SETTING A DANGEROUS...

SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
When a Canadian Federal Political Party Leader is trusted
by Canadian voters to represent them and to set the standards of
conduct for the entire nation what action(s) might the leader engage
in that would constitute setting a “Dangerous Precedent”?

By Victor Drummond ©
January 2010

Marie Antoinette lost her head (literally) over a trivial off-hand remark such as “then let them eat cake” when she was informed there were a significant number of French citizens who did not have so much as a loaf of bread to eat.

Marie’s reply revealed an arrogant and couldn’t care less attitude concerning the distress of her subjects.

Showing a lack of concern for the well being of those who have the power to make or break a political organization is definitely playing with fire and anything a political leader might do, or say, that can generate a negative impression regarding the politicians personal attributes – within the general population – may well turn out to be setting a dangerous precedent.

The average person does not want any representative they can not trust.
This rule also applies to voters who will not support leaders that ignore and/or fail to support them when they are abused.

Canadians have had a decade, or more, of governments that have fallen far short of acceptable performance.

Canadian Liberal governments -- under the leadership of the Right Honourable Jean Chretien followed by the Right Honourable Paul Martin -- left a trail of scandalous political conduct that made Canada the laughing stock among civilized nations and thousands of Canadian taxpayers financially ruined by taxes levied on money that never existed i.e. phantom income.

By the year 2005 Canadian citizens had taken enough abuse, and scandal, and began to listen to promises being made by the Federal Conservative Party who were offering wide ranging political reform -- in their pre-election: “STAND UP FOR CANADA” promotions – including a commitment to introduce a “PLAN OF FAIR TAXATION FOR ALL CANADIANS”.

Enough Canadian voters supported the Federal Conservatives in the 2006 election to give them sufficient House of Commons seats to form at least a minority government for Canada. The newly elected Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, got right to work on some of the more important “Action Plan” commitments made during the pre-election campaign.

Harper’s government introduced bills to tighten up the criminal code and keep repeat offenders in jail longer.
The gun registry was debated and changes recommended.

On January 30th 2007 the Honourable James M. Flaherty, Minister of Finance addressed the House of Commons (HOC) standing committee on finance (FINA)
and among other things addressed the governments plan to bring: “tax fairness” to all Canadians.

Flaherty began his address with the following statements:
“I insist on being the first witness to remind this committee directly of the critical importance of moving forward with our income trust policy AND OUR TAX FAIRNESS PLAN.”
“Make no mistake, the decision that was taken on October 31st is all about “FAIRNESS”.

“FAIRNESS FOR CANADIAN TAXPAYERS AND THEIR FAMILIES who would be asked to pay more and more.”

And in his concluding remarks the Honourable Mr. Flaherty stated as follows:

“We made our decision based not on political calculations, as did the previous government, but on principles of TAX FAIRNESS, balancing the needs of individual investors with the interests of TAXPAYERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.”
“And we acted responsibly and decisively.”

“IT IS NOT TAX FAIRNESS IF IT IS ONLY FOR A FEW.”

Although the above statements have been selected out of a much longer address text they are not “taken out of context”?

Could the above statements have any other meaning than the one they convey on their own? If the above statements do not mean exactly what they say then we are dealing with a “senior bureaucrat” that speaks with a forked tongue and that would be setting a dangerous precedent.

As soon as the Federal Conservative party was elected -- to form Canada’s government -- in 2006 the Honourable Gary Lunn, CP, MP, for the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands British Columbia, began supporting a group of his constituents who had hired a lawyer to fight for the “fair Taxation” the Conservative Party had promised.

Gary succeeded in having the Honourable Carol Skelton, CP, MP, Minister of National Revenue request a “Tax Remission Order” (TRO) be prepared that would cancel the taxes and penalties levied on the victimized constituents against income money that never actually existed, i.e. “phantom income”.

True to his word, when the TRO was ready for signing the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, signed the TRO which was then passed into law when Canada’s Governor General, Her Excellency Micheal Jean also signed the document.

