Are Carbon Taxes a Tax or Cash Grab? It depends on how it’s implemented. Some politicians don’t even consider it a tax.

But, my first question is Who’s Paying? According to Trudeau: “major carbon polluters in this country face no consequences”, and “we should make the companies that are polluting responsible for their pollution — by paying.” (d) However, if the people are paying the carbon tax then the regular people are paying, not the companies.
You could say that the people are the polluters (although that’s not what Trudeau et al is saying) and the purpose is to get the people to transition to clean energy. But, even if all the people of Canada did transition off fossil fuel, the companies would still be polluting because they would still be extracting oil and gas, refining, etc. and sending it out of country.

A carbon tax “is a fee based on the amount of carbon in a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal contain carbon. When burned they release the potent green house gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere. The fee is based on the tonnes of carbon dioxide the fuel would generate, and it would be collected at the earliest point of entry into the economy — well, mine or port.” (a) The fee will increase every year. The tax is then passed on in the price of the products purchased such as gas. Note that the “fee is based on the amount of carbon in a fossil fuel ” (a) and, to my knowledge, does not take into consideration toxic tailing ponds, polluted soil and water, abandoned wells, etc.

Purpose: “With Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation, it is clear to citizens that prices for fossil fuels will go up every year. Part of their motivation is to save as much of their dividend check as possible rather than spending it on more expensive fossil fuels. They can do this by changing over to energy efficient lighting and appliances, upgrading their insulation or windows, replacing that old oil furnace with a geothermal heat pump, etc. When it comes time to get another vehicle, they would consider one that gets better gas mileage or an all-electric vehicle. They can then buy clean electricity (where available) through their utility to charge their car, getting them off fossil fuels altogether. The motivation is to reduce cost in the years to come. The same is true for investors and for fossil fuel companies: as the fee increases, and the cost of doing business rises with it, the rising dividend will ensure that the true cost of doing business will be paid by those in that business. It will extend the lifetime of a valuable non-renewable resource in Canada: petroleum, which is a critical component of many industrial processes and every items.” (a)

If all the tax collected goes back to the people in the form of a dividend then the carbon tax is not a tax or cash grab. It is revenue-neutral. And, as commenter Paul Lailey noted, that includes the GST.

HOWEVER: I expect the politicians will pervert this as they do everything else. For example, they may use the carbon tax to increase transit, ‘green’ public buildings, etc. That is not to say that these things should not be done but it should come out of general revenue. Otherwise, the carbon tax is a cash grab, a new sales tax and it is not revenue neutral. Nor should the carbon tax be used to help businesses transition to renewable energy or to buy more energy efficient fridges (see future post How the Rich Get Richer, Loblaws/Westons), or for the ‘greening’ of the tarsands (what an oxymoron). Again, this is not to say that loans/grants shouldn’t be given to companies who ‘need’ the money, such as renewable energy start-ups, but it should come out of general revenue.

Some provinces are already using the carbon tax as a tax/cash grab, including at least one (BC) that had promised it would be revenue neutral. (c)

Since the politicians cannot be trusted to use the carbon tax as they promise, and if they want to convince me that the plan is not a scam, I need to see:
– the government create a section, either on the the federal website ( or a link from there to a separate website to provide details on the carbon tax
– the money collected in a separate fund, and, in law, cannot be used for anything but refunding directly to the regular people, by dividend, every penny the regular people paid in and the money cannot be put into general funds at some point in the future
– a detailed plan outlining how much emissions, specific to carbon taxes, are expected to be reduced in each year, and by each sector (for example, household emissions, personal car emissions, tarsands emissions, etc.).
– an update each year showing how much of the emissions reduction target was achieved
– how much solar, wind and battery prices, etc. are expected to come down without carbon tax vs with the carbon tax. I want to be convinced that the carbon tax isn’t a delaying tactic where the politicians just increase the carbon tax each year, while reducing the cost of oil/gas (see next post for more on this) until the market does what it was going to do without carbon tax which is reduce the cost of renewable energy below fossil fuel. The politicians, of course, will take credit for, in essence, doing nothing.
– A list of exactly how much money was collected from the carbon tax and its specific source such as oil/gas companies and other carbon intensive companies, other businesses and the people (gas, home heating, etc.)
– how much was paid to the people in dividends – how did the government calculate dividends for single people, families of four or six, etc.
– If money is given to businesses, from a carbon tax payment that could not be passed on to citizens, there should be a specific description and appropriate reason on how it will be spent (available for viewing by citizens of Canada). There should be a follow-up to ensure the money was spent appropriately. Some businesses should be expected to bare the cost of reducing emissions as a cost of doing business. For example, if a business retrofits to reduce energy emissions and energy costs, they should not receive citizens dollars and pocket savings in energy costs.
– how much money was returned to companies, why and which companies
– how much carbon tax is being charged on the carbon intensive companies, who are being exempted and why
– details on what the provinces are doing

