Canadians continue to distrust Harper and the Conservatives

"Notwithstanding Ignatieff's poll numbers, where he's seen as competent and popular, what our polling and focus group testing shows is that people really don't have a solid impression about him. They generally like the guy, but they don't really know anything about him. According to our polling, he's an unknown quantity in the eyes of Canadians. So, since people don't have a locked in, fixed impression about him, there's still a tremendous amount of opportunity to influence what people think about the guy," the Conservative source told The Hill Times in a not-for-attribution based interview last week. The Hill Times, April 6, 2009

Poll results:

After observing 3+ years of Harper Conservative minority government, in your opinion:

I have learned enough about Harper and the Conservatives and do not trust their leadership.

83%

I have learned enough about Harper and the Conservatives and continue to trust their leadership.

17%


Related:
PollingReport.ca/ - Latest Poll Results

89% believe Stephen Harper's offer to Chuck Cadman constitutes an attempted bribe of a MP

In an interview with journalist Tom Zytaruk, Stephen Harper stated:

"But the, uh, of the offer to Chuck [Cadman] was that it was only to replace, uh, financial, uh, considerations, he might lose due to an election."

In your opinion, do you believe the offer that Stephen Harper was describing, constitutes an attempt to bribe an elected Member of Parliament, Chuck Cadman?

Yes 89%

No 11%

Articles related to Chuck Cadman, bribery and Stephen Harper - CAITI

Photo by Rick /Flickr

Harper explained in 4 minutes or less

Related:
The past and future tense - Aaron Wherry, Macleans
‘A lot of fear and anger and hatred’ - Aaron Wherry, Macleans

FU from JF

Where is the support Jim?

Flaherty's instinct to cut out of step with world

As the rapidly worsening global recession pushes governments around the world to step up spending, Ottawa's first official response is to cut back.

The fiscal update presented yesterday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will suck $6-billion out of the economy next year. Heather Scoffield, Globe and Mail

Professors give Flaherty a failing mark

Desai said there must be across-the-board spending on infrastructure that has been systematically dismantled in Canada for 20 years. She argued the Harper government allowed partisanship to trump doing what was right for the country.

The Economic Forum has argued for massive economic stimulus, largely by investing in the country's infrastructure. Instead, Flaherty offered what McMaster University economist Atif Kubursi called the "window dressing" of minor changes in pension rules, previously announced tax cuts and selling as-yet-undetermined public assets. Linda Diebel, The Toronto Star

Harper plays chess… while Rome burns

The real outrage of yesterday’s economic “update” is not that it seeks to impose on most parliamentarians a change to funding rules that most of them would never ordinarily accept; it’s that it accomplishes nothing else. It’s that in the most dangerous economic times Canada has faced in 20 years if not far longer, this prime minister can’t wipe the smirk off his face and grow up a little. Paul Wells, Macleans

The Commons: Gaming the system

First Dion, then Duceppe, then Layton with a crescendo. “Mr. Speaker, later today Canadians are going to be looking for bold leadership and dramatic and immediate action. They are going to be looking to see EI reform. They want to see strong action to protect their pensions. They want to see credit guarantees for businesses that are on the edge. The jobs of those workers are on the edge literally this afternoon. Canadians want to see investments in infrastructure to create work,” he cried.

His caucus rose to cheer, his voice swelled to yell over them. “Instead of an immediate stimulus package to attack the recession, the government is apparently going to attack democracy,” he continued, the Conservative benches clucking at this. “I ask the Prime Minister how such an attack is going to create one job or protect one pension?” Aaron Wherry, Macleans

Quotes then and now: Harper, Flaherty

Canwest News Service

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Then and now quotes comparing what Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said during and after the campaign for the Oct. 14 election about recession and a deficit.

