The Canadian National Newspaper: Canada’s socially progressive news and current affairs blog

The Stephen Harper government has began to demonstrate that it is now prepared to talk about doing something about Global Warming, and put dollars into high profile environmental catastrophes like Stanley Park in Vancouver, British Columbia. The current Conservative minority government has also made many other promises, including, putting millions and billions of dollars in other environment-saving schemes, including ‘clean air’, public transportation infrastructure in Toronto, Canada’s largest city, and related areas of climate change, including technology.

The problem is that Stephen Harper has already made public comments which ridiculed environmental issues, including climate change, that were true to his far-right wing political economic allegiances. Mr. Harper and his Conservative Party colleagues have pursued political office to primarily serve a Big Business elite driven agenda. That’s why Mr. Harper and his Conservative Party have received so much more money from wealthy interests, than any other Canadian political party. Rest assured, these wealthy interests have not flocked to Mr. Harper so that he can champion the environmental rights of Canadians. It is apparent that any professed environmental policy commitments by Mr. Harper would be quickly “kicked to the curb”, if the Conservative Party ever attained a majority government.

“Freed” of humility in the current minority government, any Conservative majority government would lead to the accelerated destruction of Canada’s ecosystems, and a corresponding path of accelerated destructive climate change. The Stephen Harper government’s “pro-environmental” professings are apparent insincere political ploys in preparation of the next Canadian federal election, and do not reflect a new found appreciation of the vital “life and death” nature in considering environmental policy options.

“Buyers” of the Conservative party alleged new found environmental agenda should definitely beware, with the similar caution that one may approach a used car salesperson.

by Paul Chen

George W. Bush is more isolated than any other U.S. President in modern times — apart from perhaps Richard M. Nixon during the final, disastrous throes of the Vietnam War. Last November’s mid-term elections, which gave the Democrats control of Congress in the United States, were mainly a vote against Mr. Bush and his clique that prevail over the Iraq War, which in turn prevail over the so-called “War on Terror”. Since November 2006, U.S. public opinion has moved even more strongly against ‘the War’, with only about a quarter of Americans approving of Bush’s policy on Iraq. Yet Bush rejected the report of the bipartisan [Republican-Democrat] Iraq Study Group, which aimed to provide Bush with political cover for some kind of exit strategy.

Despite the Report’s devastating picture of the disastrous situation in Iraq, Mr. Bush has decided to mount a ‘surge’, sending another 20,000 combat troops to Iraq, mainly to Baghdad. The objective, Mr. Bush claims, is to stabilise the situation and pave the way for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. In reality, Mr. Bush is escalating the war. This strategy is somewhat reminiscent of the apparent jointly-sponsored criminal policy of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger, when they claimed to be working for a peace settlement in Vietnam, while stepping up the bombing and launching secret incursions into Laos and Cambodia.

Eighty percent of Americans oppose the surge, roughly the same number as supported the war in 2003, in the aftermath of the 9/11 2001 attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon. Most of the top military commanders are against an escalation — which Mr. Bush falsely claims to rely upon for his sought ’surge’. The Maliki government in Baghdad is a reluctant partner in the surge. The new ‘security policy’ is aimed mainly against the Shia militia, particularly the Mahdi army. But this militia is linked to the party of Moqtada al-Sadr, which is a key element of Maliki’s coalition government.

Implementation of the surge has already been counter-productive. The stepped up U.S. military presence in Shia and mixed Shia-Sunni areas of Baghdad has led, at least temporarily, to a retreat by the Mahdi militias. The joint U.S.-Iraqi army security operation, however, has proved incapable of providing security. Two horrendous suicide bombings in the Shia Sadriya market in late January-early February claimed scores of dead and injured. A 28-year-old car mechanic, who helped rescue injured people from a wrecked building, told a reporter: “I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all, so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil - which is the core of the problem - can come and get it. We cannot live this way any more. We are dying slowly every day”. (New York Times, 5 February 2007)

The U.S. Bush administration Empire-driven occupation has reduced Iraq to a shattered, devastated country. The UN recently calculated that over 34,000 Iraqi civilians died during 2006, while over 36,000 were wounded (with totally inadequate medical facilities available).

A report from the John Hopkins Medical School, published in The Lancet, estimates that there were over 600,000 deaths as a result of the conflict between March 2003 and July 2006. The U.S. has now suffered over 3,000 dead, with between 20-50,000 injured. An unknown number of Western ‘security contractors’ have also been killed. Over 100 British troops have been killed

Collapse

Despite deploying over 150,000 troops, the US-British occupying forces have been incapable of achieving stability and beginning serious reconstruction of the shattered country. The Maliki government, although the product of elections and supported by the U.S. Bush administration, is an “empty shell” that lacks real power on the ground. Its various ministries and security forces have been heavily infiltrated by the Shia parties and their militias, who run a shadow state within the framework of official state institutions.

Neighbourhoods are dominated by networks of the Shia parties and militias, feudal warlords, death squads and criminal gangs. In many of the predominantly Sunni areas, it is the armed elements of the insurgency and al-Qa’ida who dominate.

Economically, Iraq is a disaster zone. Electricity production and oil output are still below pre-occupation levels. Over $100 million a year of oil is being smuggled to finance insurgent groups and militias. Unemployment is between 40% and 60%, while inflation is officially 60%.

