The Hook

It's "this" Voodoo economics Van Isle

But don't take my word for it, you can read about it from an 'unbiased' CanWest source.

http://tiny.cc/qJKJ6

And, note the figure, $55 billion!

At least there has been some enlightenment

In 2005 the NDP platform advocated making B.C. Ferries a Crown Corporation again.

“That's not the commitment this time,” said Ralston. (NDP finance critic)

There has to be a reason. Something is obviously working.

I want BC Ferries

back as a Crown Corporation. And how many other places have the Libs racked up debt that doesn't show in the books? Better money managers, my ass.

?

I don't get it - Ralston wants to end privatization of Ferry Corp but does not want to bring it back to the Crown. Anyone know what he has in mind?

Just WTF else are ya gonna do with it?

"“We wouldn't want to transfer it back onto the books,” said Ralston."

realife

Something to do with a cake, eating, both sides of one's mouth. Am I getting warm?

Hide those Fastcats

The BC NDP wants to keep the Fastcats off the books.

realife, realisticman, JStog

Only you guys would have more trouble with the NDP statement than what the Liberals have actually done.

realife

"Anyone know what he has in mind?"

Maybe he'll make Campbell pay out of his own pocket the debt of BC Ferries and then make them a Crown again. Does that work for you?

Damn the debt, full speed ahead!

The NDP already knows how to make debt "go away" at BC Ferries.
They can just do what they did in their last term - write it off!
Just like that a Billion dollars disappears off the books. To another set of books.
Why can't the stupid Liberals think like that...

happy

the stupid liberals do think like that. They told us we would get a billion for BC Rail and in the end we realized a net $0.00

True Gary, but..

everybody conveniently forgets BC Rail had over a Billion in debt too. Now its CN's debt

@ happy

They do.

http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/

And I'm sure the Liberals want BC Ferries debt off the books just as much as the NDP.

It was about half that.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2004/bfp/bgt2004_part1-tb_bcrail.htm

BC Rail

The Faithful also like to conveniently forget that BC Rail ever once operated at a profit and required a large annual tax payer subsidy, money that could go somewhere else like health and education. But as long as the government owns a company, it is ok with the Faithful. British Leyland immediately comes to mind.

@ Wilfred Laurier

It had a profit of over 70 million $ in 2003.

Even if this is true (and I'm skeptical), the very reason for the existence of the rail company was as a subsidy to mining and forestry industries, whence came much of its debt (e.g. from building the Tumbler Ridge line).

jimmy_

BC Rail (to my knowledge) did indeed have an operating subsidy, fairly large one I believe. Same for BC Ferries, they get over 100 Mil per.

I stand somewhat corrected on the Billion dollar BCR debt, after perusing your link I see it wasn't quite that (I admit to drawing from memory on that one) but all the money looks well accounted for, First Nations got a nice cut and the rest went to pay down Provincial debt if I read your Report correctly?

@ happy

I hadn't heard that. But anyway, BC Rail disagrees:

(My emphasis.) This report is from 2000.

http://www.reviewcta-examenltc.gc.ca/Submissions-Soumissions/Oct26/British%20Columbia%20Railway%20Company.pdf

I find that's often not a good idea.

BC Rail and coal mining

The BC government used BC Rail to subsidise the transport of coal destined for Asia from North Eastern BC in the eighties. Many hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the Tumbler Ridge route.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=VJrHXcCKelkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA107,M1

I agree jimmy_

Your right. Its not good to draw from memory. Thats why I tossed in that disclaimer in case I was wrong.
After looking into it BCR operating susidies were eliminated in 1993 except for T Rigde coal operations as you also pointed out.
I better stick to ferry's

@ happy

Then I suppose the classy thing to do would be to look up these facts before writing, or better yet write nothing at all, rather than just talking out of your a$$ and then apologising after your "inaccuracies" are uncovered.

"Subsidy" vs "Investment"

It's hilarious, really, that a multi billion dollar bridge across some river in the lower mainland - and the millions it takes to maintain it every year - is "investment" but the spending needed to maintain the primary link between islands and the mainland is a "subsidy."

This is basic transportation between two points within the province of British Columbia. Travel within the province should not be a frill available only to those who can afford it. No one is calling for free ferry trips - no one, except those inland residents who get free ferry trips - but to suggest they be purely user-pay, when no other part of the basic transportation system is fully user-pay is quite simply discrimination.

