Mark Carney’s bold-faced lie

Evidently in Ottawa’s bureaucracy, the bigger the lie, the bigger the promotion.

Take Mark Carney for example. This is the guy who Jim Flaherty installed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, against the recommendation of the Bank’s Board of Directors.

Why? Because Mark Carney was the one who stick handled the lie that income trusts cause tax leakage, on behalf of those CEOs who wanted the popular investment model destroyed. Successfully promoting and advancing the lie that income trusts cause tax leakage was central to getting the public to support Harper’s broken promise to 2.5 million Canadians that he wouldn’t raid their “nest eggs”.

Reversal of such a solemn promise and the attendant damage it was sure to cause, namely $35 billion loss of savings and the deprivation of retirement income, required a really good “argument”. So let’s manufacture one.

This manufactured argument took two forms. Mark Carney orchestrated the whole charade. First Mark Carney advanced the falsehood that income trusts cause tax leakage, He had never provided any proof whatsoever for that assertion, whereas there is an abundance of credible studies and evidence to reveal this policy lie for what it is. Second. Mark Carney and his fellow schemers knew that the policy needed to be launched under the heightened anxiety of a “faux crisis”. This is where BCE came into play. BCE had no desire to become an income trust, after Telus had announced its intention to do so. BCE then realized that it could “game” Ottawa, by simply going through the false pretense of converting to a trust as well, No doubt this charade was orchestrated in collaboration with the folks in Ottawa at the political and bureaucratic level. There were many reported conversations that took place between BCE and Ottawa during this “planning stage”. The fact that BCE was simply “gaming” Ottawa for BCE’s desired policy outcome was revealed in a recent article by Theresa Tedesco in the Financial Post, from which I quote:

“In the end, BCE opted to convert itself into an income trust in mid-October, 2006.

Inside BCE's boardroom, the blue-ribbon directors weren't enthusiastic about the plan, but gave it their blessing, betting the measure was destined for doom because Ottawa would never allow it.

"Income trusts didn't have much appeal. We weren't particularly interested in doing an income trust but we thought if we announced we were doing one, it would force the government into a decision," said the source close to the company who asked not to be named.

They were right. Two weeks later, on Halloween, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Ottawa would tax companies converting to income trusts to curb tax avoidance.”


Curb tax avoidance? Once again we have the press repeating Carney’s manufactured argument that income trusts cause tax leakage. What kind of investigative reporting is this? How could income trusts cause tax leakage? If that is in fact the case, them why can oension funds own income trusts and not pay the new 31.5% tax? If BCE were to have caused tax leakage, how could that even be possible, since BCE wasn’t even paying corporate taxes at the time, and hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years. It wasn’t anticipated to pay Ccorporate taxes for another 4 years? As an LBO, BCE won’t pay taxes for decades to come.

Where is the outrage over the LBO of BCE, much like the outrage over the conversion of BCE into an income trust? Does Ottawa only implement policies to address manufactured tax leakage (income trust tax policy) and not policies to address real tax leakage (LBO’s by private equity)?

We have the intellectually corrupt Mark Carney and his side-kick Jim Flaherty to thank for that. And the gullible press, who continue to fawn over Mark Carney in these troubled economic times, as if the man were to be trusted? Yes, trusted to sell Canada down the river.