“Reconstruction” is a grotesque farce. Around $16.5 billion has been spent so far out of the $21 billion allocated by the U.S. for reconstruction. But there is very little to show for this expenditure. Huge amounts have been siphoned off in the form of security costs, the excess profits of US corporations like Halliburton, and outright corruption. The Iraq Study Group estimates that between $5bn and $7bn have been misappropriated every year - without anybody being brought to book.

Is it any wonder that more and more people are fleeing the country? Over two million Iraqis have fled the country since the start of the war, with many now living in Syria or Jordan. At the same time, there are over 1.7 million Iraqis displaced within the country.

Slide into all-out civil war

The Bush regime and its Iraqi stooges in the Maliki government continue to claim that a legitimate, elected government is being threatened by an insurgency of disgruntled Ba’athists and al-Qa’ida terrorists. They are in denial about the reality of a sectarian civil war, which is clearly escalating. The mainly Sunni insurgency is intertwined with a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shia, which has steadily intensified since the attack by Sunni forces on the Golden Temple in Samarra in February last year.

A recent report from the Washington-based Brookings Institution, “Things Fall Apart”, warns that Iraq is now sliding into an all-out civil war that is likely to spill over into neighbouring countries. It warns of an upsurge in death and the flow of refugees, as well as disruption of Gulf oil supplies. Brookings, reports the Financial Times (29 January 2007), identifies six patterns from other civil wars that are already manifesting themselves in Iraq: “… large refugee flows, the breeding ground of new terrorist groups, radicalisation of neighbouring populations, the spread of secessionism, regional economic losses, and intervention by neighbours. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey are said to be ‘scrambling to catch up’ with rival Iran”.

One of the authors of the report, Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst who was previously a zealous advocate of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, urges support for a ‘Goldilocks solution’, somewhere between ‘stay the course’ and ‘getting all out’. But what this means concretely, he does not explain. Like the Iraq Study Group, the Brookings report chases the illusion of a relatively painless exit. But either way, US imperialism now faces ignominious defeat. Some cynics in Congress believe Mr. Bush is merely attempting to postpone withdrawal, handing the problem to a likely Democratic administration.

Bush’s ‘surge’

Mr. Bush’s ‘New Policy’, commonly referred to as the ‘surge’, recalls the ‘one last push’ syndrome of the Vietnam war, when presidents Johnson and Nixon, as well as notorious military commanders like General Westmoreland, backed a ‘final’ offensive against National Liberation Front forces to finally secure the stability of the pro-U.S. government in the South. Each offensive proved more costly in terms of death, injury and destruction than the previous, and ended in utter defeat for U.S. Empire-driven expansionis,. This new surge is just the latest of a series of ‘new security plans’, which all ended in failure.

The surge, which involves sending an additional 18,500 US combat troops to Baghdad, is presented as a temporary measure. It will, it is claimed, provide a breathing space during which the Iraqi government can be strengthened and the national police and army forces trained and consolidated. At the same time, the US claims that it will implement new job creation schemes to provide employment and stimulate the economy, cynically described by some as “armed social work”.

But it is too late. After three years of chaos and corruption, no one believes that US-directed reconstruction will bring any real benefit to the population. In the Shia areas, the militias associated with the parties of al-Maliki’s coalition government, SCIRI, the Mahdi army of al-Sadr, and the Dawa Party, are deeply entrenched. Maliki has been forced to pay lip service to the idea of the surge. But, in reality, he clearly has no interest in a US assault on the militia forces linked to the parties on which his government rests.

The Bush camp has great expectations for General Petraeus, who is credited with pacifying Mosul in 2004. “While Baghdad is too big to be cut off in the way Tal Afar was, the plan is to seal off districts of the capital, clearing out insurgents and remaining in place. These will be turned into ‘gated communities’, with entry controlled by gates and security staff. The American hope is that the sense of security created in these safe zones will spread to other neighbourhoods”. (The Guardian, 12 January 2007) In reality, this is a plan to turn large areas of Baghdad into prison camps, controlled by US forces.

There is already overwhelming opposition to the occupation (with over 60% of Iraqis saying in polls that they consider attacks on U.S. forces to be justified). Petraeus’s methods will provoke even greater resistance. A large part of the Iraqi forces to be deployed in the Petraeus plan will be Kurdish units, which are also seen as foreign occupiers in the Shia areas. Strengthened U.S. forces may have initial successes, given their overwhelming firepower. But as always in this kind of urban conflict, the militias will adjust to the occupiers’ new tactics and respond with new methods of their own. An additional 20,000 troops will not hold the line. According to military experts, successful counter-insurgency operations require around one soldier per 40 inhabitants. This would mean 150,000 troops for Baghdad alone. Yet the retiring chief of the regional command, General Abizaid, recently told Congress that even the extra 20,000 combat troops could not be sustained indefinitely, such is the current overstretch of the U.S. army.

Far from stabilising the situation for the occupying power, Bush’s ‘surge’ will escalate the conflict, intensifying the resistance of both the Sunni insurgency and Shia militias, while provoking even greater opposition from the majority of Iraqis.

Middle East crisis

Mr. Bush’s officially stated Grandiose Plans for the “transformation of the Middle East” have been completely shattered. According to Bush and his neo-conservative hawks, the invasion of Iraq was just the prelude to the transformation of the whole region. A series of regime changes would replace the dictatorships with democracies, producing stable, free-market - and pro-U.S. - governments. Yet on her recent visits to Egypt and other regional states, Condoleezza Rice has been silent about this ‘democratic revolution’.

