The Taxation Myth

During this election campaign you have heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his various mouthpieces maintain that any other party is going to raise taxes. They will spend tax money frivolously. They don't want to give regular Canadian families tax breaks. They want to keep money out of seniors' pockets. They will introduce job killing corporate tax hikes. In short, they will destroy the economy. We will become like Greece. There will be plagues of locusts and rains of frogs! The conservatives had already begun to bang this drum, months before the writ was dropped.

 
Taxes have never been particularly popular. Going back to feudal times, people were required to remit a percentage of their harvest or profits to a feudal lord. In exchange, the lord was expected to send a bunch of knights out to fend off any marauders that might threaten the village. It was, more or less, protection money which allowed the landed gentry live high on the hog while the general populace got along as best they could.

The Public Good

However, in more modern times, the taxes we pay to the government are meant to be spent on programs for "the public good". The public good is open to different definitions. But in Canada, for the past 50 years at least, the public good has included negotiated transfer payments from the federal government to provinces to cover the cost of education and universal health care and to balance out the disparities between provincial populations and economic engines like natural resources and manufacturing. The public good has also included many government programs that look to assist the vulnerable in our society. And it includes things like repairing or building roads and bridges, and safety inspection for consumer goods, food and transportation. Your taxes pay the people who process your passport application, or your building permit when you renovate your home or business. Your taxes pay for emergency response personnel, like paramedics and police and the fire department. They pay for the people who fix the broken water main, and the people who stand on the road telling you to slow down while passing road workers. They pay for programs to keep young people out of gangs and help women entrepreneurs get established in male-dominated industries. They pay for shelters for victims of domestic abuse, addiction treatment centres, rehabilitation programs for offenders, and legal representation for those who cannot afford a lawyer, because Canadian law is based upon the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, and everyone has the right to professional legal representation in court. The public good includes picking up the garbage, ploughing the roads, and maintaining parks. It includes flooding the ice at hockey and curling rinks, and cutting the grass on soccer pitches and baseball diamonds.

The public good is administered by different levels of government. Each collects taxes: municipal, provincial and federal. Each has specific jurisdictions. Municipalities take care of the sports facilities, local road maintenance, garbage collection, public libraries, making sure the traffic lights work and the city infrastructure (like sewers and transit) are running properly. Municipalities also often offer educational materials, like how to compost, or how to create a wind break of trees, and many recreational programs. They may also run local outreach for people in need: the homeless, victims of abuse, the at-risk youth, Municipal taxes pay for local emergency services in many cases. Municipalities collect fines for parking and speeding tickets and other violations of local by-laws and staff is required to process these.

Provincial governments are responsible for administering our world-famous health care system, public education, and provincial parks. Also, provincial highways and roads, provincial police in those provinces that do not have RCMP, and they engage in joint projects with municipalities such as major road projects, flood mitigation infrastructure, etc. Provinces have environment departments that oversee protection of the natural world, and man-made projects that may impact it. Provinces are also responsible for provincial jails.

The federal government is the umbrella entity over the provinces. It collects taxes from across the country, redistributes some to the provinces to balance things out among provinces that are doing very well and provinces that are not doing so well economically so that Canadians across the country can access the same level of services. The federal government is also responsible for issues of national concern. Food safety, transportation safety, national defence, the RCMP, the CBC, protecting our environment, maintaining our national parks and historic landmarks, assisting businesses to gain access to trade in other countries, maintaining our country's presence in providing both emergency aid and longer-term poverty-reduction humanitarian assistance around the world, national programs related to poverty-reduction in Canada, First Nations treaty obligations, and initiatives to support various groups (such as pay equality for women, programs for people with disabilities, arts groups and cultural groups, etc.) all fall under the purview of the federal government.

Essentially, taxes devoted to promoting the public good are positive. We are Canadians. We help our neighbours. We want strong communities and good futures for our children. We want roads that are safe and foods that are safe and trains that don't explode or dump toxic chemicals on our communities or into our water supplies. We want research scientists keeping track of our environment, pushing the boundaries on innovative technologies and health research. We want archives and libraries to preserve our history and our past accomplishments.

Education 

Now, some people say, "I don't have any kids in school. Why should my hard-earned money pay to educate other people's kids?" The short answer is, you don't want to live in a society full of ignorant people, do you? The longer answer is, those children will grow up. If they have an education they will become doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, journalists, coaches, physio-therapists, scientists, lab technicians, welders,... And they will be the ones deciding who will form the government in the future, what kind of care the elderly are entitled to... And you, if you should be lucky enough to live so long, will be one of those elderly.

Education is one of the two things that governments look to as areas where funding can be cut. This is a foolish perspective. A lot of blame is placed on "greedy teachers" wanting more compensation and benefits. Let's unpack that. The model varies slightly from one jurisdiction to another but, on average, they do an undergraduate degree that takes 4 years. Then they take a teaching degree that averages 2-3 years. So 6 to 7 years in school. This is similar to the educational commitment of engineers , accountants, and lawyers. They often graduate with a lot of student debt. They are required to work weekdays, roughly 8:30 to 4, plus extra-curricular activities they supervise, such as sports teams, student clubs, band practices and performances, drama rehearsals and performances, outside of school hours. Also outside of school hours is preparing lessons and grading student work. Then there is preparing report cards and parent-teacher interviews. And the work day often involves being the only adult in a room with 15 to 40 children between 5 and 19 years old. Think on that for a moment. And the kids may have all manner of baggage, and teachers wind up being counsellors, tutors, advocates, filling in for parents who have more on their plates than they can cope with themselves. And in the midst of all this they are expected to actually impart knowledge, critical thinking skills, and aid in the maturation of these young people. They deal with children who have not had breakfast (Canada is one of a very few countries in the world that does not have a universally accessible national school day meal program), children who are abused or neglected, children whose families cannot afford the "supply list" issued each fall and the teachers often buy supplies for those children out of their own pockets. Teachers actually buy a lot of classroom supplies themselves. Because they really care about the future of their students and they want to provide as enriching an educational experience as they can.

