Showing posts with label Flaherty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Flaherty. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2011

Income Trusts

Remember them.



The October surprise after the election of the first Harper Minority government in 2006, andthe first big lie by the Harpercrite government. It closed down Income Trusts after having promised not to. By forcing them to change to corporations they initially harmed seniors who had invested in the Trusts for their dividend pay outs. So how come the Harpercrites can count on seniors for their vote?


And when Income Trusts dissolved, some into corporations, others bought out by hedge funds how did that help Canadian small businesses relying on them for their capital investment? Well it didn't help them.

Those Trusts that became corporations benefited from tax breaks, tax cuts and or course deferred taxes, which have contributed to the current Harper Deficit.

Ms. Lefebvre said that some companies have benefited from converting to corporate status because they can use other exemptions to offset entity taxes, which income trusts will soon have to pay.

“Although the rate might be roughly the same in theory, if you're a corporation, you have access to various ways to defer tax or shelter tax, none of which are available to an income trust.”

However, she added, smaller trusts are simply disappearing because they cannot continue to attract investors when they switch to corporate mode because they are no longer able to pay high-yield dividends.

“Many of those have been taken out of circulation by being bought out by private equity, or being bought out by pension funds,” she said, adding that the government wrongly assumed most funds would keep their status and begin paying entity tax.

“The biggest change for the Canadian economy is that small- and medium-sized companies will not have the access to capital that they would before.”

“[The income trust] was a creation of the Canadian economy,” she said. “It was particularly suited to an economy where small- and medium-sized companies had very difficult access to capital, where the capital market is small.”

The demise of the trusts began four years ago, on Halloweeen, 2006 when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty did a flip-flop on a Conservative campaign promise and announced that trusts would be taxed starting in 2011.

Investors were shocked and angry. Many dumped their trust holdings in the big market sell-off that followed the announcement. To this day, a few diehards continue to fight a rear-guard action in the hope that the government might have a last-minute change of heart. It won’t.

The disappearance of the trusts couldn’t have come at a worse time for income-oriented investors. With interest rates near historic lows, traditional safe haven securities like GICs and government bonds are offering pitifully low returns. As of the time of writing, five-year federal government bonds were yielding only 2.22 per cent. Five-year non-redeemable GICs from major institutions like Royal Bank were even lower, at 2.1 per cent (posted rate). That means anyone investing in these securities isn’t even keeping up with inflation, which was running at an annualized rate of 2.4 per centin October according to Statistics Canada.

The Conservatives propose new rules for income trusts

Following announcements by telecommunications giants Telus and Bell Canada Enterprises of their intentions to convert to income trusts, on October 31, 2006, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty proposed new rules that will effectively end the tax benefits of the income trust structure for most trusts. Brent Fullard of the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors points out that at the time of the announcement Telus and Bell Canada Enterprises did not pay any corporate taxes nor would they for several years. According to his analysis, had Bell Canada Enterprises converted to a trust it would have paid $2.6 to 3.17 billion in the next four years versus no taxes as a corporation.

Subsequent to the October 31 announcement by Flaherty, the TSX Capped Energy Trust Index lost 21.8% in market value and the TSX Capped Income Trust Index[22] lost 17.6% in market value by mid November 2006. In contrast, the TSX Capped REIT Index,[23] which is exempt from the 'Tax Fairness Plan', gained 3.2% in market value. According to the Canadian Association of Income Funds, this translates into a permanent loss in savings of $30 billion to Canadian income trust investors.[24]

In the month following the tax announcement, the unit price for all 250 income trusts and REITs on the TSX dropped by a median of almost 13% according to the iTrust Report published by TrustInvestor.com and its iTrust Index. Studies by Leslie Hayman, publisher of the Report, indicated that the tax news at the end of 2006 was the second most significant volatility event in the market following only the suspension of advance tax rulings by the Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale in 2005.