When the approved TRO was made public, with a grand ceremony in Victoria British Columbia, the Honourable Gary Lunn was quoted in the Victoria Times Colonist, newspaper as declaring:

“It took a change of government to get someone to listen, but the Prime Minister has come through and delivered tax relief on this issue.” “It is not in the interest of government to tax people on money they never saw.”

Around the same time the Right Honourable Stephen Harper was quoted, in the same newspaper, as replying to the question: -- “Will the same “fair tax treatment” be extended to other Canadian taxpayers who were also taxed on phantom income?” – Harper said: “We’ll get it resolved.” “It will take a change of code.”

What meaning would the average Canadian assign to the statement: “We’ll get it resolved.”?

That answer sounds like a “YES” the same “fair tax” treatment would be extended to all other Canadian taxpayers who have been, and are still being, taxed on phantom income.

Not long after that the Honourable James M. Flaherty in the company of the Honourable Carol Skelton, CP, MP, and Minister of National Revenue, made an historic announcement concerning the creation of a “Taxpayers Ombudsman” AND an updated “Bill of Taxpayers Rights”.

As it turned out, however, the “Taxpayers Ombudsman” has no power to enforce any of the “Taxpayers Bills Of Rights” beyond admonishing any member of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that doesn’t enforce CRA rulings in a polite manner.

You may still have your wages garnisheed, and/or your bank account seized but the wording used by the CRA agent(s) must now be polite.

Apparently the Honourable James M. Flaherty considers that is all the consideration that TRO excluded Canadian victims of phantom income taxation deserve or are entitled to.

Some Canadian journalists later remarked the creation of the “Taxpayers Ombudsman” together with a token “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” was nothing more, or less, than a huge public relations scam perpetrated on the Canadian taxpayers to create the false impression these changes would ensure the “fair” taxation promised in the Conservative Action Plan.

Nothing could be further from the truth and when Canadian voters eventually realize the insult to their intelligence our government has been, and still is, heaping upon them with such scams then the perpetrators should be voted out of office.

Government scam artists may just find out the Canadian population is not entirely made up of gullible individuals who can be so easily duped.

That scam may be one of the dangerous precedents that eventually bring down our current self-serving arrogant government leaders.

Another article (below) might explain why the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, decided to renege on his commitment to “resolve” the phantom income tax inequality created by the Gary Lunn TRO.

The December 7, 2007 issue of the Victoria Times Colonist Newspaper contained an article with the title: “JDS Deal Dangerous Precedent – Ottawa told.”

Some “Key statements” in that article are as follows:
(a)“The federal government has offered tax relief to several dozen former employees of high-tech company JDS Uniphase who made and lost millions on paper, in a special deal that could open the door for other taxpayers to demand the same treatment.”
(b) “The decision recently published as a “remission order” in the Canada Gazette, was approved by cabinet despite objections from officials at Finance and Canada Revenue Agency.”

and

(c) “Senior bureaucrats warned such a decision was UNFAIR to other taxpayers and set a dangerous precedent for employees of other high-tech companies who watched their fortunes rise and fall during the dot-com boom and subsequent crash.”

The above warning issued by “senior bureaucrats” in Canada’s Revenue Agency and Department of Finance makes it perfectly clear that “tax fairness” and observance of the terms of the updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”, are the very least of their concerns.

The “senior bureaucrats” who issued that warning have no more concern for the well-being of abused Canadians than Marie Antoinette displayed for her loyal subjects.

At that point Harper had two options:-

(1) Keep his word and “resolve” the issue of extending the “fair” tax treatment provided by the Gary Lunn TRO to all other victimized Canadian Taxpayers – facing the risk that retaining his credibility may incur.

or

(2) Turn tail and stonewall all appeals for the “fair taxation for all Canadians” and his commitment to “resolve” the phantom tax fiasco.

Harper chose option (2) thereby destroying what credibility he did have.

There are, however, two very relevant points established in the above warning.

