Friday, July 18, 2008

The Jim Flaherty Job Loss Watch: “It’s not my fault?”


With so many plant closures and job losses occurring daily, it becomes difficult to keep track. As a service to Canada’s New Government and Finance Minister Jim “it’s not my fault” Flaherty, I thought it would be good thing to keep a tally of these job losses and to determine which of these job losses are in fact Flaherty’s fault by assigning a culpability rating.

Here are the first few entries, starting with the pending layoffs of 2,000 workers at BCE, which are 100% Flaherty’s doing.

Please provide your entries and culpability ratings to: JobLossWatch@JimHadHisChance.ca
or in the comment box below

July 11, 2008: BCE Inc. 2,000 jobs eliminated (pending)......Flaherty’s culpability: 100%

July 16, 2008: Sterling Trucks: 720 jobs eliminated........Flaherty’s culpability: ?

June 16, 2008: GM Oshawa Truck Plant: 2600 jobs eliminated.....Flaherty’s culpability: ?

28 comments:

Cliff said...

Geez...aren't all these job losses in Ontario. Could it possibly be the high cost of doing business in Ontario with their high tax rates might be to blame...or could it be that these same businesses are fearful of the "new Taxes" that both the Federal and Provincial Liberals want to implement under the guise of a "Green Shift." Higher taxes = higher unemployment...FACTS are FACTS.

Dr Mike said...

Cliff

These losses are in Ontario alright.

On the 9th of July this year in Sarnia, the new Shell refinery to process heavy oil from the Tar Sands was scrapped --it was decided that it was to their advantage to expand an existing refinery in Texas & build a pipeline directly from the oil production site in Alberta.

We end up with all the pollution from processing the tar sands but none of the benefit (jobs).

It appears that our gov`t has no control over the processing of our own oil.

It appears that our gov`t has almost no control over our oil at all.

It appears that with the present agreements in place , the US is guaranteed 70% of our oil even if we run out of supply here for our own needs.

I would have expected that our gov`t would be protecting us to some extent.

So Cliff , why not??

Dr mike Popovich

Dr Mike said...

Cliff

I forgot one thing.

The high cost of doing business in Canada has a lot to do with the high dollar.

Mr Flaherty has seen fit to talk up the dollar.

This does not seem reasonable for a country , esp Ontario , that relies on the US market for it`s customers.

Dr Mike.

Dr Mike said...

A couple more for the list :


9 July 2008 : Shell refinery scrapped Sarnia--loss of thousands of construction jobs over 4 years & hundreds of permanent staff once up & running--Flaherty culpability about 80% or higher.

Magna international cut 400 jobs at it Formet plant in St Thomas will happen in Sept ----Falherty culpability about 80% or higher.

Dr Mike.

Robert Gibbs said...

Geeze, I wonder how many jobs were, and will be, lost as a direct result of Harper's and Flaherty's 31.5% new income trust tax, especially those within the companies (beyond BCE) that were taken over by foreign and private equity.

According to Cliff: "Higher taxes = higher unemployment."

Cliff said...

Gee...first you want to tax all these SUV's...then you complain when these same plant close.
Now...these same refineries that you so frequently attack for causing greenhouse gases...and want to implement additional carbon taxes leave your province...and now you folks complain that they are leaving.
Might they be leaving because of the high taxes from the McGinty government...just maybe...these high taxes (that you support)are csusing these plants to be more productive elsewhere...
Keep in mind..that McGinty was advised that these high tax policies would chase jobs from Ontario...Now, we are seeing the results...MORE TAXES = LESS JOBS>

Cliff said...

This is kinda funny...now we start talking about Magna...a Liberal firm...that has received millions in handouts from previous Liberal Governments...poor ol Frank has sucked millions out of this company at both taxpayer and shareholder expense...
Well...well..lets see if your beloved Belinda can save this...I would bet that even she would acknowledge that these high taxes are hurting this Liberal company...and of course the auto plants closing due to lack of demand of these environmentally unfriendly cars...these same vehicles that the Liberals have been railroading against for the past couple of years...well..you have been successful, canadians are buying less of these cars..and of course these jobs are going also.
High taxes...left wing propaganda...LESS JOBS....
And one final note...The Federal Government has tried to protect Ontario jobs by implementing lower taxes for business in hopes of saving many of these jobs...now if only the Ontario provincial government would make an effort to save these jobs...instead they support higher taxes including the infamous "Greenshaft".