Income trusts, other than real estate income trusts, and mutual fund investment trusts, that are formed after that date will be taxed in the same way as corporations:

  • income flowed out to investors will be subject to a new 34% tax as of 2007 (which falls to 31.5% in 2011),[25] which approximates the average corporate income tax paid by corporations—this is equivalent to the current prohibition against deducting dividends paid to investors in determining corporate taxable income; and
  • income flowed out to investors will be eligible for the dividend tax credit to provide equivalent treatment to dividends paid by corporations.

Income trusts formed on or before that date will not be subject to the new rules until 2011 to allow a period of transition. Real estate income trusts will not be subject to the new rules on real estate income derived in Canada (the non-Canadian real estate operations of existing REITs will be subject to the same taxation as business trusts). The new rules were completely contrary to the Conservative Party's election promise to avoid taxing income trusts.

Flaherty proposes to reduce the federal corporate income tax rate from 19% to 18.5% in 2011. The 34% tax on distributions will be split between the federal and provincial governments—the federal government will consult with the provincial governments on an appropriate mechanism for allocating 13 percentage points of the new tax between the provincial governments.

Flaherty also proposed a $1000 increase to the amount on which the tax credit for those over 65 (the "age amount") is based, and new rules to allow senior couples to split pension income in order to reduce the income tax they pay. Although these proposals were said to be designed to mitigate the impact on seniors of the new income trust rules, there have been widespread calls for such changes in previous years.

Legislative amendments to implement these proposals must be passed by the Parliament of Canada and receive Royal Assent before they become law. The legislation to implement these proposals was included in the 2007 federal budget, which was presented to Parliament by Jim Flaherty on March 19, 2007.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Super Bubble Burst


As Eric Janzen in the February issue of Harpers Magazine warned this is a super bubble that just burst.

A financial bubble is a market aberration manufactured by government, finance, and industry, a shared speculative hallucination and then a crash, followed by depression. Bubbles were once very rare—one every hundred years or so was enough to motivate politicians, bearing the post-bubble ire of their newly destitute citizenry, to enact legislation that would prevent subsequent occurrences. After the dust settled from the 1720 crash of the South Sea Bubble, for instance, British Parliament passed the Bubble Act to forbid “raising or pretending to raise a transferable stock.” For a century this law did much to prevent the formation of new speculative swellings.

The housing bubble has left us in dire shape, worse than after the technology-stock bubble, when the Federal Reserve Funds Rate was 6 percent, the dollar was at a multi-decade peak, the federal government was running a surplus, and tax rates were relatively high, making reflation—interest-rate cuts, dollar depreciation, increased government spending, and tax cuts—relatively painless. Now the Funds Rate is only 4.5 percent, the dollar is at multi-decade lows, the federal budget is in deficit, and tax cuts are still in effect. The chronic trade deficit, the sudden depreciation of our currency, and the lack of foreign buyers willing to purchase its debt will require the United States government to print new money simply to fund its own operations and pay its 22 million employees.


But unlike the South Sea Bubble or the Tulip Bubble, or even the Dot Com Bubble this one has brought capitalism to its global knees.

Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney underscored the deteriorating situation when he said Canada’s business conditions will worsen alongside other industrialized countries next year and the Canadian economy may slip into a recession for the first time since 1992.
“We are predicting very marginal growth in 2009,” Carney said in an interview with Bloomberg News, when asked if he thought a recession might happen. “By definition that’s close to negative growth, and if we have a balanced forecast you can see it going either side, so it’s a possibility."
Carney cut the Bank of Canada’s key interest rate to 2.25 per cent last month and said the world’s eighth-largest economy would shrink this quarter and stall in the first three months of 2009, just skirting the two quarters of contraction that most economists call a recession. He has said further rate cuts may be needed to prop up economic growth.
In Brazil, Flaherty also said the world is facing what appears to be a runaway economic downturn. He noted that the International Monetary Fund continues to lower its growth forecasts month by month. The IMF now predicts the major industrialized Group of 7 countries will fall into a recession next year - with the exception of Canada, which is forecast to post a minuscule 0.3 per cent growth.