The first, and most important point, being the Senior Bureaucrats stated very clearly that the exclusion of other victimized taxpayers from the treatment granted to Gary Lunn’s constituents per the TRO is “UNFAIR to other taxpayers”. (Reference (c) above.)

In light of this statement what is the Honourable James M. Flaherty doing when he publicly claims: “the tax treatment of taxpayers who hold their ESPP/ESO equities beyond the date of exercise is fair because they are treated the same as all other Canadian stock market investors/speculators.”

He is selling out his credibility, integrity, and constituents – that is what he is doing.

That alone could be setting a “dangerous situation” -- (can’t use the word “precedent” here as this isn’t his first time.) -- and that should cost him his seat in parliament.

The second important point contained in the above warning is: “a special deal that could open the door for other taxpayers to DEMAND the same treatment.” (Reference (a) above.)

In view of the fact that numerous Canadian taxpayers, victimized by the same phantom income tax trap, have tried: (1) the courts of justice, (2) have tried appeals to the CRA Chief of Tax Appeals, (3) have tried appeals to their riding MP, and (4) to all House of Commons Members from the Prime Minister all the way down to the furthest back back-bencher and (5) appeals to members of Canada’s Senate – all to little or no avail – just what can these “other victimized taxpayers do to DEMAND the same fair tax treatment?

The Canadian government would like the general population to believe tax victims will obtain justice and “fair treatment” by appealing to the Canada Revenue “Chief of Appeals” officers located in most Revenue Canada tax centers across Canada.

Rulings by these CRA Officers have been a crap shoot and at best merely compound the UNFAIRNESS of the phantom tax fiasco even more. The primary basis for granting relief to phantom tax victims, by a CRA Chief of Appeals Officer, has been on the basis of “hardship”.

This practice merely punishes victims who have been thrifty, but who do not deserve to lose their life’s savings, while rewarding spendthrifts who never saved a dime.

In addition the federal auditor reported in 2008 that obtaining a favourable decision, from a CRA Chief of Appeals Officer, depended as much, or more, upon the location where the appeal was submitted as it did upon the merits of the appellant’s case. A crap shoot to be sure.

Our esteemed Prime Minister has chosen to renege on his commitment(s) to provide “fair taxation” for all Canadians and especially reneged on his remark “we’ll get it resolved” in regard to extending the fair tax treatment provided by the Gary Lunn TRO to all Canadian Taxpayers caught in the same tax trap.

Adding to Harpers deficiencies, concerning his personal integrity, he has revealed he has no concern for Canadians financially devastated by a flawed tax policy or for the responsibility Canada has for people detained by the Canadian Military.

In his opinion Canadians have little or no concern what happens to Afghanistan detainees after the Canadian Military apprehends them.

Harper is not speaking for me on this issue and I believe he underestimates the decency level of most Canadians.

He may not have any concern, or recognize any responsibility, for the possible abuse of Afghan citizens detained and delivered to the Afghan prison authorities by the Canadian Military but that is not necessarily the attitude of the average Canadian.

No matter how one slices the issue -- Afghans detained by the Canadian Military become a Canadian responsibility the very moment they become our prisoners. That responsibility is not diminished by delivering our Afghan prisoners to the Afghanistan prison system.

If there was the slightest possibility our Afghan detainees would be at risk of interrogation practices not acceptable to our system of justice then Canadians are just as guilty as the Afghan authorities for the torture and abuse that occurs and that we do not find acceptable.

Harper has already displayed a total lack of concern for the distress imposed on his own citizens by way of taxing thousands of them on income that never existed.

So it is right in character for Harper to show the same indifference to Afghan prisoners taken by Canadian forces that are very likely to be tortured by their own prison authorities.

To add insult to injury our Prime Minister has chosen – for the second time in a year – to shut down parliament rather than deal with the truth.

That “run and hide” performance alone is setting a dangerous precedent – one that should give every Canadian cause to look for a more competent and more dependable replacement government.

See you at the voting polls in the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©