And it goes on

The Cons just got through the "Big Cheque" scandal misunderstanding with the PM saying that it was one unfortunate incident by one MP.  We now know that it was a coordinated conspiracy effort across the country by the Con caucus.   It was interesting to note that of all the Cons who were part of the scandal effort, the one name that did not pop up was Pierre "pension for life" Poilievre, the champion of First Nations Rights from Nepean Carleton.

I guess that Pierre must have been away when the plot.. nah, it was a plot, plot was hatched.  Not to be outdone by his caucus colleagues, PP waited a couple of weeks and then hatched his own plot in an obscure local news rag.  In the Osgoode Packet this week, PP boasted about the "Conservative Home Renovation Tax Credit of up to $1350".  


I have been collecting my receipts for a basement renovation.  I guess I send them to PP to get my $1350 from the Con party... and not from the Government of Canada?

Off to the slammer with them!

Jason Kenny seems to have a problem.  A bunch of Tamils showed up in an old boat in Victoria asking for the keys to Canada.  This has the entire Con government in a deep quandry. 

If they accept the "refugees" they will be heroes to some and dumbos to the majority.  If they reject them and send them back to Sri Lanka they will lose the crucial Tamil-Canadian vote.  And when you are salivating for a majority government there is no such thing as a bad vote.
 
The Law and Order Party recently decided that their new prisons are good enough for Canadians, so why not put the boat-folks in prison until the refugee system can get around to granting them landed status.

It's a win scenario, Steve.  The Tamils see you soft on refugees and the Con mouth-breathers see you strong on crime.

No need to thank me for the advice.  Just send one of those big Con Party/Gov of Canada cheques to help fix my basement.

Lawyers making new laws

Happening this week in Ottawa have been so bizarre that a scriptwriter for The Twilight Zone could never have been able to conceive of them.  We have had the spectacle of three examples of where our legal profession has decided to create new precedents that could have long ranging ramification in Canada.

Case one.  In the O'Brien-Kilrea dust-up over influence peddling, the defense lawyer accused Kilrea of lying about a conversation he had with John "Screamer" Baird.  Kilrea claims he did not talk with Baird about a Parole Board job (the centre of the prosecution of O'Brien).  Edelson, the lawyer, claims that Baird said that they did; based on a statement made by Baird to police.  After the courtroom revelation, Baird's political mouthpiece denied that Baird had the conversation with Kilrea and that Edelson was confused.  It appears that Edelson was indeed wrong.  Does that mean that he should to apologize to Kilrea?  Want to be he won't?

Lesson learned.  When you are defending the seemingly indefensible, it is OK to LIE!

Case two.  The Cons have Ruby Dhalla where they want her.  In a bizarre exercise of parliamentary powers the immigration committee has decided to become a kangaroo court.  They are into the realm of investigating and passing judgment... neither of which is within their purview.  But the genius of the situation is that none of the evidence or testimony heard or discovered at the committee can be used in a real court of law.  So even if Dhalla is determined to be not guilty she cannot get recourse, with the evidence of her innocence, to any court in the country.  She will be destroyed politically.  Thanks to the Cons.

Lesson learned.  If you are ever accused of any crime for apparent political reasons, it is best to get a file opened with the RCMP before the Cons can set up committee hearings.  At least then you can protect the freedom and continuity of evidence.

Case three.  Former Con PM Mulroney has decided to rewrite the Canadian Tax Code.  And he could, you know.  As PM, he is considered the top law maker in the country.

Mulroney admitted in his appearance before the Oliphant Inquiry that he received large cash payment from KH Schreiber in 1993.  However it took him a bunch of years to claim it as income.  Why the delay?

According to Mulroney, you only need to claim income in the year you want to use it, not when you earned it. That is probably news to Revenue Canada. According to the tax code, you have to claim all income made in the tax year except in certain cases, such as:

"* compensation received from a province or territory if you were a victim of a criminal act or a motor vehicle accident;
* lottery winnings;
* most gifts and inheritances;
* amounts paid by Canada or an ally (if the amount is not taxable in that country) for disability or death due to war service;
* most amounts received from a life insurance policy following someone's death; and
* most payments of the type commonly referred to as strike pay you received from your union, even if you perform picketing duties as a requirement of membership."

I suppose that Mulroney could classify the cash as a gift, but that would open many more cans of whoop-ass on his honourable self..

To compound his problems, Mulroney admitted to have $75,000 in payments squirreled away in a deposit box in New York for a bunch of years before he claimed it.  According to CRA web site, you must,

"Report foreign income and other amounts (such as expenses and taxes paid) in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income or paid the expense."

 I suppose that the loop hole is that the clause does not state when you had to declare the foreign income, but that might be just splitting hairs.

Lesson learned.  When you become PM of Canada, change the laws to suit your personal needs before you leave office.