Robert Gibbs said...

As Cliff seams unable to write in a comprehendible manner, I provide the following translation of his previous posts:

"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

Dr Mike said...

Cliff Cliff Cliff

I just want you to know that I have been a Conservative supporter for over 30 years.

Flaherty lowering federal business taxes to protect Ontario is a farce--this guy is out only for himself.

He left Ontario with a 5.6 billion dollar deficit when he was booted from office.

The Libs arrived to find this mess , & so guess what , taxes could not be lowered in order to clean up the deficit that he left us with.

Flaherty is directly responsible for Ontario`s higher rates.

I voted for the guy---my sister worked for his campaigns.

I am not blowing smoke--I know exactly what he has done & what he has not.

Flaherty only looks out for himself.

Cliff , it is time you looked at the man from s different angle--it appears he has you bamboozled like so many others.

Dr Mike Popovich.

Cliff said...

I would suggest that you look at the deficit history very carefully. It was the Chretien / Martin Liberals that cut transfers to all provinces. Further, there was a substantial download of programs. Most of the provinces went through serious financial issues during this time. It was the Liberal Federal governemnt that balanced its books and ran large surpluses at the expense of the provinces. These FACTS are hard to ignore.
Now...with a new Harper Government in power, equalization has been revamped. These large surpluses have been transferred to the provinces. In addition Canadian have received substantial tax cuts...helping us to ride out the US turmoil. Again THESE FACTS are hard to ignore.
Then...it is important to note that the McGinty Liberals imposed harsh tax increases on it economy. This increase is now playing a large part in the deterioration of your economy...this should not be surprising...and now you are losing jobs...again MORE FACTS.
And now these very same McGinty and Dion Liberals are proposing more taxes...again these FACTS ARE HARD TO IGNORE.
MORE TAXES....MORE JOB LOSSES.

Cliff said...

Robert Gibbs...

"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

When the facts can't be argued...I guess you simply refer to the Liberal economic plan...Like most Canadians...I can't decipher it either...

Robert Gibbs said...

Tories' Scurrilous Attacks On Election Boss Are Ludicrous

The Gazette
Published: July 18, 2008

The Conservative Party of Canada, starting with its leader the prime minister, should find the decency to knock off their scurrilous assault on the integrity of Elections Canada and its commissioner, Marc Mayrand.

The agency, whose mandate is to oversee the conduct of federal elections, holds that it has discovered persuasive evidence that the Conservatives - the party, not the government - fiddled the accounting of their spending in the 2006 election campaign that brought them to power.

This involved what was essentially an internal kickback scheme, it is alleged. The way it apparently worked was that party headquarters would give money to some Conservative candidates, ostensibly for local advertising, but the candidates would immediately send the amount back to headquarters, which then used it for national or regional ads. According to Elections Canada's accounting, the Conservatives overspent their legal campaign-expenditure limit by $1.3 million in this way.

Conservative spinners have maintained, successfully so far, that the party did nothing wrong, and indeed that other parties have done the same sort of thing. But when Elections Canada stood by its conclusion, and when no evidence of similar hanky-panky by others was forthcoming, the Conservative attack dogs turned on Mayrand and his agency, claiming that they were out to smear the party. As one of them put it this week, the agency is "totally preoccupied" with generating bad press for the Conservatives.

This is patently ludicrous. We've said before and still believe that the whole field of campaign spending laws is a mess - such laws are arbitrary, almost impossible to enforce, stifle free speech and lead not to a "level playing field" but to endless accounting trickery.

But the law is the law. The Conservatives ran in 2006 as the squeaky-clean party, fulsomely decrying Liberal malfeasance.

