
Anyone in Canada up for a little creative protest?
Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene


Anyone who heard Omar Khadr’s comments to the media after being released on bail cannot help but be struck by the federal government’s doggedly vindictive response (‘Freedom Is Way Better Than I Thought’ – May 8). If the heart and soul of the Canadian penal system is truly rehabilitation, surely he is a good example of the human capacity for reform. Unless, of course, the government is committed to an ideological agenda from which it is unwilling to deviate, however compelling the evidence to the contrary.Whether any of this has long-term efficacy will, of course, be put to the test in October.
Peter Laurie, Peterborough, Ont.
..........
At last, the “convicted terrorist” Omar Khadr speaks. First, Prime Minister Stephen Harper muzzled the child, then he muzzled the man, but on Thursday Canadians were allowed to finally hear him for themselves. I am proud of Canada.
Robin Hannah, Toronto

he came across in that brief press conference as remarkably human — as someone who wants to build a new life, but isn’t entirely sure how to do it; as a person who has outgrown his past but is still trying to come to terms with it.The Star's Chantal Hebert is equally lacerating in her assessment of this week's displays of Harperian ineptitude:
This is not the Omar Khadr that the Harper government wants us to see. It prefers a world that is black and white, where the bad guys are terrorists who commit heinous crimes and the good guys are one-dimensionally heroic.
Government ministers, and the prime minister himself, refer to the fact that Khadr pled guilty to war crimes, including murder.
All week, partisan overkill made the government look both ugly and inept. It is hard to think of a more self-defeating combination for a party that is about to solicit a fourth mandate.Her observations about Khadr echo those of Walkom:
As the former Guantanamo detainee holds his first scrum, it becomes apparent why Harper’s government was so adamant that he not be allowed to speak to the media. It was easier to paint Khadr as an unredeemable terrorist in the abstract than it will be now that most Canadians have the opportunity to hear from the actual person.Despite that, the government held firm, Mr. Harper refusing to utter even the glimmer of a gracious note, as he offered his thoughts and prayers to the family members of U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer.
Nine Alberta university professors, most of them from The King’s University College in suburban Edmonton, have spent years visiting Khadr in prison, spending hours tutoring him. Since Khadr was transferred to Alberta in May 2013, the professors have worked with him at least once a week.Then there is the social network knitted together by University of Alberta graduate Muna Abougoush, who
began the website six years ago to keep Khadr’s name circulating and to remind people that he was still imprisoned. She began writing to him and visiting him in prison. “Omar has such a support community. I could probably say with certainty most inmates don’t have this,” says Abougoush. This past Christmas, Khadr received 500 letters from supporters — some as far away as China. And he tries to answer them all.Perhaps some of those lacking in sympathy for Khadr, now that they have something more than government propaganda upon which to base their opinion, will come to new insights. As pointed out in today's Star editorial,
whatever his misdeeds Khadr, now 28, has paid the full price, and more. From the day U.S. troops captured him in Afghanistan in 2002 he has been denied justice, tortured, forsaken by Ottawa and tried in a discredited U.S. military court. He has spent twice the time behind bars as he would have, had he been convicted here of first-degree murder as a young offender.Omar Khadr now stands at a crossroad: the life he has lived thus far, over which he had little to no control, and the life ahead, ultimately filled with the freedom to choose. May his journey be a fulfilling one.

“In prison, I had lots of bad experiences. If I hold on to each one, I would have been very bitter,” he told the prison psychologist, Nathan Lau, during an interview on Feb. 20.
“I can’t afford to be bitter. I did something bad and I’m here for a reason. The only way to survive is to have hope,” he said. “If I hope for people to give me a second chance, I should afford them the same.”
Khadr says he looks forward to life on the outside but conceded, “I don’t think it will be a piece of cake.”I, for one, hope Khadr gets his chance, starting today.
“I’ve screwed up in the past and I’m worried it will haunt me. People will think I’m the same person I was 12 or 13 years ago. They might treat me in the same light,” he said.
