NDP Scam III - The Legend Grows
Karl Pollak
NEWS RELEASE Immediate Release
BC Liberal Official Opposition February 21, 1996
GLEN CLARK SETS UP SPECIAL DEAL
FOR NDP FRIENDS AND BC HYDRO INSIDERS
Victoria - A complicated business deal involving a Cayman Islands
corporation, sanctioned by Glen Clark
and Cabinet, may result in profits of up to 24 Per cent for NDP and BC
Hydro insiders, BC Liberal MLA
Gary Farrell-Collins revealed today.
"Glen Clark, as Minister responsible for BC Hydro, gave his blessing
to what appears to be the worst kind
of conflict of interest and secrecy involving NDP friends and BC Hydro
insiders," said Farrell-Collins.
In September of 1995, BC Hydro International created a corporation
called International Power
Corporation (IPC) and then sold it NDP friends, BC Hydro insiders and
others. In turn, IPC and BC Hydro
jointly established a third corporation called BCHIL Power Ltd.
BCHIL Power then incorporated a Joint
venture in the Cayman Islands thereby avoiding significant Canadian
federal and provincial corporate
taxes, keeping its shareholders and directors secret, and preventing
BC taxpayers from getting any
information about the activities of the corporation.
The Directors of IPC are BC Hydro Board Chair John Laxton, BC Hydro
President John Sheehan and BC
Hydro International President Stan Ridley.
Among the NDP friends and BC Hydro insiders who directly or indirectly
purchased shares at $1 (US) are:
Chandra Laxton - Laxton's daughter - 300,000 shares
Richard Coglan - John Laxton's son-in-law - 500,000 shares
Zarina Ridley - wife of BCHIL president Stan Ridley -25.000 shares
Susan Gemmill - wife of BC Hydro vice-Pres. James Gemmill -25,000
shares
Breda Sheehan - wife of BC Hydro President John Sheehan 50.000 shares
Connie Munro - 23.000 shares
Jack Munro - 50.000 shares
Tom Berger - former leader of the NDP -75.000 shares
Don Rosenbloom - long-time friend of Mike Harcourt - 25,000 shares
"The potential for conflict of interest is not just apparent, It is
stated in detail in the Offering Memorandum," Farrell-Collins said.
"Glen Clark knew about the formation of IPC, he championed it in
the Legislature on June 22, 1995, and he took the deal to cabinet for
approval
"There was only one reason to set up PC. and mat was to use BC Hydro's
expertise and international reputation to benefit NDP friends and BC
Hydro insiders," said Farrell-Collins. "If BC Hydro was acting on
behalf of all British Columbians, if BC Hydro was not trying to hide
something, this would have been a public share offering. rather than a
private deal available only to a select few."
Farrell-Collins said there are also three companies. that are major
shareholders of IPC that are incorporated in the British Virgin
Islands - another tax haven. "There are only two reasons to invest in
a Virgin Islands company," said Farrell-Collins "One reason is to
avoid tax. the other is to remain anonymous. We are calling on Glen
Clark to disclose who else is secretly benefitting from this special
deal."
"Let's be clear about what transpired here," he said. "The BC Hydro
trio set up a private company that they control, to exploit the
expertise inside BC Hydro. By establishing a company to hold its
assets in the Cayman Islands they can avoid tax and they will avoid
public scrutiny. All of this was known to Glen Clark and approved by
Glen Clark"
(end)
For further information contact:
Gary Farrell-Collins, (604) 356-6331
Karl Pollak FidoNet 1:153/965
Richmond, B.C. Canadian Infomaticon BBS
David Reilley
>Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
>the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton,
That's a ridiculous leap of logic. If Laxton was deliberately hiding this
from Cabinet, why would it matter how much time Harcourt and Clark spent with
him. That's like sayong if you have an employee who steals from the cash
register, you would certainly know about it if you ate in the same lunchroom
every day.
Also -- how would you know how much time Laxton spent with either Clark or
Harcourt?