If the Conservatives did, indeed, play by the rules, they should make their case by sticking to the facts of the matter. Instead they are resorting to the classic scoundrel's defence: Impute motives to others, deny everything and make wild accusations.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008

Robert Gibbs said...

For enlightened readers only, I state the obvious:

CON drivel does not equate to fact.

jimishistory said...

Well .. back to the topic at hand.
First .. full disclosure .. I did not vote Liberal in the last Fed. election and I voted for Mike Harris .. twice! (shame on me).. but in my case Flaherty caused the loss of 1 (one) job .. yes the job I took from some deserving family man or woman because I had to re enter the labour force due to the loss of capital and cash flow from the Income Trust fiasco. Harper/Flaherty/Carney .. they have harmed this country big time and I will never forget.

Cliff said...

Robert Gibbs said...
Tories' Scurrilous Attacks On Election Boss Are Ludicrous

Again lets look at the FACTS.
As with Liberal disputes with Election Canada in the past the Conservatives did and are trying to present the facts in their proper form...this being the Courts. The Liberals have done this many times in the past.
However, unlike past actions, in an effort to avoid discoveries for the court application, the head of Election Canada raided the Conservative offices(1) day before his actual discovery...AGAIN FACTS are hard to argue.
In addition the Media and the Liberal party was alerted ahead of time...
To make matters worse they chose to go Judge shopping...he chose to have the court order issued in Toronto instead of a couple of blocks away in Ottawa.
Then...rather then let the FACTS speak for themselves, he chose to develop a media strategy in an effort to hide his actions (this information was released through a FOIPOP request)...AGAIN THESE ARE FACTS.
Now...a logical question to ask, is why was and is he afraid to have this matter judicated before the courts. Why did he never raid the Liberal offices during past disputes? Why did he never launch an investigation into adsam and press charges? Why...Why...Why...
Now...lets hear all the facts...the whole story...and nothing but the truth. Clearly Liberals are not interted in this as their actions and efforts to restrict witnesses with the Ethics Committee shows.
AGAIN THE FACTS ARE HARD TO ARGUE...this is kinda fun isn't it...especially when the facts are all there in front of you for all to see.

Robert Gibbs said...

As usual, CON talking points or CON "facts" are nothing but fantasy...

Excerpts from Toronto Star Article Of July 16, 2008:

During a committee appearance yesterday, Mayrand undercut the Conservatives' defence that all parties engaged in this kind of financing shuffle in election campaigns.

In fact, Mayrand said, a review of all campaign expense reports from the 2004 and 2006 elections revealed that the Conservatives alone transferred cash to local candidates and then back to the central office, coupled with other "red flags," including local candidates' lack of knowledge about the ad campaigns they ostensibly paid for and a lack of documentation.

"Elections Canada has not identified any other transaction or group of transactions in which all of the factors ... were at play," he said.



Mayrand said the raid had been underway for more than two hours before the first media outlets appeared on the scene.

--------

I've now had enough of this CON-BOT nonsense.

Dr Mike said...

Cliff

I am impressed with your knowledge base.

As a life-long Progressive Conservative I was really burned by the income trust promise that was not kept.

Flaherty gave his reason as "tax Leakage"

Under the Access to Information Act , 18 pages of blacked-out figures were given to prove his premise--within a couple of weeks these were recalled under an order from Privy Council.

Cliff , if you would be so good to give us your take on this---maybe you can even tell us what is on those pages.

At least give us some proof that tax leakage actually existed since Flaherty gave no figures to back up his claims.

His claims about the BCE conversion proved to be nonsense as it has now been taken private into the Teacher`s pension fund & will not pay tax because of the debt imposed by the buy-out--this cost Canada just over 800 million per year in lost taxes if BCE had become a trust.

So Cliff , we will be waiting to be enlightened.

Dr Mike Popovich.

Cliff said...

Well...well...an article form the Left leaning Star.

The only problem is that the facts don't back up Mayrand testimony.

