Please consider voting for CAITI's Lie Conceal Fabricate video, featuring the dulcet tones of Deceivin' Stephen, one time PM

To view and vote, Click here
Media Release
February 4, 2008

Voting Begins in Liblogs Video Contest
Two winners will be chosen by online voters and a panel of experts

Toronto, Ontario – Liblogs.ca, the unofficial list of Canadian liberal bloggers, is beginning voting in its online video contest (http://liblogs.ca/news.en.cgi?99). Liblogs is offering $250 prizes for the two best videos in support of Canadian liberalism.

“Since our contest began, online liberals have been creating videos for this contest,” explained Jason Cherniak, President of Liblogs. “With 15 solid entries, including one in French, it is time to begin voting and see whose video is the best.”

The Liblogs Video Contest will be judged by two methods. One video will be chosen by voters online. The other video will be chosen by an expert panel including Senator Jerry Grafstein, Warren Kinsella, John Duffy and Ian Davey.

“I am very pleased with our panel of experts,” said Mr. Cherniak. “It includes senior political strategists for Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. It will be very interesting to see how their judgement compares to that of the online voters.”

Liblogs is the operating name of a non-profit organization, Blogger Support Services. None of the prize money is contributed by any federal or provincial organ of the Liberal Party.

- 30 -

For more information, please contact:

Jason Cherniak
President, Liblogs
416-807-3389
jason@jasoncherniak.com

Consistent with its owners' wishes, the Globe and Mail is oblivious to the CRTC:

I guess it's difficult to report accurately on the takeover of BCE by Teachers’ when you work for the Globe and Mail, or any part of the larger CTVglobemedia empire.

After all, this acquisition involves the takeover of one your 20% owners by another 20% owner. If that doesn’t seal your fate as an independent reporter, then the fact that the CEO’s of the other two owners (Torstar Inc and Woodbridge) each have written letters of support to the CRTC endorsing the sale of one of their partners to the other partner.

No doubt they are both looking to add to their CTVglobemedia positions after the sale goes through and BCE has a $38 billion mountain of debt to contend with, for which their stake in CTVglobemedia will be the first to go, along with Jean Monty’s grand vision of “convergence”.

If that wasn’t enough, the CEO of CTVglobemedia also sent in a letter of support to the CRTC.

The fact that none of these letters from Ivan Fecan, Geoff Beattie or Rob Prichard even touched on the issue and policy objectives of the Acts of Parliament that the CRTC is duty bound to uphold, only shows the low regard these folks hold for the CRTC and the greater public good that is involved.

If they are so fond of BCE becoming a junk bond debt ridden issuer, then they should immediately follow suit. Apparently it would render them more competitive and able to deliver lower cost services to their customers?

Their letters of intervention amount to comments to the effect that “Teachers’ rocks”. See for yourself

Which brings us back to today’s Globe and Mail reportage , and their denial of the important “gate keeping” role played by the CRTC. How credible is it for Derek Decloet to write in today’s Globe:

“The risks clouding this takeover are three: The bondholders could win their lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court; the buyers, led by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, could walk away; or the banks, led by battered Citigroup, could break their agreement to fund the deal.”

Again, see for yourself

Is the Globe oblivious to the CRTC or just plain oblivious at large? And just who exactly is perhaps "lying'?

DEREK DeCLOET
February 7, 2008
Why BCE deal makers refuse to hang up
Sometimes, the stock market lies.

The market is telling us the BCE takeover is in deep trouble. Even after a rally yesterday, the stock price is $34.90, or $7.85 a share below the offer. The potential profit for arbitragers, if the deal closes in late spring, is better than 60 per cent, annualized.

Mama warned you about returns like these. They never come without risks. But are the hurdles to this deal as great as the numbers suggest?

The risks clouding this takeover are three: The bondholders could win their lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court; the buyers, led by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, could walk away; or the banks, led by battered Citigroup, could break their agreement to fund the deal.