Please stick to the facts -- this thing is confusing enough with all of its
twists and turns without the added confusion of spoeculation being presented
as reality.
>the former
>head of the NDP, one does wonder.
>John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
John Corman
wrote:
>NEWS RELEASE Immediate Release
>BC Liberal Official Opposition February 21, 1996
>
>
> GLEN CLARK SETS UP SPECIAL DEAL
> FOR NDP FRIENDS AND BC HYDRO INSIDERS
>venture in the Cayman Islands thereby avoiding significant Canadian
>federal and provincial corporate
>taxes, keeping its shareholders and directors secret, and preventing
>BC taxpayers from getting any
>information about the activities of the corporation.
Many commentators have suggested that as soon as a company is
incorporated in a tax haven, Cayman, Bahamas, Bermuda etc. there is no
tax. This statement is inaccurate. Canadian residences must report
all offshore income when earned. Since this company would be
considered to be "active" under the relevant legislation, taxes would
be owing as soon as a dividend was paid.
What we could be dealing with here is a situation where some of the
investors had their dividends paid to a bank in the Cayman Islands
(which I doubt). One trip to the Caribbean and a bag of money would
be brought home. In this case we are dealing with a criminal offense.
There are many situations where an offshore company makes economic
sense other that the avoidance of tax. Once I was involved with a
Russian company selling crude oil to an unsuspecting American public.
All the transactions went through an offshore company to mask the
identity of the vendor. Nothing wrong with that.
In this case, one has to wonder what the purpose was. I can't
visualize Jack Monroe flying to the Cayman Islands to collect his
bounty.
There has to be another purpose. My suspicion is that the
incorporation of the Cayman company was to allow the entry of the
other 3 large investors. If the company had been BC registered, it
would have looked strange if 3 of the largest investors had come
from a tax haven. Since it was already offshore, who would notice?
Shall we speculate on who high up in the NDP would like to supplement
an already generous pension plan and would not want their names
associated with the company.
Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton, the former
Steve Ranta
. . .
> Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
> the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton, the former
> head of the NDP, one does wonder.
I know that Berger, one of the investors, is a former leader of the
provincial NDP, but what was Laxton's highest position in the provincial
NDP?
--
Steve Ranta
David Reilley
>On Fri, 23 Feb 1996 21:15:41 pst, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley)
>wrote:
>>In article <312e6413.7962006@news> jco...@island.net (John Corman) writes:
>>
>>>Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
>>>the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton,
>>
>>That's a ridiculous leap of logic. If Laxton was deliberately hiding this
>>from Cabinet, why would it matter how much time Harcourt and Clark spent with
>>him. That's like sayong if you have an employee who steals from the cash
>>register, you would certainly know about it if you ate in the same lunchroom
>>every day.
>>
>>Also -- how would you know how much time Laxton spent with either Clark or
>>Harcourt?
>================================================
>Harcourt, Clark and Laxton went to Pakistan together about the time
>the offshore scam was born. Consider the amount of time spent
>together when one flies first class Vancouver-Bangkok (17 hours).
>Over night in Bangkok and then another 4-5 hours to Pakistan. That is
>just one way. I would consider that spending a great deal of time
>together.
Spending one or two days togetherout of a year is not "a lot of time".
>Now, let's turn the question to you. In your wildest dreams, can you
>come up with a scenario where, during that time, a discussion didn't
>take place as to the purpose and participants of the offshore scam.
>You can't because nothing other than that makes sense. Mr Clark was
>not only involved but likely the orchestrator. Like it or not.
Again you are speculating. The real issue is whether Laxton was hiding
something from Clark. Even if the three of them had shared the
same bed in Bangkok (which I am sure they didn't), if Laxton was hiding
something, he would not have confessed to the very people he was hiding it
from regardless of time spent together. The last time I flew first class
there was not, to my recollection, a "Vulcan mind-meld" amongst the
passengers - even those who were travelling together on business.
Please -- stop clouding an already complicated situation with unsubstantiated
speculation. The fact that Laxton and Clark occasionally spent time together
does not offer any evidence one way or another about the nature of
any conversations which took place between them -- and it is nothing more than
beer-parlour logic to suggest otherwise.