For the leading spokespeople of capitalism to say they didn't see it coming well thats laughable. It could be excused as Hegelian black humour if the mouthpieces of capital were not so sincere in denying the obvious; recession and the dreaded follow through; depression.

Hegel remarks somewhere that history tends to repeat itself. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)





SEE:


And Then There Was One


Concessions Don't Work




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about: , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Deja Vu

Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney assured us that the economic fundamentals in Canada are sound, despite the current meltdown of international finance capitalism. Wearing Bush/McCain like rose coloured blinders they refuse to admit that Canada faces a pending recession and the government will likely incur a deficit. Something Harper and Flaherty denied during the election campaign. Instead they say steady as she goes.


Of all the leaders, Harper was most determined to stay the course.
"What leaders have to do is have a plan and not panic," he said. Revising the plan
based on new data was considered to be a sign of panic, not prudence.Harper, in
the dying days of the campaign, proclaimed that he would not run a deficit,
raise taxes or cut spending. That may be a difficult circle to square, and those
words may come back to haunt him.



Wait I have heard this before...why in 1929 when then PM William Lyon Mackenzie King said he would stay the course.....

October 24, 1929 went down in history as "Black Thursday". On that day, stock prices plummeted on the New York Stock Exchange, creating a domino effect on world stock markets. It signaled the beginning of the Great Depression.

Canada was one of the hardest hit by the economic crisis. The country relied heavily on its exports. Pulp and paper, wood and wheat represented two-thirds of Canadian exports and accounted for much of the country's prosperity.

Governments in Canada were slow to respond to the desperate economic and social conditions. Until the Great Depression, government intervened as little as possible, letting the free market take care of the economy. Social welfare was left to churches and charities.

When the Depression began William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister in 1930. He believed that the crisis would pass, refused to provide federal aid to the provinces, and only introduced moderate relief efforts.


Although unemployment was a national problem, federal administrations led by the Conservative R.B. BENNETT (1930-35) and the Liberal W.L. Mackenzie KING (from 1935 onwards) refused, for the most part, to provide work for the jobless and insisted that their care was primarily a local and provincial responsibility. The result was fiscal collapse for the 4 western provinces and hundreds of municipalities and haphazard, degrading standards of care for the jobless.


The Depression altered established perceptions of the economy and the role of the state. The faith shared by both the Bennett and King governments and most economists that a balanced budget, a sound dollar and changes in the tariff would allow the private marketplace to bring about recovery was misplaced.



Library and Archives Canada / C-000623
Bennett Buggy in the Great Depression in Canada


October 1929 – Stock Market Crash: Markets Suffer the Worst Losses in Canadian History
In the late 1920s, Canada’s economy and stock exchanges were booming. From 1921 to the autumn of 1929, the level of stock prices increased more than three times. But these heady days came to a swift end with the stock market crash on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, in New York, Toronto, Montréal and other financial centres in the world. Shareholders panicked and sold their stock for whatever they could get.
Overnight, individuals and companies were ruined. It was estimated that Canadian stocks lost a total value of $5 billion on paper in 1929. By mid-1930, the value of stocks for the 50 leading Canadian companies had fallen by over 50% from their peaks in 1929.
The stock market collapse affected all investors—individuals who had been persuaded to buy shares as well as speculators looking to make a fast dollar. Despite the market crash, 1929 was a good year for banks, mines, manufacturing and construction in Canada. All reported record profits at year-end.
Although the crash was sudden and deep, there were signs that it was coming. Earlier in 1929, stock prices had been volatile. Economic slowdowns in May and June hinted that the booming economy was heading for a recession. Export earnings were declining and the price of wheat plummeted.
Economists and historians are still debating what caused the crash. At the time of the crash, Canada had no monetary policy or central bank, so there was little government intervention in the market. (See 1934—Bank of Canada.) Canadian firms had healthy profits and did not expect the boom to end. Corporate profit expectations were inflated. Canadian corporations took advantage of the bull market to issue new stock, which overheated the supply. Banks gave out easy and cheap credit, and let people buy stocks on margin: buyers paid only a fraction of the share price and borrowed the rest. Speculation was rampant: bidding drove up the value of stocks as much as 40 times the companies’ annual earnings. Investors seemed to pay less attention to corporate earnings than to how much their shares would appreciate in value.
The economy could not sustain its rapid growth and the bubble burst. Investors lost confidence in the market. In the United States, the government was blamed for not controlling the speculative frenzy. Because Canada’s economy was so closely tied to that of the United States, the New York crash brought down Canadian markets, too.
It is widely felt that the stock market collapse started a chain of events that plunged Canada and the Western world into the decade-long Great Depression, which ended only with the outbreak of the Second World War.

