Patterns

 

As a regular consumer of media, I find myself more and more looking for patterns. While there is likely no such thing as totally consistent media narratives, I do think a preponderance of print, television and social media frame stories in ways that doubtlessly influence our perception of events.

Two recent events suggest such patterns: the Trudeau government's decision to raise capital gains taxes to a 66% attribution rate from 50% for those making more than $250,000 in such profits per year, and the coverage of the increasingly widespread protests on campuses over the Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza subsequent to the murderous Hamas attack last October.*

In a previous post, I discussed in some detail the howls of outrage from the business community over the capital gains hike; that outrage has spread to doctors, small businesses (despite some pretty strong mitigation measures) and, a group with whom so many identify, hapless cottage owners. 

There is a reason I subscribe to The Toronto Star. If there is to be a voice that breaks from the media chorus, it will be found there. A recent article by David Olive demonstrates this with some much-needed perspective, since

raising the inclusion rate on capital gains strengthens the country’s social fabric by making the tax system a bit fairer at a time of punishing income inequality.

Canada’s marginal effective tax rate (METR), which accounts for all business taxes and tax deductions by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, is the lowest in the G7.

Canada’s METR is 14.5 per cent compared to America’s 19.7 per cent and Japan’s 31.4 per cent. 

 Most critics of the capital gains reform say it will worsen Canada’s laggard productivity growth.

Those critics must answer for the chronic underinvestment by Canadian business in productivity enhancing plant, machinery, R&D and skills training during the past 24 years when the inclusion rate was just 50 per cent. 

Meanwhile, businesses have found the money for stock buybacks that inflate the price of shares to which executive pay is tied.

The anemic rate of business investment has so undermined productivity growth that the Bank of Canada recently called the situation an “emergency.” 

 It’s as if Ottawa decided that since the lower inclusion rate wasn’t boosting productivity, the government might as well tax a larger share of those idle profits.

And to use that money to finance its ambitious $8.5 housing plan, a new $1.5 billion pharmacare program, funding for more daycare spaces, one of the biggest-ever increases in defence spending ($8.1 billion), and a new $1 billion school lunch program.

And to make those additional investments without increasing the deficit, which is projected at $39.8 billion in fiscal 2024-25, basically unchanged from the previous year’s $40 billion deficit.

No one likes higher taxes. But in its reform of capital gains taxes, Ottawa has settled on a least-bad way of financing improvements to Canadian quality of life.

While that point of view may be anathema to those who regard capitalism as a zero-sum game, the rest of us should just take a few breaths and disengage from the media narrative seeking to villainize anything that seeks to make things just a bit fairer for all.

* Since this post went a bit long, I will save the discussion of campus unrest for another post. In the meantime, if so inclined, see if you can detect the pattern in that reportage. 

On Police Accountability

“Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.”

― Franz Kafka, The Trial

One of the most intriguing books I have ever read in my long reading life is The Trial. The above quotation represents the heart of the novel, about a man who endures the torturous and protracted processes of an arcane justice system. I found myself thinking about the book during the trial of Ulmar Zammer, whose hellish descent into the justice system is one almost too awful to contemplate.

The novel's resonance in the case emerges when considering the false testimony three officers gave about the circumstances of the 'crime.'  They all averred that Zameer had struck head-on Officer Northrup, testimony that was clearly belied both by accident reconstruction experts and video of what took place in the underground garage where Northrup met his fate.

One of the most troubling aspects of the trial is that it largely seemed to go forward on the basis of that false testimony. And despite the observation of the presiding judge that the case for murder was extremely weak, the Crown pressed on. There was nary a word about not having a reasonable prospect of conviction, perhaps because the case involved a police death, and Crown attorneys do value good relationships with the authorities.

So is there justice to be found in all of this? I have my doubts, since the closest anyone has come in describing the false testimony of the police witnesses is collusion, a process the Crown stoutly denied, since the officers "would have had no reason to collude." What seems notably absent in the official discussions of the police misbehaviour is the P word- perjury. The best Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw can do, in an act that smacks more of political theatre than an earnest pursuit of justice, is to have the OPP investigate his officers' behaviour.

