FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Sep 16

Canada Has Its Own Mini-Trump Running In Current Federal Election

by bcurry

In Canada today, there are a number of small parties running in the current federal election.  Among these is the self-described hard-right populist People’s Party of Canada (CPP) founded in 2018 by Maxime Bernier.  Bernier was once a member of Canada’s Conservative Party, but left due to differing views with the party on a number of policy issues.  Overall, he believed that the Conservative Party had strayed from some of its traditional right-wing beliefs.  In its first election in 2019, the CPP received 1.6 percent of votes, placing it well behind other small parties, such as the Greens (6.5 percent) but well ahead of others, such as the Christian Heritage Party (0.1 percent).  Currently, the CPP does not have a seat in the national parliament.  Recent polls show that the CPP could get slightly more than 6 percent of the popular vote, but again the party is not expected to win any seats, including that in the riding where Maxime Bernier himself is running.

The primary difference with the emergence of Donald Trump in the Republican Party is that Bernier decided to offer his ultra-right views by forming a new national party.  However, many of the same positions taken by Trump’s followers are reflected in the CPP’s platform.  Bernier is attempting to appeal to a portion of the Canadian electorate who are disgruntled with the current political establishment in Ottawa, be it Conservative or Liberal, and are simply angry about the current state of Canadian society and big governments.  Like Trump, Bernier is in favour of reducing immigration, preventing refugees from entering Canada illegally, promoting the construction of pipelines, denying the human contribution to climate change, pushing for a single national identity, moving away from promoting multiculturalism, eliminating foreign aid funding and repealing existing firearms laws. Fortunately, unlike Trump, Bernier has not to date raised issues about voter fraud or rigged elections.

What has really brought out the CPP supporters to the federal election are the restrictive measures taken by the federal and provincial governments to deal with the coronavirus pandemic.  Bernier has referred to COVID-19 public-health measures and vaccine policies as being “tyrannical”.  He has often told his supporters that: “People are fed up and they want to get back their freedom.”  This is a common theme, declaring that government public-health measures are an attack on one’s liberties, especially when it comes to lockdowns, mandated vaccinations and vaccine passports. 

What’s unfortunate about the participation of CPP supporters in the campaign is that their anger has gotten the better of their common sense and civility.  Supporters have been part of a number of often-violent demonstrations protesting the other parties’ leaders, especially at events being held by the current Liberal leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  The protesters have attempted to drown out the leaders at campaign stops and have revealed signs with vulgar and insulting slurs and graphics.  What’s regrettable is that Maxime Bernier refuses to condemn the incivility and lack of respect shown by CPP supporters against the opposing leaders, and in particular the PM.  In these difficult times, there is no doubt that there is a lot of pent-up anger among those whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively affected by the pandemic and some of the public-health measures that had to be implemented.  However, given the severity of the pandemic, Canadian support for such measures and the current growing fourth wave, it doesn’t appear that the CPP will gain very much additional support.

Unlike in the U.S. with its firmly established conservative base in several regions, there is little chance that Canada will see a similar ultra-right populist administration in power anytime soon.

Maxime Bernier himself does not like to be compared to Donald Trump for obvious reasons.  Unfortunately, his party has tended to politicize some of the more critical issues such as public-health measures aimed at preventing more COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths.  Unfortunately, the anti-vaxxers now have a political means to promote their virulent opposition to such measures.  By encouraging unfounded and unreasonable protests, Bernier does appear to have taken a page from Donald Trump’s agenda.

Canada Donald Trump Federal Government Justin Trudeau Populism in Canada US

Leave a comment »
Aug 26

The Issue of the Right to Choose vs. the Ability to Choose

by bcurry

I recently read an interesting editorial in a Canadian media outlet that addressed some of the issues facing Canadians and Canadian political parties in the current federal election.  All the main parties have attempted to address such issues as child care, affordable housing, health care, long-term care, employment opportunities, and economic assistance to the middle class and working poor.  In this particular article, the writer wondered whatever happened to people’s right to choose what’s best for themselves and their families?  What the proposition fails to address is the fundamental issue that not everyone in our society has a choice when it comes to their livelihood and daily lifestyles.  The right to choose would be great if we had an egalitarian society where people had the means to choose the alternatives available for many necessities.