RCMP revamps disclosure policy in wake of controversy over income-trust probe

Disclosure? Income trusts? That’s an oxymoron.

Like Harper and accountability is an oxymoron.

Like Mark Carney and transparency is an oxymoron.

As for Flaherty, he’s just a garden variety moron. Just ask Judy Wasylycia-Lies. It’s her top area of expertise. Second only to her thesis that income trusts are ponzi schemes.

Or perhaps Judy herself is the Pawnzi scheme? Zaccardelli ’s Pawnzi scheme.

Judy Wasylycia-Lies didn’t even have the common decent courtesy to extend her apologies to Ralph Goodale, when it was learned that this leak of sensitive information (it is alleged), came from the Director General of Tax policy, who thought it okay to buy income trusts in advance of the government’s announcement to not change their tax flow through status, as is the case with law firms and accounting firms etc. That find upstanding civil servant was one Serge Nadeau.

We sure fooled Abu Dhabi when we off loaded that $5 billion Prime West Energy Trusts Ponzi Scheme to them. Didn’t we?

I wonder if Judy Wasylycia-Lies has the regional franchise on Manulife’s Income Plus in Manitoba? Or is that Brian Pallister Insurance and Financial Service's franchise area?

RCMP revamps disclosure policy in wake of controversy over income-trust probe
By Jim Bronskill
THE CANADIAN PRESS
February 6, 2008

Canada Pension Plan posts $115 million loss , $300 million of which is attributable to Harper's income trust decision

Canada Pension Plan Board Posts Third-Quarter Loss of $115 million
By Frederic Tomesco
Bloomberg News
February 6, 2008

See also: Mark Carney's fraudulent actions have cost the Canada Pension Plan $300 million and counting

To: contact@caiti.info
Date: October 30, 2007 2:15:48 PM
Subject: Re: CPP has lost $158 million
Good Afternoon,

I would like to speak to someone about your scrolling marquee on your Web site that declares that the Canada Pension Plan has lost $158 million as a result of Haper’s broken promises.

The only contact information on you Web site is this e-mail address.

Regards,

Manuel

Manuel Pedrosa
Specialist, Communications
Communications and Stakeholder Relations
CPP Investment Board

------------------------------------------

From: brent.fullard@rogers.com
Date: November 1, 2007

Manuel:

Thank you for calling yesterday. I was unable to respond fully to your request as I was en route to Ottawa at the time.

As I indicated to you, I am unable to comply with your request in the name of the CPPIB to remove the reference on the scrolling newswire of our website that reads. “CPP has lost $158 million as a result of Harper’s broken promise” on the basis of your argument that that this is “not a focus area for the CPPIB”.

As I indicated to you, the CPPIB is a legally distinct entity from the CPP itself. The CPPIB may be of the view that ”this is not a focus area” for it, however I do believe the loss of pension assets which you manage of this magnitude by the pension beneficiaries, namely all Canadians, is. Particularly, since this material loss was the direct result and sole consequence of a tax policy that was enacted without any public consultation and misleadingly proffered up as “strengthening Canada’s social security system for seniors and pensioners” in the enabling legislation, the Ways and Means Motion.

Not sure which pensioners they had in mind, however certainly not the ones who you manage money on behalf of.

As I indicated, if you are interested in providing us with your detailed analysis of the effects of this policy on the CPP assets you manage, we would be happy to incorporate that into our website, provided we agree with your methodology and level of disclosure.

Meanwhile, the analysis that underlies our estimation of the loss sustained by all Canadians in the CPP is based on the limited visibility that the CPPIB affords its pension beneficiaries. Please find attached the analysis performed by Les Parsneau of Collingwood as at the one year anniversary of the trust taxation surprise announcement, namely yesterday’s closing values.