The brutal Empire-driven occupation of Iraq, together with U.S. support for the Israeli state’s barbarous assault on Lebanon, have plunged the whole region into its worst crisis since the end of the second world war. The region now faces the prospect of three civil wars: in Iraq, in Lebanon (as a result of Israel’s barbarous assault last year, in an unsuccessful attempt to crush Hezbollah), and in the Palestinian territories, where the U.S. has supported Israel’s attempt to overthrow and crush the Hamas government, which won a majority in last year’s Palestinian Authority elections.

Contrary to the neo-cons’ aims, the overthrow of the Saddam regime and the emergence of a Shia government and powerful Shia militia forces, have strengthened the regional influence of Iran, U.S. imperialism’s main enemy in the region. This has tipped the regional balance away from the Sunni regimes towards the region’s Shia forces. Alarmed by this development, Saudi Arabia has signalled its intention to intervene in Iraq in support of the Sunnis if the civil war escalates further. Moreover, the break-up of Iraq into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions could precipitate the direct intervention of Turkey, Syria and Jordan.

Yet in the face of this potential meltdown, Bush has rejected the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group that the U.S. should open negotiations with Iran and Syria in order to try to stabilise the situation. In fact, Bush has launched a number of provocations against Iran in particular. A number of Iraq-based Iranian diplomats have been arrested, while U.S. forces have been ordered to counter alleged Iranian incursions into Iraq. The new defence secretary, Gates, has declared that the U.S. has “no military plans” directed against Iran. Leading congressional Democrats, however, do not rule out a military adventure by Bush, or an air attack on Iran’s nuclear processing facilities (or support for an Israeli attack). They have warned Bush not to do a Nixon, referring to the Nixon-Kissinger secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. Any U.S. Bush administration sponsored attack, or U.S.-sponsored attack, on Iran would be a disaster, not just for the U.S. but for the Western powers in general - not to mention the unimaginable suffering it would impose on the people of the region.

Mr. Bush and his clique invaded Iraq to demonstrate the power of the US Empire toward the subjugation plans against other societies. In fact, the occupation has demonstrated the limits of US military power, showing that even a mighty superpower is powerless to resolve any of the conflicts of the region.

Pressure on the Democrats

On a wave of of anti-war, anti-Bush anger, the Democrats took control of Congress in the mid-term elections. They have failed, however, to provide an expression for this anti-war mood. While proposing a non-binding resolution opposing Bush’s surge, they have stopped short of cutting off funding for the extra troops, let alone the financing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only a small handful of Democrats have called for cutting off funding, which would be within their power if they chose to act. This reflects the fact that the Democrats, the alternative party of U.S. Big Business, are completely compromised on the war. The overwhelming majority voted for Bush’s war powers, and for his repeated demands for more funding, and for a whole range of anti-democratic, if not dictatorial, measures adopted in the wake of 9/11. Moreover, they have no real alternative to Bush’s Iraq policy. Mostly, they favour a ‘phased withdrawal’, but have no idea how this can be achieved, and no solutions for the explosive repercussions throughout the Middle East.

Under pressure of public opinion, however, some of the Democrats have been pushed into a more anti-war stand. This pressure is reflected in the drift of John Edwards, one of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. He has now stated that he was wrong to vote for the war in 2003, and is calling for a cut-off of funds for any escalation of the war.

The Democratic majority in the United States are coming under growing public pressure to scrutinise and oppose Bush’s new budget, which includes defence spending of $481 billion in 2008, a 10% increase over the current year. Bush will also ask Congress for an additional $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for the current year (which will be added to the $70 billion already approved), and will seek an additional $145 billion for the fiscal year 2008, which begins on 1 October. If approved. the new war spending would bring the overall cost of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars to $745 billion. Adjusting for inflation, this is more than the U.S. spent on the Vietnam War.

Implications on the U.S. Presidential Race and the Democrats

LEADING DEMOCRATS, LINING up for the 2008 presidential race, are no doubt weighing up the consequences of a devastating defeat for the U.S. in the Middle East. The war is now overwhelmingly unpopular within the US. But a devastating defeat for the U.S., a situation any Democratic president is likely to inherit from the Bush regime, will not be popular. Humiliation for U.S. Empire-driven expansionism abroad, with all the unforeseen consequences it will bring, promises to continue to rebound on domestic politics.

Edited by Iain Mackenzie

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor must get to the bottom of reports that Canadian soldiers suffering from mental illness are being deployed in Afghanistan, Liberal Defence Critic Denis Coderre said on March 5, 2007.

“The Afghanistan mission is among the fiercest combat our soldiers have ever seen, so it’s no wonder some of our troops are suffering the psychological effects,” said Mr. Coderre.

“It is incumbent upon the Conservative government to look into the matter. Canadians deserve to know the impact the Afghanistan mission is having on our soldiers and their families, and to be assured that they are receiving the treatment they need.”

A report in Monday’s Globe and Mail indicates that the Canadian military is sending soldiers to Afghanistan who are suffering from mental conditions, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

When Mr. O’Connor asked Forces medical authorities about the psychological effects of the Afghanistan mission on Canadian troops this past November, the response he received was far from conclusive: “The impact the Afghanistan mission is having on our soldiers is not yet known,” the authorities said in a briefing note.

Mr. Coderre noted that last fall Mr. O’Connor committed that his government would ensure that soldiers receive proper treatment when they return from missions.