"This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 10)

"If you don't want a carbon tax and tax increases and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 12)

"We may well be in a technical recession."
- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Nov. 23)

"The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23)

"I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit but the problem is that once you cross that line as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 6)

"We will not run a deficit."
- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Oct. 9)

"If we do short-term deficit spending as a deliberate policy we will have to be able to demonstrate to Canadians that those deficits will genuinely be short term."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 15)

"The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides . . . that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23)

Nothing for seniors in throne speech

The Gazette

Saturday, November 22, 2008

A chilling document utterly lacking in compassion, the throne speech might well have been written by another prime minister from Calgary, a lawyer, R.B. Bennett. This one was written by an economist from Calgary, Stephen Harper.

Millions or billions hinted for the auto industry but not a smidgen of help or rescue for Canada's pensioners who are forced to sell their savings in a plunging market (the subject of at least two excellent articles in The Gazette's Business pages last week).

John Diefenbaker ended 22 years of Liberal rule in this country in 1957 when he branded the Liberals "the six-buck boys" after they raised pensions by that amount over five years.

His spirit is dead in the Tory party of today.

Edward W. Barrett

Montreal

Related:
Seniors caught in the RRIF trap deserve a break from Ottawa

Who do you believe?

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE IMAGE

The "economist"?

"I should point out to you that the trusts have largely regained their market value over the past couple of years. But that will certainly not be the case when we have a Liberal government raising taxes, raising spending and driving our economy into deficit and recession," Stephen Harper, September 22, 2008


The portfolio manager?

Leslie Lundquist, a portfolio manager for Bissett Income Fund said the tax leakage argument never washed with her, because unitholders in income trusts pay income tax on those investments to the federal government. "I think you could argue that having a public market for income trusts, in fact, increases tax revenues at the end of the day, not decreases them."

Or the tax lawyer?

Tax lawyer Ross Freeman called the proposed change by the Liberals a "step forward. I was never one who believed that income trusts posed the threat to the federal treasury that they [Conservatives]were concerned about," said Freeman, with Borden Ladner and Gervais LLP’s Calgary office. "I think they were actually good for business and hence created more revenue for the government. I’m glad to hear that at least one party, the Liberals, think that was the case."

Related:
Perpetuating the Big Lie

Stephen Harper's proof - 18 blacked out pages

Harper vows to keep income trust tax

Reuters
Mon Sept 22, 2008 11:55am EDT

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper ruled out any reversal of his government's surprise decision in October 2006 to impose a tax on distributions from income trusts, which had become popular investment vehicles.

Harper, campaigning before the October 14 general election, told reporters in Ottawa on Monday that the Conservative government was "forced" to change the income trust rules because corporations were increasingly converting to the tax-sheltered structure, avoiding tax payments to Ottawa.

The main opposition Liberal Party said on Monday that, if it forms the next government, it would replace the planned 31.5 percent tax with a smaller 10 percent rate. Its tax would be refundable for Canadian residents, leaving foreign investors to pay it, and the party projected the tax would bring in C$1 billion in revenue over four years.

But Harper suggested that the other political parties would come to the same conclusion the Conservatives did: changing the tax structure was necessary to stabilize the market.

"Any party that is suggesting it will reverse that is not telling the truth. They will find, and they know just as we knew, that they will have to reverse course," Harper said.

The Conservatives shocked market participants with the Halloween 2006 announcement of the new rules, and market activity that had been driven by income trusts screeched to a stop.

Two of Canada's biggest corporations, telecoms companies Telus Corp and BCE Inc, halted plans to convert into trusts, the Canadian initial public offering market dried up, and BCE has since agreed to be acquired by a private-equity consortium.

Harper also said the government created "very generous" transition arrangements.

"We've allowed income trusts to double in size in the transition period and those taxes actually don't come into effect until 2011, so no income trust has in fact paid any tax," he said.

Related:
Liberals vow to scrap tax on trusts - Globe and Mail

An autopsy of the Telus - BCE deal. How the Harper government favoured Private Equity and turned it's back on Canadian investors.