But wait, there's more. Teachers are not only campaigning for more pay and benefits for themselves. They enter into contract negotiations with a shopping list of what they feel the children they work with need. Among the items on these lists are more teachers to keep class sizes smaller. Children do best in a class of between 15 and 20 students. This gives a teacher time to address the individual needs of each student and still allows kids to be part of a complex social group which will help them develop interpersonal skills. They want more teachers aides, to help deal with the increasing number of students with developmental and behavioural challenges that they find in their classrooms. They want more ESL or the Francophone equivalent to assist newcomer students adapt to living and learning in the local language. They want more funding for technological tools and basics like sports equipment and sheet music, textbooks and posters. And if the teacher is in a remote First Nations community, he or she may also be campaigning for new buildings that don't have mould that makes students and teachers sick, toilets that work, water safe for human consumption, and reliable electricity and heat.

"Oh! But they get to laze around all summer! They don't deserve anything. What lucky people!" Well... An awful lot of teachers do professional development courses over the summers. There is a lot of pressure to keep current with technology, psychology, and the latest best practices. And some teach the dreaded summer school, helping kids upgrade so they can start in the fall in the same grade as their peers.

Health Care

Some people say, "I am very healthy. I take excellent care of myself. Why should I have to give up some of my hard-earned money to pay for someone else's health care?" The short answer is, accidents can happen to anyone. You cannot predict the future. There may come a time when you, or someone you love, needs medical attention. The longer answer is, because we pool our resources, we have far more buying power than individuals. This means we can keep the costs of health care far lower than in places where they do not have a universal health care system. Because we have a government administered system, there is no profit motive for private medical services or insurance companies. You may think you could do better on your own, negotiate your own faster health care, but unless you are fabulously wealthy, you are probably wrong. There was a Canadian couple not too long ago who had a baby while on vacation in Hawaii. The baby was premature and there were complications. The couple's travel health insurance company said they would not cover a "pre-existing condition" so they were hit with a Million Dollar Bill for medical fees. This is what private medical care costs. And insurance companies, protecting profits for their shareholders, fight claims for coverage. Even if you have insurance, you can wind up with hefty legal fees from taking the insurance company to court to get them to pay up. We don't need that in Canada. You are fooling yourself if you think it would in any way be cheaper or fairer to reintroduce user-pay private health care.

My Dad, in the 1920s, had appendicitis. He would have died, because this was before universal healthcare, and his family could not afford the surgery. But J.S. Woodsworth (one of the founders of the CCF, which evolved into the NDP, and for whom a building in downtown Winnipeg is named) heard about his illness and got the money together to pay for his by then ruptured appendix to be removed. My mother grew up in rural Saskatchewan in the 1920s and 30s and she had many stories of people who died ( a lot of them children with whooping cough, scarlet fever, polio...) because there was no money to pay a doctor. Universal health care was introduced slowly, beginning in 1946 in Saskatchewan, and it wasn't until 1966 that the Medical Care Act extended health care coverage right across Canada. Still, many people don't remember what it was like BEFORE. And Canadians are bombarded by right-wing think tanks and propagandists who try to tap into any hint of libertarianism in people, saying, "Why shouldn't you have the right to pay for health care with your own money, and have more authority over the kind of care you get?" Wake up, Buttercup. You DO pay for your healthcare with your own money, but at far lower rates than if you were going it alone.

There are problems with our universal healthcare system. Sometimes, mistakes are made. But doctors, nurses, lab technicians all over the world are human beings and mistakes are made everywhere. Some wait times have become too long. Cutbacks in health funding over the years have prevented infrastructure purchases of expensive diagnostic equipment, so there are too many people needing an MRI or CT scan than there are machines available to perform these scans within available hours. And this is another problem many people are not aware of. Diagnostic centres and hospitals  "rent" time on machines and in operating theatres to physicians doing work outside of the purview of universal health care coverage. People wanting tummy tucks, rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, and other forms of cosmetic surgery are not covered, unless the surgery is medically necessary. Doctors doing this sort of surgery need to access equipment and facilities, and in times of fiscal restraint, hospitals and clinics see accommodating these doctors as a way to augment their budgets. So, people with medically necessary procedures are getting bumped down the list. This makes people unhappy. And they blame the public sector administration of our health care and feel they would be better off with a user-pay system.

 There are inefficiencies in the system as well. There is too much replication of effort, too much paper-pushing, too many levels of administration and a distinct lack of integrated health records across the country. But that is changing. With the political will to take leadership at the federal level, this can be resolved.

Canada the Good

Canadians are generous and caring people, by and large. This summer, a young mother and three of her children were murdered in a tragic murder-suicide in a small town in Saskatchewan. Right away someone started a crowd-sourcing fund to help the family pay for burials, and care for the remaining child, an infant of 6 months. Within a day they had raised over $36,000 and the hotel in the town had guaranteed rooms and meals for family members who had to travel into town for the funeral. We see it all the time. Someone has a terrible thing happen to them that makes the news and people step up to help.