“The Defence Minister and his government must dig deeper and get some real answers. Is it appropriate to send soldiers back to Afghanistan if they have not received the proper treatment? Canadians deserve to know the truth, and our soldiers deserve the very best care we can give them,” said Mr. Coderre.

by David Stein

TORONTO – The Tracy Parson-led Federal Tory Progressive Canadian (PC) Party congratulated the other opposition parties in standing up to the government’s insistence that we continue to suspend Charter Rights. “9/11 is more than 5 years behind us. The government has had time to put in place laws and structures to fight terrorism which respect our Charter of Rights,” says Leader Tracy Parsons. “Parliament approved this extraordinary legislation while the horror of 9/11 was still fresh in our minds. Yet they still had the wisdom to insist on a sunset clause. It’s time to respect that right.”

The PC party are Tories who are former supporters of the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party, before it was essentially taken over by the far-right Alberta-based Alliance Party and Reform Party Establishments. This far-right fringe group currently operates under the misleading name “Conservative Party of Canada”. The PC party had been Canada’s oldest party, which was responsible for inspiring the Confederation of Canada in 1867, under the vital leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald.

As Federal Tory loyalists, the Progressive Canadian Party takes the position that the Canadian government must respect Charter rights and that, as the courts have clearly indicated, there are alternatives that can balance the security needs of the public with powers required to fight global terrorism. Indeed, former Tory Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker championed Canadian leadership on human rights at home in Canada, and abroad in the United Nations, against then apartheid South Africa.

The Tory PC Party has been consistent in the defence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “You can’t have rule of law, unless you observe the rules of law” stated party president Jim Love. “And frankly, you’ll forgive me if I’m more than a little afraid of this government having extraordinary powers over anyone they deem to be a subversive. We’ve seen members of the government, right up to the Prime Minister, engaged in vicious smears of anyone who gets in their way.”

“Paul Martin was labelled as being soft on child pornography. Some poor Liberal back bencher was targeted with innuendo about his father having some involvement with the Air India bombing. And as I recall it, when the initial questions were being asked about Maher Arar, Mr. Harper was muttering about how looking into Arar’s abduction was somehow being ‘soft on terrorism.”

Former Tory Progressive Conservative (PC) Cabinet Minister Sinclair Stevens noted that “the government had never used the extraordinary powers that were falling with the sunset clause. The government, while acting like the end of the world has been declared, actually retains substantial powers to fight terrorism within the constructs of the Charter.”

Tory Party Leader Tracy Parsons added that this was more than symbolic. “People depend on Canada to defend human rights. It’s no surprise that Nelson Mandella, once held in detention as a terrorist, has always had a affection for Canada. It was our government that pressed for his release. How could we seek to intervene on behalf of those who are facing secret trials and a host of abuses in the world today while we keep laws that essentially allowed our government the same powers? We’d be laughed at.”

“I do a lot of international travel and frankly, I’m getting more afraid of this government and what it will or will not do to protect those who criticize it. I used to have such a feeling of safety being a Canadian overseas. I never thought I’d say that but I’m starting to wonder if I’d be regarded as dispensable.” stated Tory Party President Jim Love. “And if I’m feeling that way as a middle class white guy, what are visible minorities thinking?”

TORONTO – Tracy Parsons led progressive Tories are challenging the efforts of the Stephen Harper far-right neo-conservative government to dismantle and destroy the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of U.S. Agri-Business elites. “What lengths will this government go to stack the deck on their goal to gradually eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board? Steven Harper is well known for not tolerating any discussion or dissent in his party,” says Ms. Parsons, who is leader of the Tory-inspired Progressive Canadian (PC) Party.

The PC party are Tories who are former supporters of the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party, before it was essentially taken over by the far-right Alberta-based Alliance Party and Reform Party Establishments operating under the misleading name “Conservative Party of Canada”. The PC party had been Canada’s oldest party, which was responsible for inspiring the Confederation of Canada in 1867, under the vital leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald.

“We’ve seen the “drive by smear” tactics that the government uses on anyone who dares to question their agenda. But now, their attempts to influence the vote on continuing the Canadian Wheat Board has reached, in our opinion, the last straw,” Federal Tory leader Ms. Parsons adds.

“In a recent outburst, the Agriculture Minister has claimed that pointing out weaknesses in the nature of the barley plebiscite is “bullying tactics, frankly, to farmers who do want some choice,” Jim Love, Tory PC Party president further explains.

As Tories, “We are perplexed as to why legitimate discussion of the failings of a government policy objective can be construed as “bullying”. Is it indeed bullying to point out that the government has tried to confuse the ballot with multiple ballots? Or is it pressuring farmers to point out that they government has, in our opinion, padded the voting lists by including those who are growing barley for animal feed as well as for human consumption,” Joe Hueglin further affirms in a written statement. Mr. Hueglin is a former Member of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative Party (Tories).

Do farmers feel that critics are browbeating them by pointing out that the government has violated the spirit of its own referendum legislation by having an ambiguous question? We claim that the question is “do farmers want the Canadian Wheat Board to continue as a single desk?” This question has a yes or no answer. Instead, the neo-conservative government has introduced a third choice to muddy the waters and divide opposition votes.

“If the government is really concerned with letting farmers decide without any pressure, why are they using a discredited quote from an American lobby group to attack the Board’s sales capability?” asks Federal Tory Leader Tracy Parsons.

