A POLITCAL APTITUDE TEST..

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 and those who have been elected to serve and protect the best interests of all Canadians. 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

but try answering the questions before peeking at the source document.

Also: Try rating your local Member of Canada’s Parliament, and/or Canada’s Minister of Justice and/or Canada’s Minister of Finance -- by applying the answers you feel he, or she would select.

The truth will shock you.

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.

(c) No it is not required to mention “fairness” as the staff working in the office 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.”

(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." REALLY?

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 only 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.

(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.

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 best 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 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”.

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, or by Canada’s Minister of Justice. When it comes to taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on money that never actually existed: i.e. phantom income: the victims and their “rights” are totally ignored by their elected representatives in government.

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 some kind 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.
Can anyone, or anything, justify this policy? Not in my opinion.

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 -- Just what crime has been committed ?: no one has explained to date.

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. Write down the question numbers, and write the letter of the answer (a), (b), (c) or (d) you pick for yourself, and/or your selected MP’s, for each question.

Then visit this blog page again in a few days to see how you, and/or your selected MP’s, performed.

Victor Drummond (c)