1929 - 1939 —The Great Depression.
The Roaring Twenties saw boom times in Canada. Unemployment was low; earnings for individuals and companies were high. But prosperity came to a halt with the stock market collapse in New York, Toronto, Montréal and around the world in October 1929. The crash set off a chain of events that plunged Canada and the world into a decade-long depression. It was the beginning of the Dirty Thirties.
The Great Depression caused Canadian workers and companies great hardship. Prices deflated rapidly and deeply. Business activity fell sharply. There was massive unemployment—27% at the height of the Depression in 1933. Many businesses were wiped out: in Canada, corporate profits of $396 million in 1929 became corporate losses of $98 million in 1933. Between 1929 and that year, the gross national product dropped 43%. Families saw most or all of their assets disappear. Governments around the world, including Canada’s, put up high tariffs to protect their domestic manufacturers and businesses, but that only created weaker demand and made the Depression worse. Canadian exports shrank by 50% from 1929 to 1933.

THE CAUSE OF THE DEPRESSION

Many Canadians of the thirties felt that the depression wasn't brought about by the Wall Street Stock Market Crash, but by the enormous 1928 wheat crop crash. Due to this, many people were out of work and money and food began to run low. It was said by the Federal Department of Labor that a family needed between $1200 and $1500 a year to maintain the "minimum standard of decency." At that time, 60% of men and 82% of women made less than $1000 a year. The gross national product fell from $6.1 billion in 1929 to $3.5 billion in 1933 and the value of industrial production halved.
Unfortunately for the well being of Canada's economy prices continued to plummet and they even fell faster then wages until 1933, at that time, there was another wage cut, this time of 15%. For all the unemployed there was a relief program for families and all unemployed single men were sent packing by relief officers by boxcar to British Columbia. There were also work camps established for single men by Bennett's Government.
The Great Depression, also known as The Dirty Thirties, wasn't like an ordinary depression where savings vanished and city families went to the farm until it blew over. This depression effected everyone in some way and there was basically no way to escape it. J.S. Woodsworth told Parliament "If they went out today, they would meet another army of unemployed coming back from the country to the city." As the depression carried on 1 in 5 Canadians became dependent on government relief. 30% of the Labour Force was unemployed, where as the unemployment rate had previously never dropped below 12%.


It was estimated back in the thirties that 33% of Canada's Gross National Income came from exports; so the country was also greatly affected by the collapse of world trade. The four western prairie provinces were almost completely dependent on the export of wheat. The little money that they brought in for their wheat did not cover production costs, let alone farm taxes, depreciation and interest on the debts that farmers were building up. The net farm income fell from $417 million in 1929 to $109 million in 1933.


Canada suffered a major depression from 1929 to 1939. In terms of output it was
similar to the Great Depression in the United States. However, total factor productivity
(TFP) in Canada did not recover relative to trend, while in the United States TFP had
recovered by 1937. We find that the neoclassical growth model, with TFP treated as
exogenous, can account for over half of the decline in output relative to trend in Canada.
In contrast, we find that conventional explanations for the Great Depression - monetary
shocks, terms of trade shocks and labor market and competition policies – do not work
for Canada.