Let’s start with how one educates one’s children.  Education is supposed to be the foundation for allowing people to reach their full potential in society, and notably to escape from the cycle of poverty that exists in many circumstances.  However, when it comes to public education which the majority of Canadians rely on, there is not always the same quality of primary and secondary public sources depending on where a family lives.  Sure, one can choose to send their children to private schools, but how many of us can afford to do so? 

Then, there is the question of affordable housing which everyone agrees is increasingly disappearing in most major urban communities.  If one cannot afford to expend 60 or 70 percent of their monthly income on rental housing, the options are clearly limited.  One ends up having to take whatever is available, and that’s not much.  Just look at the waiting lists for subsidized housing in most communities.

Next, we have the question concerning our current system of universal health care.  Fortunately, unlike in the U.S., Canada supports a basic health care insurance system which covers every Canadian.  However, even then, we have inequalities because of the need to have private health insurance to cover such things as certain prescription drugs, dental care and physiotherapy.  There are those who have to forgo certain treatments or medication in order to put food on the table and pay the rent.  Is this what one implies by referring to choice?

Then there is the question of one’s employment and supplementary needs.  For many single parent families or working couples, there is little choice but to work.  With a requirement for affordable child care during early childhood, they need to find affordable means to ensure that their kids are adequately cared for while they are at work.  Given the evident lack of affordable child care across Canada, the means to providing for care is not always a matter of parental choice.  You may be required to work more than one job, often at minimum wages, and the needed hours most likely will vary depending on where one works.  In addition, you most likely will take public transit to and from work because it’s the cheapest means to commute, especially given the high costs of vehicle insurance.

This brings us to the ultimate question.  Do we have a real right to choose or is this a privilege depending on one’s status in an inequitable society?  What many need are affordable and quality options, whether it is for child care, housing, transportation or health care.  Without greater availability to affordable and quality options, simple measures through income-based tax credits for Canadians does nothing to resolve the existing inequalities.  Hopefully, there are signs that some political parties have recognized the need for proactive policies and expenditures to tackle such inequalities.  After all, we are talking about the basic necessities of everyday living for many Canadians who are not among the privileged few.  Unfortunately, as it now stands, many are not in a position of choice.

Canada Federal Government

Leave a comment »
Jul 28

Appointment of Remarkable Indigenous Woman to be Canada’s 30th Governor General

by bcurry

On July 26th, Mary Simon was officially appointed the Queen’s representative to Canada.  What is extraordinary is that Mary Simon is Inuk, having been born and raised in what is now Nunavut.  Nunavut is one of Canada’s three northern territories and is populated primarily by the Inuk people.  Now of course, the role of the Governor General is primarily ceremonial, but there are certain situations where the Prime Minister as head of government must consult with the Governor General, such as in the case of dissolving Parliament and calling a federal election.  What is more important, that as head of state, the Governor General will oversee a number of ceremonial events such as the opening of Parliament and awarding Canadians with various titles of recognition for service and achievements.

What is even more important, in this period of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, Mary Simon will have numerous opportunities to travel the country and meet with Canadians in their communities.  She appears to be devoted to trying to bring Canadians together and to serve as a bridge for people of different races, colour, life preferences, religions, etc., etc.  She is also committed to improving the economic and social situation for people in the Artic, many of whom have been forgotten by past governments in Ottawa.  She has also been a major spokesperson for issues surrounding climate change, particularly in global Artic regions.  In her inauguration address to Parliament, Mary Simon demonstrated her sincere desire to serve all Canadians in a respectful and humble manner.

In a time when the current pandemic has created more divisions among Canadians, an effective and respected Governor General can certainly help to address some of the critical issues we face, without the appearance of adhering to any particular political biases.  She has talked about real acts of meaningful reconciliation and the need for healing in Aboriginal communities across Canada.  Through tolerance and understanding, she believes that Canada can truly become a country of diversity, greater equality and hope.  I, like many Canadians, could not but be impressed with the inspiring words of our new head of state.  We can only hope that Her Excellency, the Right Honourable Mary Simon, as our 30th and first Inuk Governor General, will help all of us to heal and move forward in a positive way.  She certainly has challenging work set out for her!

Canada Climate Change Federal Government

Leave a comment »
May 28

What’s a Billion Dollars? President Biden’s Proposed $6 Trillion Budget for 2022 Fiscal Year

by bcurry

During the Second World War, Canada’s newly appointed Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Honourable C.D. Howe, had allegedly said “What’s a million?” in response to his war spending estimates in 1945 (which totalled $1.365 billion).  This was in response to opposition queries about cutting a million dollars from that budget.  Howe responded that a million dollars from the War Appropriations Bill would not be a very important matter, which of course in those days represented a lot of money.  Howe eventually went on in 1944 to become Minister of Reconstruction in the post-war government’s successful overhaul of the Canadian economy. 

