ANSWERS TO A POLITICAL APTITUDE..

ANSWERS TO A POLITICAL APTITUDE TEST
For Canadian Federal Members of Parliament

by Victor Drummond (c)
June 2009

The following multiple choice questions are designed to reveal the extent of the knowledge our elected representatives possess about the guidelines for providing every Canadian with fair laws and equal treatment by those who administer those laws. The source document is a Canadian Government publication named: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice”

This document can be viewed at:-
www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/img/courten.pdf

If you took the test posted last Wednesday you may now view the source document without cheating.

Test Questions:-

(1) Is “Fairness” stated as a primary objective of Canada’s System of laws as described in the document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice?

(a) No but “Fairness” in Canada’s system of Laws is implied in several places.

===================================

(b) Yes “Fairness” is stated in a paragraph on page (2) along with other qualities such as liberty and equality.

Correct answer:- If you picked (1) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count
zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Document page 2

Laws are also aimed at ensuring fairness. By recognizing and protecting basic individual rights and freedoms, such as
liberty and equality, our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take
unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.

=============================================

(c) No it is not required to mention “fairness” as the staff working in the office of the Minister of Justice takes care of “fairness” in the administration of Canada’s Laws.

(d) No Canada’s laws are inherently “fair” and applied fairly in keeping with the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (CCRF) and “The updated Taxpayers Bill of Rights” (TBOR)

==============================================

(2)Does the government document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” offer Canadian Taxpayers protection against being intimidated by more powerful , unscrupulous people, groups of people, or organizations?

(a) Absolutely not. What possible reason could there be for making such a commitment in that document. There would be no reason for any Canadian group or organization to
intimidate individual honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayers into paying
conventional income tax.

==========================================

(b) Yes. Again in the same paragraph on page (2) there is a statement saying: “our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.”

Correct answer:- If you picked (2) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Document page 2
Laws are also aimed at ensuring fairness. By recognizing and protecting basic individual rights and freedoms, such as
liberty and equality, our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take
unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.

======================================

(c) Definitely not. Canadians are automatically protected against intimidation by more powerful people, groups of people and/or organizations. Such tactics would amount to extortion which is illegal in Canada.

(d) No. There is no need to provide such protection. Honest, hard-working Canadians do not require protection against more powerful, people, groups of people or organizations because they pay their taxes without such tactics being required.

===================================

Although several Canadian Politicians, including the current Canadian Minister of National Revenue, and the Minister of Finance, have recently stated “Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation is “fair” because it has been on the books and in operation for a decade or more.

We all know the longer an item of law has been in operation the greater the probability it is no longer a good law. So that argument used to justify Canada’s flawed taxable benefit legislation is an oxymoron.

(3) When a law creates more problems than it solves and the legislation requires change how might that change be brought about – according to the document: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice?

(a) In my opinion the only people that can initiate change to a problem law or have it cancelled are those who have been duly elected to represent the best interests of all Canadians. i.e. Members of the House of Commons . In some cases members of
Canada’s Senate may introduce a bill to have a law changed or cancelled.

======================================

(b) Anyone from an ordinary Canadian citizen, and/or to a social group and/or to a decision by a judge in conventional court of law, may request that a problem law be changed.

If members of Canada’s House of Commons agree then a bill will be introduced in
Canada’s Parliament and after due consideration a defective law may be changed or
cancelled.

Correct answer:- If you picked (3) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Document page 7
Ultimately, though, the responsibility for changing our laws is not left entirely to the lawyers, the experts or the interest groups. It is the people of Canada who elect the lawmakers; we need to decide what we want from the law and then make sure it reflects those wishes. Everyone has the right to point out flaws in the law and to work towards changing these laws – lawfully, of course

=====================================

(c) There is no mention of how changes may be made to Canadian Laws in the subject
document. Only the Judges on the Supreme Court of Canada can strike down a problem
law. The issue then reverts to the House of Commons to decide if an amended or replacement law is required.

(d)Identifying problem laws is in the jurisdiction of the Minster of Justice. The Minster of Justice has a competent staff of legal experts to keep him informed when any of Canada’s laws become obsolete or need to be updated. When such a change is needed the Minister of Justice will introduce a government bill to initiate the change.

=========================================

Canadians are assured of “fair” tax treatment by both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the more recently updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”.

(4) As the updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights is newer than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Taxpayers Bill of Rights supersedes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should any conflict ever arise between “RIGHTS” as they are provided by the two documents.

(a) Definitely yes. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights must take precedence over the older Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is newer and was created by the Canadian
Government specifically for the protection of the Canadian people.