“However, if I carry myself with dignity and respect, people will respect me. I hope there won’t be this terrorism nonsense. I’m not going to get involved.”
Justice June Ross of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said bail is a Canadian right, and while Mr. Khadr is in jail in Canada, he is covered by Canadian law.


"A lack of clarity in the international transfer process may jeopardize the system as a whole," the government states in documents obtained by The Canadian Press.
"(Khadr's) release unsettles the foundation of this system by introducing uncertainty and a lack of control over the manner in which Canadian offenders' sentences are enforced."
In response, Khadr's lawyers said the government's case for a stay was weak.And so the drama continues.
For one thing, they say, the government acknowledges Khadr's case is unique and will have little or no effect on other prison transfers.
"The onus is on the (Crown) to establish that irreparable harm will actually occur if a stay is not granted," they state in their reply brief.
"Reliance upon harm that is speculative or merely 'likely' is insufficient."
“This is politically motivated in my estimation, so it’s not really a review. This is just something that’s been said to remove someone, who’s been critical of a recent piece of legislation, bill c-51,” Says Hamdani.
Which may be true. The allegations contained in the TVA news report are not new, they’ve been investigated before by CSIS, and the RCMP. “Which is interesting because I’ve been renewed, and renewed and renewed and every renewal there is further security checks that are done by CSIS, by the RCMP and I’m vetted again. And every time I’ve passed, you know, right from the beginning.”
.jpg)
As recently as February however, Hamdani was the pride of the Harper government at President Obama’s summit on countering violent extremism. Hamdani says his ouster could also have something to do with his recent appearance at a fundraiser for Justin Trudeau. “I think what’s happening is that this government says, why are we having somebody who is obviously a Liberal supporter on our round table? We don’t like him. We’re gonna get a better ‘yes man’!”None of this, of course, will come as a surprise to those of us aware of the deeply vile nature of our current government. The difficult task before all of us is making a wide swath of Canadians aware of the terrible manipulations they are being subjected to, all in the service of retaining power.
A city councilman forgot to take his mic off when he took a bathroom break... and the whole council heard everything.
Posted by NowThis on Saturday, May 2, 2015

What is the matter with Mr. Harper? Why this persistence in hounding this young man, who as a child was prosecuted in the U.S. and served most of his time. We Canadians believe in being fair and we try not to demand that last pound of flesh. Not so Mr. Harper it seems. He wants his pound of flesh.
Omar Khadr deserves a chance to prove he has moved on from his teenage years and their influences and can be a valuable member of society. Mr. Harper needs to check his big bully ways at the courtroom door.
Joan Joseph, Cambridge
The behaviour of the Harper government in relation to Omar Khadr continues to be mean and vicious, all apparently based in politics. It is calculated to appeal to the Harper base in the so-called tough defense of national security and be useful in the coming election.
I think, however, that this may in fact work against the government. Surely the general Canadian public is not that ugly.
Derek Chadwick, Toronto
Please let Omar Khadr go. Let him go. Enough already. Hasn’t this poor man suffered enough?
The Harper regime’s decision to appeal the granting of bail is frankly despicable. Once again, thank goodness for the Charter of Rights. I’m sure Stephen Harper wishes he could abolish it, but it’s fortunately too well entrenched for even a seasoned political opportunist like him to destroy.
Nothing says more about the mean-spirited, reptilian rule of Supreme Leader Harper than the tragic saga of Omar Khadr. Yes, his ordeal began under a Liberal government, but nobody has exploited his story as eagerly and effectively as Harper, simply to further his anti-Muslim agenda and his bogus war on so-called “terrorism.”
As Thomas Walkom mentions in a recent column, Khadr is nothing more than a political football to be tossed around in the upcoming election campaign. This is disgusting beyond words.
Khadr has been the victim of a mockery and travesty of justice unseen in recent times. The injustice he has been subjected to is a stain on the Canadian body politic. All Canadians should be ashamed of his inhumane treatment.