Falling through the Cracks: Growing Holes in our Social Safety Net

But there are many people in this country whose "crisis" unfolds slowly, over years. Their's are stories that seldom make the news, even the local news. And there is some sense of resentment about taxes going into programs to help these people. There is a terrible tendency for people to view the homeless, the addicted, the "welfare mother", the runaway teen, as somehow morally flawed and not worthy of our help. "They're lazy", "they smell bad", "look how she dresses her kids", "they're weak", "why don't they pull themselves together and get a job like everyone else?" Unfortunately, no one is perfect. I'm not. And neither are you. And we are not all dealt the same hand in life.

No kid, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, says, "a bum", "a crack addict", "someone who passes out on the street", "a thief"... But lives can unravel. Maybe it starts early, with a violent childhood, abandonment, developmental hurdles, poverty, no one caring whether they go to school or not... Maybe it happens later. Adolescent changes can also bring on changes in brain chemistry. Many mental health problems emerge during the teen years. As kids hit puberty, they also become targets for more predators, become susceptible to peer pressure, families break down and sometimes that isn't managed in a way that a kid can cope with.

Crushing things can happen at any time in life. A job loss, a divorce, a physical injury or illness, a mental illness, a bereavement of some sort, can send a person into a downward spiral. Without support, without the tools to cope (which may include education, job skills, a set of  "interview" clothes, counselling, addiction treatment, advocates, mentors, medication, etc.) people can wind up in desperate circumstances. In places they don't want to be. Their tragedies are just as real as the car accident victim's or the wounded veteran's. But they happen slowly, and no one notices unless they glance over and realize the huddle of rags and newspapers in the doorway they are passing is actually a person.

Over the past 5 decades, Canadians have worked at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels to create a safety net to catch those who fall through the cracks. It is far from perfect. Sometimes it seems full of holes. But every single person who is slipping away from the life they want to have is one of us and, as the saying goes, "there but for the grace of God go I".  Canadians, in general, recognize this, or we used to.

When Are Taxes Bad?

Taxes are meant to pay for the public good. By pooling our resources we can do so much more to improve our society than any one individual can accomplish. But what if taxes are misused? What if a government comes to regard the public treasury as their own personal piggy bank? What if social programs are cut: veterans take their own lives because they have no timely access to mental health care for their PTSD, people wind up in jail or dead because the programs for youth at risk, domestic violence prevention, addictions treatment and so on, are grossly underfunded by a government that has "other priorities"? What if bridges crumble and kill people because infrastructure is not a priority, or trains blow up or people are poisoned by bad food because safety inspections are not a priority?

Let's, for the sake of argument, look at the Harper Government priorities and use of tax money. Let's start with $750 million + on advertising to tell Canadians how great they are. And litigation. Anyone who has ever had to retain a lawyer knows that isn't cheap, especially the high-profile lawyers the government hires. And what is this litigation for? To fight veterans and say the government has no moral obligation to look after them. To fight First Nations trying to get support and rights guaranteed in the treaties. To fight a Muslim woman who wants to participate in her citizenship ceremony wearing her cultural garb (you know, because Canada takes pride in our multiculturalism and diversity, allegedly). To fight to keep a child soldier in jail for the rest of his life. To fight to impose unconstitutional laws on Canadians.  Basically, our government has spent a bundle of our tax dollars to fight Canadians trying to get their rights upheld.

And then there are the vote-getting holiday junkets. 200+ to Israel and another large group to Ukraine. There was no need to ferry all these people around the world. No reasonable, common good reason. Only CPC good. Because if you grease the right palms they will tell others to vote for you. And, on top of the advertising to Canadians, there was the multi-million dollar ad campaign to try to sell Keystone to the Americans. And another big expensive campaign to discourage Roma immigrants from considering Canada as a welcoming country,

Then there is the $20 million annual security bill for the PM's personal bodyguard. Also, his stylist and hairdresser and photographers and videographers and crew to put together his personal vanity Youtube channel, 24/Seven. We paid for that. There is his bullet-proof SUV motorcade (and the flying of those cars to India because he had no faith in the local security), the staff that vet all questions he takes from reporters, the staff that keep regular citizens away from his events. The thousands of "communications personnel" hired to "correct" any commentary in social media that did not follow CPC party lines. Yes, those people who rage almost incoherently on comments pages and in social media, swearing at anyone who posts criticism of the government, often verbally attacking them personally.

And there is the special budget to the CRA to investigate charities whose interests do not align with the party line. And the new spy palace for CSIS, and all the extra funds to spy on Canadians. Building new prisons, even though the crime rate has been going down for decades.

You could be forgiven, at this point, for thinking that I am describing North Korea. Sadly, I am not. This is the Harper Government's use of our tax dollars. Under Stephen Harper, yes, taxes are bad.

The CPC Stance on Taxes

Harper will tell us, over and over, that you will have more money in your pocket if they cut taxes. But, if there is not enough money to pay for the health care system, the education system, EI, CPP,  social programs, infrastructure maintenance and development, health and safety regulation and inspection, child care, scientific research, First Nations treaty obligations, veterans benefit... How much do you think it will cost you personally to make sure your kids are educated? That you and your loved ones can have health care when you need it? To make sure you can drive safely from place to place, make sure your food is safe, make sure your water is drinkable? To make sure that Canada meets its obligations in the world?

As an aside note, Harper would like you to see EI and CPP as taxes. They are not. One is insurance against joblessness and the other is a government-supported savings plan for retirement. But if Harper can convince you that they are (gasp!) taxes, he can get you to oppose them, thus making those funds easy plunder for his government. And, as worker powerlessness grows, and corporate power also grows, union power is diminished. Google the Industrial Revolution, working conditions, and see if you would have preferred to live then.