David Reilley
>From: jco...@island.net (John Corman)
>Subject: Re: NDP Scam III - The Legend Grows
>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 00:05:18 GMT
>On Sat, 24 Feb 1996 11:29:35 +0800, sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta)
>wrote:
>>In article <312e6413.7962006@news>, jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>>> Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
>>> the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton, the former
>>> head of the NDP, one does wonder.
>>
>>I know that Berger, one of the investors, is a former leader of the
>>provincial NDP, but what was Laxton's highest position in the provincial
>>NDP?
>===================================================
>It's my understanding that he was the president of the BC NDP.
>John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
Not while president of Hydro.
John Corman
John Corman
wrote:
>In article <312e6413.7962006@news> jco...@island.net (John Corman) writes:
>
>>Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
>>the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton,
>
>That's a ridiculous leap of logic. If Laxton was deliberately hiding this
>from Cabinet, why would it matter how much time Harcourt and Clark spent with
>him. That's like sayong if you have an employee who steals from the cash
>register, you would certainly know about it if you ate in the same lunchroom
>every day.
>
>Also -- how would you know how much time Laxton spent with either Clark or
>Harcourt?
================================================
Harcourt, Clark and Laxton went to Pakistan together about the time
the offshore scam was born. Consider the amount of time spent
together when one flies first class Vancouver-Bangkok (17 hours).
Over night in Bangkok and then another 4-5 hours to Pakistan. That is
just one way. I would consider that spending a great deal of time
together.
Now, let's turn the question to you. In your wildest dreams, can you
come up with a scenario where, during that time, a discussion didn't
take place as to the purpose and participants of the offshore scam.
You can't because nothing other than that makes sense. Mr Clark was
not only involved but likely the orchestrator. Like it or not.
John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
John Corman
wrote:
>Again you are speculating. The real issue is whether Laxton was hiding
>something from Clark. Even if the three of them had shared the
>same bed in Bangkok (which I am sure they didn't), if Laxton was hiding
>something, he would not have confessed to the very people he was hiding it
>from regardless of time spent together.
OK, lets follow your line of reasoning. Your contention is that
Laxton withheld pertinent information from Clark and Harcourt.
I won't acknowledge that as being likely. It would be
uncharacteristic of Clark not be involved with all aspects of the
deal.
How much could Laxton withhold from Clark? The names of the relatives
of Laxton - maybe. The Cayman connection, not possible since Clark
discussed it in Hansard. And this is the important piece of the scam.
Ask yourself why the company would be set up there if it wasn't to
shelter the involvement of the Virgin Island companies.
That would have been very obvious to Clark from the outset. He would
logically have asked the simple question. Who, from the Virgin
Islands is investing in our Public Utility's JV.
Or, he was the mastermind and/or participant.
John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
David Reilley
>From: jco...@island.net (John Corman)
>Subject: Re: NDP Scam III - The Legend Grows
>On Sat, 24 Feb 1996 17:59:41 pst, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley)
>wrote:
>>Again you are speculating. The real issue is whether Laxton was hiding
>>something from Clark. Even if the three of them had shared the
>>same bed in Bangkok (which I am sure they didn't), if Laxton was hiding
>>something, he would not have confessed to the very people he was hiding it
>>from regardless of time spent together.
>=============================================
>OK, lets follow your line of reasoning. Your contention is that
>Laxton withheld pertinent information from Clark and Harcourt.
>I won't acknowledge that as being likely.
Why. Let's not forget Laxton is a lawyer.
>It would be
>uncharacteristic of Clark not be involved with all aspects of the
>deal.
It would be uncharacteristic for Clark not to *want* to be involved in the
deal -- which is exactly why Laxton would have made some effort to hide this
from him. Clark is street-smart enough to know a) how this cozy arrangement
would play in the press and with the public (outrage) and b) that eventually
it would come out. I can't imagine a politician as ambitious as Clark
condoning an arrangement like this which would obviously have the potential
the be a major political liability. More likely he would have said "Are you
fucking guys crazy???" (language which, I am sure, he no longer uses now that
he's premier :-) )
IN either case, both of us atre speculating, which is my point here.
