Friday, March 5, 2010

Professor Booth unwilling to defend or retract false statements made on CBC. Some "professor"?

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:02:24 -0500
To: Laurence Booth , PERRY JACOBSON
Conversation: CBC Question period fiasco
Subject: Re: CBC Question period fiasco

Good grief. More falsehoods coming from Professor Booth. Instead of defending your position, which you seem unable to defend or have the decency to retract, you accuse me of being “crazy”. Speaks volumes about your character and academic rigour, Both, apparently, of which are non existent.

PS: it was not my email you were responding to, but rather Perry Jacobson’s who for some strange reason you deleted from this childish reply of yours.

From: Laurence Booth

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:49:08 -0500
Conversation: CBC Question period fiasco
Subject: RE: CBC Question period fiasco

Sir with respect,

You are crazy and I will no longer respond to your emails.

From: CAITI []

Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:48 AM
To: Laurence Booth; PERRY JACOBSON
Subject: Re: CBC Question period fiasco

Professor Booth:

No sir, it is you who needs to get his facts straight

What you may have said in the past or even the present via email is totally and completely irrelevant to the nature of our complaint against you and the CBC.

The FACT is that EVERYTHING that you said on CBC was a patent falsehood and as a result you have enjoined yourself in a government fraud involving the destruction of 2.5 million Canadians savings based on the very false premises that you so dutifully advanced on the government’s behalf on CBC on February 26, 2010

Now, please do what is required of you as an academic and either prove what you said to be true and verifiable OR retract it. That’s the only way you can restore your reputation to what you think it deserves to be.

It’s really that simple.

If you require proof of what you said on CBC to be blatantly and parently false, then I would be more than happy to instruct you of same.

Please advise us of what you intend to do, as waiting for this to blow over is neither a valid strategy to adopt, nor one acceptable to the academic or journalistic profession.

As for whether you get paid for interviews or not is another irrelevancy, as no one is accusing you of getting paid for the interview as the CBC does not engage in such practices. However for the CBC to hold out to its viewers that you were “neutral” is equally absurd, as you receive funding from the very government whose falsehoods you were repeating.

I have many better descriptors than “neutral” that I would use to describe the camp that you fall in. Hopefully that better descriptor would include “honourable” and you will see fit to either immediately justify with proof the claims you made on CBC, or immediately retract them.

You will feel much better about yourself as a result.

Thank you,

Yours truly

Brent Fullard
(Volunteer) President and CEO
Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors/Taxpayers

647 505-2224 (cell)

On 3/5/10 7:21 AM, "Laurence Booth" wrote:

You really need to get your facts right.

I have never stated that the government was fair when it imposed a distribution tax on income trusts and I can well understand the anger of those that relied on them for their retirement income based on the conservative’s election promise. However, all governments have to make tough decisions that often mean going back on their promises, that is reality: go and live in Greece and see what’s happening there.

And of course I don’t get paid for interviews . My opinions are mine and mine alone and no amount of innuendo and smears by groups like yours will make me alter my professional judgement.

From: Brent Fullard []

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:26 PM
To: PERRY JACOBSON; Laurence Booth
Cc: harper.s;; Cannan, Ron - M.P.
Subject: Re: CBC Question period fiasco


Professor Booth is obviously content to repeat the government’s lies on national televisions and the CBC more than happy to provide a forum for those lies. It’s a good thing we don’t have him in Parliament instead of ethical people like Liberal MP Paul Szabo, from whom I just receive this email today:

Dear Mr. Folkes,

Thank you for the kind words. I cannot imagine anything as mean-spirited and unethical as running an election promising not to tax income trusts and then breaking that promise without providing any legitimate justification. As a Chartered Accountant, I made a living based upon the reliability of my word and my integrity. I believe that Canadians should also expect the same from their Government. I am so sorry that so many people were hurt by the this unethical government and I will not give up trying to correct this wrong to the greatest extent possible.


Paul Szabo MP

On 3/4/10 7:10 PM, "PERRY JACOBSON"wrote:

Prof. Laurence D. Booth (
J. L. Rotman School of Management
University of Toronto
105 St. George Street
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5S 3E6

Dear Mr. Booth:

I concur with the following note sent to you by Gerry: I too am a senior who initially believed the government when they said they would not tax income trusts. My income has also been adversely affected. When the CPP stole 'Livingston Income Trust", do you think that they are now paying any income tax into our much needed coffers? _ I don't think so . I was going to pay income tax on the income from this trust. On some trusts that do remain, I will be double taxed on income received inside my RRIF - go figure!!

Did you receive payment for your comments?

Regards .................Perry(xxxx) a Mad as hell senior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gerry writes:
"I am a senior citizen who has had the value of my retirement savings severely diminished by the unexpected and unwarranted tax being imposed on income trusts.

In addition, I have lost a portion of my retirement income stream because this proposed tax has caused some income trusts to either disappear or curtail their distributions. Also, when this tax comes into effect, and the income trust investment option disappears, I will the loose the majority of my current investment income stream.

I will then be forced to survive on a small pension income with few options to derive reasonable returns from my reduced retirement savings.

As the government has imposed this income trust tax fiasco on Canadian’s based on the false concept of tax leakage, I am extremely distressed by your misleading comments on CBC Question Period last night.

You stated “the whole of the corporate income tax base was possibly at risk, or at least a significant part of it was at risk.” which seemed to indicate that the government took the proper action to tax income trusts.

I believe that your statement was misleading at the least and possibly a complete fabrication at the most and requires public clarification.

Could you please explain with clarity, the exact risk related to the corporate income tax base?

I for one do not believe that you can as there was no risk to the tax base; in fact real damage to the corporate tax base has now occurred as a result of this fallacious income trust tax proposal.

I believe you have committed a great injustice to all Canadians for making this misleading statement on public television and I believe that you should either prove that there was a risk or apologize publically for making such a serious misleading statement.

I look forward to your response.


Gerry XXXXX (a senior citizen)"


Anonymous said...

A prof in the fetal position who can't respond to a senior !

Stay away from Rotman !


Dr Mike said...

In academia proof is everything & making blanket assumptions will get you shown the door.

I bet he is taking some heat on this one & has been advised by the school to shut it down.

That will be the last time we hear from him on this issue , I can almost guarantee it.

Dr Mike Popovich

Anonymous said...

in one e-mail someone insists he should be more honourable like Paul Szabo?
have any of you watched Paul's honourable behavour in commity.

this guy is a blight on parlement

Anonymous said...

Neutered would be a better word than neutral.