Do I detect a cover-up? Now you see it. Now you don’t
Wed, 2008-02-13 05:41
#1
Do I detect a cover-up? Now you see it. Now you don’t
Wed, 2008-02-13 05:41
#2
[url=http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/02/do-i-detect-cover-up-now-you-se...
[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: Brent Fullard ]
Wed, 2008-02-13 06:08
#3
I have little sympathy for rich retires who were to stupid or lazy to figure out that an income trust are NOT as safe as a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_Investment_Certificate]GIC (Guaranteed Investment Certificate)[/url] and corporations trying to dodge paying taxes.
Wed, 2008-02-13 06:19
#4
Polly B
Whether or not one feels sorry for the investors, we can't allow our elected government to make secret decisions on behalf of Canadians and then hide the data from us! Cripes.
Wed, 2008-02-13 07:03
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[b]..we can't allow our elected government to make secret decisions on behalf of Canadians...[/b]
It wasn't a secret decision. In fact it was a very highly publicised decision.
Wed, 2008-02-13 11:20
#6
Polly B
Hmm, yes both decisions - the one to allow income trusts and the one to disallow income trusts - were very much in the open. My problem is with the secrecy after the fact regarding how they came to these decisions.
Why would the government be trying to keep a lid on this? I would think if the numbers supported the decision, they would be more than happy to publish the results.
Wed, 2008-02-13 11:24
#7
Scott Piatkowski
[ 13 February 2008: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]
Wed, 2008-02-13 11:35
#8
Polly B
Always love to stop what I am doing and watch a little Monty Python.
I am not an energy trust supporter, never have been. This is what bugged me here, from the CTV website.
quote:
Thirteen pages of calculations, released to a Calgary analyst, are so heavily censored with black marker that only row and column labels remain visible.
And this..
quote:
The law allows officials to keep secret information "which could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the financial interests" of the federal government.
Hmmm.
Wed, 2008-02-13 11:56
#9
He's not my king. I didn't vote for 'im.
Wed, 2008-02-13 12:01
#10
That was the best spam on my computer in years!!!
Wed, 2008-02-13 13:00
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]He's not my king. I didn't vote for 'im.[/b]
Bloody peasant!
Wed, 2008-02-13 13:08
#12
Oh! What a give-away!
Wed, 2008-02-13 14:46
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[b]Why would the government be trying to keep a lid on this?[/b]
Because the conservatives went against corporate Canada?
Look, even the NDP don't explain their decisions/actions (ie: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007085]NDP disciplined Bill Siksay for voting against Harper's crime bill [/url]).
Would you listen to every explaination of every decision made by every public organization? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-02-13 14:51
#14
Polly B
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]
Because the conservatives went against corporate Canada?[/b]
Ha, but you'd think if it all went as planned, they would be itching to show that for once they made a sound decision.
I don't read all the decisions, just the blacked out ones. I figure they must be more interesting.
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]