VOICE MAIL

Sean:

I left a voice message for Andy Bell of BNN and Kevin O’Leary of CBC on their cell phones. My call to Kevin took places at 11;56 am today and was 5 minutes in length.

Unlike my message for Andy Bell, I reminded Kevin O’Leary that he now works for the public broadcaster and that he must act in a way that, at least, is perceived to be free of commercial and political interference, and told him to acquaint himself with the results of CBC’s viewer poll, if he is not already. I told him that it was morally incumbent upon him as a business news reporter at Canada’s public broadcaster that he challenge the sitting government on their unproven allegation that income trusts cause tax leakage, irrespective of what his own commercial best interests might dictate about making such inquiries. Failure to do so will constitute a clear conflct of commercial interest on his part, as he is not without commercial interest in the income trust issue’s final outcome. He benefits from the income trust uncertainty that prevails as he gathers assets for his O’Leary Funds from people who are confused over the future direction of income trusts, making them susceptible to pitches like those made by O’Leary Funds to gather up these assets, in order to earn a fee stream for O’Leary Funds. Meanhwhile the other half of the Lang O’Leary Exchange, namely Amanda Lang has shown great bias on this issue and has shown no willingness to challenge the sitting government apart from lobbing soft ball questions at Flaherty, like “are you sure you aren’t going to revisit this decision” as simply the means to solidify the governments’ position and the governments agenda.

I don’t think Jim Lehrer of PBS manages funds as his day job or practices softball journalism when interviewing leading US Politicians like Barack Obama or Timothy Geitner.

This is what Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, has succumbed to. Grossly biased and commercially conflicted coverage of business news and politics.

That said, it is INCUMBENT on the CBC to examine this income trust matter in depth, given their public broadcast mandate, and the deluge of support from their viewers to get this cover up uncovered. I don’t care how many people I piss off in this country, including at the CBC. I simply want the truth. That is not a right that I am willing to cede to Stephen Harper, namely my right to know the truth. I guess that’s where I differ from the CBC. But we’ll soon see, as the CBC is the only thing presently standing in the way of all Canadians knowing the truth/fraud about tax leakage.

I left Kevin O’Leary my number to call. BNN is probably a total lost cause in exposing Harper’s lie about tax leakage. I have not yet passed final judgment on the CBC. The ball is in their moral court. Let see if they can return the volley.

Brent

--------

Brent,
I sent the CBC link to BNN and suggested they look at it to find out what concerns Canadians. My comments are below. – Sean

I understand that BNN will be interviewing PM Harper at 6:20 this evening. I suggest that you review the questions on the below site. CBC has poled questions in "Your Question Period - questions you want to ask politicians". The questions are terrific and the priorities of Canadians is revealing. CBC has opened a Pandora's box and they are ignoring the questions. -- Sean

Questions for Stephen Harper on today’s BNN Squeeze Play

No less that 7 of the top 10 questions that viewers of the CBC want to ask Stephen Harper on are on the question of income trusts.

That's a FACT.

Let’s see whether the issue even gets dealt with on BNN, such as anyone at BNN asking Stephen Harper for proof of tax leakage which is the sole premise on which this punitive and regressive policy was sold to Canadians. Here are some questions for BNN to ask of Stephen Harper:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Where is your government’s policy proof of tax leakage from income trusts, a policy that caused Canadians to lose $35 billion of their hard earned retirement savings, on a permanent basis? What proof did you provide to jack Layton whose support for the income trust tax was pivotal? Did he receive any more proof than any other MP or Canadians at large? Did he ask for any proof, beyond what was provided to all Canadians?

Why does your government totally ignore the deferred taxes paid on things like income trusts within RRSPs when the deferral of taxes in RRSPs is the sole reason that RRSPs were created in the first place, and the Auditor General of Canada requires the Government to employ Accrual Accounting methodology? Does this not undermine the very nature of RRSPs? Please reconcile your response to that question, with the fact that your government created the TFSP, which allows investors to avoid the payment of taxes on all future investment gains within TFSA? Which vehicle, RRSP or TFSA will generate more taxes for Revenue Canada in each and every year going fprward? Please reconcile that answer to your answers to the first four parts of this question.

How credible was it for the CEO of Manulife to have gone before a Parliamentary Committee and testify that it would not be “based on reality” for anyone to think that corporations like Manulife etc, were not the ones who lobbied your government for the income trust tax? If corporations did not lobby, then who exactly did lobby for it? Hank Paulson of the US Treasury and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs? Whose “reality” do you think Canadians find to be more credible?

What is your estimate for the annual tax revenue loss from the takeovers of artificially devalued (courtesy of you) income trusts by foreigners, like the takeover of Prime West Energy Trust by state-owned Abu Dhabi Energy, the takeover of TransAlta Power Income Trust by Hong Kong billionaire LI Ka Shing, the takeover of Harvest Energy Trust by state-owned Korean National Oil, along with the other 45 takeovers of trusts?

