They did the right thing in the end, but any gov''t with an ounce of vision would have foreseen the coming problems with this situation, rather than telling voters what they wanted to hear prior to the election. They lied to get elected. Surprise, surprise.

Of course, should the Liberals get too holier-than-thou about this, one only has to mention 3 letters to them: GST.

I believe that the income trust annocement is the right thing for Canada and most Canadians believe that as well. Therefore I believe it will not be the fact that the Conservatives broke a promise to keep income trusts that will hurt them but it will be the fact that they broke a key election promise.

No. I believe Canadians can generally see beyond the Liberal and NDP message i.e. the conservatives broke an election promise, when in reality, both those parties agree with the policy change on income trusts. Its just that the Conservatives had the intestinal fortitude necessary to make the change while the Liberals never did and the NDP will probably never achieve power, at least let's hope not.

I think most persons recognize that something had to be done to curb the trend to convert to income trusts. To do otherwise would leave the wealthy corporations rolling in doe and shift the tax burden to that of the individual. It hardly seems like a "Conservative" move, but it makes sense. In the long run I don't think the electorate will make to pay for this decision. Any governing party would have come to the same conclusion. Too bad they did not foresee the problem.

Joey Smallwood said that the first job of a politician is to get elected. The second job is to get re-elected and the third job is to get re-elected again. Politicians will put their won spin on whatever decision is made to make themselves look good.

Think of the war in Iqaq! The Bush administration has many Americans believing in what he says. I think, unfortunately, that Joey was right and politicians serve their own purposes.

The Income Trust issue can be put in the same category as all the other issues. The Conservatives will put their spin on the issue. Maybe the government could have made a better decision by preventing other groups from forming trust companies. The general population never has all of the facts and have to trust the elected reps to give balance. Do we ever get it?

I think what the conservatives did was the right thing for the people of Canada. Unlike the liberals they are not catering to just the elite.

Time will tell, Canadian voters often have short memories and pick odd things over which to hold a grudge.

As an employee and shareholder in a company that operates as a trust, I can assure you that there were many glum faces on 'average' Canadians the day this was announced. Many of us hold shares as part of our pensions and took a pretty heavy hit. So, not just the elite or rich were affected by this, Joe/Jane Everyday Canadian took some losses, too. It will be interesting to see how our CEO and Board of Directors responds to the employee/shareholders next quarterly business conference!

You are asking a difficult question. This could cost the Conservatives some votes. I suspect most of the people who are traditional conservatives will be angry, but will continue to vote Conservative. There is no real close philosophical choice for Conservatives. Liberals can more easily move to Green Party or NDP candidates than Conservatives can move toward the Liberals, Greens or NDs, when the other parties probably would have taken the same step.

Gary

I don't think that any of the opposing parties will be able to make this a issue big enough to stop the Conservatives from being re-elected. The liberals have too much bad history and no one really seems to pay attention to the ndp or the bloc. I do not agree with the majority of conservative views but if other parties want to beat them they will either have to pick a bigger issue (gay marriage, daycare system and the war in Iraq come to my mind immediately) or step up their own games.

Sadly all of the parties, once they get into office, end up being ding bats and waffling on all kinds of issues.

I suppose people have the right to change their mind.

I also suppose that what's really got a lot of people up in arms is that the Conservative Party made the decision they did without any public consultation. I mean, come on.... had they held public forums on the issue... they would have had all kinds of companies and their shareholders up in arms because they would have been losing tax free money. If they'd taken the time to say "we changed our minds and this is why...." would people have been so upset?
Maybe so, but they wouldn't accuse them of lying... or maybe they would.

I can't say that I ever heard any discussion about income trusts until last week, so I wouldn't have accused them of lying - but I didn't pay all that much attention to the whole "income trust thing" during the election campaign. Gotta choose the ditch you wanna die in.

Is the change in their policy harmful to the way companies do business? Probably. Is it getting rid of a loophole? Absolutely. Why should we fault a party for doing something GOOD for once when all most people ever do is complain about what's NOT good.

Most give their promises and don't deliver arn't you used to this by now?

Read Rick Mercer's blog.

He says it better than I could.

Basically, the Canadian public are paying because we believed him.

He'll get away with this because time heals most wounds in politics.

Drink Guiness. Jesus would have.

The government did what they had to do. I am a student of Economics so I recognize that an economy dominated by income trusts rather then corporarions will stagnate and eventually have negative GDP growth. The issue that should be more relevant to tax paying Canadians is that corporate income taxes pay for approximatley 40% of Canadian social services. Income trusts don't pay corporate taxes, so to continue with Canada's social programs the cost would shift to individual tax payers. So I don't think the conservative party will pay for breaking their promise on income trusts, they did what was in the best interests of all Canadians.