>How much could Laxton withhold from Clark?
As much as he thought he could get away with. In reality, you don't know, I
don't know and the press does not know. Speculation and inference are not the
same as evidence.
The names of the relatives
>of Laxton - maybe. The Cayman connection, not possible since Clark
>discussed it in Hansard. And this is the important piece of the scam.
>Ask yourself why the company would be set up there if it wasn't to
>shelter the involvement of the Virgin Island companies.
Laxton is saying the reason for the Cayman company was to give the investors
the same protection from federal taxes as those enjoyed by BC Hydro.
>That would have been very obvious to Clark from the outset. He would
>logically have asked the simple question. Who, from the Virgin
>Islands is investing in our Public Utility's JV.
>Or, he was the mastermind and/or participant.
Again -- speculation. You are ignoring the fact that Clark trusted Laxton,
and relied on him for advice. Do you think Clark had any experience with
offshore companies/joint ventures? I don't see anything in his past which
prepared him for that, in which case he would have to rely on his principle
advisor (Laxton) to brief him and keep him out of trouble.
You and I can only speculate whether or not Clark was duped or whether he was
a player in all this. I am not prepared to offer my specualtion as fact --
and you do, which seems a bit dishonest. You shouldn't act like you "really"
knew what happened until we get more evidence.
>John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
Karl Pollak
>In article <312e6413.7962006@news> jco...@island.net (John Corman) writes:
>>Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
>>the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton,
>That's a ridiculous leap of logic. If Laxton was deliberately hiding this
>from Cabinet, why would it matter how much time Harcourt and Clark spent with
>him. That's like sayong if you have an employee who steals from the cash
>register, you would certainly know about it if you ate in the same lunchroom
>every day.
I don't think you were paying attention, David:
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
The Chair: The Chair might advise that the ministry
responsible for BCUC is not currently before us, but for those
matters within the scope of these estimates....
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, I was going to say that. I'm not
inclined to answer questions around BCUC, not because I want to
evade them -- frankly, I would probably like to answer them. But
really I don't think it would be productive, because I'm not
administratively responsible for BCUC.
D. Jarvis: I want to know a few more things about BCHI --
I hadn't left it. It was announced that the CEO went to New York
to raise about $40 million for the Pakistani venture. I just
wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of a structure is
being set up along that line. Is it going to be registered where
it is now? Is it still in Grand Cayman? Is there any protection
in B.C. for the people who buy shares in this?
Hon. G. Clark: Those are good questions. Maybe I can short-
circuit some of them by giving a sense of this project. B.C.
Hydro International will be going into a joint venture with a
Pakistan company, SEL. That's how business is usually done. The
project costs are in the neighbourhood of $160 million, and it's
a thermal plant. The amount of equity required in that project is
roughly $40 million. That $40 million in equity will be about
$20 million from our Pakistani partners. So it's a $160 million
project, roughly $40 million in equities, $20 million from our
Pakistani joint venture partner and $20 million from B.C. Hydro.
Our intention is not to have $20 million come from B.C. Hydro
International, but only to put in a small amount -- maybe
$3 million or $4 million, or maybe up to $5 million (Canadian) --
and the rest to be raised in the private sector here in British
Columbia. There would be no government guarantee and no subsidy
from the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.
The full $120 million remainder will be borrowed by the
joint venture company and is being guaranteed by the World Bank,
among other international sources. There are also all kinds of
interesting and complicated transactions, including international
credits from the turbine manufacturers, the World Bank, etc.
What's happening is that for somewhere around $5 million
(Canadian) or so, or less than that, we should have a quarter
interest in a $160 million project, the debt of which is
guaranteed by the World Bank.
