Beware Trudeau sneaky vote re Motion 103 on Islamophobia

Apparently Canada’s governing Liberals are going to try to hide their vote on Motion-103, the Islamophobia motion that tries to shut down any debate or criticism about Islam.

Why? Because M-103 is coming back to the House of Commons for debate this week, just before the Liberal federal budget is tabled. Meaning, that any news coverage on the final vote of M-103 will be swamped by budget coverage.

How do I know this? I got an email this morning from CPC Leadership Candidate Pierre Lemieux and I paraphrase three questions from his letter: (1) Do you have a valid concern about Islam, (2) Do you disagree with Sharia Law, and (3) Are you uneasy about radical Islamic terrorism? I would answer yes to at least Questions 2 and 3.

Yet, as Lemieux goes on to write: “The Liberals voted down all amendments to that Motion and now M-103 is coming back to the House….Once the debate ends tomorrow, it [the Liberals] will move to an immediate voice vote. If Conservatives do not “stand five” MPs to force a formal recorded vote, then we will never know who voted for or against M-103.

Well, Canada, you voted for these Liberals. It is not hard to see that this M-103 is simply the preamble to something bigger and more dangerous. And, no, that concern is not paranoia or Islamophobia. For example, the President of Turkey recently told Turks living in the EU to expand their families, so that in time, they would be the majority.

And, as a majority in Europe or elsewhere, what would that mean? There is an Arab folk tale about the camel and the master.  At the start, the master is sleeping in the tent and the camel is outside. By the end of the story, the camel is in the tent and the master outside.  And, we all know what that metaphor implies.

The crux of the matter is that Liberal MPs should not pass this Motion because ultimately it, and any decisions related to it, makes Islam more important and relevant than the Judeo-Christian values and system of law upon which this great country was founded.

What does Trudeau’s sneaky “principal residence” tax change mean?

Update March 8, 2017:

This post was published on January 13th, 2017 and went viral shortly after. In fact, my last check of the numbers of readers was 100,000+. As a result, it is obvious that some readers pressured the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) to clarify Item 8 for Reporting the Sale of a Principal Residence. As I just learned today, apparently, that whole section was updated by the CRA on February 28th, 2017.

As a result, it appears that the potential problems discussed in this post no longer applies. However, I have re-read Item 8 and, while I note minor editing, I am still unsure what the change means for self-employed Canadians who use part of their principal residence to earn income. Nevertheless, I will defer to the many tax professionals who commented here that the change is minor. (H/T to Frances and Sarah).

What I also learned since I initially posted this article is not to claim CCA (Capital Cost Allowance) because if you do, when you sell your principal residence, you might owe taxes to CRA. (Sandy Crux)

I wonder how many Canadians know that, as of the taxation year 2016, if they conduct self-employment activities from their principal residence, they may have to report the sale of their principal residence to Revenue Canada.

Justin Trudeau at Winnipeg Convention 1030Yup. PM Justin Trudeau, the PM that continually tells us he is trying to help the middle class, has quietly and sneakily changed that provision as of early October 2016.

Why? Because it appears that anyone who runs a small business out of their home and uses part of their principal residence expenses to write down that self-employment income, is going to get hit big time.

For example, I know people who run day cares out of their home. I also know of firefighters, police officers, teachers and government workers who run landscaping or other similar businesses in the summer. In fact, I know one firefighter in my community who works for 4 twelve-hour days and then is off for 3 or 4 days (or some combination of work/off schedule like that), and sells real estate on his off days. (This sentence added on January 17th at 11am because of a Tweeted question.)

Read this page on the Revenue Canada Agency website. Go to Item # 8. It reads that:

If only a part of your home qualifies as your principal residence and you used the other part to earn or produce income, you may have to split the selling price and the adjusted cost base between the part you used for your principal residence and the part you used for other purposes (for example, rental or business). You can do this by using square metres or the number of rooms, as long as the split is reasonable. Instructions will be provided in the guide T4037, Capital Gains 2016, on how to report the sale of your principal residence in this situation.” (My highlighting.)

In other words, if you have been conducting and claiming self-employment activities at any time you owned your property, are you going to have to pay some tax when you sell it?