In a statement late Monday afternoon, Denkiw referred to “adverse comments” made by [Justice] Molloy in explaining his reason for asking for the review. He did not detail those comments any further.

“Whenever the Toronto Police Service becomes aware of concerns raised by the judiciary, its governance requires that a review be conducted with respect to officer testimony, conduct, procedures, practices, and training,” the statement notes.

An Internet search suggests that charging police with perjury is fairly rare, though I note a Toronto officer was charged yesterday. The language is interesting:

The force says that in June last year, the officer gave investigators false, misleading or inaccurate information regarding a criminal investigation involving that person.

Police say the 39-year-old constable was charged this week with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of perjury.

Why is there apparently not a similar appetite to charge the offending officers in the Zameeer case?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that they lost "one of their own" in the tragic accident that took officer Northrup's life?

Of course, my lifelong cynicism suggests no charges will ultimately be filed. I stand, however, ready to be happily corrected.

 

Don't Come A-Knockin' When The Guard Dog's A-Rockin'

One has to hand it to the Americans. They seem endlessly inventive when it comes to devising new ways to inflict mayhem. However, while the following is legal in 48 states, I am sorry to inform those who love to embrace new technology that this stand-in for Fido would likely run afoul of our laws in Canada.

The company lists possible applications of the new robot as "wildfire control and prevention," "agricultural management," "ecological conservation," "snow and ice removal," and "entertainment and SFX." But most of all, it sets things on fire in a variety of real-world scenarios.

And therein lies the rub. Entertain and SFX? I shudder to contemplate the implications, especially in stand your ground states. 

More On Ulmar Zameer

H/t Graeme MacKay 

Yesterday's post highlighted the rush to judgement many people embraced when Ulmar Zameer was charged with murdering a police officer. People like Doug Ford, John Tory and Patrick Brown condemned the fact that he was granted bail. A publication ban prevented the reasons for the bail from being published, but anyone could have gone down to court to find out why bail was granted. Justice Malloy had declared the evidence very weak, and hence the bail.

But populism has its own reasons, and it is generally more politically profitable to stoke the fires of rage and bitterness than to be reasonable. Witness PP's meteoric rise in the federal polls.

Nonetheless, public opinion is variable, and there were many, including me, very much relieved that Zameer has finally achieved justice, often a rare occurrence in this fractured world. Of those who stoked the fires, many are demanding accountability.

Congratulations to Justice Anne Malloy. She analyzed the evidence in the complex Umar Zameer case thoroughly. She instructed the jury in a clear and concise manner. Through her efforts, the jury came to logical conclusions and acquitted. To top it off, Justice Malloy had the good grace to apologize to Zameer and his family on behalf of the public for the ordeal through which they had been put. She demonstrated a fine example of how justice should be administered. Truly a class act.

Bill Howes, Toronto

My faith in the Canadian justice system has been restored. Notwithstanding the deep hurt suffered by the family of Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup, it is clear this was none other than a tragic accident. What we need to now see is an apology from those politicians — Premier Doug Ford, and former Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown — who so quickly and publicly assumed Umar Zameer’s guilt without knowing the full facts of the case. 

Jack Fearnall, Owen Sound

John Tory states all we can do from this experience is “learn.” Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown completely avoids the issue, Premier Doug Ford, as usual, remains silent. Not one has the decency to admit their error and apologize. But there is something each of us can do, donate to the Zameer GoFundMe program. Money cannot bring back all that the Zameer family has lost, but it can help erase the enormous financial burden. It can also reinforce the fact that Canadians actually do care.

Keith Perrott, Toronto 

Given how Mr. Ford has recently been demanding judges who will bring down the hammer on those those accused of serious crimes, a reader offers this thought:

First, I would like to address the profound need for public apologies to Umar Zameer from Premier Doug Ford, former Toronto Mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown for their unfounded accusations when he was released on bail. This should be front page and detail what they said so that the public is aware. As Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan pointed out, we expect more of public officials than their stoking of hatred and tribalism when they pretend to know the facts and we, the public, do not. 

Related to Ford’s words in this case, is his desire to fill the judiciary with his “like-minded” judges whom he believes will “get tough” as their first priority, rather than seek a fair and just trial based on the facts and reasonable truths, as we observed in this trial.