How dare Canada lecture anyone on human rights after what we’ve put this guy through?
I say go, Omar, go – enjoy your freedom. You’ve more than earned it.
Andrew van Velzen, Toronto
Why do Stephen Harper and the Conservatives hate Omar Khadr?
Omar Khadr was a child soldier, captured by the Americans in 2002 at the age of 15. They chose to ignore his child soldier status and to prosecute him under laws that were enacted years after he was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. All other G8 countries demanded the release of their nationals from Guantanamo Bay, except Canada.
Omar Khadr’s father was an operative for Al Qaeda and a personal friend of Osama Bin Laden. His son had no choice about becoming an Al Qaeda soldier. He has spent the past 13 years in detention at Guantanamo Bay and in prison in Canada, where he has been denied access to anyone who would speak for him in the press.
Stephen Harper and the Conservative government have made it clear that they intend to continue persecuting this young man as long as they can use him as a scapegoat to whip up fear and hatred (against “terrorists” and Muslims) – whatever might help them to get re-elected.
Surely, Harper and the Conservative government are guilty of conspiracy to persecute a child soldier and should be charged under the Geneva Convention. At the very least they are guilty of promoting hatred against this young man.
Bill Aird, North York
.jpg)
A news report by French-language network TVA of Quebec published Wednesday raised questions about written statements made by Hamdani nearly 20 years ago. The news report also made allegations suggesting Hamdani has been involved in the past with organizations that have provided funding, directly or indirectly, to groups associated with terror.As CHCH News reports,
Jeremy Laurin, press secretary for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said in a statement the allegations against Hamdani are "very concerning."
"While questions surrounding this individual's links to radical ideology have circulated for some time, it was hoped that he could be a positive influence to promote Canadian values in the Muslim community," Laurin stated. "It is now becoming clear this may not have been the case."
None of the information is new. The government has been aware of the allegations for several years, and has either considered it insignificant, or chosen to allow Hamdani to continue his work on the security committee regardless.The lawyer in fact had previously won praise for his efforts in combating radicalization. Says Order of Canada member Gary Warner:
“I have known Hussein for many years and have not heard or seen anything in the reports that would justify his exclusion from the national security roundtable. On the contrary I see him as someone who has worked to deflect youth from contagion by extremists.”Indeed, as recently as this past February, The Globe and Mail highlighted his work:
Canadians Working Longer for Less PayHow many times in the last year have you wondered... "What if it happens to me? What if I lose my job?" Who could blame you? More and more Canadians are barely hanging on.
Posted by CBC News: The National on Wednesday, April 29, 2015
.jpg)
John Bennett, the foundation's national program director ... has been asked to produce a list of all the politicians he met in 2012 and 2013, among other documentation.
"Clearly, the governing party is targeting groups it sees as its political enemies and is using the taxpayer's money and a government enforcement agency to do it," Bennett said in a recent fundraising letter.National Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay continues to insult the intelligence of Canadians; she consistently holds to the fiction that there is no political bias in the groups chosen for audits,
"It is an intimidation campaign designed to harass and distract organizations from doing the charitable work their donors want them to do … it is an abuse of power."
The foundation reported revenues of about $700,000 in its 2013 filing with Canada Revenue Agency. Bennett is the only full-time employee in the Ottawa office, with two part-time staff and a summer student.
saying CRA officials make their own independent decisions without political input.One of course is entitled to question this assertion, given that an audit was conducted on the Sierra Club in 2011, which it passed.
As of March 31, the Canada Revenue Agency had completed 21 political-activity audits, with 28 still under way and 11 still to begin. So far, five charities have received notices of the agency's intention to revoke their charitable status.None of those audits, by the way, were of groups supportive of the Harper regime's neoliberal agenda. Infer what you will from that.

I look out my window and see sunshine and vibrant signs of approaching spring. There’s even a Toronto sports franchise winning games.