Is there a risk? Yes, the risk is the $5 million, and it's a
risk to other private players in British Columbia who would be
investing in this. Absolutely. It's just a straight commercial
risk. The rate of return negotiated is 24 percent return on
equity. British Columbia Hydro and the government's interest in
these projects is obviously to make some money, but more
importantly, it is to generate jobs. This will generate dozens of
jobs...
[from Hansard, June 22, 1995]
>Please stick to the facts -- this thing is confusing enough with all of its
>twists and turns without the added confusion of spoeculation being presented
>as reality.
The above quote comes from the verbatim transcript of the proceedings
in the Legislative Committee discussing Clark's ministry's Estimates
for 1995/96. Is that "facts" enough for you?
I still have not seen a response from David Schreck vis-a-vis his
directorship and chairmanship of the committee while BC Hydro and the
decisions of its Board of Directors were discussed.
In the absence of his response, I will ask any other debaters here:
Do you believe it was proper for Schreck to chair that committee
meeting? Was he in a conflict of interest?
We're going to leave aside, for the moment the propriety (or lack
thereof) of a government who prides itself so on its park creation,
blowing up logging or mining projects in BC, and generally its
environmental record, to be building thermal generating stations in
theird world countries and polluting the air out of the sight of their
treehugging friends and supporters.
John Corman
wrote:
>IN either case, both of us atre speculating, which is my point here.
>>How much could Laxton withhold from Clark?
>
>As much as he thought he could get away with. In reality, you don't know, I
>don't know and the press does not know. Speculation and inference are not the
>same as evidence.
>
>The names of the relatives
>>of Laxton - maybe. The Cayman connection, not possible since Clark
>>discussed it in Hansard. And this is the important piece of the scam.
>>Ask yourself why the company would be set up there if it wasn't to
>>shelter the involvement of the Virgin Island companies.
>
>Laxton is saying the reason for the Cayman company was to give the investors
>the same protection from federal taxes as those enjoyed by BC Hydro.
And Laxton is either intentionally misleading you or he does not
understand the status of the offshore corporation. I will repeat.
Jack Monroe saves no federal or provincial taxes in this case,
provided he acts honestly. Something that I'm assuming.
Those protected from BC and Federal taxes are the 3 major
shareholders in the Virgin Islands.
We can reasonably assume that some of these Virgin Island investors
are Pakistani politicians but I think it possible that we may find
some BC residents involved. Someone that could not possibly have
his/her name connected with the venture. Your guess is as good as
mine but we can exempt those not closely related to the NDP.
John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
Malcolm Dunnett
>
> In the absence of his response, I will ask any other debaters here:
>
> Do you believe it was proper for Schreck to chair that committee
> meeting? Was he in a conflict of interest?
>
I understand "conflict of interests" to occur when an individual must
make a decision from which he stands to benefit personally and where
acting in his interests has the potential to work against the interests
of the body on whose behalf he is making the decision. If this is not
compatible with the definition you are using please spell out precisely
what you mean by "conflict of interest".
If you agree with the above definition, then we'd have to examine
what personal interests of David Schrecks were involved here. I understand
that he acts as a director of Hydro because of his position as an MLA (he
commented earlier that traditionally a government MLA sits on the board,
and that he is currently "it"). I understand he is entitled to a stipend
for doing so (which I presume to be a fixed amount which has no dependance
on the performance of BC Hydro). He has further stated he has declined to
accept this stipend.
If the above is true it seems that David derives no personal benefit
from his role as a director of BC Hydro. That being the case I don't
see how he could be in a conflict of interest situation by chairing a
meeting where certain Hydro operations were being questioned.
If your suggestion is that he was in a conflict of interests because
he might have wanted to prevent embarrassing information about BC Hydro
being revealed ( though there's not indication in the minutes you posted
that he did anything of the sort ), then it seems to me you would have to
declare it conflict of interests whenever a government MLA chairs a
comittee which is discussing the operation of the government or its
subsidiaries (such as crown corporations).
> We're going to leave aside, for the moment the propriety (or lack
> thereof) of a government who prides itself so on its park creation,
> blowing up logging or mining projects in BC, and generally its
> environmental record, to be building thermal generating stations in
> theird world countries and polluting the air out of the sight of their
> treehugging friends and supporters.