The environment has now turned quite good for Private Equity

The Conservatives have committed the biggest blunder I've seen in 42 years of business involvement - Seymour Schulich, September 11, 2007

Medical journal demands inquiry

16 dead in listeriosis outbreak. '100-per-cent avoidable and unnecessary'

SHARON KIRKEY
Canwest News Service

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Canada's top medical journal is calling for a full-scale public inquiry into the listeriosis outbreak, saying the independent investigation promised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be "inferior to every epidemic inquiry in recent Canadian history."

The Canadian Medical Association Journal says that in August, Canada experienced the worst epidemic of listeriosis in the world. As of last night, contaminated cold cuts had killed at least 16 Canadians from among 43 confirmed cases of listeriosis.

Also yesterday, New Brunswick's Health Department issued a statement saying that the death of elderly woman in that province has also been linked to the outbreak.

"Already the death toll is more than double that of the notorious (E. coli) outbreak in Walkerton, Ont.," according to an editorial released ahead of print yesterday. And because listeriosis can remain dormant for two to three months, "the deaths, illnesses and other effects such as spontaneous abortions may not be over yet."

The journal is demanding a public inquiry into the "major failings" of Canada's food inspection system on the same scale as those for the tainted blood scandal, Walkerton and the SARS epidemic, saying Canadians "should settle for nothing less."

"The fact is, this outbreak was 100-per-cent avoidable and unnecessary," says editorial board member Amir Attaran, Canada research chair in law, population health and global development policy at the University of Ottawa.

"If your food supply is safe and free of listeria, no one is going to get listeriosis out of eating the food. It's as simple as that."

The journal says the federal government's lax standards on listeria and a decision to transfer inspection duties for ready-to-eat meats from government inspectors to the meat industry "helped bring about this epidemic.

"Yet surprisingly, government has taken no remedial steps beyond issuing a food recall. Instead, officials praise the success of our infectious disease surveillance system - as if, with 16 dead, there were cause to celebrate - while food safety standards remain as low as ever."

"It is not a policy success to say we detected a bad food processing plant because there's the corpse that proves it," Attaran said in an interview.

The government has also handed self-inspection to the operators of animal feed mills and cut back on avian flu preparedness, he says.

Bad animal feed containing recycled animal tissue led to the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis, or mad cow disease, while an influenza pandemic could kill "tens of thousands of Canadians."

"Listeriosis pales in comparison. Overall, it would seem that, as a country, Canada is far less prepared now for epidemics than in the past," the journal says.

Attaran said the independent investigation promised by Harper would be closed to public participation and that, according to the terms of references, the investigator won't have the power to subpoena witnesses or documents.

"It's not clear who the so-called judge would be. It's absolutely clear there are no public hearings planned, no opportunity for the public to comment or give evidence or ask questions," Attaran said.

"There is not going to be a public report published at the end, and there's no commitment that the report will be made public to Canadians at large or even to parliament.

"It seems to us at the journal very clear that what this exercise represents is an attempt to neutralize what's fairly obvious government responsibility for this outbreak, but also to neutralize it in a way that will never let the public know precisely what went wrong."

Related:
Listeriosis is the least of it - Canadian Medical Association Journal

Families angry about Ritz's listeriosis jokes - CBC

Psst... Harper Wins CAJ secrecy award - An example we want to add to the list.

18 blacked out pages prove nothing about alleged income trust tax leakage but say much about how Stephen Harper regards Canadians.

Harper philosophy is to Lie Conceal Fabricate his way to power.

CAITI has been saying it since January 2007.

Still we are happy Canada's Journalists are willing to acknowledge the obvious.

Related:
It shouldn’t be the role of journalists to knowingly propagate lies

---

EDMONTON, May 24 /CNW/ - When it comes to secrecy, nobody does it better than the prime minister's office.

Despite a field of tight-lipped competitors, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has run away with the Canadian Association of Journalists' Code of Silence Award for 2007.

"Harper's white-knuckled death grip on public information makes this the easiest decision the cabal of judges has ever rendered," said CAJ President Mary Agnes Welch. "He's gone beyond merely gagging cabinet ministers and professional civil servants, stalling access to information requests and blackballing reporters who ask tough questions. He has built a pervasive government apparatus whose sole purpose is to strangle the flow of public information."