But when I turn to the news media I read or hear about a glass half empty, half full, a glass smashed, a glass we can no longer afford because we are in so much provincial/federal debt and not to forget the growing number of Canadians who can no longer afford to buy a glass, full, half empty – or even chipped.
The Star last week carried these stories: A doctor who can’t get details about a drug for his pregnant patient; Ontario hospitals woefully unprepared to deal with a growing aging population; a federal government buying votes with our money and then telling us how lucky we are; and a fire sale of Ontario Hydro created by a consultant with no public service record and, gasp, a one cent increase on a bottle of beer.
This litany merely piles on the abuse mountain of veterans’ rights, a federal government that cannot deliver fresh water to our native Canadian population, a festering core of Ontario workers ready to strike and a quickly growing underbelly of people who simply cannot balance their books and play Russian roulette with rent, food, debt, education loan arrears.
And a pox on all the parties: opposition parties who offer nothing better than scare tactics instead of reasoned alternatives. Governing parties whose only true focus is maintaining a majority with a four-year formula of cut+cut+cut+buy votes. Repeat as long as you can con the voter.
Seems like I’m convincing myself that we have no glass but a mirage of political cracked mirrors. All of which has created one senior voter who wonders why it’s worth bothering to read about it or vote. The Star and other media don’t make the news. You do a good job of exposing the reality that our Emperors really don’t have any clothes.
Which leads to a simple question: somewhere, anywhere, at any level is there a politician in Canada who will simply speak the truth?
Don Graves, Burlington

Much has been made of the fact that the new federal budget is craftily geared by the Harper government to appeal to specific segments of the voting population. Seniors are getting all kinds of goodies, some designed specifically for their age group and others that are available to all, but which will (nudge nudge wink wink) benefit them the most. Two-income couples with children under 18 are big winners, too, as are small-business owners.Such is not good for the health of a democracy.
Left off the gravy train are young people. Why? Because they are way less likely to cast a vote than older people are, and they don’t make up as large a share of the population as they used to. By being disengaged, they have now become conveniently ignorable, not just by the government but by the opposition parties, too.
A 2013 Parliament of Canada study concluded that more young voters than ever are dropping out of electoral participation at all levels of government. Worse still, their apathy is permanent. They don’t start voting as they get older, which is one of the key reasons the average participation rate in Canada is dropping. A country where, a generation ago, more than 75 per cent of the population routinely voted in major elections is now lucky to have a 61 per cent turnout.In this situation, those who do vote are courted by the parties, with resulting lopsided budgets like this last one that pander to select groups rather than promote a vision for the country. Of course, it is subsequent generations who will bear the brunt of ever-diminishing national programs, health care money, government pensions, etc.
In the 2011 federal election, all three major parties focused on the middle class and on families. They made few direct references to youth. When they did, it was more often about “youth crime” or “at-risk youth” than it was about youth unemployment or university tuition. The parties are doing the same in this election, all led by the Harper government’s pro-senior, pro-family budget.All are complicit in the erosion of our once healthy and dynamic democracy.
Is there a way to get young Canadians back in the game? Not in this election, unfortunately. The apathy of young voters has caused politicians to tune out. Politicians tuning them out has made young voters more apathetic. The vicious circle goes round and round. And we’re losing a generation of voters.Our current crop of 'leaders' have much to answer for.
The Senate is transparent? The Senate isn't corrupt? Really, Senator Plett?Arrogance in public servants is always profoundly distasteful. When it is practised by pompous and contemptible martinets like Plett, it is intolerable.
Last year, Conservative Senators reportedly tried to whitewash an audit of Mike Duffy's expenses, deleting paragraphs detailing Senator Duffy's attempt to dodge auditors and hide his expenses.
Auditor General Michael Ferguson is slated to release what is expected to be a damning report on Senate expenses. At least 40 current and former senators recently received letters from Ferguson asking them to account for questionable expense claims. Several senators are said to have expensed over $100,000 with one reportedly billing taxpayers to the tune of $250,000.