We, the public, need to challenge, along with those of the legal professions, Ford’s efforts to undermine our judiciary, one of the foundations of democracy. And, reflecting on what Zameer said after the trial, we want to be able to say, in the future, that we are a fair and just country, for all. 

I wish the Zameer family peace going forward.

Penny Sartor, Toronto 

Look Before You Speak

It is obviously just human nature to sometimes react with outrage and certitude when confronted with something that seems to beggar common sense. We have likely all experienced such a response at one time or another. The recent acquittal of Ulmar Zameer, charged with murdering a police officer, is an object lesson in caution.

You will likely recall that when the charge was brought down in 2021, prominent politicians like John Tory, Patrick Brown and Doug Ford reacted with very public disgust and outrage over the granting of bail to Zameer. It seemed inexplicable to many that a man charged with first degree murder of a police officer should not be vegetating in jail until his trial. The problem was that the judge had placed a publication ban on the reason bail was granted.

While Tory has expressed some regret over his comments, neither Brown nor Ford (the later not known for either introspection or humility) have spoken a word. At least the judge in the trial, Justice Anne Malloy, expressed her apologies for the costly ordeal that the Zameer family underwent. 

While apologies might seem a mere pro forma gesture, I suspect it can do a great deal to help assuage the trauma of the family and rehabilitate Zameer's reputation; the charges led to the losss of his job, his house, and his freedom (house arrest pending trial).

Referring to Justice Malloy's apology, Andre Phillips writes that Tory, Brown and Ford should do the same:

Those politicians ought to do at least that much. They ought to apologize to Zameer for getting it so wrong and stoking public hostility toward someone who was ultimately found to be no more than a participant in a tragic series of mistakes.

They should have known better. They were clearly pandering to public opinion, which was understandably outraged by the death of an on-duty police officer. In the absence of any actual evidence about what happened that day in the parking garage under Toronto City Hall, it was all too tempting to play the “jail, not bail” card.

Two of them (Tory and Brown) are lawyers. They should have been particularly sensitive to the importance of the presumption of innocence — the foundation of our system of criminal law. It’s also the underlying reason why people charged with crimes have a presumptive right to bail in most circumstances.

It’s not a matter of “coddling criminals,” as grandstanding politicians often claim these days. It’s a basic principle that people shouldn’t be deprived of their freedom until it’s proven in a court of law that they actually committed a crime.

And there was another factor at work in the entire ordeal, say Phillips.

 All these leaders whipped up public opinion against an innocent man. The fact that Zameer is from Pakistan made it worse, exposing him to xenophobic hatred. The system eventually worked, but no thanks to politicians and others who jumped to conclusions before the facts were in.

They — and the rest of us — should learn some lessons from that. The first is: when you don’t really know what happened, just shut up. 

On that I'll end, with just one more note. A Go Fund Me Campaign exists for those wishing to help the Zameer family defray their legal costs.

They Sing As One.

Quite predictably, the rich have reacted with great bitterness to the new budget, in particular the part requiring them to pay more tax on capital gains that exceed $250 thousand. To hear their tune, sung in unison, financial Armageddon is upon the country.

A chorus of Canadian entrepreneurs and investors is blasting the federal government's budget for expanding a tax on the rich. They say it will lead to brain drain and further degrade Canada's already poor productivity.

In the 2024 budget unveiled Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said the government would increase the inclusion rate of the capital gains tax from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for businesses and trusts, generating an estimated $19 billion in new revenue.

Capital gains are the profits that individuals or businesses make from selling an asset — like a stock or a second home. Individuals are subject to the new changes on any profits over $250,000.

The government estimates that the changes would impact 40,000 individuals (or 0.13 per cent of Canadians in any given year) and 307,000 companies in Canada.

In my view, this timid attempt by the federal government to look like they are holding the moneyed to account is little more than political theatre, designed to help distract from Mr. Trudeau's long-time love and admiration for financial titans. But even a bit of performative politics is too much for so many. 

Despite the fact that the changes affect almost no one, 

some members of the business community say that expanding the taxable amount will devastate productivity, investment and entrepreneurship in Canada, and might even compel some of the country's talent and startups to take their business elsewhere.