Harper has a belief system that negates the concept of the common good. He does not believe in it. He believes in every one for themselves, dog eat dog, no handouts, no mercy, no compassion, survival of the fittest (richest). And this attitude, if he can sell it, frees up all that tax money so he and his buddies can travel the world, promote themselves, and the Canadian people be damned (except the rich, and his better donors).

Conclusion 

Under a sane, rational, compassionate, Canadian government taxes are good. They should be viewed as making your contribution to the public good. You should feel good because some of your money is going to help people with less advantage than you have. They go to helping veterans who have stood up for you.  They go to helping your neighbour's kid (or your own kid) cope with mental illness or addiction or fend off temptation from the wrong crowd. They help to care for your elderly parents, or you when you are elderly. They allow you to go to emergency when there is a medical need, without it being a choice between medical intervention and paying for food for the next month, or crushing poverty for years. They help to make sure the food we eat, the roads we drive on, the trains that run through our communities, the water we drink, the places we work are safe and don't injure or kill us.

Stephen Harper's government has perverted the use of tax money to fake lakes and gazebos and the Canadian public is understandably cynical. But, he is an aberration. We all want to enjoy the money we earn. But studies show that giving to others less fortunate has a positive effect on well-being and personal happiness. If we had a decent government, we could enjoy knowing that our tax dollars are helping our communities, our society. Keep this in mind during the debate tomorrow night (September 17th) and as the election approaches.

What wouldn't Harper do to win?

"False Flag": describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.

Usually the purview of the "tin hat" contingent, more and more I am hearing people who appear otherwise to be completely well-balanced speculate about the role such an event might play in the upcoming election.

Wait! Don't click away. Let's look at a bit of context.

- Back during Desert Storm, there were widely publicized reports of Iraqi military invading Kuwait and taking babies from incubators in a hospital and throwing them on the floor to die. This was later proved completely false and merely an exercise in opinion control by the George H. Bush administration.

- In Australia there was the story that refugees were throwing their children overboard from boats carrying them to Australia. This time the story was orchestrated by Harper's new campaign guy, Lynton Crosby. This was another public opinion control exercise, and just as false as the US one. 

- Agents provocateur have had a role in several large protest/riot events recently. These individuals are reported to have tried to incite riots at peaceful protests. See here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

- There was that couple in BC recently tried for terrorist offenses as part of an RCMP "Mr. Big" sting operation. According to defense evidence, the RCMP harassed the couple (down-on-their-luck drug addicts recently converted to Islam) to plant bombs to blow up a Canada Day celebration. See here

- On October 20, 2014, Harper rose and responded to an obviously set-up CPC backbench question in the House of Commons, saying that there had been a terror attack in Quebec very shortly after Martin Rouleau ran over two soldiers in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu.The speed with which he imposed his narrative of terrorism on the situation seemed dodgy at the time.

- Questions remain about the Parliament Hill shooting. Where did Zehaf-Bibeau get the car and the gun? How did he know about the security levels on Parliament Hill? He, like the BC couple, was a mentally ill, homeless drug addict who had recently converted to Islam. Was he the subject of another Mr. Big operation that went wrong? Did he go rogue, or did everything go as planned? Remember, it set the stage for C-51. Harper has milked the terrorist angle for all it's worth ever since. One has to wonder...

Canada's "terror threat level" rose the day BEFORE the Ottawa shooting. The government insists the risk of terrorism on Canadian soil is high, but the messages are mixed.

Jason Kenney, Canadian defense minister, would like us to believe the risk is very high indeed.

Others say the risk is minimal. After all, these guys are on the other side of the world and have no planes.  There are much more convenient targets.

There are many in social media who are speculating that if things are looking really dark for the Conservatives' chance for re-election, we may see another "terrorist" event. It would be a most fortuitous thing for Harper, to be able to point his finger and say, "See? You need me to protect you!"
Don't forget, he has recruited an incredibly ruthless campaign advisor. Harper, himself, is incredibly ruthless.

As crazy as "false flag" operations may sound, if we recognize that the world is a pretty crazy place, and there are some people who will do anything to obtain their goals, the idea may deserve at least an open-minded consideration. If there is a "terrorist" attack in the days right before October 19th, we should all look very, very carefully at the details and not blindly accept the government line.

I do not readily accept conspiracy theories. Having watched the machinations of this government over the past 9 year, however, beginning with the attempted bribe to dying Chuck Cadman for his vote, and continuing on through all manner of intrigues that died quietly as the news cycle rolled on relentlessly, I really begin to wonder if there are, in fact, any bounds to what that man would do to maintain power.

Split allegiance or Canadian pragmatism? Post #macdebate thoughts...

In the past couple of days I have posted things on Facebook and Twitter featuring Justin Trudeau more than is usual for me. Just thought I would explain. I like Justin Trudeau. He seems like a decent, friendly person who likes people and loves Canada. He is very natural, lacking the sort of artifice we usually see in federal politicians. I think as PM, he would be good for Canada, particularly internationally, in reversing the negative feelings generated towards our country by the past 9 years of Harper. He puts people at ease, he is relaxed and “normal”. Outgoing, even. Having said that, I am philosophically closer to the traditional NDP outlook. Thomas Mulcair is not who I would have chosen as leader to succeed Jack Layton (and I took a long time to warm up to who Jack was, but ultimately, I wept when he died). Mulcair comes across as bristly (and not because of the beard). His strength is as interrogator, prosecutor in the House of Commons. And that has been a valuable role, given the nature of the government. I think there is a more personable side to him. We get glimpses of it handing out Halloween candy dressed as an angry bird, for instance. And I hope he gets to show people that side of himself more during this election. He is intelligent and I do believe he truly loves Canada too.