“Why is the government not mentioning the fact that the Board has already been increasing the options open to those wishing to sell directly. Why are they [Stephen Harper government far right “neo-cons”] so determined to turn over the entire wheat industry to the handful of corporations who control it in the U.S.”

“The real question is whether Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland or others of the few firms dominating the barley market will do a better job for farmers’ interests than the Wheat Board.” stated Party President Jim Love. “That question has already been answered by farmers who actually produce for export. They have elected 4 out of 5 directors who support the idea of continuing the Wheat Board as the sole marketing agent.”

As Federal Tories who inspired the Canadian Wheat Board to become a world renown institution, “It’s time that we truly leave this in the hands of the farmers and the directors that they have elected,” further adds Mr. Parsons.

It is apparent that the efforts of the far-right Stephen Harper government to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board is part of a broader agenda. As confirmed by Lou Dobbs CNN’s, military-industrial elites between the U.S. and Canada, seek to unconstitutionally consolidate an anti-democratic “North American Union” (NAU). Military-industrial elites seeks to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board as part of this continentalist agenda which Lou Dobbs CNN calls illegal.

Genuine Canadian Tories represented by Ms. Parsons and her PC Party, are also against the far-right NAU agenda, which has been systemtically covered-up by Canada’s mass-media elites, under the directives of Canadian Big Business organizations that buy advertising.

Compiled by Iain Mackenzie

Many people have never heard of income splitting or if they have are not quite sure what it means. Since last October when the federal government said it would permit pension splitting, it is becoming important to understand this tax option.

On January 30, 2007, in the west block of Parliament Hill, we aimed at doing just that. Economists David Murrell of the University of New Brunswick and Philip Merrigan of University of Quebec at Montreal joined tax analyst John Williamson of Canadian Taxpayers Federation to explain how the tax system could change.

And to explain why it should, there was speakers who take care of children, the sick, handicapped, elderly or dying. These caregivers usually are low paid for their work — daycare workers earn about as much as a parking lot attendant — or they are unpaid, in the home, taking care of their own family.

What is Income Splitting?

Income splitting is a way to tax households based not on individual earnings but on household earnings. There is a separate tax bracket if you share or ‘split’ income and it is nearly always lower than if your income is just for you. We don’t have that option in Canada. We have individual based tax only.

The difference can be striking. Chartered accountant Heather Gore-Hickman recently compared four households with a total household income of $60,000. The couple that had two earners each making $30,000, paid tax of $6276. The next door couple earning $36,000 and $24,000 paid tax of $7049. The couple next to them earning $50,000 and $10,000 paid tax of $7959. The last couple on the block, with only one earner making $60,000 while the spouse at home had no income, paid a tax of $8783. What one notices immediately is that the last couple pays 42%higher tax than the first couple, even though they have identical total incomes or ‘ability to pay tax’. The other thing you notice is that all households probably pay some penalty and the only exceptions are those with spouses of identical incomes, which is rare.

Income Splitting in the U.S. and other countries

To permit income splitting as in the U.S. would give taxpayers four options. You could be taxed on the individual earner scale, the single head of household scale for single parents, on the married but taxed separately scale if you prefer that, or on the married couple sharing income scale. You pick the scale that gives you the lowest tax rate for your situation. In this way there is no longer a penalty for how money was earned. You pay only on amount earned. For many countries, in fact a dozen including not just the U.S., but also France, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Spain this is a tax option. It is not available in Canada.

Why do some couples have disparate or unequal incomes? Often because the lower earner is also doing care work, taking care of the children, a sick relative, an elderly person, or doing volunteer work. These unpaid roles are vital to the economy and provide each generation of new taxpayers but they are not counted in the GDP or productivity tallies. The result is that the unpaid and low paid care sector is actually penalized for not earning. They are treated as if they are doing nothing and their perceived laziness is being punished.

The tax penalty above is not the only one either. Ironically most benefits for caregiving such as maternity breaks, parental leave, palliative care leave, even the child care expense deduction are not tied to the fact you have a baby or someone dying to take care of. Those tax breaks also are tied to how much you earned recently.

Many Canadians over the last century have noticed the way traditional economics favored paid work and ignored unpaid work. Some have suggested ways to correct this imbalance. In 1907 Sir Richard Cartwright proposed pensions for homemakers. Family allowance in 1944 helped fund caregiving as did a child dependent deduction but those were both quietly shelved in the 1990s. The spousal deduction in 1957 let a man deduct his spouse for about one-third of an average income but that amount has now dropped to about one-seventh. The spousal deduction federally continues to be lower even than the full personal deduction as if the spouse at home doing care work is less than a full person.

In 1967 the Carter Commission suggested income splitting and the 1967 Royal Commission on the Status of Women endorsed the proposal but again, nothing happened. The 1970s saw a proposal for wages for housework and the Canadian Council on Social Development suggested in 1972 a guaranteed annual income. Though none of these proposals was implemented, divorce courts started to rule that the caregiver role in the home was vital work and on divorce, was worthy of half the marital assets. However during marriage, the caregiver role was still equated with ‘not working’.

In 1995 at the United Nations, Canada promised to tally and value all unpaid work. Its census studies did the tally but tax laws never changed.

In the last few years Canada has urged women out of the home, not just helping those who get paid work with low-cost or free daycare, maternity benefits and pensions, but ensuring that those who do not leave the home do not get those breaks. The tilting of the balance was evident- the state wanted women to escape the care role because it was not useful.