In killiing income trusts your government is killing the ability for avearge Canadians to make direct investments in the Canadian economy employing a means that is most aligned with their risk/reward tolerances. In so doing, you have made these Canadians more captive to the investment wares of the life insurance industry who put you up to this scam policy of yours to tax income trusts. Groups like Manulife and Power Corporation , etc. Meanwhile these companies were only offering Candians the opportuinty to invest in derivative and synthetic products like life annuities and variable rate annuities. As risky and uncertain and opaque as these products are, some like Manulife went so far as to NOT EVEN hedge the bets that they had made in issuing these products. Products like Income Plus, that Manulife launched in the days immediately within your Halloween Massacre surprise. From a policy perspective, does it not concern you that your policies (which are based on lies) are serving to direct Canadians’ retirement savings out of direct investment in the Canadian economy and into a bunch of synthetic investment junk food, and that this synthetic investment junk food may be creating a a “too big to fails” systemic resih within life onsuarce companies, as people like Warren Buffet and the head of Canada’s OSFI have warned?

Are you saying that you are smarter than Warren Buffet? Follow up: if so, please explain to our viewers what a variable rate annuity is, and what the risks and benefits are, and whether you are recommending that Canadians invest in them.

Why did you exempt the pension finds from your draconian 31.5% tax, such that when the civil servants of Canada’s own PSP (Public Sector Pension Plan) acquires Thunder Energy Trust and preserve it as a trust, they will pay ZERO tax, whereas avearge Canadians saving for retirement, will pay the 31.5% tax?

Diitto for all the other pension funds who are scooping up all these artificially devalued income trusts, as OMER, Caisse, PSP and all the others are doing, by exploiting the tax arbitrage loophole that you created?

Is this your idea of “leveling the playing field”?

Is this your idea of a “Tax Fairness Plan”.

Do you know the meaning of the term “tax arbitrage”. Follow up: Please explain it to our viewers and give examples of how it benefits all Canadians?

CAITI estimates that the trust takeovers to date have caused the permanents loss of over $1 billion in lost revenue to Revenue Canada, a number that could potentially reach $7.5 billion by the end of this year, when your arbitrarily determined deadline comes into effect. Where are you going to come up with this lost tax revenue? New taxes? Program Spending? Deficit Spending? All of the above.

You are the architect of Ontario’s HST. Why do corporations who pay fees on Bay Street like underwriting fees, exempt from HST on these Bay Street professional service, when the investing public is not, and who will now experience lower pension savings return on investments, in light of your HST which applies to them as savers, but not to corporations as borrowers?

With respect to income splitting for seniors, why did you design this benefit in a way that precludes involvement by over 86% of seniors? Why are 14% of seniors being subsidized by all Canadians, whereas the 86% are not?

Again, is this your idea of ““leveling the playing field”?

Again, is this your idea of a “Tax Fairness Plan”?

Why did your government use taxpayers money to effect the bailout of ABCP, whose demise was solely of its own creation, and yet your income trust tax that caused Canadians to lose $35 billion of their savings, is being allowed to proceed with ZERO proof of your policy actions, apart from a lot of empty dogmatic rhetoric?

You say that your government is seeking input from Canadians. If so, why has your government not responded to the proposal of May 6, 2009 by CAITI to solve your income trust policy blunder in a way that will generate massive new annual tax revenue to the government? This proposal was sent to you over a year ago, and reads as follows:

My proposal to Jim Flaherty would generate $2.3 billion in ANNUAL tax revenue to fund EI etc.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Today I proposed a solution to Jim Flaherty’s income trust policy blunder by creating a new savings vehicle that would be situated between the existing RRSP and TFSP retirement savings vehicles and maximize tax revenue for Ottawa. This new saving vehicle would be the place where income trusts currently held in RRSPs would be moved to and the taxes paid on the distributions would be taxable in the year earned as opposed to deferred, as explained here

This would be a win-win-win solution for both government and the 75% of Canadians without pensions and would stimulate the economy in a multitude of ways.. It would generate a huge new stream of taxes and protect these Canadian businesses from foreign takeover and leveraged buyouts. The new tax revebue would equal $2.3 billion a year as follows:

Total distributions paid annually by income trusts: $16 billion
Percent currently held in RRSPs : 38%
Average tax rate paid by holders of RRSPs: 38%

Tax revenue collected under new proposal : $16 billion x 38% x 38% = $2.3 billion

This would be a huge WIN-WIN-WIN. It leaves Jim Flaherty with no excuses, unless he wants to start arguing on the basis of what this policy’s true ulterior purposes were.

Does Jim Flaherty really want to reveal those ulterior purposes or accept my proposal which addresses head on his ostensible reason for this tax.....namely alleged tax leakage.....which is now gonzo.

Changing the channel

As we speak, we are witnessing Harper ”changing the channel”, from the Politics channel to the Business channel. Leaving the Liberals behind to wallow in the dust.

The coy Stephen Harper will be on BNN’s Squeeze Play today at 5 pm.. When has that ever happened in the past? Never.

This is why Harper prorogued Parliament, in order to “change the channel”.. How good of BNN to oblige. Any chance that BNN will ask him about his TAX LEAKAGE LIE which caused Canadians to lose $35 billion of their life savings. Maybe Harper will have some more stock picks to share with Canadians like “A Conservative Government will never raid seniors’ nest eggs by taxing income trusts”. What a CON job that was! Where is the representation in Ottawa for these people and that massive scam? Does that channel even exist? The Accountability Channel? I guess not.