I think the Conservatives have done the right thing on income trusts. Even though I don't support Stephen Harper and his agenda most days.

The issue is not whether they have implemented a sensible piece of tax policy, but whether there should be repercussions about governments breaking key promises made in election campaigns. The problem has been on the radar screen since the Liberals raised it last year, and in making the promise not to touch income trusts, Harper and company should have known that other companies, such as Bell and Telus and Encana, would also adopt the 'trust' structure soon. Hence in collecting the votes of people who disagreed wth the Liberals threatening to tax trusts, and then reneguing, the Conservatives are either dishonest or incompetent.

And, those pious people who are crediting the Conservatives for 'doing the right thing' on trusts -- i challenge you to disclose how much your lifesavings dropped on October 31 due to the income trust taxing decision. It's amazing the perspective that comes from not happening to own any of the affected trusts.

For example: my mother's seemingly diversified RRIF was about 33% invested either in trusts or in companies that were planning to convert. A skewed distribution? Not according to the registered financial planner for a senior looking for dependable income. And the sop to seniors for income splitting won't help a widow like her.

So is a government that breaks a key election promise doing the right thing?

After the development in the USA mid-term elections and the latest Ipso-Reid poll regarding the way Canadians think about the Conservative 5 point plan, I don't think it matters much. Mr. Harper hitched his wagon to the wrong horse and unless he starts to communicate rather than control and fine-tune manage, and unless he starts to address the things Canadians really feel deeply about, he's probably toast anyway. As far as this issue, Income Trusts mostly benefitted large corporations and big stock holders, and the changes will probably have more benefit for the ordinary person. In the end, stocks will rebound, and corporations will pay a bit more on taxes, but any long term damage to the economy will be negligable.

In the end, this is a minor concern for the Conservatives- the authoritarian control Mr. Harper exerts over his caucus, his appointment of Michel Fortier to the Cabinet (and then not having him seek election), and his move to adopt a more US-like foreign policy will be far more damaging in the end to the general Canadian public who have no real knowledge of high finance. Things like lowering the basic income tax exemption have a more immediate effect on far more Canadians than taxing trusts.

This, however, assumes that there will be some legitimate opposition in the next election- unless the Liberals clean up their act, and soon, a majority Conservative government is a real possibility.

I've read several posts now calling the Conservative's promise not to tax income trusts prior to the election a "key" promise. Although it was unfortunate that it was in fact a broken promise, it was not a KEY promise. The Conservatives spelled out their five priority items throughout the election and the short time they've been in power they've delivered (or at least introduced legislation to deliver) on all of them. That's nothing short of impressive. And yet now everybody is all uptight about this issue; one that will likely only effect anybody who panicked and sold their investments the day it was announced. Forgive me, but if they did that, they shouldn't be investing their money that way to begin with. Stuff under your mattres, instead. Last Wednesday, the day the announcement was made, the TSE dropped nearly 300 points. The following day it gained 80 points, and Friday 80 more. So in only two days the market regained well over half of what it lost.
even after all the promises they've kept, Canadians should punish the Conservatives for that?!?

Since when did we make our politicians 'pay' for breaking promises? Canadians have the shortest memories when it comes to elections and this will be no different. You can't blame them though- we've come to learn the words of all politicians, regardless of party, are pretty meaningless.

I think that everyone needs to just move on. The Conservative have done extremely well in Alberta and that province is now the envy of the nation. Let the Conservative govern the country and allow Canada to be the envy of the World. Politicians, You and Me have all made mistakes. If you are without sin, cast the first stone.

Again, it's nice to hear others pompously say that it's not a big problem, or that the TSX as a whole bounced back. (it many cases it was the non-trusts like the big banks and firms that didn't have a trust-premium that showed the biggest increases). But how much money did YOU lose on October 31? If the answer is nothing or next to nothing, then, with respect, please accept the possibiliity that your comments are a bit self-focussed..

It seems to me that many of the people who lost a fortune with this decision likely had too much of their portfolio in one lucrative sector of the market. A sector that was a money-maker because of a tax loophole that was hurting all of us in the long-run. Is it unfortunate these folks lost access to their cash-cow? Sure, but the income-splitting announcement probably made helped as many couples as the income trust announcement hurt.

The opposition has zero traction on the election promise aspect of this issue, as they'd all have done the same thing. The handling of Afghanistan and the environmental policy will likely change more votes than this.

No, Linden. Most people in income trusts are seniors, looking for reliable income. Most seniors actually live alone, like my widowed mother. She didn't lose "a fortune", but just about 6% of her net worth, in one day. She wasn't 'speculating' on a superheated sector, but taking the advice of a financial planner investing her life savings in what appeared to be a conservative manner. Does anyone get it that the pompous pronouncements are really saying, "It's OK, because i didn't own any?"