=====================================

(b) Rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes precedence over any and all RIGHTS offered by the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” because the Rights provided in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are enshrined in Canada’s Constitution.

Correct answer:- If you picked (4) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document

From Document page 11
The Charter takes precedence over other legislation because it is “entrenched” in the Constitution, the supreme law of Canada. It applies to the provincial legislatures as well as to Parliament. This means that when an individual who believes that Parliament or a legislature has violated guaranteed rights asks the courts for help, the courts may declare the law invalid as far as it conflicts with the Charter. In addition, courts may provide other appropriate remedies to individuals whose rights have been violated or infringed.

However, the Charter also recognizes that even in a democracy rights and freedoms are not absolute. For instance, freedom of expression is guaranteed, but no one is free to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre,

However Canadians who believe they are guaranteed “fair” treatment in respect to
Income Taxation are in for a shock. If your RIGHT to fair taxation has been violated by Canada’s Revenue Agency, (CRA) neither document will automatically protect you from intimidation and extortion. The most support you can expect from the office of the “Taxpayer’s Ombudsman” is for that office to reprimand the CRA if they used abusive and/or offensive language in their communication(s) with you – the victim.

Unless you have the financial resources to fight your case through the courts and/or you have the right political connections you do not stand much of a chance of getting a “fair” deal.

============================================


(c) The question of RIGHTS document precedence is a pointless question as Canada has a Department of Justice – and a Minster of Justice -- which automatically guarantees the RIGHTS of all Canadians and protects their best interests according to the laws of the land.

(d) Neither document takes precedence as they both guarantee all Canadians fair and equal treatment under the laws of Canada. Consequently they compliment one another and no conflict could ever arise between them.

======================================

(5) There is a well known universal “RIGHT” that states every person accused of a crime has the right to be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is this right mentioned in the reference document?

(a) No it is not. The presumption of innocence, when a Canadian is accused of committing a crime, does not exist. It is a phrase used mainly on American TV dramas to impress TV viewers and is not really a guaranteed right for anyone, anywhere.

========================================

(b) Yes the presumption of innocence of a crime, until proven guilty is stated in the document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” on page 13 under the title “Legal Rights”.

Correct answer:- If you picked (5) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Reference Document page 13
Legal rights
The Charter also protects the individual and ensures fairness during legal proceedings, particularly in criminal cases. The rights to habeas corpus, or the right to challenge being detained or held, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – always recognized as part of our law – are now guaranteed in our constitution.

It is a “RIGHT” imbedded in the Canadian Constitution but unfortunately not a right applied, or honoured, by the CRA or by Canada’s Minister of Finance when it comes to taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on money that never actually existed:
i.e. phantom income.

When the taxpayer is a buyer of their employer corporation’s shares via an Employee Shares Purchase Plan (ESPP), or an Employee Shares Option (ESO) agreement and they fail to sell their purchased equities when these equities are delivered to them,
(the exercise date), the CRA and Minister of Finance “ASSUME” these people are guilty of deliberately playing the stock markets in the hope of making more profit and on that unproven assumption of guilt they levy a fine, in the form of taxes, on “income” money that never actually existed. In many cases this fine is financially devastating to the victim and family.

Just what crime has been committed ? Even if such a buyer did deliberately hold their equities in the hope of making a bigger (taxable capital gain) on equities which they purchased with their own money -- to date no one has explained on what basis in law does this justify a tax before any gain has been realized?
Probably: because there is no logical explanation for this abusive, unfair, outrageous tax policy.

========================================

(c) No: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a universal right applied by the governments of all civilized countries. So there is no need to include this statement in the reference document.

(d) I think the “right” to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is mentioned somewhere in the reference document – but if it is not -- it should be.

=========================================

That concludes this political aptitude test. If you rated yourself and/or your MP with a score of 50 then you have an outstanding elected representative or should be an MP yourself.

Unfortunately when I see, hear or read statements made by our representatives elected to the House of Commons -- in response to appeals by victims of phantom taxation -- very few would get a rating of 10 points or more.

Visit web page www.cfet.ca to find out more about Canada’s policy of taxing phantom income then visit www.reformAMT.org to see how the United Stated Government has corrected a similar problem with their “Alternative Minimum Tax” (AMT), legislation.

If the American government can fix their phantom tax problem the Canadian government can, and should fix ours.

It is no credit to Canada’s system of government to tax any of its citizens into abject poverty on any excuse what-so-ever.

Canadians who wish to point to their country with pride should demand our elected government correct this atrocity promptly.

The elected MP for my riding is well aware – no commitment by him and his party to “resolve” this problem – means no vote for them from me, my family, my friends or anyone else I can influence in the coming federal elections.

Your MP should be informed likewise.

Victor Drummond (c)