The federal government has talked about doing some of these things such as preparing a detailed plan but I not aware of it being anything more than words. If you read the auditor general’s report you will find that the federal and provincial governments have a mishmash of targets, baseline years, etc. “As a result, it was unclear how the federal, provincial, and territorial governments would measure, monitor, and report on their individual contributions to meeting Canada’s national 2030 target. Many governments did not have detailed implementation plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the most part, auditors found that governments’ plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consisted of high-level goals, with little guidance on how to implement actions. Details often missing from the plans included timelines, estimates of the reductions expected from individual action items, and information about funding.” (b)
An audit in lieu of the website would not be acceptable as the government sets the terms of the audit and the government is too ‘cosy’ with the auditors (see future post How the Rich Get Richer, Part ?).

This website would also allow us to ensure that the carbon tax does not get incorporated into general revenue. Once the carbon tax has fulfilled its role of transitioning people to a low carbon economy, or the market does it despite the politicians, then the carbon tax should be eliminated. Although, I am sure it will be hard to pry the money from the parasitic hands of the politicians (whatever brand).

I want the carbon tax to work. Hell, I’m onboard for pretty much anything that will work to reduce carbon emissions and give us a low-carbon world. But does it make sense to have a carbon tax while you are subsidizing the oil & gas industry? Why not just eliminate the oil/gas subsidies and their costs will go up. So, the politicians will have to prove to me that this is not just another scam.

Will the politicians set up a website, with the details of the carbon tax? I don’t think so. We have a right to this information but they don’t like transparency. It interferes with their corruption.

(a) Carbon Fee and Dividend – Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada
(b) Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada – A Collaborative Report from Auditors General – March 2018
(c) Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax is revenue neutral..for now. – Neil Macdonald, 24 April 2019, CBC News
(d) Trudeau defends price on pollution in anti-carbon tax – John Paul Tasker, 13 Sept 2018, CBC News


As a Canadian citizen, I’m asking how much are we paying for (enslaved to) the oil and gas corporations?  And why are we paying all these subsidies to/for the corporations?

Some people put fossil fuel subsidies at about $3.3 billion per year. (e)(s)  Plus, an additional “$2.89 billion into financing fossil fuels production”. (x)  Some of this is paid for by provincial governments and some by the federal government.  I suspect the cost to Canadians is much higher.   And that’s without including $5.3 billion in subsidies for LNG Canada’s new Kitimat megaproject (cc), or the $8 – $12 BILLION support provided by the Export Development Corporation to the oil and gas industry (k), the $5.4 billion Kinder Morgan pipeline or the billions for its expansion.

A few examples of subsidies:

Infrastructure – roads, bridges, drinking water, generation facilities, power lines, substations, etc.  

Government grants and contributions – the grant money will never be paid back to Canadians; for example: numerous research chairs, in fossil-fuel-related areas, at post-secondary institutions (j) “Numerous provincially-funded institutes and funding envelopes.”

A Future Alberta article (j) lists the following, presumably most, or all, are grants, and their purpose:  $61 million, $26 million, $75 million + $75 million, $10 million + $10 million, $50 million, $440 million, $70 million, $13.5 + 15.3 million, $10 million, $8.2 million, $2.4 million, $1.9 million, $1 million, $1 million, $1 million, $1 million, $1 million, $950,000, $322,000 and, as the article says, the list of subsidies goes on… $1 billion on a series of grants and loan guarantees to build two to five partial oil upgraders.” (o) In all, Alberta is providing more than $3 billion in support for crude oil and bitumen partial upgrading and petrochemical upgrading. (q)                          Rachel Notley also signed a $3.7-billion contract to lease 4,400 railway cars to carry oil by rail. (aa) “But United Conservative leader Jason Kenney… has vowed to cancel the oil-by-rail contracts”. (y)

The Alberta government is giving “more than $2.3 billion in assistance to companies in the oil and gas sector” to cut methane emissions. (ff)  The Government of Canada has a “similar methane reduction commitment”, although the article does not say the cost of the federal program.(ff)

$50 million is being given through the federal Clean Growth Program. (i) (mm)

Titanium Corp., which developed technology to extract valuable minerals from oilsands waste, received a $40-million grant last month to help with its work remediating oil-sands tailings. Canadian Natural Resources, an Alberta oil-and-gas producer, got $22.3 million in March to help buy a new steam turbine to power its facilities in the Athabasca oilsands. (ss)

Government loans or loan guarantees at favourable rates –  Many, or all, of the loans may disappear without payment.  And, there is rarely any mention of how ‘favourable’ the interest rates are on the loans so Canadians may also have to pay for the interest cost of lending the money.                   