Our conclusion is that the reason that Canadian output per adult was still 30 percent below
trend in 1938 was that productivity failed to return to trend.

Relative to trend, consumption fell more in Canada, and remained below that of
the United States throughout the 1930s. Investment in Canada fell to 15 percent of its
trend value by 1933, and recovered very slowly in both countries (remaining roughly 50
percent below trend in 1939). Government purchases in the two countries followed a
similar pattern during the downturn, before diverging in the late 1930s when U.S.
government spending remained above trend, while in Canada it fluctuated about trend.

U.S. government output increased more relative to trend
than Canadian government output. A large part of the difference in government
expenditure can be attributed to different government policies towards providing
unemployment relief. In the United States, the government relied much more heavily
upon make-work projects (government relief projects) than in Canada. The fraction of the
workforce employed by the government doubled in the United States, while increasing by
less than 50 percent in Canada. The increase in U.S. government employment was mainly
due to public works, as nearly 7 percent of U.S. employment in the late 1930s was in
relief projects. Relief workers were never more than 1.5 percent of the total number of
employed people in Canada.

Canada was the first country to leave the gold standard, suspending gold
shipments in January 1929 (Bordo and Redish (1990)). Despite the suspension of
convertibility, the Canadian government took steps to prevent depreciation of the dollar,
motivated in part by a wish to maintain access to American capital markets to refinance
Dominion debt (Shearer and Clark (1984)). As a result, the government maintained the
advance rate at its 1928 level throughout 1930, despite the fall in world rates. This policy
was ultimately abandoned in 1931. Despite this, the Canadian dollar did depreciate
relative to the U.S. dollar by approximately 15 percent between 1929 and 1931, before
recovering to its 1929 level in 1935.

The “debt-deflation” view of the Great Depression asserts that deflation and high
private debt levels contributed to the Great Depression by reducing borrower wealth and
constraining lending. Haubrich (1990) argues that the debt crisis was much less severe in
Canada than in the United States. He argues that there is little evidence to suggest that the
debt crisis caused the Great Depression in Canada.

A common view is that banking crisis played a significant role in transforming the
1929 downturn into the Great Depression. For example, Bernanke (1983) states that “the
financial crisis of 1930-33 affected the macroeconomy by reducing the quantity of
financial services, primarily credit intermediation” (p. 262). As has been pointed out by
numerous authors, however, Canada did not experience any bank failures.

Can the usual explanations of the Great Depression account for the Great
Depression in Canada? Our answer to this question is no. As we show, money shocks,
policy shocks and terms of trade shocks cannot account for the 10-year depression.
Explanations based on these shocks fail because their effects are quantitatively too small
to explain the Great Depression.

Our findings in this paper tell us where to go next. Future research into the Great
Depression in Canada should focus on models in which changes in the level of trade
affect the level of productivity. Such models are consistent with the fact that Canada’s
TFP and trade both declined from 1929 to 33. Beginning in 1934, trade began to slowly
recover, and so did TFP. This also matches the fact that the only large shock that hit
Canada but not the United States was trade, while the main difference in macro
performance is the behavior of productivity.

Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: E30, N12, N42.
Key Words: Great Depression, Canada, productivity, terms of trade, deflation