So enough of the bullshit "subsidy" talk. That's Kevin Falcon-speak for "we refuse to take any responsibility for ferries."

jimmy_

Ther are more "inaccuracies" posted on these threads than I, or you, could possibly keep count of.
A far as I'm concerned, when a person makes an honest mistake the "classy" thing to do is admit it and move on.
Which I've done more than once.
And also, as far as I'm concerned, I'm one of the extreme few here who WILL admit a mistake.

So, moving on. I see you've posted nothing on the subject at hand. So why does the NDP now say the Liberal business model for BC ferries is acceptable after saying in the last election it should be returned to a Crown?
Do you have an opinion on that?

"Subsidy" vs "Investment" #2

Is it an investment when I buy a house and pay the bank a monthly mortgage? Would it be better if I paid a monthly rent to some other company for the house so I wouldn't go into debt? Of course I would own the house, ever, if I did that but I wouldn't be in debt. That seems to be the government's idea. They say let's not own anything and we'll pay for the use of them when we need them. After several years, we still are paying and don't own anything. But CN Rail and the IPP's are making lots of money, at our expense. I am getting tired of subsidizing these private corperations.

@ happy

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." - Ian Fleming

There are honest mistakes and "honest mistakes", and it's impossible for someone reading these comments to tell the difference.

Fair enough, you've apologised, in contrast to Wilfrid Laurier, who has proven to be fairly consistently dishonest on this and many other threads. To reiterate, however, better to check facts before writing, no?

Neither have you :)

I'm not entirely sure that they do. From what I understand, and this is having read only this thread, it seems as though they want the accountability of a crown corporation while hiding the debt as the Liberals have done.

Not at the moment.

Looks like we all make mistakes jimmy_

Quote:
Neither have you :)

Please scroll up to my first post. Debt write off.

Apology? :)

Opps.

I said, "Of course I would own the house, ever, if I did that but I wouldn't be in debt."
Should be, "Of course I would never own the house, if I did that but I wouldn't be in debt.

@ happy

My mistake. I thought you meant "had you written something sensible or intelligent" on this topic, which you had not. Your first post was pretty much the nonsense characteristic of the rest of your comments on this thread.

None other than Gordon Wilson himself-jimmy_

"As Minister of BC Ferries he oversaw the writing down of a billion dollar debt, bringing the corporation back to a position of financial viability. He also took hold of the ill-fated fast ferries program, initiating a review of the system, replacing the board, and bringing the program under control. He also restructured the BC Ferry Corporation, opened it up to greater accountability, and changed its mandate to make the ferries part of the highway system."

My memory was fine on this one. Come on, be a man and apologise. You'll feel better

@ happy

First, you failed to provide a source.

Second, how can the government "write down" a debt. Banks can write off debt owed to them if they think they can't collect it. And governments can write off or write down the value of their assets. But debt owed by the government? What did the banks to whom BC Ferries or the BC government owed the money say about this arrangement?

@ happy

About what?

@ happy

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 10 ed.:

write-down: Reduction in the estimated or nominal value of an asset.

write-off: A cancellation from an account of a bad debt or worthless asset.

Neither of these terms describes what happened to BC Ferries' debt in 2000.

http://www.islandtides.com/assets/reprint/Ferries_Solvent_Dec18_03.pdf

So the debt was assumed as provincial taxpayer-supported debt, rather than self-supported debt. This made exactly zero difference to the BC's total debt. Nothing was "written-off", and if anything made the BC Ferries debt more apparent, not less.

Conclusion? Your statement that the BC Ferries debt "disappeared" while the NDP was in power is pure nonsense.

Be a man. Do the right thing. Apologise. You'll feel better.

Exactly jimmy_

The debt was assumed as provincial taxpayer supported debt rather than self supported. The debt was "written off" BC Ferries books and added onto Provincial books.
I never said the debt disappeared from the taxpayer. Just from BC Ferries. I guess you must have missed it, thats the subject of this thread.
You say you want a source?
Just google Gordon Wilson writes down BC ferry debt, or something similiar and you'll get plenty.

@ happy

No. Wrong again. What does "written off" mean? See the definition I've provided above, and think hard about whether or not this definition corresponds to how you've used the word. You can do it. I believe in you.

Some context for you:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/videos/whiteboard/writedowns.shtml

Um, yeah, that's exactly what you wrote. Your words:

Note the use of the word "disappear". Another one of your "honest mistakes"? You seem to make quite a few of those, don't you?

But to reiterate, nothing improper or dishonest was done. The province assuming the debt made not the slightest difference. The total debt of course remained the same. You understand that, don't you?