$235 million in loans has been given for orphan well clean-up. (p) “about $1 billion in commercial financing incentives through Export Development Canada (EDC), $500 million over three years in Business Development Bank of Canada financing to support smaller, ‘higher risk but viable’ fossils stay in business, and almost all of it in loans. (i)  The EDC has loaned up to $14.1 billion to the largest tarsands/oilsands corporations from January 2010 to July 2019 (oo); these corporations are making huge profits.(z)

Resources sold by government at below-market rates – “Alberta has long been criticized for having royalty rates among the lowest in the world” (gg)(kk)(nn) but Alberta thinks their rates are fair. (jj)                                                    

Research and development funding – for example:  The Government of Canada is investing $1.5 billion in a Oceans Protection Plan (n) in response to Kinder Morgan  pipeline court case (r) + 61.5 million + 167.4 million to protect the whales (mostly from the tankers). (g)  A lot of research and development funding is for oil sands “development and innovation” and “greening” and also falls under grants. (bb) 

Government intervention in markets to lower prices

Measures which reduce taxes payable – such as accelerated capital cost allowance of $14.4 billion (this includes other businesses besides oil and gas), (u)(f) various tax credits , tax exemptions and rebates.  For example:  Investment tax credit (ITC), Scientific research and experimental development credit (SR&ED), Atlantic Investment tax credit; plus, Canadian Development Expense – $1.018 Billion, Canadian Exploration Expense – $148 million, Crown Royalty Reductions – $1.161 billion, Deep Drilling Credit – 127 million (s)  B.C’s deep well credit of $5 billion over the last 10 years (v)

Pipelines – The $5 billion Kinder Morgan pipeline; the twinning of the pipeline for unknown billions more.

“Alberta’s NDP government has entered a 20-year agreement with TransCanada to ship 50,000 barrels of oil per day down the Keystone XL pipeline, to the U.S. (w) This is because “TransCanada can’t even get shipper agreements to fill Keystone XL,” Rubin said. “Shipper’s agreements are like long-term supply contracts which you need to get before you finance a pipeline.”  Albertans will be required to pay for any shortfall in the shipments.

Cleanup of orphan wells – which will cost between $58 to $260+ BILLION and that cost is growing. (a)   Canadians have already paid at least $30 million towards the cleanup. (a)  “Kenny proposes to … ask the federal government — taxpayers — to provide ‘tax incentives and financial support’ for energy corporations facing cleanup costs”.  (c)

All the costs of running various government departments, boards, agencies, commissions and research facilities to service the oil and gas industry.   These costs would include $31 million to promote the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion; (dd) and, now Kenney has a war room in the department of energy to fund ads/propaganda on behalf of the oil and gas industry. (ee) $80-million will be spent on this war room “to defend Canada’s energy industry from criticism”.  (l)

Some people would include all, or part, of the cost of air/water/soil pollution, plus more frequent and intense extreme weather, climate change impacts of fires, floods, funeral bills/hospital visits from heat waves/air pollution/fires, droughts, building seawalls, loss of shoreline, weakened infrastructure, increase costs in industries from farming to energy production and other costs of climate change currently being shouldered by the regular people.

The federal government announced investments of $22 billion to build climate resistant infrastructure, including $2 billion for a Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund“. (qq)

Remember, the subsidies listed above are just a few examples of what the regular people are giving to the tarsands/oilsands/gas corporations.  All, while Alberta’s biggest oil companies are raking in billions in profit. (z)

The politicians haven’t even been tracking how much was going into subsidies, much less if it amounted to a net benefit for Canadians.  In 2017, ‘auditor general Michael Ferguson said he tried to test the progress being made on phasing out the subsidies but blasted the government for refusing to provide documents that would allow him to do so’. (t)  When “Canada’s Auditor General told the federal government that it had to start tracking its subsidies to the fossil fuel industries” (and that would be the Liberals very limited definition of a subsidy), the Liberals said “it may not be made public” (k), in other words it won’t be.  The same thing is happening in B.C.; As Ben Parfitt reports “in an ominous development, our government says we are not even entitled to know how much the government actually subsidizes individual energy companies. (ll)

In 2018/19 the Auditor General’s office at least got to audit the Department of Finance.  They found that “Department of Finance Canada’s assessments to identify inefficient tax subsidies for fossil fuels were incomplete, and that advice it provided to the Minister was not based on all relevant and reliable information”, “did not clearly define how a tax subsidy for fossil fuels would be inefficient”, and so on. (pp)  In short, it was pretty much a farce.