Senator Plett himself appears to be among the Senate's highest rollers -- a CBC investigation in 2014 found Plett had the second highest expenses in the Senate, billing taxpayers over $12,000 (mainly for first-class air travel) during one five-week period in 2012 while the Senate was debating suspending Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau.
Conservative Roxanne James, [seen in the above video] the government’s designated spokesperson, said Ottawa opposes Khadr’s release because he has been convicted of “heinous crimes.”A polarizing figure since his arrest in Afghanistan, the former child soldier is viewed in rather absolutist terms by the Canadian public. There are those who believe he is an inveterate terrorist who deserves no mercy, while others see him as a victim of his parents' jihadist zeal and a political football very useful when governments want to vent their demagogic spleen and manipulate the masses.
What she should have said is that, in the lead-up to this fall’s election, the Conservatives hope to use the Khadr affair as a political wedge issue.
He is, in short, a perfect political vehicle for a Conservative prime minister hoping to use crime and national security as defining elements in the election campaign.Khadr's political usefulness began with the Americans:
The Americans, meanwhile, were desperate to have their much-maligned military tribunal system score a judicial victory. Khadr seemed to fit the bill. The U.S. had already decided to ignore the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. Instead, captives like Khadr would be labelled “unlawful combatants” and accorded none of the usual rights of soldiers at war.Not far behind, the Canadian government picked up the ball:
... by then, Harper had discovered Khadr’s political usefulness. The organizations that the Conservative base loves to hate — including human rights groups, liberal churches and lawyers — were all clamouring for Ottawa to bring Khadr home, where he could have a chance at parole.Clearly, in contrast to the take-no-prisoners approach the Conservatives usually employ in their politicking for the hearts of Canadians, they are making an exception for Omar Khadr.
So the prime minister resisted. The more the critics clamoured, the more strident his resistance became.
Last year, the Conservatives castigated Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for suggesting that Khadr be treated fairly.
The Liberals said people are angry about what they view as wasteful government spending, and they wanted to remind Canadians how much the Tories have spent since 2006.
“After 10 years, Stephen Harper thinks he owns the government — he doesn’t. The people of Canada do,” Liberal party spokesman Olivier Duchesneau said.
The party would not disclose how much they are spending on the limited Stanley Cup playoff ad buy.
The Conservative government defended the spending.Let's hope the above whopper sets everyone's spider sense tingling.
“Advertising is a key way for the government to inform Canadians about important issues such as tax credits and public health issues," said Stephanie Rea, spokeswoman for Treasury Board President Tony Clement.

first introduced by British Columbia Conservative backbencher Russ Hiebertin December 2011, has been revived by a Senate committee and there was Hiebert this week, again staking his claim to some type of Conservative medal as the man who has most doggedly pursued his boss’s agenda.While Harper lapdog Hiebert extols the bill as one providing accountability and transparency,
Hiebert is still flogging what must be considered the most fundamentally flawed piece of legislation to come from this majority government, a punitive assault on labour unions which would tip the collective bargaining process in the country to the employer, violate privacy and freedom of association rights of union leaders and tie up unions up with unnecessary, trivial, insulting paper work.
Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff calls it “an unwarranted, unconstitutional, venal and indefensible bill that is inherently flawed and must be withdrawn.”Designed to hobble unions with paperwork and make it easier to decertify them, while simultaneously making union membership more difficult,
...it would force unions to publicize their budgets, their expenditures, how much they would be able to pay workers in the event of a strike and what type of money they would have to promote their cause in the case of a breakdown of a collective agreement.A particular incident is instructive of the obdurate mindset of the bill's backers:
Employers would not be compelled to disclose any of that.
Manitoba Conservative Don Plett showered praise on Hiebert for his hard work and announced it was time to make this bill law.I suspect that what Plett really meant was that Cavalluzzo did not provide the answers that he wanted to hear.
But when he clashed with Paul Cavalluzzo, a constitutional and labour lawyer with more than four decades of experience, the bombastic Plett insulted the witness by telling him he considered “your time and my time to have been wasted with you here today not answering my questions.”