The ignominious award, handed out Saturday night at the CAJ's investigative journalism awards banquet, dishonours the country's most secretive government, department or agency for obfuscatory excellence. Harper's office was the overwhelming choice for this award.

"If journalists can't get basic information from the federal government, Canadians can't hold the government accountable. The Prime Minister's Office has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the public's right to know," Welch said. "Harper pledged to run a government that was open, transparent and accountable, but his track record to-date has been abysmal."

Harper was invited to accept the award in person but failed to respond.

The other nominees for the CAJ Code of Silence Award were:

• The B.C. government's climate change secretariat for holding closed- door meetings and refusing to reveal basic information about its members, funding and stakeholder presentations.

• The city of Rossland, B.C., for falsifying records of a council meeting and forcing a city councillor to resort to freedom of information requests to get documents that should be public.

• The Ontario government for the secretive tendering process involve in building nuclear power plants worth $26 billion.

• Ontario's Ministry of Children and Youth Services for their two-year delay in releasing daycare records following a freedom of information request by the Toronto Star. The records revealed serious problems at several hundred of the 4,400 licensed daycares in the province.

• Transport Canada for proposed draconian secrecy provisions in amendments to the Aeronautics Act. If implemented, these will see a veil of secrecy fall over all information reported by airlines about performance, safety violations, aviation safety problems and their resolution.

• The town of Montague, P.E.I., for using loopholes in the provincial Municipalities Act to hold pre-council meetings in the guise of committee of the whole sessions.

The Canadian Association of Journalists is a professional organization with more than 1,500 members across Canada. The CAJ's primary role is to provide public-interest advocacy and quality professional development for its members.

For more information, visit www.caj.ca.

For further information:
Mary Agnes Welch, CAJ president,
Cell: (204) 470-8862;
John Dickins, CAJ executive director,
Cell: (613) 868-5442

Harper Valdez, as seen in the Hill Times just in time for the opening of Parliament

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE IMAGE

The true compensatory loss sustained by trust investors

By Brent Fullard

There was a somewhat misleading article that appeared in today’s National Post entitled “Trusts still in black“ about the losses sustained by income trust investors as a result of the Harper Government actions of Halloween 2006. This article looked at the matter from the standpoint of a portfolio manager’s annual performance and not from the standpoint of compensatory losses in a court of law, which is the relevant test to be applied.

The question of what losses were sustained by income trust investors requires the application of Decision Theory, as taught in science courses, and as would be applied in a court of law in terms of seeking compensation necessary to make the plaintive “whole”.

• The value of trusts has fallen from 164.86 to 141.11 at the close yesterday for a loss of 14.4%
• Meanwhile, the value of the TSX has gone from 12,344 to 13,940 at the close yesterday for a gain of 12.9%
• Therefore, the actual loss in the value of trusts is $28.8 billion
• Whereas the relative loss in the value of trusts is $54.7 billion
  

Including the distributions paid on income trusts is irrelevant to this calculation, since Decision Theory 101 instructs that any exercise which seeks to evaluate the impact of particular event (in this case the Harper government’s reversal of its election promise to never raid senior’s nest eggs) has to identify and isolate those outcomes and only those outcomes that differ between the “Raid Senior’s Nest Egg Scenario” and the “Do Nothing Scenario” during the past 13 months. This is how a court of law would look at it. For example if an accident caused my house to burn down, the accused couldn’t deduct from my losses the fact that my car in the garage was spared from damage. Think of distributions as the car in the garage.