The one year anniversary loss sustained by the CPP on this basis is therefore $168 million. We will update our website shortly with this data, unless we receive additional portfolio information from you in the mean time

I am also still waiting for a response to this correspondence sent to the CPPIB on November 2, 2006 concerning comments made by Ian Dale, Senior Vice President - Communications and Stakeholder Relations on behalf of the CPPIB, who judging from your title, you report to.

Thank you,


Brent Fullard
President and CEO
Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors
www.caiti.info

647 505-2224 (cell)

------------------------------------------

From: The Fullards
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:52:12 -0500
To:
Subject: CPPIB Supports taxation of Income Trusts?

Based on comments attributed to Ian Dale, I understand that the CPPIB came out yesterday in favour of the new tax to be levied on Income Trusts.

I find it highly unusual that the CPPIB would make such a statement on such a highly politically charged issue particularily when it directly contradicts the position previously taken by other prominent Canadian Pension Funds, namely Teachers. Would the fact that CPPIB answers to Ottawa have anything to do with it, whereas Teachers answers to its pension beneficiaries?

As I analyze it, there only exists two scenarios, either CPPIB presently has an investment in Income Trusts or it does not.

In the first scenario, why is CPPIB shooting itself in the foot by taking such a position, given that over the long term these new rules will result in a permanent impairment in value of some 30% of CPPIB's investment, whilst killing the viability and sustainability of this important asset class ( at least important to some Canadians...namely those seeking stable and consistent income for retirement.)

As perplexing as the first scenario may be, in some respects the second scenario is the most troubling as it calls into question the independence of the CPPIB from the elected officials in Ottawa. If CPPIB has no "skin in the game" why is it supporting these moves when it most negatively affects the income of retired Canadians. Afterall, I thought that's the business CPPIB was also in.

I look forward to your response.

Brent Fullard
Toronto

A political primer on how to ignite the tinderbox of discontent over the income trust tax:

$35 billion is an incomprehensibly large amount of money. It also happens to be the amount of money that 2.5 million Canadians permanently lost when they trusted Stephen Harper and after hebetrayed his promise to never raid seniors’ nest eggs.

Sometimes it’s better to deal with issues on a more manageable scale and by letting people know how it is that every Canadian is adversely affected.

So here is an extremely insightful account of how incendiary this issue can be if politicians take it down to the loss sustained by the Canada Pension Plan. Let the prairie fire of discontent ignite, and the bonfire of Harper's vanity begin, this from an e-mail to CAITI:

"Les Parsneau’s analysis that reveals that Harper’s income trust tax has cost the Canada Pension Plan, and therefore every Canadian, the loss of $300 million in CPP retirement savings , accomplishes what millions of words have not accomplished nor demonstrated in the months since 31 October 2006.

I have forwarded it to dozens of personal contacts, family, friends and past business associates.

Some have responded to say they now understand my (and CAITI's) dogged determination and motivation to seek accountability in the next Federal Election.

It is why we fight.

One of my contacts in Winnipeg challenged my accusations about Harper and the Trust Tax last year when she mailed me an article from the Winnipeg Free Press. I have reproduced it in its entirety in the attachment and added some of my comments at the end. After seeing Les's e-mail Table, she has volunteered to take my comments and the Trust Table personally to the Winnipeg Free Press Reporter Turchansky, the Editor and her Conservative MP whose office is directly across the street from her Winnipeg condo.

She is in a fighting mood after comparing the Trust Table with Turchansky's article - which she believed to be true and accurate at the time. She feels betrayed and is damn mad and

............ she is almost 90 years old!

Although life-long Conservative supporters, her and her husband have pledged to vote Liberal or Green.... but definitely not CON...... in the next Election. Victory two at a time and I'm keeping score.

Not that you all haven't seen similar articles and rhetoric before over and over again, but this October 31, 2007 Winnipeg Free Press article by Ray Turchansky is really why we must continue an unrelenting fight to remove the Harper Government before Canada is completely populated by this type of dangerous journalism. Before long none of us will ever know what the truth is...about anything!