I have sympathy for the people who lost money, but I've heard bad things about income trusts and the danger they represented to the tax base for almost two years now, and I have virtually no saavy about the markets.

If someone's financial planner didn't know the risk they were taking advising someone to go with income trust investment, then they were poorly informed.

I just can't believe it actually went on as long as it did - a shady way for corporations to try to dodge out of paying taxes, in my opinion.

I am a senior and although my wife handles our finances and investments, I am certain that we did lose something on the income trusts. I do realise that some seniors lost a lot more than we did. It's unforunate and I'm not without feelings for them. At the same time, it was still a major loop hole for many of the corporations and big time stock holders in them. They have every right to make an honest gain, but they also need to pay just amounts of taxes. There are too many ways corporate lawyers can find to avoid making contributions to the governments that fully reflect the profits made. It makes me very upset when I see the tax burden plastered on the backs of the middle class while those at the top 10-20% of the socio-economic scale get off with paying far less than they should. The bureaucracy knows that in the long run it is the middle class who contribute most and can turn a convenient blind eye to abuses built into the system. This was one time the door was closed.

I put all my savings into arms stocks and oil and gas stocks...you humans keep those rather profitable.

Everyday I wish for participatory democracy to be put forth in the house of commons. That's all.

No, this was long overdo. Sometime one has to put their principles aside and do the right thing.

Of course we won't make them pay, where did you get that idea? It never works that way.. unless you are as dense as Pusch. But that' s south of the border.
No folks, we get the government we deserve. Always!

How unfortunate that so many replies are inconsistent with the issue? At some point we should be sending a message that breaking a promise is , a key indicator of ones "lack "of integrity, something we should be looking for in leadership!. I hear most of the responses focusing on how this had to be done in order to preserve the tax revenue? The unfortunate thing is that this is exactly what the govt would like you to think. The Corporations dont pay the taxes because the trust unit holders do, the reason the trust holders do is because Trusts disperse all profits in the form of cash on a per trust unit basis. This was a great invetsement vehicle especially for our seniors who held the bulk of trust units in Canada as they are not looking for Stock value growth in their retirement, but Cash. And when they received the Cash they paid taxes and at a higher rate than our corporations do. IN THE END THE GOVT GAINS NO FURTHER TAXES THEY JUST GET LESS SOONER!!

I feel for our seniors who dont have endless years to wait in order for our govt to make up their mind about Trusts. It was the indecision and lie about not touching trusts that really hurt them in the end! Try and sell your trust units now for a profit!

A promise is a promise, The current govt did not change the trust rules for our benefit because there is none. They broke their promise because the media portrayed the trust moves as corporate tax sheltering and the govt was simply concerned that the public would see their promise as a negative and it would cost them votes...........so they played some political chess and looks like most of us bought it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I sincerely hope that the record is set straight soon and that they suffer consequences for their lack of integrity in the next election.

Political Integrity is one of the greatest oxymorons of all time.
Instead of spending time and emotional energy on indignation and expectations, let's judge by results.
As a Senior Citizen holding Income Trusts I, too, lost money...ON PAPER..when the rules changed. Since then, only days ago, the market has rebounded and I expect to recover, as I did after 9/11.
As to whether, or not, the Harper Government will pay at the polls, who knows.
We have all, as Canadians, survived , to whatever degree,the ineptness of our Federal and Provincial Govenments. Only an election will tell the tale.
My glass is half full and I'm optimistic.

THere has been very little attention paid to another shady aspect of many income trusts--they were inflating their value by distributing more income than they were actually generating. The result was that people were paying too much for many of them regardless of the tax benefit. I suspect the income trusts that decreased most in value and stayed low were the ones which would have collapsed in a few years anyway.

Harper is the only hope for our country. Let him win a majority and fix the courts with as many right-wing sane people as he can. Leave the senate alone - but make it a tory one and toughen our stance on crime and keep child molesters behind bars.

I pray that you are a minority of one, prodge.

I wonder what prodge thinks child molestors has to do with income trusts?

Or is he just grandstanding?

Well maybe all you senior citizens value your pensions more than your grandchildrens virginity.

Is this not the most blasphemous blog ever! Usury on a Church Blog.. Really.

Prodge, as a card-carrying conservative, i'm telling you that you're the kind of individual who discredits every single cause they stand up for. thankfully, your ilk are not only a minority within the country, but also within the party.

It was a tough call but I believe the right one.
There isn't a politition that hasn't broken a promise, at least that I can remember.
I guess my expectations aren't high enough. LOL

I am hoping for a majority conservative government because there are some important issues that I want fixed and I believe they will do it.

I have voted for all parties at one time or other so this is based on current issues and the party that best represents them.