Saturday, October 17, 2009

You Be The Judge

Barrie MP Patrick Brown, one of the Tory MPs named in the Libs ethics complaint re signing fake cheques used at photo opportunities, on how he deals with novelty cheques:

"As for cheque signings, I have [th]e practice used by MPs and MPPs before me, which was to use the government logo and attach the government representative signature of the elected official at that level," Brown said. "The Liberals, as usual, don't seem to get their facts right." Well, there's no government logo on this one--the official government of Canada wordstamp contains the phrase "Government of Canada" next to the maple leaf--although you can see a tiny little maple leaf being loomed over by Mr. Brown's name. And on this one, from here, though its a little hard to see...

...you can see that Mr. Brown has slapped "Patrick Brown MP" next to the Canadian flag, right where the phrase "Government of Canada" would go on the official word-mark, as though he were trying to palm off the money as being from the "Government of Patrick Brown".

15 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

Lets' not forget that it was confirmed Friday that Harper was running a structural deficit last year and lied about it.

bigcitylib said...

Yeah but what has that got to do with oversized novelty cheques? Oversized novelty cheques are The Bomb, Where its at, the news of the day. Try and stay relevant TG.

Ti-Guy said...

Yeah, well. For the next three weeks, when every new (or old) instance of Conservative perfidy is deflected by the wingnuts claiming that GIANT NOVELTY CHEQUES!!! is the only criticism the rest of us have, don't blame me.

Terry 1 said...

I think this check issue is the start of finding out a lot of tory dirt that has been hidden by their secrecy. The Libs nor the public must not stop asking the questions of these reformatories.

I think the "in and out" trial is due to be heard farily soon also which is another blot on tory credibility.

FrankD said...

Agreed, Harper is an inveterate liar. Ask anyone who owns income trusts. The problem is he only gets compared to other inveterate liars, Chretien, McGuinty.

roblaw said...

I love the "income trust" babies.

Here's the scoop. Those relying on income trusts were stealing from Canadians. What started out as a relatively small loophole was suddenly being used by massive numbers of investors to effectively, assure they wouldn't have to pay the same tax as they would in a standard corporate shareholder structure.

Pardon me for not crying because the hole got plugged.

And, back to the point. If Harper had any jam, he would appologize, and seek to pass, with assumed Liberal support, legislation outlawing the use of government funding projects as media events.

Holding your breath?

At the same time - if Iggy had even a smattering of political smarts, he'd propose the same legislation and steal the issue for himself.

Still holding your breath?

roblaw said...

Oh. And for TG's benefit who suggests I never criticize the Conservatives on their own turf:

On Stephan Taylor's site:

Stephen - I have some significant difficulty on this isue regarding the cheques. Whether or not the Liberals are in a glass house throwin stones I think is beside the point. Because the accuser is a cheat doesn't mean what we're doing is right. I would like the PM to take the lead and say, "we will not use public funding as a media opportunity, ever. We will table legislation and dare the Liberals to oppose us."

That would be leadership.

roblaw said...

Oh. And BCL. Going off-topic (but maybe only slightly) I came across a debate in Australia on BBC yesterday, "Is Democracy Right for Everyone?" as part of a "Festival of Dangerous Ideas".

A non-partisan debate taking place at the Sydney opera house - where incredibly intelligent and open debate took place on that topic - and apparently on other topics, including education, immigration, euthanasia, and free speech.

If you get a chance, you might check out http://www.iq2oz.com - I was thinking it would be incredible to have this kind of open discussion in Canada along the same lines. Would love to get a sort of non-partisan discussion going - taking issues away from the media and the politicans sort of thing. What do you think?

Create a "Dangerous Idea Tour" through Canada, From BC to Newfoundland?

FrankD said...

Roblaw you know little about the subject, you merely repeat Flaherty's press release. Now here are some facts. Income trusts are fully taxed in the hands of the investor, often at rates higher than effective corporate tax rates. (Individuals don't have the write-offs that corps can have.) There is no dividend tax credit allowed for trusts as with standard corps. The only advantage enjoyed by trusts is the deferral of tax when held in an RSP. This is no different than the treatment allowed to pension funds. Pension funds are buying up income trusts and taking them private. They will not pay Harper's tax. There is no loophole, only discriminatory treatment favoring pension funds over individuals saving for retirement.

During the 2006 campaign Harper promised a Conservative gov't would not hike taxes on trusts. Nine months later he reneged on his promise, probably at the behest of the pension industry which had lobbied him against trusts,as reported in the G&M).

Harper lied to get votes just as Chretien lied about the GST.

RuralSandi said...

Roblaw does a lot of silly Rob-blah,blah, blah doesn't he?

He's saying seniors were stealing from seniors? Good grief. Harper "promised" remember? The invested on his good(???) word.

Terry 1 said...

Roblaw, no one thinks the income trusts were fair taxation policies. The issue is that Harpo promised not to tax them and months later did so after people put literally hundreds of millions of savings into those funds. the fallout from the taxation change was and is not fun for those investors.

FrankD said...

"no one thinks the income trusts were fair taxation policies."

Perhaps "no one" in the NDP. But the NDP think RSPs are a tax loophole.

The Harper gov't says it has a study proving their 'tax leakage' allegation against trusts, except they refuse to release it. Private sector studies have shown there is little to no tax leakage. Canadian investors lost billions in retirement savings for believing in Stephen Harper. That's the only real loss here.

Ti-Guy said...

It might shock you all, but I agree with Roblaw on the issue of taxing income trusts. It's just that Harper lied about it (or maybe, just started yapping when he didn't know what he was talking about...he is, after all, the World's Worst Economist). In any case, I oppose all the increasingly complex and unfathomable shenanigans that are isolating capital from the productive economy. You hard-bitten capitalists might think about that some more if you want to save capitalism.

Create a "Dangerous Idea Tour" through Canada, From BC to Newfoundland?

Wouldn't that be something, eh? Get some of the flush, right wing think tanks to sponsor it. What's that I hear? *crickets*?

RuralSandi said...

Words to get By with a Little Help from my Friends (Harper version)

What do I do if the voters don't swoon
Would they stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll "cheque" out a song
And I'll try not to let you see

I get to buy with my taxpayer friends
Mmm..I get high buying with my taxpayer friends
Mmmm...I do buy votes with my taxpayer friends.

robert_viera said...

To be fair to Mr. Brown, the first photo is not of a government cheque. It is a cheque from Brown's 'Physician Recruitment Scholarship' essay contest, which is apparently funded through local fundraising events. However, Mr. Brown has used government funds to display the Conservative party logo. I have a householder from Brown, sent out in 2007, that has a six-inch high Conservative party logo on it. Ads which have appeared in the local newspaper, which I believe are funded out of Mr. Brown's MP Office budget, have included the Conservative party logo. I recently received a 10-percenter from Mr. Brown which lauded "Patrick's Brown's Economic Stimulus for Barrie" which detailed the federal government's contribution to local infrastructure projects.