Now one has President Biden’s apparent proposal for a $6 trillion budget for the 2022 fiscal year.  Wow, this is a lot of money!  The budget proposal would call for the most sustained spending in more than a half-century, which forecasts deficits at more than $1 trillion for at least the next decade.  As in the case of WWII funding, the President sees the proposed expenditures as necessary to turn the economy around after the pandemic is over.  Most of the planned new funding would go to building up America’s infrastructure: everything from roads, bridges, public transit systems, passenger and freight rail, airports, water infrastructure, broadband infrastructure, etc., etc.  Already, in addition to the American Jobs Plan, the President has put forward a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, a massive package that would invest in education, childcare and paid family leave.  To pay for all this, the President plans to increase taxes on the wealthy and to raise the current corporate tax rate.

Of course, the Republicans have raised their objections, especially to any increases in personal or corporate tax rates.  A group of Senate Republicans apparently have announced a $928 billion counteroffer on infrastructure.  After all, what’s a few billion dollars less?  Needless-to-say, many Democrats dismissed the Republican counteroffers as being too small.  Sounds familiar.  Another group of Republicans reportedly has suggested using unspent funds from previous coronavirus relief plans to pay for the infrastructure bill.

As in the case of the American and Canadian extensive efforts and massive spending for their economies to fund the war and recover from WWII, it would make sense that similar efforts are required of governments to do the same in order to recover from the damages incurred as a result of the global pandemic.  One way is for a massive investment in the much needed upgrading of our infrastructures, many of which have suffered from past neglect.  Yes, a billion or more dollars is a lot of money, but not when you’re talking about trillions.

Canada Economy Federal Government Joe Biden Reopening the Economy US

Leave a comment »
Sep 18

In Canada, the Rich Just Got Richer During the Pandemic – But at What Cost?

by bcurry

Canada’s 20 richest have collectively added $37 billion to their fortunes since March 2020, according to a recent report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  Meanwhile the unemployment rate in Canada hit an all time high of 13.7 percent in May, with 1.1 million people still out of work.  More than ever, many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and food banks are doing a booming business across the country.  The report notes that billionaires like Loblaws owner Galen Weston have seen their wealth balloon, while front-line workers stocking shelves and scanning groceries at his stores have continued to risk their health and that of their loved ones by coming into work.

The irony is that three of the largest Canadian grocery chains, Loblaw Cos. Ltd., Sobeys’ parent Empire Co. Ltd. and Metro Inc., each ended their $2-an-hour wage increases on the same day in mid-June.  This shocking action took place despite the fact that the coronavirus pandemic was and is still with us.  Some have called for an investigation by the federal Competition Bureau into what is perceived as “wage fixing” by these corporations.  Unfortunately, unlike in the U.S. where wage fixing and other labour-related schemes are considered per se illegal and don’t require any proof of a negative impact, there is no such legislation governing wage fixing in Canada.  In July, the top executives from Loblaw, Empire and Metro were called to explain their wage cuts in front of a parliamentary committee, but to no avail.  Some parliamentarians are calling for a change to the Competition Act to allow the Bureau to investigate such “wage fixing” schemes.  Hopefully, the current federal government will consider a legislative change.

Governments have often proclaimed that we are all in the fight against COVID-19 together.  However, it would appear that some are in the fight more than others, while some are benefiting obvious expense of restaurants and the service industry.  Anyone who shops for groceries knows that food prices have not declined, if anything they have increased greatly — especially for fresh more from the economic impact of the virus.  Among those benefiting are the big grocers with more consumers isolating at home and depending on obtaining essentials from their outlets, at the produce.  This has made it extremely difficult for families who are relying on temporary government assistance, some of which may disappear very shortly.  Among those families are members who work in grocery stores, only to have their risk compensation shamefully terminated by billionaires.  In light of the ultimate advent of a second wave of COVID-19, one can only hope that these big grocers will reinstate the earlier top-up wage increases.  Seems to be the only right thing to do under the circumstances!  Don’t hold your breath.