Why do you think Mayrand refused to answer many questions during his hearing before the Ethics Committeed?

Why do you think the Ethic Committee is restricting the Conservative witness list?

Why do you think Mayrand tried to delay and avoid dicoveries?

Why do you think the Liberals are resisiting opening up their books to have this matter fully investigated?

I'm beginning to sense a little frustration that the facts are not aligning with your wishes.

But again the FACTS ARE THE FACTS.

The more you look at them, the more difficult it becomes doesn't it...and they certainly don't support Mayrand do they?

Have a nice evening.

Robert Gibbs said...

PARANOIA:

Suspicious

An unmistakable sign of paranoia is continual mistrust. People with paranoid personality disorder are constantly on their guard because they see the world as a threatening place. They tend to confirm their expectations by latching on to any speck of evidence that supports their suspicions and ignore or misinterpret any evidence to the contrary. They are ever watchful and may look around for signs of a threat.

Anyone in a new situation–beginning a job or starting a relationship, for example–is cautious and somewhat guarded until he or she learns that the fears are groundless. People suffering from paranoia cannot abandon their fears. They continue to expect trickery and to doubt the loyalty of others. In a personal relationship or marriage, this suspiciousness may take the form of pathological, unrealistic jealousy.

Hypersensitive

Because persons with paranoid personality disorder are hyperalert, they notice any slight and may take offense where none is intended. As a result, they tend to be defensive and antagonistic. When they are at fault, they cannot accept blame, not even mild criticism. Yet they are highly critical of others. Other people may say that these individuals make “mountains out of molehills.”

Cold and Aloof

In addition to being argumentative and uncompromising, the people with paranoid personality disorder are often emotionally cut off from other people. They appear cold and, in fact, often avoid becoming intimate with others. They pride themselves on their rationality and objectivity. People with a paranoid outlook on life rarely come to the attention of clinicians–it is not in their nature to seek help. Many presumably function competently in society. They may seek out social niches in which a moralistic and punitive style is acceptable, or at least tolerated to a certain degree.

……hey, sound like a certain PM and his followers? You betcha!

By slg on 07.18.08 6:17 pm on Garth.ca
-----------------------------------

CON Conspiracies Everywhere

Seems the 5th grader CON trolls in the dungeon of CON headquarters have been released to post more disinformation and drivel through the Toronto Star's new comments feature as well.

Not only have they decided to continue to attack the credibility of Elections Canada, and its chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand - a Conservative appointee - they also continue to attempt to perpetuate the CON lies concerning the debts of Liberal leadership candidates.

In addition, there is a continuing and renewed effort afoot - especially by CON bloggers- to attempt to discredit the entire media populace as being biased and in cahoots with the Liberal party.

The widespread conspiracy against the Conservatives is to be found everywhere.

It's disheartening to believe that there is any reasoned individual left who would support this gang of thugs.

Anonymous said...

Cliff said:

"This is kinda funny...now we start talking about Magna...a Liberal firm"

My Cliff, aren't we partisan. I didn't realize that they were "Liberal firms" and "Conservative firms". Are their "NDP firms" as well?

I wouldn't be too quick in labeling Magna as a "Liberal firm", after all, Magna's Lead Director is Mike Harris.....Mr Common Sense Revolution....whose former Chief of Staff is now Harper's new Chief of Staff.

Brent Fullard

Dr Mike said...

Come on Cliff , answer my question about income trusts--it should be easy since the notion of tax leakage cost us billions in lost savings.

At least give us a hint.

Dr Mike.

Robert Gibbs said...

How many jobs were, and will be, lost as a direct result of Harper's and Flaherty's 31.5% new income trust tax, especially those within the companies (beyond BCE) that were taken over by foreign and private equity.

According to Cliff: "Higher taxes = higher unemployment."

Robert Gibbs said...

Mike:

Even though "Cliff" seems able to read, he doesn't seem able to comprehend, so foooogetaboutit.

Cliff said...

Dr Mike said...
"Come on Cliff , answer my question about income trusts--it should be easy since the notion of tax leakage cost us billions in lost savings.
At least give us a hint."