Clarifiction Sat. January 17th, 2017:

I would recommend visitors read all the comments, but particularly this one from a qualified accountant with the sign-in name Frances.  He says the new change means that effective 2016, all Canadians, not only the self-employed, will need to let the CRA know that they sold their principal residence (PR) during that year and how much profit they realized. If that does not qualify as sneaky by the CRA and the Trudeau government, I don’t know what does? What it says to me is the same thing it said to Frances — that at some point in the years ahead, profits made in 2016 might conceivably be hit with a tax adjustment.

Trudeau Liberals returning to “entitlement” roots in just over a year?

piggy-bank-3Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Ministers have been having questionable fundraising activities and the media basically yawns.

Not only that, Mary Dawson, the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner, who so easily and quickly went after the Conservatives, symbolically yawns as well when she suggests there is no obvious reason for an investigation into those activities.

For example, a CBC column states (H/T NewsWatchCanada): “In a letter responding to requests for an inquiry from the Conservatives and the NDP, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson said there is no evidence to date that demonstrates Trudeau … violated the Conflict of Interest Act.

‘While the information provided in support of the allegations is not sufficient to cause me to initiate an examination under the act at this time, your letter and media articles leave me with concerns …. Consequently, I will follow up with Mr. Trudeau regarding his involvement with the fundraising events …. I will inform you of the outcome in due course.

So, Dawson will do an Opposition “follow-up” but not an investigation under the Conflict of Interest Act? Why not? Is not following up on the allegations an investigation?

Let me help the Dawson Ethics researchers with facts that we know.

(1) We know that PM Trudeau attends fundraising receptions that, according to a Globe and Mail article, cost $1,500 a ticket and are held in homes of well-heeled business executives where up to $120,000 can be collected in a single reception. As the Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein writes, Mr. Trudeau has admitted that he is lobbied  (H/T NewsWatchCanada) at those events.

As Rona Ambrose, the Conservative Interim Opposition Leader says in the Globe column: “Everyone knows they [the donors] are not writing … cheques out of the goodness of their hearts … [but] to buy access to him.”

(2) We also know that some Chinese billionaires are donating to the Trudeau Foundation because, not being Canadian citizens, they cannot donate to the Liberal Party. Why would they do that suddenly now? In the Globe column linked above, Ambrose says she believes it is so that they can gain influence with the government.  

Paying for access? Sounds very close to similar allegations against the Clinton Foundation in the U.S. when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. See this link, for example, at JacksNewswatch.

Pathetic whatever it is and shades of Ontario Liberal arrogance. Remember, right after being elected, Trudeau said his Liberal Government would do things differently. Now we know that is not true and actually was never intended to be true given Trudeau’s expectations for the Foundation prior to his party even becoming the governing party. On that earlier history, J.J. McCullough has something to say at Loonie Politics. 

Anyway, talk about double standards! Can you just imagine if the government involved in this sordidness was the Conservative Party of Canada and the PM was Stephen Harper? There would be non-stop 24/7 hysteria — as this Google page reminds us.

The crux of the matter is that there is obviously one standard of ethics for Conservatives and another, much lower standard for Liberals — which might explain why Mary Dawson doesn’t see the need for an investigation yet.

As the popular expression goes — “same old, same old.” I can only hope that Canadian voters will not be fooled in 2019 and will reject Trudeau and his Liberals, not only for his and their arrogant entitled attitude once in power, but their lies to get and stay there as well.

Trudeau Liberals & CPC leadership candidates misread Trump win at their peril

trump-wins-the-us-electionI found it interesting that Canada’s current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, our selfie and sunny ways PM, thinks he will get along with U.S. President Elect Donald Trump, no problem.

Talk about naivety and arrogance!

In fact, just visualizing the two of them together makes me smile — a mature accomplished billionaire versus a trust-fund middle aged man who got to be our PM because of his last name and through the same type of media manipulation that the U.S. media used for Barack Obama — but failed to do for Hillary Clinton.

However, most of the Canadian media doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the Trump vote result. For example, I watched Rosie Barton (who I like) and her Power Panel on CBC’s Power and Politics last night just to see what they took from the Trump election result.

Well, her liberal and progressive partisan guest panelists (Ian Capstick and Amanda Alvaro) seemed to be absolutely gob smacked. Tim Powers, the token conservative on the panel, did well however, explaining what the Trump could mean for Canadians. But Capstick seemed to have an overblown emotional breakdown right there on live TV. In fact, Rosie herself seemed positively stunned and seemed to tear up when she watched a few seconds of Hillary Clinton’s concession speech.