Cheers
NVL
Calgary SW (Harper's Riding)

What BCE doesn’t want you to know about its private leveraged buyout

The following is the text of a full page ad that appears in this week's Ottawa Hill Times (page 5).

Willfully transforming BCE from Canada’s most widely held public company with a low cost of capital and investment grade credit into a highly debt-ridden junk bond credit issuer with a high cost of capital, and narrowly held by four private equity funds, three of them U.S., defies three Acts of Parliament:

1. Telecommunications Act:

“To enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications.” TELECOM ACT SECTION 7

The four private buyers of BCE, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, Providence Capital, Madison Dearborn and Merrill Lynch do not have sufficient investment capital of their own to acquire the $34.2 billion of public equity in BCE. They only have some $8 billion to invest. The balance of the purchase price is coming from the company itself who will incur an additional $26 billion of debt, on top of the existing $10 billion of debt already borrowed by the company, thereby rendering BCE into a junk bond issuer with an extremely high cost of both debt and equity capital.

Telecommunications is a rapidly changing capital intensive business, highly dependent on the cost of capital. As such, the CRTC should deny the proposed sale, since it fails this basic provision of the act, to promote efficiency and competitiveness.

Taking what is Canada’s most widely held public company with over 90% Canadian ownership, and allowing it to be narrowly held by four financial institutions, with only 54% Canadian ownership, funded with $26 billion in new debt obligations that are over 80% foreign-owned, also explains why the CRTC should deny the proposed sale, since it fails:

“To promote the ownership and control of Canadian [telecommunications] carriers by Canadians.” TELECOM ACT SECTION 7

The Catalyst Proposal does however fulfil these policy goals by preserving BCE as Canada’s most widely held public company with an investment grade credit rating and lowest possible cost of capital.

2. Bell Canada Act:

“The works of the Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.” BELL CANADA ACT SECTION 5

The interest payments that are required to service this $26 billion in new debt to be incurred by BCE are deductible from taxable earnings, which means that BCE will pay no corporate taxes, nor will BCE’s new equity owners. The result is that $793 million in annual taxes will be lost by the Canadian Government annually if this proposed transaction proceeds. In addition the 150,000 member Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union is adamantly opposed. CEP’s President, David Coles stated that such a sale of BCE to private equity is:

“a direct threat to thousands of jobs, to Canadian economic sovereignty and to our cultural heritage. For these reasons, the CRTC should deny the proposed sale, since it fails to result in any advantage for Canadian shareholders, taxpayers, or the government of Canada.”

The Catalyst Proposal does however fulfil these policy goals by preserving BCE for the general advantage of Canada.

3. Order in Council directive to CRTC:

On December 13, 2006, Parliament instructed the CRTC to regulate in a manner that pays greater regard to market dynamics and to:

“rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible”

On April 16, 2007, BCE publicly announced that it had formed a special committee to review alternative means to maximize shareholder value. In doing so, BCE made the market aware of its intentions, thereby exposing itself to market forces in an formal manner. A deadline of June 26, 2007 was set for submissions by outside parties. BCE received four such proposals. Three were private equity proposals, including the one from Teachers’ and the fourth was a recapitalization from Catalyst Asset Management.

The Catalyst Proposal was unique from the other three proposals since, in addition to maximizing shareholder value, it also preserved the credit worthiness of BCE as an investment grade credit and maintained BCE as a broadly held public company with over 90% Canadian ownership, thereby preserving the $793 million in annual tax revenues to the Canadian government paid by BCE shareholders.

BCE acted to subvert the existence of the Catalyst Proposal by not disclosing it to their shareholders as required by securities law, thereby avoiding having to explain their reasons for not recommending it to shareholders.

BCE also sought to prevent Catalyst from intervening before the CRTC public hearings of February 25, 2008 in a letter to the CRTC dated January 4, 2008.