.jpg)
First, the government changed the methodology the Finance Department uses to forecast oil prices. Oliver is now forecasting that oil prices will increase in the coming years, averaging $54 a barrel in 2015, $67 in 2016, $75 in 2017 and $78 a barrel in 2018 and 2019.According to projections by the World Bank, this is quite an optimistic forecast.
The second rabbit was the selling off of capital assets to cover one-time spending. In the budget, asset sales amounted to an incremental $1 billion in 2015-16, resulting from the sales of the government’s GM shares. These shares were sold at a steep loss solely to achieve a political commitment — a balanced budget in 2015-16The next feat of prestidigitation is found in the contingency fund:
In previous budgets, Finance included a contingency reserve of $3 billion per year. The contingency reserve is also there as a buffer in the event that economic results do not turn out as expected. The contingency reserve was cut to bone Tuesday — to just $1 billion in each of the next three years.Given the precarious financial outlook for the world, this cut can only be seen as foolish, reckless, and overtly political.
The fourth rabbit was an increase in the “lapse” — the amount of funds appropriated to departments and agencies by Parliament but not spent during the course of the year. The lapse for 2015-16 and the next two fiscal years has been increased...The consequences of such 'lapses' cannot be underestimated. Here is but one example:
The fifth rabbit was the government’s decision to continue to assume higher-than-required Employment insurance (EI) premium rates. This generated an additional $1.8 billion in 2015-16.And, as Thomas Walkom points out,
The finance minister managed to win his surplus this year largely by taking $3.4 billion from the employment insurance account...
The final rabbit — certainly not the least controversial — is government’s forecast of $900 million in 2015-16 resulting from legislating “a modernized disability and sick leave management system” on public sector unions in the budget bill yet to be tabled.Since negotiations are ongoing, bargaining in bad faith is not too strong an accusation to level against the government which, in fact, may relish a battle with the unions going into the election, given public antipathy toward those who do well in unionized environments. Nevertheless, counting on almost $1 billion being extracted from public servants does appear to be a tad wishful.


is an international pariah. Among rich world countries, Canada is the largest per-capita emitter of GHGs, according to the World Resources Institute. The advocacy group Climate Action Network ranks Canada’s climate strategy as the fourth-worst in the world, ahead of only Iran, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia.There seems to be no prospect of improvement on this sorry record:
Ottawa will fail to meet the emission targets it pledged at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, just as it failed to meet the UN’s March 31 deadline to submit its emission targets ahead of the upcoming climate change conference in December.Increasingly, our country is becoming an international pariah:
Having met U.S. President Barack Obama’s Envoy for Climate Change, I am certain that Washington is taking the Paris negotiations very seriously. Canada, meanwhile, looks like it will show up to the Paris conference with almost nothing to offer but talking points, despite the fact that Canadians consume more energy per capita than Indians, Chinese or Americans. This is both a shame and a sham.Compounding Canada's inexcusable inaction is the heavy hand of Harper censorship:
Ninety per cent of government scientists feel that they are not allowed to speak to the media about their research; almost as many fear retaliation if they do. If you are wondering why climate change reporting in Canada has been so vacuous over the last few years, it is because new rules put in place by Stephen Harper in 2007 limit what Environment Canada scientists can say. The position of National Science Advisor was eliminated in 2008. It should come as no surprise then that media coverage of climate change has been reduced by 80 per cent. If the brilliant government scientists working on this issue are muzzled, the public has little access to the very people it should be hearing from.Mind you, that hardly excuses the ignorance that many embrace on this subject, given the wealth of information that is available literally at our fingertips. If we are oblivious to the coming peril, it is by our own choice.
British Columbia has put in place a carbon tax, Quebec has a cap-and-trade system, Ontario announced a similar policy earlier this month, and Alberta has an imperfect but necessary regulatory scheme. The European Union has an ambitious emissions trading program and the United States and China signed a major climate accord last year. China is also piloting seven cap-and-trade programs, including one in Shanghai.Aziz notes the irony of a federal regime so obsessed with security that it ignores the threats posed by climate change:
Climate change is not simply an environmental concern; it is a national security concern, which is precisely what the Pentagon now calls it.
