The tab that you the taxpayer have picked up for a 2016 Christmas vacation of Prime Minister Trudeau is $215,000 according the The Globe and Mail this morning. He took a trip along with family and friends to a private island owned by a gentleman known as Aga Khan who owns a foundation registered as a lobbyist of the Government of Canada.
You can call it a breach of ethics but I call it something a lot more vigorous unbefitting of this first world country which likes to show itself off as being clean of government corruption. Aga Khan is supposedly a “spiritual leader” and I will emphatically state that my federal government has no business feeding my hard earned tax dollars to any “spiritual cause” let alone the grand sum of $330,000,000 (Toronto Star) disbursed to “foundation projects” since 1981.
The great country of Canada with its punitive taxation system can perhaps finally now come to learn that extorting (excessive taxation) its citizens for the benefit of the privileged has gone on far too long.
I fully expect the federal conservative party leader to exhibit his outrage with proceeding to either recover taxpayer money from beneficiaries of the lavish 2016 Christmas trip, or exercise whatever provision may be available in the Canadian Constitution Act to remove this man from office.
Let me be clear…this was not a “mistake” by this man as he has referenced the violation. This was outright willful disregard of Canadian’s money for which we put trust in our government officials for its management. Furthermore, it is indicative of a behavioral pattern in Canada where ego driven politicians begin to patronize their constituents at the first whiff of parliamentary power.
Apparently our federal Minister of Sports and Persons With Disabilities has come under fire for behaving less than professional and he’s being held to account. This is a good thing. The job of politics comes with the inherent task of responding to the beefs of constituents while potentially implementing worthy recommendations. Additionally, this responsibility comes with the task of eliminating roles where the government does not belong. Societies evolve and priority lists should hence follow suit. I can cut my government officials some slack now and then if they lose their cool while responding to a constituent in the heat of executing the important duties of their office. However; there is losing one’s cool and then there’s the display of outright disrespect.
Increasingly Canadians feel impotent in jumping through the channels of government in order to have their voices heard. Hence; they understandably become emotional. I expect my government officials to be in tune with the frustration faced by Canadians because of inherent inefficiencies and bureaucracies associated with the law, legislative process, processing times of inquiries, and access to politicians. Naturally, our government has limited resources as it should and has delivered with particular protocols to aid the public but in an environment where our federal government expects to be all things to all people, folks will consequently reach out their hand for what they deem to be theirs having witnessed benefits showered upon their neighbours. When liberalism extends to socialism, this is what happens.
I encourage Canadians with legitimate concerns to exercise their voice through the precise channels that governments make available while following up and following through administratively on their initiatives. I have experienced some success in my tax practice helping authorities understand administrative problems more fully. They have in fact thanked me for providing feedback. One’s credibility is well served having finely documented courses of action and progressive steps in resolving matters. Consequently, if a matter needs elevation, then an activist is well equipped in support of a louder voice. When society realigns with the ideals of a libertarian philosophy instead of a socialist one, these problems should be ameliorated.
A Calgary Herald editorial today has asked the question, “where’s the men?” on the topic of the #metoo campaign. I thought I’d take up the challenge.
My thoughts are quite specific and they are going to be controversial. Naturally, men are scarce because if they speak the truth they know they’ll be castigated.
Our legal system serves the legal profession more than it serves its citizens. Fees are absurdly high and the process is cumbersome to the point that people conceptualize any reward not worth the emotional and financial cost of pursuit. In fact, law enforcement can be outright condescending in hearing cases of harm. Hence; cases of sexual misconduct have gone unreported. Unfortunately, in some situations in the work place women have taken the deal of professional advancement in return for sex. Fast forward years and decades later in a new era whereby women feel more empowered in spite of a legal system still inefficient, men witness these women having derived financial strength upon compromising their integrity through either sleeping with the boss or not reporting incidents of sexual impropriety now call out with the full power of their lungs excoriating these men who had been conditioned to think that their behaviour was okay. Hundreds and maybe thousands of victims could have been saved had you acted then!
The #metoo campaign apparently fails to comprehend that their message has been undermined by years of failing to exercise their power in the context of laws which have indeed been in place to protect them. Men perceive their lack of willingness to have called them out as either complicity in the context of financial gain, or weakness in asserting their rights.
Gratefully women now feel more empowered and men potentially will be behaving better while our legal systems, professional bodies, and trade organizations do the necessary navel gazing in order to administer justice fairly and expeditiously.
While all women should seek the recourse and justice they deserve, I suggest that this #metoo campaign now be deactivated because it’s served its purpose and any continuing reference to it at this point will only serve to divide rather than heal.
Fine….whatever. Now, we’d best see the pot smokers being the ones paying for regulatory measures and ad campaigns. This Canadian thinks that pot smokers will know enough to be versed on the risks and penalties of driving while high without the taxpayer funding an ad campaign streaming through movie houses across the land. My logical mind goes like this….I smoke pot and it creates a cerebral adjustment / impairment. Consequently, I must know the new law associated with putting myself behind the wheel of a car having ingested cannabis. I must know what my government believes to be the criteria associated with impairment and the legal sanction for non-compliance. I think it reasonable that my government having taken this legislative decision will have conducted necessary diligence in determining these criteria. Since I’m a responsible citizen, I will become informed through the channels that my government makes available to me through the internet, my local police detachment, or the office of my member of parliament. Given the proliferation of the internet for information dissemination and my government’s inclination for utilizing the resource in order to aid Canadians, could it be a reasonable strategy to inquire on the internet in order to become educated around the legislation? I suspect, yes.