vital to have a fair, NPOV article on this case so that British Columbians are able to use the evidence to draw their own conclusions.
I've made sure to include a variety of sources for my additions, and I will continue to add sources as I go. (Some contentions are supported by more sources than I link to, I just need to continue to dig and arrange, dig and arrange. Moonbug ( talk) 01:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
See this, which contains info that was in the major media but shuffled aside by intervening/wider world events. See my comments about same at Talk:Paul Nettleton Skookum1 ( talk) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I added some proposed rewording in "hide" mode which is here unhidden, pending fixing/expansion/citation, including a proposed section-heading change:
I "hid" that because I wanted to be sure of the wording/circumstance; the Tsawwassen Treaty connection may only have been observed in blogspace, though I think it's covered in one of Tieleman's columns, maybe even in Palmer's.
[undent]See the section on splitting this article towards the bottom of WP:CANTALK page about my thoughts about whether or not Patrick Kinsella should be separate from Kinsella Affair - because of WP:BLP considerations - and the same applies to David Basi vs Basi-Virk Trial; just now I did a search of canoe.ca for "David Basi" and got a fair range/span of different presslinks - see here. I agree about keeping things one-item-at-a-time, which is one reason I've stayed away from expanding this for a while; the web of information is too vast, although as BC Mary wrote to me (in a final sentence of the quoted passage elsewhere) it's not that complicated - "if [she] can understand it, anybody can". But it is very vast in detail, and that's the deterrent to working on it, as there's so much ground to cover, especially considering the amount of material over 3-4 years....as you can see in the expansion to the lede, I covered a lot of ground, most of it can be cited from tyee and/or Tieleman but it's also mainstream press now, but I suspect to keep NPOV/NOR/NoSynth happy almost every phrase/fact/comment has to be cited....sorry I didn't provide them during that expansion....gotta go (for now) Skookum1 ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
the editor of the Indo-Canadian Times made an allegation that the Basis and Virk were "brown guys taking the fall for their white bosses" (that's a paraphrase, I've forgotten his original wording); that's pretty much a conspiracy theory but among many notable ones that surfaced in the course of the case. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the abuse that this article has taken and was wondering who some of the writers are so that I can slap them or mail them a grammar textbook. It is pretty clear to me that some of the people involved in this case are posting to this site and others related to these raids. The poster above me here has a pretty good point--all this information is on google and in the news already. You guys should have kept your noses clean and read the bible a bit...all the parts about corruption and what god will do to you in the afterlife for being jackasses here. And if you don't believe in God, check out "Karma" here on Wikipedia. Karma is walking around at your law firm, or at your political event and having people continuously talk behind your back. I put "BC Raids" in google and got all sorts of information on all the monkeys involved in this enjoyable piece of BC's history.
Back to work monkeys.
Darkfalz1
It is a fact. Visiting BC Rail's webpage, their Annual Reports will confirm the change from 365 million to 415 million. Note BC Rail sale Annual Report did not disclose the tax indemnity. Also goodle search BC Rail tax indemnity http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bc+rail+tax+indemnity&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Took several years, now made it into province's main newspaper yesterday. And it's even bigger 505 million. More than double what was debated in the Legislature. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Rail+time+bomb+still+ticking+taxpayers/1517685/story.html Wow. Not no longer orginal research, in the newspapers finally.
Kinsella involved in entering the 415 million dollar ( now 505 million) BC Rail tax indemnity (refund) on the books at 255 million.
Wiki BC Rail tax indemnity fact The sale of BC Rail involved a 505 milion BC Rail tax indemnity. If CN is not refunded 505 million from the Federal Government, the Province will return this amount. Reduces the sale price of BC Rail from 1.05 to under 500 million. The BC Rail tax indemnity was taken off the Public Accounts in January 2005, before the May 2005 election, when it was reclasified a contingent liability. The BC Rail sale Annual Report was defective and did not cite the indemnity when it was disclosed at 255 million, and recorded these tax credits at zero bookvalue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.181.136 ( talk) 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit reason for change to 500. Award winning CanWest journalist. BC's top reporter. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/viewfromtheledge/archive/2009/05/09/the-neverending-story-bc-rail-of-course.aspx
Quote" Once the Liberal promise-breakers got into the swing of the selling game, they became quite creative, particularly in the way they made use of the railway's estimated $2 billion worth of accumulated losses over the years. [Income Statement loses from special depreciations. BC Rail always ran an operating profit.] Only CN, among four initial contenders for the BCR, was prepared to bid on the value of the losses and did so "aggressively." The giant railway, with operations across the continent, figured it could realize savings of about a quarter of a billion dollars in taxes paid to the federal government as well as several Canadian provinces. "We're quite good at pushing out the envelope," as the CN chief financial officer Claude Mongeau put it in a conference call to investors after the deal was announced. But Mongeau and his colleagues were nobody's fools. In case the tax collectors didn't go for their envelope-pushing interpretation, they insisted that the province indemnify their company for every penny of the anticipated reductions in corporate and other taxes. The Liberals, desperately wanting to make the deal look as rich as possible and confident that there was little risk in making the indemnity, agreed.