Firstly, that tells us they have something to hide, and secondly, this is not democracy.  In a democracy the public has a right to know who their money is going to, how much and for what purpose.  Thirdly, it says that if they have to hide the total of the subsidies we are paying  then we, the regular Canadians, are getting very little, or, I suspect, we are paying, from what little we have, the oil and gas companies to take our resources, line their pockets, pollute our environment, and make us suffer and die.

And Trudeau had just continued a long trend.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres “called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, saying taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be used to harm the planet.

He said: ‘Many people still think that to give fossil fuel subsidies is a way to improve living conditions of people.

‘Nothing (could be) more wrong. What we are doing is to use taxpayers’ money, which means our money, to boost hurricanes, to spread drought, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals, in one word: to destroy the world.’” (rr)




(a)  Alberta regulator privately estimates oilpatch’s financial liabilities are hundreds of billionsMike De Souza, Carolyn Jarvis, Emma McIntosh & David Bruser, 01 Nov 2018, National Observer
(b) Here’s How Canada’s Oil Sands Could Collapse by 2030 – Geoff Dembicki, 14 Aug 2017, VICE
(c)  Both Notley and Kenney Hiding from a $260-Billion Cleanup Problem – Andrew Nikiforuk, 01 Apr 2019,
(d)  How NOT to Fix Alberta’s Hurting Jobs Economy – Gil McGowan, 11 Apr 2019,
(e)  LASER TALKS:  Fossil Fuel Subsidies – 06 Feb 2018, Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada
(f)   Fall fiscal update earmarks in excess of $17-billion in new spending over six years – Ethan Rotberg, 21 Nov 2018, Globalnews
(g)  Government of Canada takes further action to protect Southern Resident Killer Whales – Government of Canada
(h)  Environmental groups call subsidies to fossil fuel industry an ‘anti-carbon tax’ – Bob Weber, 15 Nov 2016, National Observer
(i)  Alberta Pans New 1.65B Fossil Lifeline from Ottawa –  Phil Heidenreich and Karen Bartko, 19 Dec 2018, GlobalNews
(j)  Government funding for oil sands R&D – date (after 06 Feb 2019), Future Alberta
(k) The $10-billion dollar elephant in the room – 08 Jun 2018, Above Ground
(l)  Alberta’s UCP reveal platform that would reduce spending, replace carbon tax with levy on large emitters – Justin Giovannetti, 30 Mar 2019, Globe and Mail
(m) New Study:  Fossil fuel subsidies undermine carbon pricing in Canada, Environmental Defence, 15 Nov 2016, Cision
(n) Inside Ottawa’s rush to dispute science before pipeline approvals – Carl Meyer, 16  Oct 2017, National Observer
(o)  1B upgrader plan aimed at getting Alberta off boom – Todd Coyne, 26 Feb 2018, CBC News
(p)  Orphan oil and gas wells adopted by rookie Alberta energy company founder – Dan Healing, 25 Aug 2017, National Observer
(q)  Made-in-Alberta Plan Moves $2-billion Investment Forward – pmnationtalk, 23 Jan 2019, NationTalk
(r) On the Record:  Why the Court Overturned the Pipeline Approval – Tyee staff, 30 Aug 2018,
(s)  Unpacking Canada’s Fossil Fuel Subsidies – International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
(t)  Canada’s billions in fossil fuel subsidies to go under the microscope – Mia Rabson, 15 Jun 2018, National Observer
(u)  Highlights of Bill Morneau’s 2018 fiscal update – Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press, 21 Nov 2018, CBC News
(v)  How BC’s Gas Giveaway Fuels Alberta’s Oilsands – Ben Parfitt, 08 Aug 2018,
(w) Alberta’s Notley government signs on as Keystone XL customer – Tom Vernon, 18 Jan 2018, Global News
(x) Rebuilding Fort Mac, and Our Energy Economy –  Crawford Kilian, 09 May 2016,
(y) Cenovus swings to profitability but frets over Kenney’s oil-by-rail cancellation threat – Geoffrey Morgan, 24 Apr 2019, Financial Post
(z) How Alberta’s biggest oil companies are still raking in billions – Sharon J. Riley, 12 Jun 2019, The Narwhal
(aa) Alberta’s election platforms compared:  Where the NDP and UCP stand on everything from child care to carbon taxes –  Justin Giovannetti, 12 Apr 2019, The Globe and Mail
(bb) Can technology lower the carbon footprint of Canada’s oilsands? – James Wilt, 19 Mar 2018, National Observer
(cc) LNG Canada project called a ‘tax giveaway’ as B.C. Approves massive subsidies – Sarah Cox, 03 Oct 2018, The Narwhal\
(dd) Alberta has spent $31 million promoting Trans Mountain pipeline expansion –  Kevin Maimann, 31 Aug 2018, The Star
(ee) Kenney and Scheer vow to fight ‘lies’ of oil and gas opponents –  Drew Anderson, Helen Pike, 25 Oct 2018, CBC News
(ff) Alberta giving oil/gas producers $2.3 billion over 5 years to cut methane gas emissions – Jude Hislop, 25 Apr 2018, EnergiMedia
(gg) Are Albertans collecting a fair share of oilsands wealth? – James Wilt, 14 Aug 2018, The Narwhal
(hh) Alberta’s Problem Isn’t Pipelines:  It’s Bad Policy Decisions – Andrew Nikiforuk, 23 Nov 2018,
(ii) Revealed:  oil giants pay billions less tax in Canada than abroad – Martin Lukacs, 26 Oct 2017, The Guardian
(jj) Oilpatch-friendly royalty system takes effect in Alberta – Kyle Bakx, 03 Jan 2017, CBC News
(kk) Comparing royalty rates in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Texas and North Dakota – Tracy Johnson, 20 May 2016, CBC News
(ll) Ben Parfitt: British Columbians shortchanged billions from fossil fuel industry revenues – Ben Parfitt, 27 May 2018, Vancouver Sun
(mm) Oil and Gas Clean Tech Program – Natural Resources Canada,
(nn) Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Holds Lessons for Canada – Susan Ormiston, 20 Mar  2015, CBC News
(oo)  Fuelling the Oil Sands – 15 Jul 2019, Above Ground
(pp) Report 3 – Tax Subsidies for Fossil Fuels – Department of Finance Canada – Heather Miller, Sylvie Marchand, Tristan Matthews, Suzanne Moorhead, 28 Feb 2019, Auditor General
(qq) Canada’s 7th National Communication and 3rd Biennial Report – Government of Canada, 2017
(rr) Greta Thunberg tells Vienna conference world leaders aren’t doing enough on climate change – Daily Mail, 2019-06-13
(ss) Liberals under fire after announcing more than $12M in Funding to Loblaw – Mia Rabson, The Canadian Press, 09 Apr 2019, CTV News