Community Voices
GWINNETT COUNTY: Depression days brought to mind

By Rick Badie
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Elwood Hart lived in Canada during the Great Depression. He considers himself lucky. A Salvation Army was next to the family’s home in Hamilton, Ontario.
“Maybe it was a bowl of soup or a bologna sandwich, but I got something to eat,” said Hart, now a Lawrenceville resident. “If it weren’t for that, I don’t think we could have ever made it. We weren’t living in the United States, but the situation was the same all over.”
Comparisons and contrasts are being drawn between the current economic crisis and the Great Depression. Conventional wisdom says this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Generally, experts say the odds of a full-blown depression are nonexistent. Let’s hope they are right.
Not many of us were around between 1929 and 1939, so we can’t compare the impact of that period’s economic crisis to today’s turmoil. Hart is now in his mid-80s, so his take on what he saw then and what he sees now carries weight.
We met years ago at the Gwinnett County Veterans War Museum, where his military career is on display. He served with the Canadian Army in Normandy during World War II. With the U.S. Army, he saw two tours of duty in Korea and Vietnam. He received an honorable discharge in 1967.
As for the Great Depression, “I remember it well,” Hart said. “People don’t realize what it was like back then.”
He remembers people lining up at food banks to get a hunk of cheese and powdered milk. He remembers stuffing newspapers in his shoes because they were way too big. And he remembers a white pet rabbit that just disappeared one day.
“I got up one morning and asked my dad where my rabbit was,” Hart told me. “He said, ‘It’s down your stomach. You had it for dinner.’ You ate anything you could get back then. There was no waste of clothes or food. Today, when I throw out trash, wild animals won’t find any food. I don’t throw it away.”
But how does that compare to today’s economic woes, particularly among everyday people barely making it?
Every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday morning, Hart drives to a local Publix to load his car with day-old breads, cakes and pastries. When he pulls up to the Salvation Army, where the goods are doled out, people are waiting.
“It’s gotten so bad right now that there are twice as many every day as there were a couple of months ago,” he said. “In fact, it’s so bad that, a lot of time, me or some of the women in the church have to stand there. We have a sign that says everyone is to get two loaves of bread and a pastry. If you don’t watch them, they will fill up on all they can get. That’s why I say things are getting bad, similar to the 1930s, I tell you.”
As a brass collector, Hart routinely visits Goodwill stores in search of treasures. He said he’s seen a noticeable uptick in the number of people buying clothes. And at his church, clothes donations have fallen off considerably.
“It’s not that bad yet now,” Hart said.
“But it’s getting there.”

SEE:

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Loonie Tories Blaming The Victims


Like their Green Policy the Conservative Government likes to blame the victims. In this case Finance Minister Jim (Halloween Surprise) Flaherty takes a shot at Canadian consumers and retailers. He wants retailers to reduce their prices based on the strength of the Canadian dollar.


The Canadian government plans to try to persuade retailers to cut prices more quickly as the Canadian dollar rises "Cross-border shopping quite frankly is not good for retailers in Canada, nor is good for tax revenues for the governments in Canada," Flaherty said.


And instead of intervening in the market he asks us as consumers to do his job for him.

He is posturing of course, and like his asking banks to reduce ATM fee's he is blustering and blathering knowing that it is all for naught expect to appear to be doing something.

Now if he really wants to do something he would get together with Foreign Affairs, call in the U.S. Ambassador and put pressure on American exporters to drop their prices. But of course considering that this government is willing to sell out Canadian industry, the softwood lumber agreement comes to mind, for better political relations with their Republican cousins in the White House, well that would be a bit much to expect wouldn't it.

Diane Brisebois, Retail Council of Canada president, said the true culprit behind high prices is not the retailers but the suppliers of big recognizable national brands. She said she hopes she can set Mr. Flaherty - and Canadians - straight about why prices in Canada are generally higher than those in the United States. Suppliers of national or global brands charge Canadian retailers 20 to 50 per cent more than they charge a U.S. retailer for the same item, she said.

SEE:

Canadian Banks and The Great Depression

Forward To The Past

America's Debt Economy

Tax Cuts For The Rich Burden You and Me

Greenspans Legacy

Blaming The Victim


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Harpers Equalization

King Stephen I will be on a whirlwind trip across Canada today to make equalization payment announcements that have nothing to do with equalization, provincial resource rights or the Atlantic Accord.