Good grief! The sky in North America is not falling!

Interestingly, I can still remember that some of those same panelists constantly suggested, even after they got a majority in May of 2011, that the Harper Conservatives were illegitimate because they only had 39.6% of the popular vote.

Yet, somehow the Liberals under Justin Trudeau received a “mandate” to do whatever they want — including completely changing the way we vote —  with 39.5% of the popular vote — a point less than the Conservatives got.

It’s called bias and intolerance because liberals and progressives truly believe they are right about everything. So, anyone who holds a different vision to theirs is unjust, racist, misogynist, bigoted, narrow minded and hateful.

Meaning, that when anyone holds a different view, they are supposedly guilty of spewing hate speech. For example, Vox writes that the Globe and Mail actually wrote a “Dear America” piece asking Americans not to vote for Donald Trump. And, I have heard that some university students in California had to skip classes they were so upset.

Good grief! As a former academic all I can do is scratch my head. Do their professors not teach them how to debate any more? Obviously not.

True, Trump has made lewd comments. But all the complaints against him regarding sexual misconduct are allegations and nothing more — complaints alleged to have been instigated by the Democratic National Committee.

Regardless, in spite of those questionable complaints, millions of American women voted for Trump because of his message of hope for jobs, as well as his rejection of elites and insiders. Frankly, I also think the women who voted for Trump looked at his children and figured the way they turned out was more of a true measure of the man than off hand comments he made years ago.

Anyway, the metaphor that comes to mind regarding that kind of liberal peripheral blindness is a group of horses with blinkers on hauling a large group of people in a wagon. Since the horses can only look straight ahead and don’t see what is actually going on around them or what is happening to the people in the wagon, they push ahead regardless.

Which brings me to the current lackadaisical Conservative leadership race. Apart from Kellie Leitch, who is thankfully ignoring a trashing by the Canadian media for her stance on Canadian values, most candidates seem oblivious to the reality that what conservative leaning Canadian voters want —  a leader that is VERY different from Trudeau. Yet, read this Brampton Guardian piece and it seems that what bothers most of the CPC candidates is not what the Liberals are doing but fear of offending anyone.

The crux of the matter is that I am sick and tired of liberals crying shame whenever a woman openly supports Trump. I am also sick and tired of PM Trudeau and his caucus claiming they have a mandate to do whatever they want and the Canadian liberal loving media usually agreeing with them.

Millions of Canadian conservatives are watching and waiting. Whether it be the First Passed the Post voting system (FPTP) or some other Canadian system, 2019 can’t come soon enough! I can only hope that the CPC leader elected in 2017 is ready to do and say what is necessary to win.

Page separator

Endnote: Welcome Jacksnewswatch and NewsWatchCanada readers. Want to read a liberal media hatched job on President Elect Trump? Read Andrew Coyne’s column in today’s National Post.  I used to like Coyne’s columns but unfortunately he has become a liberal shrill.

Liberals mislead Canadians as Tories DID leave 7.5 BILLION surplus!

See Endnote for CBC link.

See Endnote for CBC link.

There is no nice way to say this but the Liberal Government under Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau have repeatedly misled the Canadian public when they claim the Conservatives left a deficit for the year 2015/16 which ended not long ago on March 31st, 2016.

In fact, according to the Fiscal Monitor from the Finance Department, the Conservatives under PM Stephen Harper left a 7.5 BILLION dollar SURPLUS. (H/T NewsWatchCanada)

Yet, as Bill Curry writes in today’s Globe and Mail: On April 19th, 2016, in the House of Commons, Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau said in response to Conservative Opposition Leader Rona Ambrose’s claim that the former government left a surplus: “In the last month of the year, revenues go down and expenses go up. The Conservatives left us with a deficit, as we will see.

And, Curry says Mr. Morneau continues to stand by that view today in spite of the fact that his “budget also included some new spending in the 2015-16 fiscal year, which should be considered as part of the debate.”

In other words, after all is said and done for the 2015/16 year, Liberal spending between November 2015 and March 31, 2016, after they took over governing, will eventually be blamed on the Conservatives (which would likely include bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada).

So, what that means is if there turns out to be a deficit for the year ending March 31, 2016, it will be because of Liberal spending

The crux of the matter is that the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper left the federal government with a significant surplus, just as they promised throughout the 2015 election campaign.

Endnote: Re Featured Image, for CBC link, click here.