When the deal was announced in November 2003, it saw CN pay $750 million to "buy the business" (as CEO Hunter Harrison put it) and another $250 million for the putative value of tax credits. In return, the province supplied the indemnity, pegged to the "maximum present value" of the credits in the year in which they could be claimed (discounted future tax dollars into past dollars, plus a hefty annual escalator clause, lately reckoned at nine per cent.
The indemnity has grown dramatically since it was first recorded on the provincial books after the deal closed in July 2004. From $367 million for the 2005-05 financial year to $505 million for the year ended Mar. 31 2008. [BC Rail tax indemnity removed from the Province's Accounts, back on.]
Another nine per cent atop last year's figure would boost the indemnity to about $550 million, more than half the value of Campbell's original such-a-deal for the railway, albeit in today's dollars." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This article needs so much work! What with disappearing emails and other wonders worthy of Houdini - the wiki-monkeys need to ensure that the average Joe can keep up with this story. I have some time off. Expect at least one more scrupulously referenced paragraph. Moonbug ( talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This material is ancillary to the CN Rail/BC Rail matter and while partly an example of why that material should be a separate article (using the current Railgate redirect as its title), it's also material related, albeit indirectly, to this case. See Talk:CRA International#Why?. Skookum1 ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been linked in teh article yet; this is the article in the Vancouver Sun giving links to the full texts of the warrants, including Bornmann's information to the police. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I could only laugh when I saw the "introduction may be too long" template....this is not a story that can be made short, or simple, is one thing for certain; how to come up with a better introduction, which is also understandable for those not familiar with the swampland of BC politics, is a good question.....this page has been in need of serious updating - and splitting - for a long time. BC Rail Scandal shoudl be split off, Regina v. Basi, Virk, Basi/ Basi-Virk Trial also, and bios are needed, especially Dave Basi, Bill Berardino, Michael Bolton (lawyer). As for the lede being too long, this whole escapade has taken far too long to get only to a dead-end....but what a ride it's been. Skookum1 ( talk) 10:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I wrote something nasty but I'll try to make it to the point. This article has a lot of problems, it should be possible to fix them, but the way it is going the neutrality seems to be seriously questionable. There just seems to be too much politics even in what is written on this talk page. PatrickDunfordNZ ( talk) 06:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a huge and ever growing story - this article needs an army of editors - and as I am not a professional - I can only do my best. This is a difficult topic for an inexperienced wiki folk like myself - so I would love some help. I don't necessarily have the time or the expertise to make this good on its own - however it is a significant event in B.C. history. The Parliament was raided. That is pretty huge. I will try to clean this up a bit but I'm just a joe schmoe. If you think this can be better please help make it so Moonbug ( talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And sorry I just saw this line a-fresh:
I think Moonbug would agree that there's too much politics in BC, period. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that this should either be a spin-off "prequel" article, or part of the introduction here in shorter form (if it's possible be short); it was the drug investigation that led to the warrants to search the Leg, based on wiretaps between Dave Basi and Jasmohan Singh Bains, the "Mr Big" of cocaine dealing on VAncouver Island in the wake of a rearragnement of BC's crimescape following murders in LA and outside Gotham Restaurant in Vancouver....this is just a vast subject, from the drug investigation down to current events/follow-ups/revelations about it, and is not an easy narrative to tell....or to keep from sounding POV.... Skookum1 ( talk) 08:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This link and this one will get you started on the basics, as I note you've so far only added sect-unref and refimprove tags.....the information on the page is as terse as possible; the basic facts can be round on those pages, though one dates from 2008, the other from 2009, and both from teh same online news-zine. The Globe and Mail had something similar in more recent times, but not as thorough, i.e the "A to Z" one; and even that is by no means complete. And the mainstream media by and large avoided covering this at all through most of the proceedings (even the CBC, from whose news director I heard "it's not news, it's not even at trial yet" and Chantal Hebert accused BC Mary of "making it all up"...for which I hope she's been trying out recipes for crow pie). I realize you may like to see individual citations for each sentence/fact......but for starters maybe fact templates could be added to particular items you want cited, and I'll see what I can do.....this is a full-time job, really, and none of us get paid for it, obvioiusly..... Skookum1 ( talk) 09:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's getting to be time for a major overhaul/revision of this article; new material on it surfaces every day:
More to come....I'm hoping to not be the only (real Wikipedian) working on this article expansion, so I can't be accused of being on a vendetta here as I have been, repeatedly, by the SPA/COI contributor currently trying to control the Adrian Dix, Christy Clark and other articles... Skookum1 ( talk)