Instead in Nova Scotia he will re-announce military spending, in Saskatchewan he will re-announce bio fuel spending. And he will be going solo having not bothered to inform the Premiers of the respective provinces of his pending dog and pony show on their turf.

This is strictly a show for the Conservative Federal Government, to pretend they did not screw these two provinces in their last budget.

The fact that there is no new money being announced, just a rehash of previous announcements is straight out of the Ralph Klein playbook.

For years the Alberta government has announced, re-announced, and announced yet again funding announcements.

It is euphemistically called buying votes.


SEE:

Tories Blame Premiers for Equalization Crisis

Chickens, Home, Roost



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, ,,,

, , , ,

, , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , , , , ,, , , , ,

Monday, June 11, 2007

Not A Budget Vote?


Well this is interesting two faced Peter Mackay of the Humpty Dumpty Conservatives is now saying last weeks vote was not a whipped budget vote. So explain why Bill Casey was turfed out of caucus, well he can't.

Furthermore he puts to lie Jim Flaherty's comments yesterday in the Chronicle Herald where he said no side deals were being hatched with Nova Scotia.

Hansard, Friday, June 8, 2007

The Budget

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs has conveniently forgotten his inconvenient words of a couple of weeks ago, allow me the opportunity to remind the House. He said:


We will not throw a member out of caucus for voting his conscience. There will be no whipping, flipping, hiring or firing on budget votes....

Is this 180 degree flip more an example of the lack of influence that the minister has at the cabinet table or did he actually think that his former caucus colleague would surrender his principles, as the minister did?


Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has been here for awhile he should know that was not in fact the budget vote. The budget vote will take place next week.

However, with respect to that particular comment, I had hoped and fully expected that the hon. member would continue to work with other members of the Atlantic caucus and with the Minister of Finance to see that we follow through in finishing this discussion with the Province of Nova Scotia, with our premier, direct discussions which I continued yesterday.

The member opposite may be chirping from the cheap seats but, unlike him, we are actually getting the job done for Nova Scotia.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,
>, , , , , , ,, , , ,

Chickens, Home, Roost

Here is a lesson to remember, silence is golden, however sticking your foot in your mouth is not an effective way to shut up.


Ottawa respects Atlantic accords

By JIM FLAHERTY

"Over the past few weeks, members of the Atlantic caucus and our entire government have been working diligently towards the same goal: ensuring the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador realize the full benefits of the Atlantic accords.

But there should be no misunderstanding: Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals. Equalization has been restored to a principles-based program for the first time in many years. That’s what all premiers asked us to do and that’s what all Canadians expect us to do."


NS premier urges revolt against federal budget

Nova Scotia's Premier Rodney MacDonald wants all the province's MPs to vote against the federal budget that alters his province's deal on offshore resources.

In addition, the Conservative would like the Senate to hold up passage of the 2007 budget.

MacDonald said Sunday that a letter from federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty published in a Nova Scotia newspaper prompted his move.

Flaherty said in the letter that the government is not making any side deals on the Atlantic Accord just to win a few votes.

"It became clear that he was determined to undermine these efforts and undermine our good faith discussions. Mr. Flaherty has turned his back on Nova Scotians, and our quiet talks are about to get a whole lot louder," MacDonald said.


Atlantic Accord, Hansard June 7, 2007

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Ind.):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister of Finance brought up the equalization payments. Every day he stands in the House and says that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can have the new formula and the old accord, but that is not accurate.

I know the minister will want to be accurate. I would like him to acknowledge his own amendments to the Atlantic accord, the 12 paragraphs of amendments in sections 80, 81 and 82 that amend it and the 6 paragraphs that amend the John Hamm agreement of 2005.

I would like the minister to acknowledge his own five amendments and refer to this from now on as the amended Atlantic accord.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Foreign Take Overs

Lots of buzz about the American hostile take over of Alcan but little buzz about the Americans taking over van Houtte Coffee.

Perhaps because in the case of van Houtte the Quebec labour movement has invested in the take over.

