Liberals demand PM apologize over income trust 'double-cross'


CBC News
#1
The Liberals continued to slam the Tories on Thursday for flip-flopping on income trusts, demanding they apologize to Canadians for misleading them over the issue.

More...
 
EastSideScotian
#2
Yea well I demand the Liberals Apologize for years of over taxing us, and lying about tax cuts and credits..
 
ottawabill
#3
I think the Liberals should say sorry for being.....just for being!!!

Really though it's another try and get votes at any cost for the great Canadian party. Like we should just let every tax paying corporation in Canada stop paying tax...right... Then you can have your liberal government and pay 80% income tax.

What I find moronic is that a good number of Canadains actually listen to the Liberals and believe. Damn, who actually has the hidden agenda here??
 
tamarin
#4
Just goofiness. It was Ralph Goodale who had first chaperoned the idea in the Liberal caucus. He fully supported eliminating the trust tax position. Now the Liberals are going to scold the Tories for abandoning Canadians? The tax change is a great idea, should have been implemented years before and judging by the praise the left-leaning Star is giving Flaherty today any Liberal thought to prolong the fake criticism won't be helpful.
 
BitWhys
#5
Demanding an apology is a standard ploy in the political arena. It forces the opponent to either admit a mistake, which is not always most costly move but usually is short term, or fail to show character, which is usually minor in the short term but eats away at the image and can definitely come back to haunt you. In this case Harper EXPLICITLY promised not to touch the Income Trusts even though the threat to revenues was already well identified.

His choice and he's already made it. If it was anybody else I'd figure he's thinking short term but for him its seems to be the only game he knows.
 
wallyj
#6
I am a conservative. through and through.But even I have trouble with this. I do not doubt that the right thing was done.I do think that Harper should go in front of a microphone and explain why things were changed. But for the libs to pull out thier righteous indignation schtick again,come on,remember the free trade act and gst back in 93,pure lies.
 
wallyj
#7
[quote=wallyj;743744]I am a conservative. through and through.But even I have trouble with this. I do not doubt that the right thing was done.I do think that Harper should go in front of a microphone and explain why things were changed. But for the libs to pull out thier righteous indignation schtick again,come on,remember the free trade act and gst back in 93,pure lies.[/quote
 
BitWhys
#8
You're right. He should. Not that it will really let him off the hook but at least it will take the edge off. for some folks. eventually. Fact of the matter is Harper really did have no business making that promise. They ARE supposed to be the numbers people, after all.

I'd love to gloat about it but that rock and a hard place he put himself in is lined with the cinders of a lot of common people's hard-earned cash. For the CONs to hide behind the other measures they're introducing is nothing but a slap in the face since they add up to chickenfeed in comparison. Even if they do recover a lot of what they lost eventually, for the average joe that makes for one hell of a lot of stress.

The thing about the Liberals right now is they are in no position to define themselves. Once the leadership campaign is over they'll be better able to build a platform to stand on and be something besides the Conservative's grumpy mirror image. For now, all the stupid exchanges and nitpicky fault finding missions during Question Period aside, I'm pretty sure the NDP and the Bloc are getting a kick out of it, too.
 
Kreskin
#9
This is what ex Liberal John Manley had to say on October 23.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ess/columnists
Manley sounds alarm on rush to income trusts

'Long term, this will cost us,' he warns; Godsoe fears damper on competitiveness

ANDREW WILLIS AND ERIC REGULY

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is growing increasingly concerned with Corporate Canada's love affair with income trusts, but is unwilling to move against the sector for fears of a political backlash, according to his predecessor, John Manley.

Mr. Manley is one of a growing number of business leaders who fear Canada's competitive position is threatened by the shift to trusts, highlighted by the conversion plans of leading telecom companies Telus Inc. and BCE Inc. Under the tax-efficient trust structure, most of the cash a company generated is handed out to shareholders.