Either would be a vast improvement over Harper, who clearly sees Canada as simply a warehouse full of things that can be hauled out or broken down to be sold to other countries, a job which would be much easier if it weren't for these annoying Canadians who keep objecting and getting in his way. He really seems to hate Canada, and most Canadians. What kind of leader of a twenty-first century first world country keeps an enemies list? And puts scientists, First Nations, academics, artists, environmentalists, journalists, Liberals, New Democrats, union workers, Quebecois, women, veterans, seniors, youth, the poor, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, Supreme Court Justices, and now Albertans, on that list? Seriously, there are getting to be pretty few Canadians left that aren't on his list. He can only jail so many of us, and I think that really frustrates him.

This is the ultimate difference I see between Harper and the leaders of the two other national parties that have a chance of forming government. He hates Canada. The other two, like every other PM in Canada's history, love Canada, despite different ideas of what might be best for the country. The second most important difference is that Harper is a law unto himself. He listens to no one, takes advice from no one, and rejects any evidence that runs counter to his goals/beliefs/desires. The other two emphasize the teams they bring to the election, and seem very open to a return to a consultative parliamentary process as existed prior to the Harper years. They both put a lot of emphasis on best practices, scientific evidence, and listening to Canadians.

Canada cannot afford another 4 years of Harper. Mulcair was right about that. Whether we get a Liberal minority government with a strong NDP opposition; or an NDP minority with a strong Liberal opposition, we will be so much better off than under Harper – like night and day. And I hope Elizabeth May and the Greens gain a strong voice in that parliament, because they have something valuable to contribute. With the nasty politics and controlling ways of the Harper Reform/Alliance/Conservatives off to the side, there is the opportunity for parliamentarians to actually work for what is best for Canadians, instead of everything being the world according to Harper. Minority governments have a lot of incentive to co-operate. And isn't Canada all about co-operating, diversity, being a community that can accommodate different needs and ideas? And all three parties; NDP, LPC and Greens, have respect for parliamentary procedure and process, for honour, for doing the best job they can. It's been so long, I think a lot of Canadians have forgotten what it was like.

With all this in mind, I am focused on voting for the candidate in my riding with the best chance of unseating the CPC incumbent. I hope everyone will do the same, regardless of their "home" party allegiance. We must not split the progressive side and let the Harperites win again with their 1/3 of the vote.

I think the best thing that could happen for Canada is if the CPC were reduced to a distant fourth party status; and if the good people of Calgary-South-Centre saw fit to vote Harper out of his seat, it would be like the whole country won the lottery. I really feel that he has been the most negative, divisive, and destructive force Canada has ever seen. If they can be forced to take their imported Tea Party election machine and go home, all Canadians win, even those that don't realize it yet.

They Didn't Come For Me, So Why Should I Care?

I am not part of the LGBTQ+ community. I am not Muslim. I am not a person of colour. I am not a farmer. I am not a whistle-blower. I am not a member of a labour union (although I have been in the past). I am not a member of an ethnic minority. I am not a refugee or immigrant. I am not aboriginal. I am not poor (although I have been, and that memory will never go away). I am not a veteran. I am not an inmate. I am not a young person. I am not a student. I am not a frequent user of our health care system (although I deeply appreciate that it is there should I or someone I love needs it). I am not a single parent. I am not a fisherman. I am not trying to get EI. I am not mentally ill (as far as I know). I am not a medical marijuana user, nor am I an addict on the lower east side of Vancouver or in any other major city. I am not a sex worker. I am not an environmental activist (although I have been involved in protests in years gone by). I am not disabled. I am not elderly (although I aspire to be one day). So why do I spend so much time and energy being outraged and vocal about what the Harper government is doing to all these groups, of which I am not a member? Because I am Canadian. And they are Canadian. And when the wolf is at the door, we need to look out for one another. What may seem like someone else's problem today is really OUR problem. And we all need to speak up, to vote, to learn all we can about what is going on. So all Canadians can enjoy a peaceful productive life in this most wonderful of countries. It's not about me. It's about US.

I know it's a lot to ask...

Can we just calm down and take a deep breath and think this through?

In October 2014, one raggedy, drug-addicted, mentally ill man tried to take Parliament Hill with a pump action shotgun. He shot one person, an unarmed honour guard who was facing the other way, before he was taken down in a hail of bullets.

The RCMP and any other security, clearly screwed up in that the guy was able to make it into the hall outside the caucus rooms and almost all the way to the Parliamentary library...

But the media and politicians have ramped this up. The rhetoric suggests a Rambo-like character armed with a Kalishnikov stormed the very heart of the House of Commons. And that is why Harper says we need to give up our rights and freedoms. So he can protect us from the bogey-men.

"ISIS is in our midst!", "The jihadists have attacked the core of Canada!", "We are at war!"

Please... Breathe.

They immediately called it a terrorist attack. They didn't call the killing of 3 Mounties in Moncton a terrorist attack. Maybe because Justin Bourque was white. Maybe because he had more mainstream mental health issues, like rage.

To say a person is "radicalized" is not really a very good descriptor of their mental state. Was the person "radicalized" by someone? Or did the person happen upon some online propaganda that appealed to their deep sense of alienation so much that they latched onto it and made it their mantra? Did you know Charles Manson thought the Beatles were telling him to kill people in their song lyrics? Effectively, he was radicalized...

And then, there is the case of the couple recently found guilty of terrorism in BC. The RCMP all but dug the holes to bury the pressure cooker bombs for them. Did Michael Zehaf-Bibeau have RCMP handlers? Did they give him the gun, the ammo, the script for his final cell-phone video, and the car to get to Parliament Hill? We will likely never know. That it is not outside the bounds of possibility is more than disturbing, though.