Other nations on Income Splitting

Yet other nations felt differently. Italy gives pensions for the homemaking years. Norway funds all care of children in daycare or being cared for at home. Australia and France join the growing list of countries offering generous birth bonuses because the birth rate was so dangerously low they realized they need children and taking care of them is important to an economy.

Some recognition for caregiving in Canada

Last fall in Canada, two moves were made to return some recognition to caregiving. The Minister of Finance permitted pensioners to pay less tax if they shared their pensions. This move finally gave dignity in old age to those who had been caregivers. And a universal child benefit was set up, as if to value care of all children, though its amount was painfully small.

Some have worried that to value the care role would force women back home. In fact that is not what has happened in other nations that permit it. It simply removes penalties for the options and lets women go into and out of paid work as they prefer. The concept of actually valuing caregiving, a historically female role, is part of the women’s movement of the third wave.

Activists and other Canadians who support income spitting hope to put constructive pressure on the federal government to end a tax policy that has kept women down now for a century. We believe that the time for income splitting has come.

About the author:

Beverley Smith is a long-time activist for unpaid labour. She was a co-host of the upcoming

Recommended Readings:

Capitalism is Not Democracy, Part I, ISBN: 1894934636, Agora Publishing Consortium, 2006

ACQUIRE BOOK HEREIN

by Beverley Smith

Ottawa - The Conservative government’s plan to provide incentives for renewable power production is a repackaging of the Liberal Wind and Renewable Power Production Incentives, Liberal Natural Resources Critic Mark Holland and Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty said today.

“The Conservative plan isn’t ‘made in Canada’ it’s delayed in Canada,” said Mr. Holland. “After suspending these programs for a year, Prime Minister Harper’s government has reinstated the incentives for power production put forward by the Liberal government, but lowered the targets by more than 25 percent, at a time when targets for renewable energy should be one the rise.”

When the Conservative government took office, the Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) and Renewable Power Production Incentive (RPPI) programs were fully operational and providing direct support to green power producers. Six weeks after taking office, all spending and activity in these programs was frozen.

“This is a government that didn’t even use the word environment in its last fiscal update. Now the Conservatives have been forced to get these Liberal programs up and running again because they finally realize that they are on the wrong side of both Kyoto and the fight against global warming,” said Mr. McGuinty.

“Canadians won’t be fooled by this new-found Conservative enthusiasm for renewable power. They will see that all the Conservatives have done was put the renewable power industries in limbo for a year, while they gauged the polls to see if re-packaging these programs would bring them some credibility on environmental issues.”

The Conservative‘EcoEnergy Renewable Power Initiative’ provides $300 million in incentives to be applied over the next four years, with a target of 4,000 MW of renewable power. The Liberal WPPI and RPPI programs provided $297 million over the first 5 years to produce 5,500 MW of renewable energy. Eventually the now re-introduced Liberal WPPI and RPPI programs were to be funded up to $1.8 billion over 15 years.

A new Liberal Government under Stéphane Dion would be committed to increasing energy production in Canada to 12,000 MW from green power sources, which include wind, small hydro, biomass, geothermal, tidal and solar power.

“The Conservatives are restoring the Liberal climate change programs they cut one at a time. Earlier this week, they restored Liberal R & D funding for green technology. Today it’s renewable energy. We also hear the Conservative Party re-packaging of the EnerGuide program is also in the works,” said Mr. McGuinty.

“If the Conservative government was serious about making a real impact on Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, they would stop making one-off announcements, and restore immediately all the programs they cut to give Canada back the fully-integrated approach to Climate Change that was developed under the Liberal government. We’ve already lost a year of progress that could have been made under a cap-and-trade system, supported by a wide range of programs.”

Compiled by Tina Chiang

The replacement of Rona Ambrose, with John Baird, as Minister of the Environment has been proclaimed by Conservative Party “rags” like the National Post as “Going Green”. However, this is merely an attempt by corporate and political elites who support the Conservative Party, to fool the diverse Canadian public into believing that the Harper government is now prepared to listen to public outries on Global Warming.

Ms. Ambrose was not inventing her own Global Warming policies. She was simply representing the Harper government’s dyfunctional policies on environmental issues, and other issues. Mr. Baird has echoed pro-Global Warming policies in the House of Commons, and will continue the same set of pro Big Business and anti-environmental policy agenda of Ms. Ambrose, with perhaps better diplomatic skills at most.

by Peter Lemieux

In the early morning of Friday, December 22nd, starting at approximately 3 a.m., 400 Brazilian-led UN occupation troops in armored vehicles carried out a massive assault on the people of Cite Soleil, laying siege yet again to the impoverished community. Eyewitness reports said a wave of indiscriminate gunfire from heavy weapons began about 5 a.m. and continued for much of the day Friday — an operation on the scale of the July 6, 2005 UN massacre in Cite Soleil. Detonations could be heard for miles, AHP reported.

Initial press accounts reported at least 40 casualties, all civilians. According to community testimony, UN forces flew overhead in helicopters and fired down into houses while other troops attacked from the ground with Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs). People were killed in their homes. UN troops from Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Bolivia took part in the all-day siege, backed by Haitian police. UN soldiers once again targeted the Bois Neuf and Drouillard districts of Cite Soleil — scene of the July 6th massacre.