"The overriding concern here is does this move to trusts leave Canadian enterprises with the flexibility they need to compete? That's the problem, the lack of flexibility," Mr. Manley said.

To date, Mr. Flaherty has refrained from commenting on the government's plans for a trust sector that has grown from nothing a decade back to be worth $250-billion once BCE and Telus convert. Mr. Flaherty has said Ottawa is keeping an eye on the conversions, and that tax cuts on dividends contained in the last federal budget were meant to level the playing field between corporations and trusts.

According to Mr. Manley, who is counsel to law firm McCarthy Tétrault, the recent rash of conversions "is driving Flaherty nuts."

But Mr. Manley said his successor likely doesn't have political support from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to tackle the issue while still in a minority government, with an election always on the horizon. Ottawa insiders say the last Liberal government, with Ralph Goodale as finance minister, paid a steep price with voters after it tackled trusts, then had the RCMP investigate the way the file was handled in the middle of the last campaign.

"Ralph Goodale discovered that this is not just about Bay Street; it's a Main Street issue too," Mr. Manley said. One Liberal insider said the party estimated it lost 200,000 votes over the trust issue, enough to tilt the last election to the Tories. Mr. Manley and other Ottawa sources say senior civil servants such as Kevin Lynch and Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge are concerned that trusts will hold back growth.

Fears that business trusts are a wrong structure for the times are echoed throughout the Canadian business community. "These trusts misallocate the capital, the savings of Canadians, and that capital is the primary source of our economic growth," said Peter Godsoe, the former chairman and chief executive officer at Bank of Nova Scotia. While admitting he owns trusts, Mr. Godsoe said: "We are using a structure that the Americans looked at, and shut down. The Australians had trusts, they shut them down. The British looked at this, and decided not to allow it. What do we know that everyone else doesn't?"

Mr. Godsoe and Mr. Manley, along with a great many Bay Street financiers who didn't want to go on the record because they make a living selling trusts, said wholesale adoption of the structure will, over the long-term, inflict damage on Canada's competitiveness.

"We keep talking about productivity in this country, and how we lag. Productivity is a function of investing in plant and equipment and technology. When trusts exist to pay out all their profits, how can they invest?" a CEO at one financial player said.

Mr. Manley said trusts make sense for real estate and mature oil fields -- the energy trusts -- but do not suit businesses such as phone companies.

"What happens if you have a huge change in technology?" he asks, referring to the need to invest billions into networks. "Long term, this will cost us."

A trust, he said, implies that shareholders don't trust managers to manage their companies. Mr. Manley said: "Do we not trust corporate management any more?"

Yet in the absence of changes in the tax act, more trust conversions seem inevitable, with pipelines and Canadian Pacific Railway touted as the next potential candidates for the switch.

One of the country's largest utilities is Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. and chief executive officer Patrick Daniel was asked last week if he planned to convert the $12.6-billion company.

Mr. Daniel said Enbridge was in talks with regulators about turning certain divisions into trusts, but the structure didn't suit the parent company. Enbridge couldn't realize many of a trust's tax benefits, and it has huge capital spending needs that could only come at the expense of distributions.

But Enbridge has already spun out one pipeline as a $495-million trust, and Mr. Daniel joked that conversions are coming so quickly, "banks and the regulated industries are going to be the only part of Canadian business that won't be trusted."

Mr. Manley said the Tories will eventually face political heat by allowing businesses to avoid paying tax, with the obvious implication that the individual taxpayer is shouldering more of the burden. The bottom line for the federal Conservatives, he said, is that "they've got to stop them [trust proliferation] and stop them soon.
 
gc
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by wallyj View Post

I am a conservative. through and through.But even I have trouble with this. I do not doubt that the right thing was done.I do think that Harper should go in front of a microphone and explain why things were changed. But for the libs to pull out thier righteous indignation schtick again,come on,remember the free trade act and gst back in 93,pure lies.