Canada COVID-19 Federal Government

Leave a comment »
Apr 26

Why Is It That We Still Can’t Understand The Limitations Of Governments To Do Things?

by bcurry

Recently, I read a number of articles in reputable sources blaming governments for all kinds of things. The complaints ranged from the decline in North American manufacturing jobs to proactive policies aimed at dealing with climate change and poverty.  The problem appears to be that the authors really don’t understand just what impact government policies and programs can have in reality.  Indeed, what is the ultimate role and purpose of governing?

Let’s put it in simpler terms. Governments are needed to ensure peace and good order in a society.  They do this by creating laws, administering and enforcing them for the good of all citizens.  Governments also strive to protect the individual rights of their citizens, constitutional or otherwise.  However, unlike a century ago, societal needs have become more complex and are influenced by many other factors — from new technologies, globalization, ideologies, oligopolies, world and domestic economic institutions, the environment, etc., etc. Most of these factors are outside the direct influence or control of governments.  If anything, the impact of other factors is felt more than that of government initiatives which tend to be more reactive than proactive.

Today, hundreds of lobbyists continuously work to influence government policies, often through financial support for politicians and parties. While governments attempt to be perceived as being independent, the reality is that the most influential interest groups get their fullest attention.  For example, one only has to look at recent tax reform initiatives in the U.S. and the influence of the National Rifle Association regarding the current gun control debate. Large business organizations run the economy, not government.  President Trump is witnessing their significant influence in the current debate over free trade versus his administration’s move to increased protectionism.

Except in the case of wars, governments rarely tackle issues in a speedy and drastic way, but rather do things in a deliberately slow and incremental approach. Sometimes, politicians just want to please as many interest groups as possible so as to get re-elected in the short-term.  It’s rare that governments attempt to move quickly to tackle those longer-term issues for fear of alienating their supporters, most of whom can’t see further than the end of their noses.  Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, critics ignore the realities of governing today’s complex societies.  Many of the issues we face today have emerged and evolved over decades of governments with varying political stripes.  In order to be re-elected, political parties are more or less forced to take “centrist” positions or face the countervailing influence of powerful interest groups.  It’s hard to govern effectively and with a longer-term perspective when the immediate primary objective is political survival.  Sorry to be so cynical, but it’s been a tough week!

Canada Federal Government Federal Government US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 11

Canada Needs Laws Barring Discrimination Based on Genetic Test Results

by bcurry

In 2009, the U.S. passed the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act which bars discrimination by insurers and employers based on genetic test results.  The law was enacted in response to breakthroughs in genetic testing, including the development of readily available tests that can detect whether individuals are at risk for certain diseases or other medical conditions.  Developments had raised concerns that employers or insurers would use the information to deny coverage or employment to those at higher risk.

Genetic testing has come a long way. Tests have been developed to determine the probability of someone being potentially at risk for dementia, osteoporosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and numerous other diseases.  Currently, individuals tend to be the focus of genetic testing for their personal or health reasons.  This is where the privacy of such information becomes important, particularly as it pertains to employment and health or life insurance.  However, despite many advances in the science of the human genome, the fact is that it is still difficult to predict with absolute certainty that an individual will actually have the disease based solely on genetic testing.  Other important environmental considerations must also be taken into account when examining a person’s potential health risks.

For these reasons, laws are required to prevent genetic discrimination and to guarantee the rights of people to privacy of genetic testing results. This is a matter between the individual and his/her physician, not to be shared with anyone else without the individual’s consent.  As was the case in the U.S., the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association on behalf of insurance providers believes that insurers have every right to information about a client’s genetic makeup.  However, given the reasons for genetic testing, the uncertainty of the science and other environmental considerations, the need for and use of such information by insurers and employers is really questionable.

Recently, a private members’ bill from the Senate was passed which would ensure that Canadians can get genetic tests to help identify health risks and take preventive measures.   This could be undertaken without fear that they’ll be penalized when it comes to getting a job or life and health insurance.  However, in a bizarre twist, the federal government is arguing that the bill amounts to an unconstitutional use of the federal criminal law power to intrude into provincial jurisdiction to regulate the insurance industry.  This ignores the fact that under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians have the legal right to life, liberty and personal security.  The latter should of course include the right to privacy in matters related to their health and well-being.  For this reason, the government needs to proceed implementing the bill and stop its stall tactic of declaring the issue to be an infringement on provincial jurisdiction.  Instead, we should get on with ensuring the privacy of people’s health information, especially when it comes to genetic testing.