And how did it happen that the PM and members of his cabinet were able to identify the driver of a car that hit and killed another soldier in Quebec a couple of weeks earlier as a jihadi terrorist before the story even hit the news? The timing was such that it almost was like they knew it was going to happen. They jumped the gun, just a teensy bit, but enough to raise some questions.

So where are we now? Bill C-51 will take away our privacy. It will make it possible for the various law enforcement agencies to make judgements on us based on our communications with others, either in public forums such as social media or in so-called private communications, and it is at their discretion to determine whether we may pose a potential risk to the security of Canada. Or is that a threat to the security of Harper as PM? Hard to know, really.

They can share our information with a very long list of other organizations. That would include health records, income tax information, legal information, and what you had for lunch on Thursday. Are you really ok with that?

Other goodies in C-51 include being able to intercept and alter your communications, disrupt or shut down your blog or web-site, and detain you without charges for at least a week without you having actually done anything. Just because they think you might, maybe, do something that would constitute some kind of risk to someone. Still ok with it?

They are curtailed by the restriction that they may not rape or kill you. But there are ever so many other things they could do to make your life hell that are excluded from that. That restriction, de facto, authorizes torture. Just not sexual or lethal torture. Still all cool with C-51?

There is no recourse to the law. It is up to CSIS to decide if their infringement of your rights is egregious enough to seek a warrant from a judge. And let's not forget, Harper made Vic Toews a judge, so there is very little reassurance in them seeking a warrant to violate your human rights. Hearings will be in private, with secret evidence and witnesses. There is no appeal.

If you are an immigrant with Canadian citizenship, they can strip your citizenship (thanks to bill C-24). They can also do that if you were born here but either have acquired dual citizenship through the citizenship of your parents or by applying for it for work, study, etc. If there is some chance you might be eligible to claim citizenship anywhere by virtue of your grandparents being born somewhere else, they can take your citizenship and deport you.

And with their mandatory minimum sentences for all manner of things they can snoop on your communications and lock you up and throw away they key for all manner of offences.

There has been a slow but insidious build-up of tools for the Harper government to get rid of critics and opponents one way or another. They say terrorist threat, but many say the real targets are First Nations, environmentalists, and critics.

Last I heard, you were far more likely to be killed by lightening, or moose, or geese, or coyotes in Canada than by a terrorist.

In closing, if a lost, homeless, muddled guy with a gun like the kind country kids use to shoot gophers is the best ISIS can come up with to attack Canada, I would rather keep my freedoms and privacy, thanks ever so...

Thoughts on the Death of a Police Officer

Dear Mainstream Canadian Media: Is it really necessary to engage in this orgy of grief every time someone in uniform dies? It is a terrible tragedy, yes. Possibly one that could have been averted if guns were more tightly controlled, or if there was some way for police to know there are firearms behind the door they are approaching. 

But do we really need to see every parade of police through the streets, hear from the mothers of other officers, hear from every first responder willing to talk to your camera crew? Do we need to intrude on the funeral itself, like a nation of voyeurs? It is sensationalizing what is really a personal tragedy for his family, and for his friends. More than that, it conveys the impression that the world is a very dark and dangerous place. It supports the increased militarization of police services in the minds of viewers. 

Fear is not a positive social norm. Regardless of the current government's enthusiasm for instilling dread in the public, thus justifying their draconian laws, CBC, the national broadcaster, the PUBLIC broadcaster, is doing us a great disservice by reinforcing the fear message, as are the privately controlled media. There is a place for respectful recognition and tribute. But continuous coverage of the funeral all day is over the top, and enters the realm of the lurid. 

Generations past would be utterly horrified by this conversion of personal tragedy into public spectacle. Workers who die in accidents on the job also die "in the line of duty", but they do not get massive death pageants. The glorification of the police and military, just like the many over-sized flags that Harper likes to festoon any place he speaks, and the military monuments that are springing up around the country, are all part of the psychological take-over that is being perpetrated on Canada.

I, like every one else in Canada, feel very sad for this family that has had husband, son, father ripped from them. This is not a negation of their pain, or the support the Edmonton community has offered them. This is about the manipulation of this tragedy for political ends.

C-51: If You Have Nothing to Hide, You Have Nothing to Fear?

Bill C-51 has captured the attention of a lot of Canadians. Initially, a poll showed that more than 80% of Canadians supported the anti-terrorism legislation. Digging deeper into the poll, it becomes clear that the vast majority of those supporters really knew little or nothing about the bill. It's so easy to support a vague concept. It gets more difficult once you begin to read the law, and read and listen to a variety of experts express their misgivings about it. This, no doubt, was a big part of the government's unseemly haste to get the bill passed into law. The longer it hangs about, the more people will read it, talk about it, write about it, read about it. And more people will understand that this bill, in its current form, is a serious threat to our rights and freedoms as Canadians.

We are told it is for our protection. We are told if we are not doing anything wrong, if we don't have anything to hide, then we have nothing to fear from this enhanced surveillance. We are told we should trust CSIS, the RCMP, Canada Border Services, and Revenue Canada to do their jobs with respect for people's privacy, and without bending or breaking the rules. We should trust the government to act fairly and in everyone's best interests.

That's what they tell us.

There are a few problems with this.

1. "If you are doing nothing wrong, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" This is a very loaded statement. Who decides what is wrong? To many people, protecting unspoiled environment is doing something very right. But the government feels it is very wrong. Many people feel speaking up for human rights is a good thing. But, if you are criticising the government's human rights record, or the record of their close chums in the Middle East, then it is very wrong indeed. 