I agree. The promise to abolish the GST (and free trade), and the promise not to impose taxes on income trust are very similar. Both were stupid promises to make, but the right decision in the end. I just hope anyone who still blames the liberals for not abolishing the GST is equally critical of the Conservatives for not sticking with their promise.
 
Kreskin
#11
I believe this is proposed legislation. It still has to pass the house, does it not?
 
gc
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

I believe this is proposed legislation. It still has to pass the house, does it not?

It's supported by the NDP and the Bloc, so it should have no trouble passing.
 
Nuggler
#13
Harper did the right thing. Corporations becoming income trusts would pay no tax. Guess who would have had to take up the slack?

If BCE and Telus had been allowed to convert to trusts, the lost tax dollars would have been very large. We need taxes to give us all these nice things that we Canadians are used to. yes yes.

Harper did the right thing....Can't believe I said that.

Does this mean I vote Con. in the next election?? Could happen. We were going to shift a paltry few dollars into income trusts, and decided it looked too good to be true, so we didn't. Bit of a good move for once. Also, Harper said he wouldn't tax income trusts............When is the last time you REALLY BELIEVED anything a politician said??? We make our decisions by listening to the what the lying bastards promise and pretty much do what they say not to...............It's worked not too bad so far.........I'd rather trust a cobra than Flaherty or Harper. At least you KNOW the snake is poisonous and will bite.

Ugg.

PS: So we put our money in heroin and white slavery.........better "bang" for the buck?
Last edited by Nuggler; Nov 3rd, 2006 at 06:47 AM..Reason: jist fer theheloit
 
Nuggler
#14
Forgot to add this: It is to puke!!! How about an apology for the last decade of lies and deceit.

Had the libs. been in power they either would have done the same thing, or corporations would be tax free.

Go Stevie, yay yay............................lol.

We didn't really include heroin and white slavery in our investment portfolio. That was a joke. Ha Ha ? Felt that should be explained, as there are some really stupid people posting here who might get all nut-sacked about that and call the Federales or whatever. Calm down, ok?
Last edited by Nuggler; Nov 3rd, 2006 at 06:37 AM..Reason: explanation for the retarded.
 
earth_as_one
#15
Most Canadians with RRSPs had an exposure to income trusts. I bought Telus about six months ago, and profit took about a month ago. Just lucky I guess. But overall, I took a beating in the TSX this week because I also own COS, PWT, OST, AFZ...

That said, I still agree with the decision. Also I'm glad the conservatives did it the way they did. If you look at the charts, you can tell the announcement blindsided the traders and corporations as it should have... To tell the truth, the Conservatives... choke, gasp,... impressed me with this decision and they way they were able to keep it secret. As a socialist, I found it hard to type that statement of praise.

Far too often people who make decisions which affect the economy make subtle hints to their friends. These people can bail out and and little guys like myself bear the full brunt of the change. The way the conservatives did this, everyone with investments in trusts got shafted equally.

Closing this tax loophole was the right thing to do and die hard conservatives can take pride that their party did the right thing the right way. But no I still won't vote conservative. The conservatives are far too close to the Bush administration. .i.e Harper's pro-death and destruction support of US war crimes in Iraq and Israel's war crimes in Lebanon....
 
BitWhys
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by gc View Post

I agree. The promise to abolish the GST (and free trade), and the promise not to impose taxes on income trust are very similar. Both were stupid promises to make, but the right decision in the end. I just hope anyone who still blames the liberals for not abolishing the GST is equally critical of the Conservatives for not sticking with their promise.

I think that comparison downplays how cavalier Harper was in making his promise. A big difference between the two was that it only became obvious the GST cut would have to be replaced by a different tax once Martin got into the (fuzzy, according to some) books. The Income Trust situation was already well known as a train wreck waiting to happen. In financial circles it was the talk of the town.

I'm no fan of the Liberals, but if I had to choose which promise was made in the most good faith, I'd go with the predecessor.
 

Similar Threads

0
1
4
TSX tumbles on income trust reaction
by CBC News | Nov 2nd, 2006