The effects of climate change will permanently damage wildlife, agriculture, oceans, coastal inhabitants, transportation systems, disease prevention efforts, food and water supplies, public health, and nearly every facet of modern life. The poor and disadvantaged will face the harshest consequences, both in rich countries and in developing ones.Back in 2009, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called climate change the greatest challenge facing the world. Nothing has changed in the intervening six years other than even more egregious contempt for action from a federal government locked in an ideology for which we, our children and our grandchildren will pay a very grievous price.
.jpg)
If a democratic system thrives on participation from a civil society free to express itself without state intervention, then Canadian democracy could use some help these days.The statistics paint a damning picture:
Citizens who band together into groups that push politicians to engage a problem should, in theory, be a vital aspect of democratic decision-making. Yet the Harper administration, in its infinite political wisdom, has devoted millions of taxpayer dollars via Canada Revenue Agency, formerly Revenue Canada, to, in effect, target groups that are critical of federal policies.
The CRA launched a series of 60 audits in 2012, and, tellingly, the targeted organizations all seem to espouse views that don't fit so well with the Harper agenda.And this pattern holds true for the CRA's latest target:
These 'political-activity audits' have primarily targeted environmental groups, human rights organizations, and labour-backed think tanks like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Meanwhile, more conservative-minded groups like the Manning Foundation or the Fraser Institute have not faced such aggression from the CRA. Many of them have also, like their leftist counterparts, participated in 'political activities.'
[T]he latest charity to be targeted in a significant way is the United Steelworkers' Humanity Fund, a labour-backed organization that has supported food banks and disaster relief initiatives for over 30 years.The intended purposes of such audits, of course, are to provoke both fear and self-censorship:
It has donated about two per cent of its annual revenue to the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA), an umbrella organization that advocates for more accountability in the Canadian mining sector, among other things.
This support for the CNCA, an organization that hasn't shied away from its political purposes, is apparently what the CRA is zeroing in on. The fund has often butted heads with the Harper administration over labour issues, and wants more oversight of Canadian mining practices abroad, which, according to its president Ken Neumann, is primarily why the CRA began auditing the group's finances last year.
Such audits can certainly disrupt an organization's day-to-day operations significantly, but this kind of trouble isn't the main reason why these intrusions are bad for Canadian democracy in the long run. Targeted organizations that are forced to go through the lengthy auditing process can, whether the government intends it or not, become examples of what not to say or do in the Harper era.
One can hardly blame other charities if they decide to interpret the current inquisitorial atmosphere as being politically motivated. This means that if they want to keep their charitable status, practicing a degree of self-censorship may end up being totally rational. This is an anti-democratic development almost by definition, and it hardly matters whether a particular agenda is behind it all, though the available evidence suggests that Revenue Canada's choices aren't exactly politically neutral.Will such practices, profoundly inimical to democracy, be noted by average Canadians, or will their vision be blinded by budget baubles designed to cultivate the selfish part of their natures?

Eleven million people with TFSAs seems like a lot of lost tax revenue. It is simply another way to avoid taxes and should be stopped, not increased. Of course under Harper it will only increase and continue to decimate our social programs.
The opposition must be united in campaigning against this blatant tax cut and revenue loss.
Elaine Purdie, Toronto
The Conservative government seems to think they are doing such a great service to Canadian families by providing its Universal Child Care Benefit and by increasing the TFSA contributions to $11,000.
Social Development Minister Candice Bergen actually thinks that the Child Care Benefit gives families an equal choice. And Finance Minister Joe Oliver believes that the TFSA is somehow equally beneficial to all.
Are they deliberately blind to the plight of middle and lower income families? Do they not understand the situation of single parent families? What percentage of families have a stay-at-home parent? Who can afford a properly licensed daycare facility? Who has the disposable income to put away $5,000 a year let alone $11,000?