The bill specifically states that it excludes "lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression."

Well, isn't that nice? However, what is "lawful" can change in the blink of an eye. For example, the town of Taber, Alberta, just passed a by-law, drafted by their police force, which makes illegal, among other things, gatherings of 3 or more people which might become disruptive to the public peace. A stroke of the pen is all it takes to change something that has hitherto been quite legal to something illegal, and which might stamp the label of "terrorist" on a regular person following their conscience. Who is to say that once C-51 is passed, Harper will not decide that public gatherings are a threat? I dare say, he likely already considers them a threat but, so far, he has been constrained in his response to them.

Who is to say that supporting an environmental cause, a First Nations issue, a poverty reduction program, or criticising the government, might not be deemed dangerous and illegal in the future? If reposting a link or a tweet critical of the government on some issue, sympathetic to the children of Gaza, outraged by the slaughter of dolphins, might be regarded as potentially extremist and cause CSIS to flag your communications?

Bill C-51 gives the security apparatus the tools to deal with "threats", however vague, in wide sweeping and extremely intrusive ways. This paves the way for a lot of things to become illegal and monitored. As far as protests go, they are already being monitored and the information shared. Last year the Government Operations Centre sent out a directive to all departments, instructing them to compile a comprehensive list of all known demonstrations that may occur. C-51 seems to be partly to bring the laws up to speed with current practices.

There is a flip-side to this "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" notion that pertains to the government's own behaviour. I will address that presently...

2. We should trust all the policing/spying agencies and the government. Shall we deconstruct that? Where to begin? Perhaps we should begin with the most recent intrigue. What is a man, claiming to work for CSIS, doing helping smuggle teen girls from the UK to ISIS? The twists and turns in this are tricky. You can read the news story, in case you missed it, here. In essence, we have a man who was Harper's top bodyguard, promoted (without ANY diplomatic credentials) to the position of Ambassador to Jordan. The Canadian embassy in Jordan is where this alleged CSIS operative who is accused of human trafficking young people to join ISIS gets his marching orders. Coincidence? 

Let's roll back a bit. There is the Maher Arar case. Many may remember how a Canadian citizen was "renditioned" to Syria, where he was tortured. You can read about how the RCMP "shared" information with the CIA, resulting in more than a year of wrongful imprisonment and dreadful torture, right here. The RCMP have been implicated in sexual assault grievances internally, and there is an undercurrent of mistrust between the national police force and the country's First Nations. Allegations of systemic racism and misogyny, etc... If we go back to 1977, we have the McDonald Commission which found the RCMP's surveillance wing engaged in several break-ins; illegal opening of mail; burning a barn in Quebec; forging documents; and conducting illegal electronic surveillance. Hey! They were already doing what C-51 allows way back then, only there was no internet... CSIS was formed, in fact, because it was deemed that the RCMP could NOT be trusted to carry out this sort of work while respecting the boundaries of the law.

Then there is the CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency), now the CPC charity obstruction arm. They have recently received a lot of extra funding to have a special unit go after charities for "political activity". To have charitable status in Canada, an organization can only have 10% of its activities be of a political activism nature. Interestingly, the only charities being audited appear to be those that are critical of the government. They have even gone after birdwatchers for letters expressing concern over bee habitats. Koch brothers-funded right-wing think-tank the Fraser Institute has not been targeted. Coincidence?

And now we come to Canada Border Services. I have not had any personal heinous experiences with the Canadian border security, but we all hear stories. And in Canada there is the recent story of the Quebec man who has been charged and may face imprisonment for refusing to divulge his password for his cell phone.  However, to get a further idea of what can happen to the average person when a border service gets extreme policing powers, one only need look at the American Homeland Security Agency. At US border crossings I have witnessed a lot of people held up for long periods of time (and, it must be said, these were predominantly brown people). I have seen power-tripping in action. An agent was, I don't know, bored, maybe. He asked a traveller what he did for a living (this was as he returned the man's keys after rummaging through his vehicle). The man was a small business owner. "Why do you have so many keys?" The agent demanded. He made the poor man go through each and every key on his key ring, explaining what lock it opened. This, in my opinion, is an extreme abuse of power. There is no law I am aware of that limits the number of keys a person can have on their person. Nor is there any reason to associate having a number of keys with any criminal activity. This was an exercise in making another human being squirm.

And that is the thing. CBS, like the RCMP, CSIS, and the CRA, are comprised of human beings. And these people already have a lot of power. If you come across any of these people in a really pissy mood, you are likely to have a BAD DAY. Apparently the government feels they need more power. There does not seem to be anything in the legislation to provide these people with more training on how to use this power. There does not seem to be any real oversight of how they use their power.

The government line is that SIRC (Security Intelligence Review Committee) will provide oversight. The problem is, SIRC DOES NOT DO OVERSIGHT. On their own webpage, SIRC explains that they review CSIS activities, after the fact. SIRC "examines past operations of the Service and investigates complaints". "Past operations" is critical here. They do not provide real-time oversight, only a review once or twice a year. How long might someone languish in jail because of their political views before it gets on the SIRC radar? Furthermore, several seats on the SIRC board have been vacant for some time. And Harper's chosen man to head SIRC, Arthur Porter, is currently in a Panamanian jail awaiting extradition on fraud-related charges. So this is our "oversight". 

Oh! The CPC says. But there is judicial oversight as well. Before an agent of any of the involved agencies can break the law or violate someone's constitutional rights, they may deem it necessary to get a warrant from a judge. Ok. Let's unpack that. C-51 provides for a warrant to be issued to place someone on a no-fly list. It does not require a warrant for sharing information among departments or to third parties. Remember Maher Arar? 