Canada Federal Government Mental Health

Leave a comment »
Oct 5

It’s Not More Legislation That’s Necessarily the Solution, It’s Also Enforcement of Existing Laws

by bcurry

President Obama has again referred to the need for more gun control legislation in response to the recent tragic mass shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. As complex societies, we have legislation regulating activities throughout our two nations, including those dealing with public and worker health and safety, the environment, financial institutions, transportation, etc., etc. It would seem that we are well regulated already in most of our daily activities. Yet, terrible things keep happening in communities across North America — be it the mass shootings in Oregon and elsewhere or the train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec that killed dozens of people in 2013.

Years ago in order to reduce so-called ‘government bureaucracy’ and reduce operational expenditures, governments began to introduce the concept of ‘self-regulation’ in a number of areas. This meant that industry had to ensure that businesses were in compliance with the standards found under various forms of existing legislation. It also meant that the regulators would reduce the number of proactive inspections and restrict their interventions to investigating accidents and incidents affecting health and safety, particularly where there were fatalities and injuries. In other words, in a much more reactive mode, enforcement primarily became targeted at violations committed by bad actors. Where violations are found, penalties are imposed in the form of fines and in fewer cases criminal charges.

However, all of this enforcement activity is performed ‘after the fact’. People become sick from unsafe food, water sources are polluted by hazardous materials releases, air quality suffers from high pollutant emissions from diesel vehicles, workers die in coal mine explosions, etc., etc. Fewer inspectors and administrators means less preventive and proactive regulatory activity. Having a registry of persons with mental illness or criminal records is meaningless if states and local authorities don’t provide much needed information to the responsible regulator in a timely and efficient manner. Without the effective enforcement of existing government requirements, more people are going to die at the hands of some mass killer.

Enforcement of standards and regulated activities has to improve in many areas involving societal oversight. Otherwise, more tragedies will occur affecting all of us in one way or another. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Hopefully, politicians will finally recognize this.

Canada Federal Government Gun Control

Leave a comment »
Sep 21

Should Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Ever Fly in Canada?

by bcurry

The answer is clearly a resounding “NO”. As a result of the current Canadian federal election underway, the governing Conservative Party is still defending its involvement in a plan to purchase F-35s to replace the current aging fleet of CF-18s. The problem is, Canada can’t afford it and there are several practical reasons why the F-35s don’t make any sense in the Canadian context. Both the New Democratic and Liberal parties have indicated that they would scrap F-35 purchases should they form the next government, and will look at cheaper and more suitable alternative aircraft.

The following are detailed concerns expressed by insiders and recorded by several media outlets in Canada, the U.S. and other countries:*