>
That seems like an excellent thing to leave aside unless you have
some evidence that this plant was in fact going to pollute the air.
Isn't it just as likely that the plant would generate more power per
unit of pollution (particulates, CO2, whatever ) than whatever energy
source it was replacing? (eg heating homes with electricity from a modern
thermal generation plant probably generates far less pollution that heating
the equivalent amount of homes with wood or coal stoves would).
If you have some relevant information along these lines perhaps you
should start another thread. If you don't it's not clear why you bothered
to mention it at all.
--
=============================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett Malaspina University-College Email: dun...@mala.bc.ca
Computer Services Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA V9R 5S5 Tel: (604)755-8738
sandy
> the reason for the Cayman company was to give the investors
>the same protection from federal taxes
"Protection from Federal taxes" we all want to have. Unfortunately,
Tax Evasion, which is what your euphemism is, is still illegal the
last I checked.
And boy, did I check.
sandy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Delusion is the opiate of socialists.
sandy
> The real issue is whether Laxton was hiding
>something from Clark.
The real issue is: as the minister responsible for BC Hydro - never
mind that fact that Clark was instrumental in the formation of the
obscene partnership, a partnership set up to STEAL from British
Columbians - Clark should resign, if he has any integrity left.
>Please -- stop clouding an already complicated situation with unsubstantiated
>speculation.
It is really not that complicated, David, if you try to brush the wool
off your eyes that was pull over there by Clark and his lackeys.
It's this simple : Government officials using their power and
influence to reward and benefit their cronies and friends is routinely
practised in banana republics, of which BC is one, under the NDP.
The Marcos, Idi Amin and Baby Doc would have been proud of this bunch.
Hell, rumour has it that the drug lords are busy signing up membership
in the NDP, in order to learn a thing or two about money laundering,
be it through Bingo Games or "Sophisticated International Financing."
The Party will then be "well" represented, indeed.
sandy
>Many commentators have suggested that as soon as a company is
>incorporated in a tax haven, Cayman, Bahamas, Bermuda etc. there is no
>tax. This statement is inaccurate.
Com'on John. Try telling your wife bumping into you coming out of a
massage palor that you were there to have your tennis elbow rubbed :-)
> I can't visualize Jack Monroe flying to the Cayman Islands to collect his
>bounty.
I certainly can.
>There has to be another purpose.
May be they know the _real_ probability that Glen Clark will bring in
Asset Tax at the Personal level soon ?
>Shall we speculate on who high up in the NDP would like to supplement
>an already generous pension plan and would not want their names
>associated with the company.
The list will be too long.
>Since it is obvious that both Clark and Harcourt must have known of
>the scam since they spent a great deal of time with Laxton, the former
>head of the NDP, one does wonder.
As the Hasnsard quoted by Mr. Schreck showed, the question of Cayman
incorpopration was brought up in June 1995. Jarvis asked : "Is it
(BCHI) still in Grand Cayman?"
Clark went into a long babble of the financial numbers of the
structure of the deal without answering the question at all. Schreck
was there, as Chairman. (It was indeed crafty that Jarvis did not push
for more answers, letting these morons think that they have weaselled
out of it.)
And now, the lying Premier and his lackey (Schreck has been
Parliamentary Secretary for Clark) are both denying knowledge of the
Cayman connection.
Long live the Bonhead defense !
sandy
In answer to a question raised by Mr. Ranta :
>>>I know that Berger, one of the investors, is a former leader of the
>>>provincial NDP, but what was Laxton's highest position in the provincial
>>>NDP?
Mr. John Corman wrote:
>>It's my understanding that he was the president of the BC NDP.
>>John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
Mr. Reilley said:
>Not while president of Hydro.
True. So was Dave Stupich not party president when he did what he did
in Nanaimo.
Remember that one, David ?
