Wealth Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Wealth Professional | 13 Apr 2016, 08:15 AM Agree 0
Chief refuses to hand over data following massive offshore tax dodge leak
  • Kathleen Caught | 13 Apr 2016, 11:57 AM Agree 0
    There are many who live their lives in poverty at the expense of those presently employed who are barely moving ahead. I find it repulsive to stand in any form of resistence to being in support of helping every single person and not just the elite. Open your doors CBC, the people supported you, now your turn to stand up for us. Transparency is the only way.
  • Catherine Dewar | 13 Apr 2016, 12:27 PM Agree 0
    Kathleen, I completely agree with your points on the issues of poverty, minimally employeed, and tax dodgers. The issue here is that once we lose this freedom of the press, it creates a precedence that we would never recover from.
  • Mark Matsumoto | 13 Apr 2016, 12:39 PM Agree 0
    I think that the news reporters should be able to protect their sources. It would make their jobs much more difficult in the future if the government could force them to "rat out" the people who give them information.

    It is not like our governments spend the money wisely. The Liberals put all of their spending "on the tab" anyways. They are maxing out the Visa card for the future generations to pay.

    Look at the Ontario Liberals who wasted over a billion of our dollars just buying a few more votes by moving a power plant far away from the place where power was needed. We now have the highest electricity costs in North America because of our government. This is costing us more than the taxes being evaded.

    I'm not sure what the Federal Liberals have been doing, but I expect that we'd find much the same without much effort.

    I would be in favour of having a "level playing field". If news agencies are forced to open their books and reveal their sources, then the government should be forced to open their books to show us the details on their spending and have mechanisms to hold the politicians accountable. I expect that the amount of horrible spending decisions far outweighs the amount of taxes avoided/evaded.

    I guess this just means that I support the head of the CBC and don't want to further extend the powers of the CRA.
  • Susan Cole | 13 Apr 2016, 02:31 PM Agree 0
    Protecting your source of information is important but once you start publicizing any of this information, then the whole information itself should be public and thus transparent not only to the public but the governing authorities as well. Simple really.
  • Rex | 13 Apr 2016, 02:52 PM Agree 0
    Protect their sources? That is absurd in this context. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists self-identified.
  • Niki | 13 Apr 2016, 03:26 PM Agree 0
    I believe there is a difference between "sources" and the complete story. The complete unadulterated story would include stating who has used the offshore tax shelter. It seems as though they are protecting people--maybe their friends? Stating who is on the list has nothing to do with who the source of the disclosure is--so therefore it appears to be two separate arguments.
  • Allan | 14 Apr 2016, 09:43 AM Agree 0
    "The long-standing policy of ICIJ, and our parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity, is not to turn over such material.

    The ICIJ is not an arm of law enforcement and is not an agent of the government. We are an independent reporting organization, served by and serving our members, the global investigative journalism community and the public."
  • Mark | 14 Apr 2016, 10:57 AM Agree 0
    I agree with the comments made by Nikki above.. providing a list of who is on it is not disclosing your source. the ICIJ is planning on producing the information in May anyways. What is the CBC gaining by not providing the information now of the names on the list. No one is asking them who provided them with the information. If the CRA required them to disclose their source of information that would be another issue and I would agree that to protect that source.
  • Niki | 14 Apr 2016, 01:16 PM Agree 0
    Agreed Mark. There is also a difference between the phrase, 'center for public integrity' and 'center of public integrity'. If you look closely, it is simply put, the letter "r". "R" as in "R" they ready to spill the beans? Or. "R" they waiting for a moment in time when spilling the beans is more convenient.
  • John Merriman | 14 Apr 2016, 02:28 PM Agree 0
    The CBC is still in the iron grip of Harper Gov't appointees (when could we expect that to be changed?) and is going to avoid any disclosure about the affairs of the monied class. Like the Harper Gov't itself, they can always find a specious reason not to do the right thing.
  • Niki | 15 Apr 2016, 12:33 PM Agree 0
    I beg to differ John--though I do understand that you truly do mean well by implying that the past appointees have something to do with the withholding of information, when the fact is: they do not. Everyone knows that the CBC gushes with glee over their new found capital at the expense of taxpayers dollars. Fact is, they need to release the names. If members of our government, CBC or their friends, have used this offshore tax shelter to evade taxes, it does not matter whether they are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or whatever! We the taxpayers deserve to know who is evading now.
  • John Merriman | 17 Apr 2016, 06:36 PM Agree 0
    The CBC are not "gushing with glee" over their miserly increase, which goes nowhere near to reinstating their historical level of funding and will do little more than cover increased costs due to recent inflation. And those of us who are longtime and dedicated listeners to CBC are well aware of the selective nature and slant of their reportage since the Harper government appointed a chairman and 8 board members who are also Conservative donors. Ain't that a surprise!
  • Niki | 20 Apr 2016, 05:02 PM Agree 0
    Personally, I believe that with the exception of CBC radio, the CBC needs to stand on its own two feet without taxpayers dollars. Either be public, like PBS, or be a corporation. This in-between business is neither fish, fowl nor good red herring.
Post a reply