It’s obvious that Oliver, Bergen and company do not know or care to know the real financial situation for the vast majority of Canadian families and they certainly do not want to hear what the experts are saying. They might have had a better understanding had they not cancelled the long-form census, but why bother with data when you can make policies out of ideology?
It really is time to unseat this incredible bunch of no-nothing ideologues.
Stephen L. Bloom, Toronto
There is an underlying aspect to the various tax cuts the Harper Conservatives have implemented or will be implementing – increased TFSA contributions, GST cuts, income splitting, etc. – that has fallen below the radar. The commitments Joe Oliver is talking about are ways to destroy the federal government’s ability to raise revenues for generations to come and impede the ability of progressive future governments to repair the social safety net Stephen Harper has been slashing since 2006.
What voters fail to see is that for every 50 cents of tax breaks they get from Harper, they face a dollar in increased fees or lost coverage at every level of government because federal transfers are disappearing.
The extra cup of Timmy’s they can now buy every week means fewer meat inspectors, transportation safety checks, fiery tank-car derailments, or uninvestigated chemical spills in our lakes and rivers.
Sure, the rich will benefit more now, but in the end, everybody loses.
Mark Jessop, Barrie
Given that the doubling of the TFSA maximum will cost future governments billions in revenue, any measure that ties governments hands regarding running any deficit would inevitably result in massive cuts to programming, which could prove politically toxic.
It remains to be seen how firm the “no deficits” language will be, but if the current government really does intend to tie the hands of future governments, one has to assume that the Conservatives are thinking that those future governments will not be Conservative.
Let’s not disappoint them.
Steve Soloman, Toronto

Gardens stayed lush and lawns verdant as citizens paid tanker trucks to deliver thousands of gallons to homes in the seaside suburb of Santa Barbara. They drilled in back yards, driving the county’s tally of new wells to a record. Some simply paid fines for exceeding allocations, padding the water district’s budget by more than $2 million.Actually, there are many reasons to object. One is the fact that money is being used here to opt out of good citizenship, which a healthy society requires. Why should certain parties be exempt from turf-removing initiatives that others are following as they substitute drought-tolerant plants for thirsty lawns?
“People feel strongly about their landscaping and want to keep their homes beautiful,” said Patrick Nesbitt, who drilled a well to hydrate parts of his 70-acre estate but let his polo field go dry. “Why should anybody object?”
The top three users for Montecito in 2012/13 guzzled close to 30 million gallons alone... enough water to provide the needs of a small townEven the drilling of wells that the well-heeled can afford are acts of massive disrespect of the greater good. The aquifers, quite frankly, cannot take it:
Measurements of water levels in wells throughout the state show that aquifers are being significantly depleted in many areas as more water is drained out than seeps back into the ground.
An analysis of groundwater data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and two other agencies has found that, of 3,394 wells across the state, water levels declined in about 62 percent of the wells between 2000 and 2013.
As drought worsens groundwater depletion, water supplies for people and farming shrink.I am not offering any fresh insights here about the contradictory impulses of human nature; the fact that "some animals are more equal than others" was noted a long time ago by George Orwell and many others. But given the times in which we live, such behaviour does merit increased scrutiny and perhaps even condemnation.
A Wildrose candidate was forced to apologize and retract a poster Thursday that called on party supporters to bring their wives’ pies to a meet-and-greet.
The poster encouraged constituents in Drumheller-Stettler to attend an “old fashioned pie auction” next week and “BYWP (Bring Your Wife’s Pie!!)”


Hahhaa, David Cameron eating a hot dog with a knife and fork. Silver service only for the privileged!" was typical of the comments on Twitter Tuesday, 30 days ahead of Britain's general election.
"What kind of monster eats a hot dog with a knife and fork?" asked another.
Cameron eating a hot dog with knife & fork has echoes of when rich Mr Pitt did same with a Snickers bar in Seinfeld: