What gives? NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair never did receive an answer to this question. Why not Mark? Deloittes gave us the straight goods, why can't Mark Carney?
Mr. Thomas Mulcair— Questioning Mark Carney as Governor Elect of the Bank of Canada -(2007/12/5)
“I want to begin by asking you a question about income trusts. In your previous position, as an expert, you played an active role in the economy, and that had a significant influence. As you know, our political party was not favourably disposed towards income trusts. However, we never lied to people the way the government did.
This is what I would like to know. In your view, in light of what has occurred with income trusts, have the basic premises that were behind your recommendation proven to be accurate? I am going to cite the specific example of Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, which has purchased certain income trusts, including PrimeWest Energy Trust.
In your opinion, are these new companies, which are now managed offshore, contributing to the Canadian economy in terms of tax revenues? That was one of the basic premises underlying the decision you presided over.”
Friday, November 28, 2008
How Mark Carney contributed to Canada's looming deficit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The premise behind the question posed by Mulcair is faulty. The collection of tax revenues was NOT the only thing that influenced the government's decision to tax income trusts. The evidence is in the transcript.
Furthermore, nobody can answer the question posed by Mulcair. Like most socialists, Mulcair seems to automatically assume that politicians are able to know everything as if the entire economy was a scientific laboratory.
Charles Anthony:
Your defense of Mark Carney is an insult to one's intelligence.
The premise for the income trust tax WAS the assertion of tax leakage. If you have any doubt about that, I suggest that you read the Ways and Means Motion that lay out the reasons for this tax, and which is what the 308 MPs voted on, and which then serves as the basis for legislation to be drafted.
Nice try. That argument of yours is simply more spurious nonsense advanced by those who engage in revisionist history.
As for whether Mulcair's question could be answered or not...of course it can be answered. If,as you argue, this question indeed could not be answered, then on what basis did the government advance this tax measure....mere intuition? Guess work? Gut feel? Tarrot Cards?
Give your head a shake. This question is, by its very nature, a question with a precise answer....and a question that HAD been answered in the Goodale consultative round of September 2005 in a report dated November 23, 2005 by HLB Decision Economics entitled "The Tax Revenue Implications of Income Trusts", which proves there is no tax leakage.
As for Mark Carney, he is a blatant manipulator and conjurer, unfit for public service.
Brent Fullard
Post a Comment