While reports are still coming in, this is what we do know right now:

- A Reuters photographer “counted 9 bodies, and eyewitnesses counted 4 others dead. As many as 30 people were wounded, humanitarian workers said. All of the casualties are believed to be civilians.” (Reuters)
- One Haitian human rights observer personally counted at least 17 dead bodies on the ground. This eyewitness also reported:
– A woman 6-months pregnant was shot in the stomach, killing the unborn child.
– A man and his 8-year-old boy were in their beds when a helicopter rained bullets into their house, wounding both.
– A man named Jacquelin Olivier was killed in his bed when bullets pierced the walls. He leaves a wife and 3-year old boy.
- “The foreigners came shooting for hours without interruption and killed 10 people,” said Bois Neuf resident Johnny Claircidor, quoted by Reuters. “They came here to terrorize the population,” Cite Soleil resident Rose Martel told Reuters, referring to UN troops and police. “I don’t think they really killed any bandits, unless they consider all of us as bandits.”
- Agence Haitienne de Presse (AHP) said Cite Soleil “residents report very serious property damage and there are concerns that a critical water shortage may now develop because water cisterns and pipes were punctured by the gunfire.”
- “Local residents say the victims were ordinary citizens whose only crime was that they live in the targeted neighborhood.” (AHP)

UN soldiers block Red Cross vehicles from coming to aid the wounded — According to Pierre Alexis, the Haitian Red Cross coordinator for Cite Soleil, the UN soldiers prevented the Haitian Red Cross from treating children injured during the assault. Alexis said that many children were suffering serious injuries, but that UN soldiers blocked Red Cross vehicles from entering Cite Soleil. AHP reported that “residents were outraged that [UN] soldiers refused to allow medical care…for people they had injured.” Despite this, St. Catherine’s Hospital in Cite Soleil reported receiving many wounded.

Why this latest assault on the people of Cite Soleil? — UN occupation authorities in Haiti claim it is part of their fight against “bandits” and “kidnappers,” scapegoating the 300,000 residents of Cite Soleil. However, it is widely known throughout Port- au-Prince that kidnappers are coming from all sectors, including corrupt police officials and the wealthy. Does the UN lead military assaults on affluent neighborhoods where kidnappers are known to operate? Of course not.

A more plausible explanation comes from grassroots activists in Cite Soleil. They argue that this is “punishment” for their ongoing protests demanding an end to the UN occupation, restoration of full democracy, return of President Aristide, and the release of political prisoners. Additionally, the people of Cite Soleil have been vigorously protesting the December 3rd municipal elections, in which there were widespread allegations of fraud and many from the popular neighborhoods were prevented from voting.

Just recently, on December 16th, the people of Cite Soleil led a massive protest throughout Port-au-Prince marking the anniversary of Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s first election as president in 1990. [They marched despite the UN shooting up the district the night before, in what was widely viewed as a UN attempt to intimidate the populace on the eve of the march.] In the week following the march, tensions continued to escalate, culminating in the December 22nd assault by UN forces under Brazilian command.

Resistance Haitienne au Québec (RHQ) and Haiti Action Montreal (HAM) condemned the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in one of Haiti’s most impoverished neighbourhoods. RHQ and HAM call on the Canadian government to denounce the killing of civilians and ensure that those responsible for this massacre are brought to justice.

“If Stephen Harper wants to distinguish himself from the worst of the Liberal Government, he should work to bring those responsible for the massacre to justice,” said Yves Engler of Haiti Action Montreal.

“Canada holds key roles in the UN mission in Haiti–ignoring the most recent Cité Soleil massacre will be another blow to the country’s credibility,” Engler added.

“This isn’t the first time UN troops have killed indiscriminately in Cité Soleil,” said Serge Bouchereau. “When UN troops killed 23 civilians on July 6, 2005, the Liberal Government was silent. Will Stephen Harper continue their quiet support for human rights abuses?”

Canada heads up the 1700-member UN police force in Haiti (CIVPOL), and has officers throughout the command structure of the UN military in Haiti. The UN mission in Haiti began after US, French and Canadian forces landed in Port-au-Prince and Marines removed elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from the country.

“While Hillier was serving Christmas turkey in Afghanistan, UN forces were delivering a different kind of present to Haiti’s poor,” said Nik Barry-Shaw of Haiti Action Montreal.

“Is this the kind of foreign policy Canadians want?”

Compiled by John Stokes

These craftsmen do not intend any nationhood!

Canadian Action Party Leader, Connie Fogal, says that the recognition by Parliament of Quebec as a nation within Canada is one giant step toward the death of nationhood for all Canadians.

It is the formalization, she said, of the Balkanization of Canada on the way to perfecting the North American Union. The craftsmen are bent on destroying sovereignty and nationhood for all citizens. This is the saga the media refuses to profile and Parliament refuses to acknowledge as both dance the jig to Yankee Doodle Dandy.

It is a shameful, disgraceful exploitation of a Canadian issue as a cover, a mask, to deliver us over to an unconstitutional shadow rule by military /industrial panels, not government of the people, by the people, for the people, she insisted.

It is the arrogant ‘finger’ to the majority of Canadians who time and again have rejected the notion of Deux Nations, she said.

It is the now characteristic deception of a Parliament that has become not just irrelevant for Canadians, but harmful to our interests as it slobber/s over and submits to the dictates of Harper’s/Ignatieff’s Competitiveness Council, alias the Canadian Council of Chief Executives who in turn are dissolving Canada into a North American Metamorphosis under U.S. command, she continued.