While workers at Alcan in Quebec have faced layoffs. And could face more after Alcoa takes over its old branch plant again.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,

Flaherty Flip Flops

Okay so when will the Conservatives back track on their failed Child Care program and reinstate funding for actual child care spaces. Oops that of course affects only Martha, Henry and the kids, not corporations and CEO's.

Flaherty backtracks on tax measure

In a reversal, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says a new controversial tax measure will be rewritten to ensure that legitimate Canadian corporations can continue to invest abroad and deduct the interest charge from their taxes.

Under pressure to back down from a "sleeper" measure in the March 19 budget that Canadian businesses said would cost them more than $1 billion and make them less competitive, Flaherty confirmed yesterday that draft legislation being prepared by the finance department would ensure that the provision only went after tax havens and so-called double dipping.

Flaherty blitzed on Alcan bid

Nevertheless, news yesterday of Alcoa Inc.' s US$33-billion takeover bid for Alcan turned up the heat once again on Mr. Flaherty and his proposed move to limit companies' ability to deduct interest on foreign financings.

Tax specialists, business groups, blue-chip chief execdutives and think-tanks have weighed in in opposition to the move. The government has said the proposal would end the practice by some Canadian-based firms of obtaining two or more deductions for interest expenses incurred to finance offshore operations.

Last month, Richard Evans, Alcan CEO, said in a published interview that the tax change could make the aluminum maker susceptible to a foreign bid because it would hinder Alcan's ability to grow through foreign acquisitions.

SEE:

Gildan Sweat Wear

Tax Fairness For The Rich


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Weak Opposition

The Opposition messaging against the Conservative Budget makes me wonder where their spin doctors are. Perhaps vacationing on spring break, being the young turks they are. Let us review today's Opposition response as was officially presented in the house and during QP.

Liberals: I would have given out more money. To everyone. But youse guys have a shotgun approach with this budget.

BQ: Yes you have addressed the Fiscal Imbalance, but it is not enough, we could get more if Quebec was a nation.

NDP: This budget was created at the boardroom table not the kitchen table.

The Liberals and NDP messaging is a mess. The Conservative budget gave no big corporate tax breaks, and actually closed tax loopholes on offshore tax havens used by the rich. But they did bring in their Tax Credit for Low Income earners. Something the Liberals and NDP advocated for.

Sure they did not bring in a $10 federal minimum wage which the Federal NDP are calling for (because the Ontario NDP are calling for it in the upcoming provincial election campaign). An increase in the Federal Minimum wage is a red herring because it affects so few workers and is not even a living wage program nor a Guaranteed Annual Income, which the NDP should be advocating for.


What the problem here is that this is a Liberal budget, it is a scattergun just like they have used, and it is aimed at gaining support for the government, just like they have always done. And so it does benefit working families in Canada which was it's purpose. With its targeted tax cuts and give aways it is already causing a caucus fracture in the Liberals.

The NDP though have made their opposition to the budget a matter of closing the prosperity gap between the working class and the rich elite. Therefore it behooves them to offer an alternative budget. And their pals at the Centre for Policy Alternatives have already given them a blueprint, even before the budget came down yesterday.

Along with their child care plan, their pharmacare plan, their green plan, and other announcements they have made, all they needed was the CCPA blueprint and a plan for a Guaranteed Annual Income and they could have created an alternative budget to build an election campaign around.


Instead they went for misleading sound bites accusing the government of giving big business tax breaks that did not occur.

They even quote Lenin to make it look like they have a radical alternative, which is so much smoke and mirrors. Of course Jack may now opt for a goatee along with the mustache to show how left he is.

“For every one step forward, Conservatives take two steps back,” says Layton


Obviously Brad Lavigne is still the caucus brain trust behind this dogs breakfast. Perhaps they should have sent Brad off for a much needed spring break and come up with their own Alternative Budget. Then they would have had some credibility in opposing this budget that is all things to all people.


SEE:




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,