Under both scenarios of Raid Seniors Nest Eggs versus Do Nothing to Harm Seniors Nest Eggs, the distributions would have been paid and therefore this aspect of the analysis is not to be considered. The distributions will only differ as between the two scenarios come 2011, when they are taxed at 31.5% under the Raid Scenario and not taxed under the Do Not Raid scenario, however we are only seeking to evaluate the losses over the past 13 months

Therefore, What did differ, as between these two scenarios is the value of Seniors Nest Eggs in accordance with the numbers cited above. Income trusts investors whose nest eggs were raided lost $28.8 billion if there plan was to have liquidated their investments for cash, and $54.7 billion if their intention was to remain invested in the market. This is the damage sustained by invetsors that would be sought in a court of law under these circumstances: $54.7 billion.

Keep in mind, apart from the promise “not to tax income trusts” there was also the Harper election promise/lie contained on page 43 of their campaign platform that read: “timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation, or legislation.”

11/03/06: Mr Harper: I resign

Friday, November 3, 2006

Mr. Harper,

I Resign

I am the President of a major downtown Conservative Party Riding Association. I tell you this so you will know who I am. During the three years I have been President of the Association I have not had even one contact from you or anyone in your office. I am very angry at the Party’s action on Income Trusts. Shame on you.

First let me offer you congratulations on the support of the NDP and BLOQ, for the actions taken against small and medium sized investors in Income Trusts. I’m sure that by implementing their anti-investor policies you will gain exactly zero new voters. On the other hand you have just lost the next election. I’m also sure that Prime Minister Bob Rae will continue your practice of ruining small and medium investors.

Flaherty’s action on Tuesday evening has permanently reduced my net worth and income by a substantial amount. To compensate for this outrageous tax grab, your government has increased the Senior Tax Credit by $1,000, which is worth $160 – big deal; my contributions to the Conservative Party are a multiple of this amount. You will also allow “pension” income splitting between spouses. Well, I don’t have any pension, other then the Old Age & Security and the Quebec Pension Plan, so this is of little use to me. My income is primarily from my investments. As noted above, because of your governments attack on one group of investors, my income will significantly drop. Just so you know how it feels, I insist that you and Mr. Flaherty take an immediate and permanent 20% cut in your salaries. What’s fair for me should be fair for you.

I have worked very hard for the Conservative Party in the last number of election, because I believed in our economic philosophy and our platform. I was especially pleased with your pronouncement that a Tory government would not increase taxes on Income Trusts – in fact this was in the Party platform. You were either very careless with your statement or were lying because you, as an economist and a political policy analyst, understood the tax implications of the trust business structure. I would expect such behavior in Venezuela but not Canada – we look like a banana republic to non-Canadians. With the losses I have had, because of your unfair decision, I could have financed my grandchildrens’ education right through to university.

If the Liberals promise to grandfather the current tax treatment, for Canadians holding existing Trust Units and paying tax on the distributions, they will have my vote and I expect the vote of hundreds of thousands of other voters, perhaps a million plus.

I realize that things were getting out of hand with large corporations planning to convert to Income Trusts but why did you attack small and medium sized investors to solve this problem? Perhaps you and Flaherty could have put in place your Income Trust plan for new Trusts and leave existing Trusts alone. If the government was worried about tax leakage, because Trust Units are held in pension funds, RRSPs and by foreigners you should have used some imagination to solve the problem and not damage tax payers like me. As a tax payer I paid substantial taxes on my Trust distributions. In fact my personal tax rate, on these distributions, is higher then the corporate tax rate that might have been paid by the organizations which made the distributions, if they were taxable. I doubt there was much tax leakage from tax paying recipients, like me.

Do you realize that individual Canadians, through their pension plans, RRSPs and direct investments, have lost 78% of the $31 billion that have been lost in Income Trusts (as of Thursday)? This amounts to $24 billion or $727 per Canadian. However, the per Canadian losses are consecrated in people who trusted you. The $31 billion loss is 2.3% of Canada’s GDP, much higher than our foreign aid, and 6.4% of the Federal Government’s debt. What a colossal blunder. I read in today’s paper that Flaherty is considering advancing the further 1% reduction in GST. to next spring. He is trying to make up for his incredible mistake on Income Trusts. Well it won’t work.