Why, she questions, will Gilles Duceppe not ask for all Canadians what this is going to mean for the tax return, the standard of living, the health care, the education, the water supply, the culture, the passports, the immigration rules, the laws, the defence, the foreign policy, the jobs,and most importantly the inevitable and intended expanded burden of debt?

Quebec as a nation within a nation, but with no powers, is the first formalization of Canadian disintegration she asserted.

The only way to save ourselves is to take control over Parliament with people committed to return the power to the electorate, insisted Fogal. This unanimous move to semantic nationhood for Quebec means the shadow government has hastened the pace because they know people are catching on. It is scrambling to deflect the truth movement!

compiled by John Stokes

In the last 2006 Federal Election, the Conservative Party kept trumpeting its slogan that it would “Stand up for Canada”. Then, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper during that elected indicated that he would similarly “Stand Up” for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Mr. Harper portrayed his party, as a party which would govern Canada with integrity and openness in a spirit of renewed democracy, in contrast with the ‘corruption’ of the Martin Liberals. As it turns out, these assertions by Mr. Harper could not be further from the truth.

Mel Hurtig, the founder of the Council of Canadians, and also a variety of other reliable sources including veteran CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, now reveal that senior elected representatives and advisors to the Conservative Party, are currently planning a scheme that would hand over Canada to the Bush regime by 2007. The official name for this scheme, is called “North American Union”.

Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided researchers with the agenda and attendee list of the so-called “North American Forum” at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14, 2006.

Mr. Hurtig said the “secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process.” In addition, the reported Agenda undermines the Statutory position of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, as the constitutional expression of a Canada independent from the U.S.

“What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries,” he said. “It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye,” Mr. Hurtig further indicates.

The motive for U.S. participation, according to Mr. Hurtig, was “to gain access and control Canada’s extensive natural resources, including oil and water.”

Documents obtained by researchers associated with the Council of Canadians were marked “Internal Document, Not for Public Release.” At least three current Ministers of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party minority government are cited in the Document as “ring leaders” so-to-speak, of an unlawful and anti-constitutional effort to hand Canada to the Bush regime.

Canadian constitutional and related law is quite clear that any such effort by elected members of a government to subvert the political authority of the Government of Canada, constitutes breach of a Parliamentary Allegiance of Office, and broadly treason.

This is because the reportedly directed efforts of Ministers in the Stephen Harper government, to hand over Canada to the political authority of Mr. Bush, as the American Head of State, without the consent of the diverse Canadian public, can only be executed by the seditious overthrowing of the Crown, i.e. Canadian Head of State.

Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 indicates as follows:

The oath set out in the Fifth Schedule reads as follows:

According to the Sixth Edition of Beauchesne’s Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada:

The leaked document clearly substantiates that Ministers of the Stephen Harper Government are sharing information with representatives of the U.S. military-industrial-complex, for the purposes of “surrendering” Canada to a U.S.-based “non-democratic authority”. This apparent government-sponsored effort is designed to destroy the sovereign authority of Canadians as co-owners of their society, in violation of all Canadian Constitutional Acts since 1867.

Pursuant to Section 46 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Codes “Every one commits treason in Canada, when someone (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 52 of the Criminal Code of Canada, to the extent that the apparent efforts of the Stephen Harper government to surrender Canada to a non-democratic American political arrangement is seditious to “(a) the safety, security or defence of Canada,” the Stephen Harper government has executed treason. If that has indeed occurred, then the Stephen Harper government, if it has any semblance of integrity, must surrender its authority to the Governor-General acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, toward new Federal Election.

by Peter Mackenzie

I know that I do not speak for everyone, as there are many among us who agree with Mr. Harper and his team…but, I think the increasing majority of people, disagree strongly with the muck that our current Prime Minister is stirring up, and the mark he puts on Canada’s humanitarian reputation around the world.

Glorious & Free

O’ Canada, this country
glorious and still free,
Our men are known as peaceful men,
even to their enemies.
Now we seem to follow a leader
who has decided to go to war,
Our men are now the warriors,
there’s no peace here anymore.

For eons now the world has seen
Canada is here to keep the peace,
A neutral country, standing strong
’til this illustrious Prime Minister came along.
He’s plundered stores, overlooked the poor
to fight his little boy games for real…
Mr. Prime Minister, please let us know,
pray, tell us, “What’s the deal?”

We don’t want to fight your wars for you
to impress Mr. President next door,
Pull us out of Afghanistan, stop sending us to war.
Do you have any thought at all
for the innocents caught in this blaze?
Just to satisfy your own inner glory
all less fortunate on this earth you would raze.

You want your share of the spoils of war,
“Is it oil, Mr. Prime Minister, that you’re hoping for?”
These battles were started on a foundation of greed,
these men, self-important, believe they know how to lead.
But, it seems the only road they know is the devastation and killing of young men’s souls.

Rise up, Canada, glorious and free…
Refuse to call any other man
your mortal enemy.
 
People of Canada, we need to stop being so apathetic, and start standing up for what we believe in instead of sitting down and giving up, believing there is nothing that can be done. While we are sitting down feeling horrible about what is happening with our country and the direction we are being led, pick up a pen and paper, sit down at your computer, pick up your telephone… make a difference - we are the people and as such, our government should be a reflection of what “we” want, not what “they” want. The government is a representative of the people of the country of Canada, do we really want to be represented this way in the eyes of the rest of the world? We are peacekeepers - why are we at war????

Deborah L. Kelly
North Vancouver, B.C.

Contact author for reprint permission, e-mail: heartworks@shaw.ca