David Reilley
>From: san...@wimsey.com (sandy)
>Subject: Re: NDP Scam III - The Legend Grows
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>In answer to a question raised by Mr. Ranta :
>>>>I know that Berger, one of the investors, is a former leader of the
>>>>provincial NDP, but what was Laxton's highest position in the provincial
>>>>NDP?
>Mr. John Corman wrote:
>>>It's my understanding that he was the president of the BC NDP.
>>>John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
>Mr. Reilley said:
>>Not while president of Hydro.
>True. So was Dave Stupich not party president when he did what he did
>in Nanaimo.
>Remember that one, David ?
What's your point? Corman siad it was his understanding that one thing was
true, he made an error in fact, I posted the correct information. I wasn't
looking for a fight. Go take a hormone pill.
David Reilley
>Hell, rumour has it that the drug lords are busy signing up membership
>in the NDP, in order to learn a thing or two about money laundering,
>be it through Bingo Games
Drug lords aren't interested in nickle and dime laundering -- and on their
scale of things, that's what this is. But I'll bet that line works well in
the bar. "You're a laugh riot, Alice"
David Reilley
>From: san...@wimsey.com (sandy)
>Subject: Re: NDP Scam III - The Legend Grows
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>> the reason for the Cayman company was to give the investors
>>the same protection from federal taxes
>"Protection from Federal taxes" we all want to have. Unfortunately,
>Tax Evasion, which is what your euphemism is, is still illegal the
>last I checked.
>And boy, did I check.
Well you didn't check very well. What did you do -- ask the bar tender?
It is completely legal for a Canadian to set up a company in the Caymans and
not pay taxes on company profits earned outside of Canada. It only becomes
illegal tax evasion if money is paid out (in fees or dividends or interest)
from the Cayman company to a Canadian-based company or a Canadian resident,
and that person (or company) fails to declare this income on their Canadian
tax return. As longm as the money remains in the name of the offshore
company, it is not taxable under Canadian law. If you don't like this law,
write the Liberal government in Ottawa, and urge them to change it. (And
while you're at it, urge them to find a way to retroactively tax the
billionaire Irving family of New Brunswick for all the money they have avoided
taxes on.)
For the record, I do not think a Canadian Crown Corp has any business being
involved in this kind of thing. My comment above was a response to a
question about possible motives -- I was simply making a point about WHY this
was done in my comment above, not defending the practice.
D. Rodney Smelser
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>
>In answer to a question raised by Mr. Ranta :
>>>>I know that Berger, one of the investors, is a former leader of the
>>>>provincial NDP, but what was Laxton's highest position in the provincial
>>>>NDP?
>Mr. John Corman wrote:
>>>It's my understanding that he was the president of the BC NDP.
>>>John Corman ********** jco...@island.net
>
>Mr. Reilley said:
>>Not while president of Hydro.
>
>True. So was Dave Stupich not party president when he did what he did
>in Nanaimo.
>
>Remember that one, David ?
As I am sure you are aware, neither Dave Stupich nor John Laxton was ever
the provincial President of the BC NDP. However, in the early to mid
70s, the party President was one Frank Murphy, at the time a close
political protege of Stupich. He later broke with Stupich becuase of the
growing problems he had with the bingos, the NCHS and the rest.
>sandy
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Delusion is the opiate of socialists.
>
I have asked before and I will ask again. What is your drug of choice?
Rod
GUIDO
for risk. If you want a low-risk return you get a T-bill rate of return
on your investment. A "negotiated" 24% return on investor equity sounds
really good although the expectation would be that it should be quite
risky. If someone asked me to invest 25 grand in Timbuctoo Power to build
a plant in Zanzibar I would probably be a little spooked, even if they
offered me a 24% return.
This is where I don't quite get it. All these investors look a this thing
and see immediately that there is very little risk so they invest. NDPers
drive Volvos - they're not into risk. How did they know that there was
low risk on their investment. Why would the company looking to raise
capital offer such a lucrative rate of return for such low risk?
...I had counted on their ideology to keep the pigs from standing on their
hind legs......
--
Guido Lepore
gle...@direct.ca