Well...this is easily explained. This policy was a very unfair tax policy that was starting to be substantially abused. It obviously favoured the rich and was a loophole to avoid taxes by corporations.

This isn't or wasn't about lowering taxes...it was about fairness in the tax system for all. This has always been the Conservative philosphy and another reason why we oppose the "greenshaft" a policy designed to redistribe wealth from the middle class.

Keeping what was becoming an all too frequently abused loophole simply wasn't fair to the Canadian population as a whole and particularly the middle class.

While lower taxes is very instrumental in creating employment...so is tax fairness especially to the middle class.

To say that billions was lost in savings is simply untrue. Much of this wealth has been returned via the stock market as the market adjusted to this new and fair policy.

AGAIN THE FACTS...higher taxes and inequality does not creat jobs.

Tax fairness and LOWER TAXES = LOWER EMPLOYENT.

Dr Mike said...

Cliff

Why did the Conservatives make this promise if this was so obvious to everyone??

This should have been just as obvious prior to an election as it was a few short months after.

Were they just after the votes--they sure got mine.

If I agree something had to be done , why did they decide just to kill the whole sector instead of taking a more Conservative approach---grandfathering the existing trusts & limiting future conversions would have accomplished what they wanted & would not have killed investors in it`s wake---my old PC party would have looked at this from all angles & would have done proper consultation.

As for the trusts having returned much of the losses---that is a bunch of hooey--a few energy stocks have driven the trust index to new levels , however, if you look at the whole trust list , the losses are staggering.

All we wanted was proper consultation with a moderate outcome which would not have been so devastating---this all or nothing approach out of the blue was a nightmare & not indicative of the party that I loved all those years.

Dr mike

Cliff said...

Mike,
The problem with your approach is it would create two different taxpayers...clearly giving some businesses an unfair advantage over others. Again, it is all about tax fairness to all, we can't play favourites.
The fact of the matter is that unfortunately this shelter was starting to become the norm creating great uncertainty in the markets and tax structure.
A true business climate cannot have two sets of rules...the same rules have to apply to everyone...and with all due respect I also disagree with you on the market re-growth. Most of this money has been regained.

Dr Mike said...

Cliff

I have the spreadsheets for all of the trusts as of a couple of weeks ago showing the losses---i can get them to you if you like--they do show the losses to be still in place---the trust index is only a partial list & is weighted heavily towards the resource sector which does not give an accurate accounting,

I am still bummed by the promise---why was this made in the first place because conditions had not changed from when The Libs were looking at it.

My wife & I didn`town a single unit until 2 months before the Halloween chop--so we really got the shaft.

if the Cons had concentrated on removing the double taxation of dividends within RRSPs , there would not have been the demand for income trusts in the first place.

It is just discouraging because we were never supplied with the figures to back-up the claims---you cannot expect people to be happy with 18 blacked-out pages.


Dr mike.

Cliff said...

Robert Gibbs said...
PARANOIA:

"In addition, there is a continuing and renewed effort afoot - especially by CON bloggers- to attempt to discredit the entire media populace as being biased and in cahoots with the Liberal party.

The widespread conspiracy against the Conservatives is to be found everywhere.

It's disheartening to believe that there is any reasoned individual left who would support this gang of thugs.'

Now do you really believe there is no bias in the media...most of our media has some bias as do many of the journalists they employ...I know for a fact that some of this media or their principles have contributed substantially to the Liberal party.

To suggest otherwise would unrealistic.

Now...I fully realize that you AND MANY LIBERALS like and prefer high taxes...more social programs at the expense of the middle class...adscam, the HRDC boondoggle, the gun registry fiasco, buing elections with taxpayer money (again adscam).

Now...certainly that is your right in a democratic country, but to consider anyone who voted conservative to avoid this is "supporting a gang of thugs" is a little overboard....and I would suggest that is why our parliament and many of its committees are dysfunctional...this is that same sense of entitlement that is at the core of much of the Liberal party.