Not all agree with this assessment.

 Lindsay Tedds, an associate economics professor at Carleton University, said the tax change is one of the most misunderstood parts of the federal budget — and that its impact on the country's talent has been overstated.

"This is not a major innovation-biting tax change treatment," Tedds said. "In fact, when you talk to real grassroots entrepreneurs that are setting up businesses, tax rates do not come into their decision."

As for productivity, Tedds said Canadians might see improvements in the long run "to the degree that some of our productivity problems are driven by stresses like housing affordability, access to child care, things like that."

However, don't expect such sober analysis to fork much lightning with the hysterical. Indeed, even doctors have been infected with this particular virus:

Family doctor David Edward-Ooi Poon said, “If the government intended to tax physicians after we were pushed to the edge during the pandemic, this shows doctors, particularly young ones, that our work is not valued, that if we work harder we should be taxed more,” said Poon. “Many of my colleagues are considering moving to the U.S. or other countries where physicians make more, or lowering their hours to reduce the tax burden. For our strained health-care system to improve, I would hope that physician retention is a priority.”

To believe those in financially advantageous positions, it is never a good time to increase taxes. In good times, they say that success is being punished. In bad times, they say that kicking someone when they are down will only exacerbate problems.

Meanwhile, for those in actual need of government assistance, well, they should just learn to pick themselves up by their bootstraps (a physical impossibility, when you think about it) and stop bothering the rest of us.

Some things never seem to change.

Perhaps They'll Ease Their Pain With A Free Cup Of Coffee?

Well, Tim Horton's has done it again - disappointed their customers. Of course, that's nothing new, but I'm not referring here to the mediocre coffee that is inexplicably a national icon. Nor am I referencing their disturbing and bizarre forays into food innovations they have no business experimenting with. There is something off-putting for example, about offering flatbread pizzas alongside their downsized donuts and paltry breakfast wraps. But maybe that's just me.

What is indisputable, however, is that the best this multi-billion-dollar operation can do when it screws up is to offer a mere oops. This has happened yet again with their much hyped and cruel annual Rrroll Up The Rim to Win contest.

A technical error by Tim Hortons led coffee drinkers across Canada to falsely believe they had won a $55,000 boat as part of the franchise's Roll Up To Win promotion.

It's unclear how many people were impacted, but the chain told CBC Hamilton in an email it was an "unfortunate error" and some customers were sent an email with incorrect information.

 Darren Stewart-Jones of Hamilton said he opened an email on Wednesday morning from Tim Hortons that recapped all the prizes he won this year and it included one he didn't recognize: a 2024 Tracker Targa 18 WT boat and trailer, which retails for $39,995 US (about $55,000 Cdn) — the only one available to participants.

"I thought, 'Wow, this could be really awesome,'" Stewart-Jones told CBC News in a phone interview.

But his initial burst of excitement turned into questions as he scrolled through his emails to find out when he'd won the boat. 

After learning others had also received such an email, he began to suspect his good fortune was not what it seemed.

And he was right, as Tim Horton's facilely and callously pointed out: 

Tim Hortons sent customers an email with instructions to "disregard" the recap email they received, saying "technical errors" may have allowed for some prizes they didn't win to end up in the recap email.

"We apologize for the frustration this has caused and for not living up to our high standards of providing an exceptional guest experience," read the letter, which Tim Hortons shared with CBC. 

Shamefully, this is not the first time 'technical problems' have hobbled the emporium.

Just over a year ago, the Tim Hortons app mistakenly informed users they'd won $10,000.

Chris Rivett,  another 'winner' from Edmonton, is considering all of his options.

Rivet said he has filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada and is considering filing a lawsuit.

On Wednesday afternoon, a Facebook group formed with over 200 people expressing outrage about the mistake and threatening to file lawsuits.

"NOPE. Not taking this as an answer!! Two words: CLASS ACTION," read a post from Christiane Marie.

Will the fine print under contest rules insulate Tim Horton's from legal retribution? Perhaps. But in the  court of public opinion, they are already on trial and it looks like a guilty plea is pending. 

One hopes that the coffee giant won't add insult to injury by offering a free cup of coffee to the winners/losers of this latest fiasco.