The Income Trust structure was not a “tax loophole” or a “gimmick”. It was permitted under Canadian tax law and was perfectly legal. To treat all tax payers equally, the government should impose a 15% “tax” on all publicly traded security investments in Canada. Of course that is ridiculous, but that is what you have done to investors in Income Trusts. Imagine, you could probably eliminate the total Canadian debt with such a tax. You make the NDP look good

Comrade, the net result of my anger is that I can not longer be associated with a politically inept, incompetent political party, that hurts small and medium sized investors and that doesn’t live up to its promises. Therefore, I am resigning my position as President of the Conservative Party Riding Association and the Association board of directors. With this email I am also resigning as a member of the Party.

At the very least Flaherty must be fired for lack of imagination and bad judgment. As for you, you should get out more and make personal contact with the grass roots of the Party, so you will know what they think.

Yours sincerely

Sean Ahern, President (Past)
Westmount Ville-Marie Conservative Party Association

Related:
Long-time Tory angrily quits party over trusts

November 4, 2006
Gloria Galloway

OTTAWA — Sean Ahern helped organize a $500-a-plate brunch last Sunday to raise money for the Conservatives in the Montreal constituency of Westmount–Ville-Marie where he was riding association president. Yesterday, in response to the government's decision to tax income trusts, he tore up his party membership. Source: Globe and Mail

Questioning income trusts puts seniors at risk

Stephen Harper
Source: National Post
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Page: A20

On September 19, the Prime Minister acted recklessly when he ordered his Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, to wade into the income-trust market like a proverbial bull in a china shop. On that day, investors were put on notice that their popular income trusts were going to be targeted by a Liberal government seeking higher tax revenues from companies and investors.

Martin's reckless action has caused uncertainty over the future of income trusts, and so has wiped out billions of dollars in market capitalization from Canadian companies and tens of thousands of dollars from the retirement nest eggs of individual investors. Most notable was the damage done to Canadian seniors who may not have the time to recoup their losses.

One couple e-mailed my party to complain that the uncertainty around income trusts caused by the Liberals' announcement trimmed $30,000 from their retirement portfolio in a single day. Another man wrote to tell us that he had lost 15% from his his portfolio.

Many seniors feel the government is putting their retirement at risk and have let Ottawa know. In a letter to the Finance Minister, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said, "Seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for the essentials of daily living."

Income trusts are popular with seniors because they provide regular payments that are used by many to cover the costs of groceries, heating bills and medicine. They also provide tax relief from a government that is addicted to taking too much money from their pockets and spending it without care, and very often without meaningful results.

So one must ask, why is the government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors?

But it gets worse. Instead of immediately moving to assure markets that income trusts are here to stay, the Liberals are justifying their actions in the coldest political terms. As one government member was quoted in the media as saying about income trust investors, "They have no constituency. They don't count politically."

That kind of arrogance cannot go unanswered. There is just no justification for what amounts to a Liberal government attack on investors, and especially on seniors.

The government continues to overtax Canadians and run multi-billion dollar surpluses, yet their first instinct is to attack an investment vehicle that can make the difference between bare survival and a dignified retirement for millions of Canadians.

The government claims that income trusts enjoy an unfair tax advantage over corporate dividends. If they believe this, then the answer is not to shut down a valuable investment vehicle, but to cut the double taxation of dividends. In short, level the playing field and let the market decide between income trusts and dividend-paying companies.

As my party's finance critic, Monte Solberg, says, the success of income trusts represents a rare triumph for investors over the tax man. Let's not be so naive as to assume that the Liberals will do the right thing to protect taxpayers. We'll need to fight hard to keep what we have, and even harder to gain ground.

It's time to stand up to Paul Martin and stop his attack on seniors and investors.

Source: National Post

Ottawa News Conference - The Top Ten Unanswered Questions for Stephen Harper and Jack Layton

OTTAWA, Oct. 30 /CNW/ - The Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors (CAITI) will be holding an Ottawa news conference on Wednesday October 31, 2007, on the one year anniversary of Stephen Harper's broken election promise to not raid seniors' nest eggs by double taxing income trusts.