  • Right from the start, Pentagon officials were warned of the dangers of beginning to produce an aircraft before it was fully tested. (New York Times, 2012)
  • In 2010, Pentagon officials estimated that the planes could cost as much as $5 billion more than previously estimated. That comes on top of a $2.8 billion increase, which brought the total for development alone to $50 billion. (New York Times, 2010)
  • In 2011, S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler estimated the planes would cost around $148 million apiece or more. (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35, a must for longer flights in our North. The Defence Department had listed air-to-air refuelling as a mandatory capability for any new fighter aircraft Canada (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada’s North as those are too short for the fighter. (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • The Pentagon official in charge of the F-35 project said major cracks and “hot spots” had been discovered in the stealth fighter’s airframe, causing further delays and testing. (Postmedia News, 2011)
  • F-35s don’t have the satellite capabilities necessary for communicating in the Arctic. (Postmedia News, 2011)
  • The Pentagon grounded all of its F-35s after a routine inspection found a crack in one of the stealth fighter’s engines. (Postmedia News, 2013)
  • Lockheed needs more foreign orders to realize volume savings. In 2012, Italy cut its planned order 30 percent. Britain and Australia delayed decisions on how many F-35s to buy. Lawmakers in Canada and the Netherlands were questioning the costs. (New York Times, 2012)
  • Several countries, including Britain and Japan, have stated that they may have to cancel their F-35 order in view of the cost overruns, technical problems and delays. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • Retired Canadian colonel Paul Maillet, an aerospace engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager, said the F-35 does not meet the needs of the government’s Canada First Defence Strategy, a key pillar of which is Arctic sovereignty. “How do you get a single-engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support . . . to operate effectively in the North?” he asked. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • In 2012, Auditor General Michael Ferguson delivered a report highly critical of the Defence Department’s handling of the F-35 project. The auditor general’s report indicated Defence Department officials twisted government rules, withheld information from ministers and Parliament, and whitewashed cost overruns and delays afflicting the F-35 program. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • The first F-35s were supposed to be delivered to Canada in 2015. The federal government quietly decided in the fall of 2015 to spend $400 million to extend the life of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets past 2020. (Ottawa Citizen, 2015)
  • With all the delays — full F-35 production is not expected until 2019 — the U.S. military has spent billions to extend the lives of older fighters and buy more of them to fill the gap. (New York Times, 2013)
  • Mark Gunzinger, a retired American Air Force colonel who is now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, noted that the F-35 could be too sophisticated for minor conflicts, and its relatively short flight range could be a problem as the Pentagon changes its view of possible threats. (New York Times, 2012)
  • S. air force data demonstrates that single-engine jets have crashed more often. The manufacturer and the government have argued that improvements in technology have made the F-35’s engine more reliable and safer than its predecessors. A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Rideau Institute noted: “The single-engine versus twin-engine issue has not been resolved by improvements in the reliability of jet engines”. “Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash.” (Canadian Press, 2014)
  • A 2014 government-commissioned report on the F-35 and its competitors shows little difference between the four warplanes when it comes to the vast majority of missions they will be required to perform. The only major exception is fighting against another country, though the report says such an event is “highly unlikely” to occur in the future, and even then, “the government is not obliged to undertake such a mission.” (Ottawa Citizen, 2014)
  • An Industry Canada report said that the four aircraft companies reviewed had all laid out plans for bolstering the Canadian economy with jobs and other benefits should their aircraft be chosen to replace the CF-18. (Ottawa Citizen, 2014)
  • In 2015, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that progress had been made on some of the problems that have plagued the controversial jet fighter’s development for years. These include designing a new pilot’s helmet and fixing an issue that resulted in cracks in the aircraft’s frame. But the GAO, which serves as Congress’s independent auditor, said “key gaps” persist that threaten to increase costs and put development even further behind schedule. Problems with the aircraft’s engine have delayed aircraft deliveries and testing. (Ottawa Citizen, 2015)

*In addition to Canada and the U.S., the original F-35 project included Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and Japan.

Canada Federal Election Federal Government Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
Apr 8

More and More Government Handouts – Another Canadian Federal Election Must Be Coming

by bcurry

How about one more tax credit for the middle class?  Now we have Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. lobbying the federal government for a fitness tax credit for adults of all ages.  So if I like, as a mature adult, to ski, play in an adult sports league or work out at a gym club, I could receive a tax credit up to $500 per person.  This would be on top of those tax credits already available for any children involved in fitness activities, to be bumped up to an eligible amount to $1,000 per child.  Needless-to-say, all these tax credits will eventually cost the federal government hundreds of millions of tax dollars in the near future.  The costs of implementing the adult fitness tax credit have been estimated by the government to be $69 million in the first year and $275 million each year after.

Now, I have a real problem with subsidizing Goodlife Fitness Centres with taxpayer money.  I also have a problem with subsidizing those adults who, of their own volition, decide to participate in sports or fitness activities which the average taxpayer cannot really afford.  Let’s face it, given the annual fees for gym clubs, tennis clubs and ski lodges, most of us would probably pass on such activities.  I couldn’t even justify paying for those fancy gym outfits and shoes designed to impress the other members.  Instead, we regular people look for more affordable past times like walking, hiking in parks, riding bikes, skating on public rinks, etc., etc.

Why not invest in infrastructure from which all of us can benefit!  I for one would like to see more taxpayer investment in national and local parks, in playgrounds, public swimming pools, boys and girls clubs, school fitness programs and outdoor public facilities accessible to everyone, regardless of income levels.  Today, obesity and other health issues are a concern not only for the middle and upper classes, but also for society as a whole.  In the name of gaining a few extra votes, why is it that the ruling party has to be so short-sighted?  Is it because poor people tend not to vote in large numbers?  Where are the studies that show that such tax breaks really make a difference one way or the other?

After all, we are a free society where people can make their own choices about where to spend their hard earned dollars.  If your income is such that you can spend it on fitness or arts and music activities, then that’s your choice.  Why I as a taxpayer have to subsidize it is a whole other matter.  Sorry, Mr. Finance Minister, my vote cannot and will not be bought by such obvious ploys.  As a society, we have many more urgent issues to resolve: national security, the economy, unemployment and the environment to name only a few.

Canada Federal Election Federal Government

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.