Indeed, a warrant is only required for the other powers when CSIS deems an act may be illegal or unconstitutional. When CSIS deems... So, in this scenario, the people doing the phone-tapping, break-ins, harassment, disruption, etc. have the final say on whether they need a warrant or not. There are many who have commented on this, "so-called experts" (according to the CPC), including NDP Public Safety critic Randall Garrison , Green Party leader and lawyer, Elizabeth May, and Kent Roach and Craig Forcese, arguably the foremost experts on security law in Canada.  Incidentally, the government refused to allow the Federal Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 4 former PMs, and the Canadian Bar Association to testify at the committee hearings on C-51.

So, this seems a pretty sketchy proposition: no one watching the watchers, potential for abuse based on human fallibility, potential for government abuse (remember CRA charity audits?), potential for more and more currently legal things to become illegal...

But let's look at the flip-side now. The CPC was elected in 2006 promising "transparency, openness and accountability". Did they follow through? 

Let's see. Former Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, took the Government of Canada to court over their refusal to allow him access to budgetary information he needed to perform his job. Reporters and researchers are often expressing their frustration in placing Access to Information requests, and having to wait months or years only to get a fully redacted (blacked out) document. Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner, says the government is starving her department to the point where she cannot address complaints about the government's reluctance to release information. Mike deSouza, an investigative reporter, went so far as write a blog post expressing his frustration with the reticence of the government regarding information requests. This government's paranoia about releasing information resulted in a request for information on a possible new raspberry marketing board yielding a fully redacted document. Raspberries! This is not a code name for some high-tech new weapons system. No. Apparently the little red fruit some put on their cereal is now a matter of the highest security. We don't need to know.

Reporters are unhappy. Researchers are unhappy. The courts are becoming unhappy too. In a recent ruling, an appeal court slammed the Department of Defence for taking 1,100 days to fulfil a request for information. Treasury Board President, Tony Clement, would like to see information limited further. He feels there is a dire threat in letting citizens access government information online.

Research libraries have been closed. Scientists have not been allowed to present their findings to the public or at conferences. The government has taken up the habit of releasing omnibus bills which are so vast, and which change so many laws in different jurisdictions, that few have the time or the capacity to read them fully or comprehend what is in them. Committees meant to study such legislation are stymied by the government majority rejecting key witnesses, limiting time to ask questions, and closing down discussion. These are the actions of a government that really does not want Canadians to know what is in these bills. Indeed, in the 2007 omnibus bill, parliamentarians accidentally let a clause slip by that now allows the government to borrow money without parliamentary oversight.

Even more troubling is the trend to move away from records that can be requested. The Information Commissioner's Office put out an alert that information that should be available on request is being deleted. Indeed, it is now the policy at Revenue Canada (one of the agencies that will have new information-sharing powers under C-51) to immediately delete all text communications. Shared Services Canada, the organization responsible for government information technology services, had been directed to wipe all CRA instant message records last August and no new archiving will take place.  

And this trend is not isolated to the CRA. A recent request for information revealed that the government is moving towards an oral system. Twenty meetings between Kinder Morgan and the federal government in 2013 and 2014 were undocumented. And it wasn't because no one thought to bring a pen and paper, or a laptop, to take minutes. No, this was a deliberate decision to mitigate the risk of the matters being discussed falling into the wrong hands. Those wrong hands? The hands of the people of Canada.

Have you noticed the grand whoop-de-doo going on in the US over Hillary Clinton using her personal email? She has even offered to release her emails. And here, in Canada, electronic information is being deleted as a matter of course and clandestine meetings are being held between the government and big corporations leaving no information trail whatsoever. Why is no one angry about this? 

The CPC ran on a promise of transparency, openness and accountability. They used this to distinguish themselves from the Liberals' "Adscam", and they throw Adscam at Liberal MPs in the House frequently during Question Period, as if to assert their own moral superiority. Never mind that Adscam happened over a decade ago. Never mind that the conservatives' own financial skullduggery far exceeds anything the Liberals did.

And did they keep their promise? Are they transparent? Open? Accountable? And if not, one has to wonder what it is they have to hide.



(Postscript: Announced today: Canada and US customs officials will be working in eachother's countries to pre-screen travellers)

(Update June 17, 2015. The bill has passed and is awaiting Royal Assent. However, the first pre-emptive apprehension and detention without charges happened a full week before Senate voted on C-51. Read about it here. What we need to remember is, even if you are living a monastic life, you are entitled to your own thoughts, and to be able to communicate those thoughts to friends or family without feeling anyone is listening in. Government agencies having access to all your communications and being able to share those communications means that your health, financial and personal information will be out there. If we consider the case of Cindy Blackstock, who found through access to information requests that not only had the government been reading her personal correspondence, internal emails strongly suggest various civil service personnel were making fun of her personal communications. Even if you have nothing to hide, it's pretty creepy to think a bunch of strangers are reading your mail, looking at photos you share, and maybe making you the butt of their internal jokes. Beyond that, C-51 gives the Harper Government and its agencies carte blanche to access your information and communications, alter them, share them with pretty well anyone. They can do whatever they want to anyone (short of raping or killing them, but given the sexual misconduct complaints currently coming forward in both the military and RCMP that doesn't seem particularly reassuring). It is a sledgehammer designed to make the Canadian public keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Cindy Blackstock was targeted for advocating for children. Let me say that again, ADVOCATING FOR CHILDREN. Think on that. Morality, decency, ethics do not come into the equation. It's about power: wielding it and keeping it. And there is NO oversight. This bill makes Harper and his people a law unto themselves.)