The theme of the press conference will be The Top Ten Unanswered Questions for Stephen Harper and Jack Layton.

The Press Conference will be held in the Charles Lynch Room of the National Press Gallery, Room 130-S in Center Block of Parliament at 3:45 pm EST.

Presenting will be Brent Fullard, President and CEO of CAITI.

The press conference will also available by conference operator, by dialing one of the following numbers:

403 398 9531
416 644 3427
800 591 7539

Thank you.

For further information:
Canadian Association of Income Trusts Investors
media@caiti.info
(647) 505-2224
Source: CNW

NDP Complicity: How Jack Layton helped Stephen Harper destroy Canadian's RRSP savings.

com·plic·i·ty: Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime. Source: TheFreeDictionary





Related:
New Democratic Poodles

Income trust fall-out: American couple the first to launch NAFTA challenge against Government of Canada for eliminating income trusts; inviting others

OTTAWA, Oct. 30 /CNW Telbec/ - Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb are taking on Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the Canadian government for the Halloween 2006 broken promise on the elimination of income trusts. The Chicago couple are the first Americans to file a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The couple are among the thousands of US investors who lost a total of $5 billion dollars in the fall-out from the Conservative Government's decision last year to effectively tax income trusts in the energy sector out
of existence.

"The Halloween 2006 income trust decision by the Government of Canada has had a massive financial impact on thousands of investors in Canada and the U.S. and we believe that it breached Canada's NAFTA obligations", said Marvin Gottlieb. "Because of this decision, more than $30 billion has been lost by individual investors in Canada and more than $5 billion has been lost by energy trust investors, including Elaine and me, in the United States.

"Based on Stephen Harper's very public promise, thousands of individuals and grandparents like us invested our hard earned money in income trusts and energy trusts. This is not just a nightmare on Bay Street. It's a nightmare on Wall Street."

For further information:
Susan Smith
Bluesky Strategy Group
C: (613)371-0624
susan@blueskystrategygroup.com
Source: CNW

Related:
Chicago couple seeks NAFTA arbitration of income trust taxation policy

Harpers Happy Hollowing to Date

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE IMAGE

Dr. Michael Popovich - Tax fairness plan masks Harper's broken vow

Letters to the Editor
London Free Press
October 27, 2007

The first anniversary of the Oct. 31 implementation of the tax fairness plan is almost upon us.

Will we ever forget Stephen Harper's promise just prior to the last election: "Don't forget , the Liberals were going to tax income trusts. Don't forget we will never let that happen. We will never raid seniors' hard-earned money."

However, Harper did tax income trusts within nine months of taking power and thousands of small investors, mainly seniors, had to suffer the consequences of a $35-billion loss to their savings. The only beneficiaries were corporations like Manulife that had competing products to sell. Private equity firms and pension funds were allowed to buy up these same trusts and hold them tax-free.

Despite running on a platform of accountability, there have been no attempts made to show any verifiable justification for this action -- unless 18 blacked-out pages count.

Seniors and small investors across Canada, whose only fault was to try to make ends meet, were the collateral damage in this plan to satisfy the needs of the ultra-rich.

As the next election approaches and you hear Stephen Harper chant, "Promise made, promise kept," you might want to reassess his abysmal record on promises.

Dr. Michael Popovich
Rodney, Ontario

Source: London Free Press

Related:
Stephen Harper on Income Trusts - Election 2006
Stephen Harper on Accountability - Election 2006

MP Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) presents petition to House of Commons (2)

Excerpt from October 25th Hansard:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present another petition on the income trust broken promise, submitted to me by Mr. Robert Longmore, of Calgary, Alberta, who remembers the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that the greatest fraud is a promise not kept.

The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which, in less than two days, wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned savings of two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, secondly, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise and, finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts. Paul Szabo, House of Commons, October 25/2007

Related:
Member of Parliament Profile (Current) - Paul Szabo
Stephen Harper on Accountability - Election 2006