The proposed sale of BCE to private equity is the result of a process in which market forces were deliberately suppressed by BCE, thereby preventing the optimal solution from occurring: the Catalyst Proposal.

Conclusion: The CRTC should deny the private sale of BCE to Teachers’ and instruct BCE to properly disclose the Catalyst Proposal to its shareholders for their consideration as the optimal outcome for shareholders, all other stakeholders, and therefore the CRTC.

Complete information about the Catalyst Proposal and the submissions by Catalyst Asset Management to BCE and to the CRTC are available at: www.canadiansolution.ca or by calling 647-505-2224.

The ethical nub of the issue: making widows and orphans of BCE’s shareholders

By Brent Fullard, Catalyst Asset Management

On December 13, 2006, Canadian Parliament, by way of Order in Council, instructed the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), to commence regulating the Telecommunications Act and Bell Canada Act in a manner that pays greater regard to market dynamics and to:

“rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible”

Unfortunately, it has come to light that the chosen outcome of BCE’s recent public auction, namely the proposed leveraged buyout of BCE by a consortium of private equity buyers led by Teachers’, was not the product of such a pristine process, known as “letting free markets prevail”.

Quite disturbingly it has come to light that the process was flawed in this essential regard.

It has also come to light that the standards by which the purchaser holds itself to, under such circumstances, were also not adhered to, as a consequence of BCE’s conduct. It is also become evident that there were parties who benefited immensely from certain outcomes and not others, including affiliates of certain directors, senior management. and their advisors.

This leads us to the ethical nub of the issue:

The proposed sale of BCE to Teachers' fails the very standards by which the CRTC has been asked to regulate the Telecommunications and Broadcasting industries, in so far as (but not limited to):

An arbitrarily truncated subset of market forces (i.e. bid groups of Teachers’, KKR and Cerberus, to the exclusion of Catalyst), does not constitute reliance on market forces to “the maximum extent feasible” or, therefore, the public good, especially given that that subset of arbitrarily determined market forces includes only those possible outcomes that serve to maximize the collateral benefits to those responsible for the conduct of the public auction process and responsible for determining which proposal would ultimately be put to a shareholder vote.

This is a matter that should be of grave concern to BCE shareholders, bondholders, Canadian securities regulators and the CRTC, since the Teachers' deal was an outcome whose notional value of $42.75 represented an offer which was highly conditional in nature requiring, successful oppression of bondholders’ rights, approval by the CRTC and successfully raising over $26 billion of junk bond debt, a major challenge under any market conditions.

Meanwhile the Catalyst Proposal. which BCE has attempted to subvert by not disclosing it to its shareholders (nor its reasons for rejecting it) and and by objecting to Catalyst’s intervention before the CRTC, promised to deliver a trading value of $42.50 to $52.00 which equally importantly, was completely unconditional, requiring only shareholder approval.

Put in everyday terms, what kind of real estate agent would recommend to their client that they sell their home under scenario 1 at a price of $42.75 with major conditions attached including subject to financing when Scenario 2 entails selling your home for the equivalent of $42.50 to $52,00, with no conditions attached?

How pleased would you be if your agent did not inform you of the existence of the second alternative known as scenario 2? How pleased would you be upon further learning that Scenario 1 was the scenario that earned your agent the highest commission, whereas Scenario 2 resulted in a significantly lessened commission?

This is exactly what is happening with the denial by BCE of the existence of the duly delivered Catalyst Proposal and its attempts to subvert the Catalyst Proposal cited above. Except in this case the real estate agent agent is the Board and Senior Management of BCE.

Where are the securities regulators on this rip off in the making? Who is guarding the hen house?

Afterall, BCE is widely known as Canada’s most widely held public company. The quintessential “widows and orphans" stock. That term is about to take on a new meaning, if the securities regulators fail to act, namely Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF). Or failing them, the OSC or the SEC.