What the SNC-Lavalin scandal revealed was Jody Wilson-Raybould and other heroes but it also clearly exposed how the government works, who works for whom and the non-existent accountability of politicians, at least in a majority government.

I see a light of ethics, morals, and integrity flicker in politics.  Thank you to Jody Wilson-Raybould (JWR), Dr. Jane Philpott, Kathleen Roussel (director of public prosecutions), and Louis De Jaeger (p) for working for the people.  There are other heroes I have written about on past posts, John Doyle, former auditor general of British Columbia, and Alana James, a lawyer who formerly was a British Columbia Senior health information advisor and whistleblower (see posts re B.C. Health Ministry Scandal), Mary-Ellen Turpel, former B.C. Representative for Children and Youth, and a former judge (see posts re The Children), Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers .

I did not think it would be possible to have decent human beings, who actually represent us, the regular people, in politics.  I thought the whole system would have to be torn down and rebuilt and it still may have to be.  But these people have shown that ethics, morals, and integrity can happen if only for a brief moment.  They are leading the way; if enough others would follow we could have a government system that is truly democratic, one the people could trust and respect, not the farce that we currently have.

It speaks to who the politicians are, and who they serve, that they would regurgitate this loss of 9,000 jobs when there appears to be no substance to it.

– Gerald Butts (former principal secretary to the PM) and Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility) could not name a source for the 9,000 jobs (n).  How could Butts or Qualtrough not know who gave them the information?  Did they just get together and make up a number?  Would the source have been embarrassing?  Did they just LIE because they have such contempt for the people?  They just used this number as a reason for issuing a DPA and kept stating it to the press.  Seriously disgusting.
– SNL-Lavalin stated that they never claimed that 9,000 jobs would be lost (s) and then backtracked (t) presumably after they got a call from the PMO’s office.
– SNC-Lavalin has current jobs to last several years (g) and skilled engineers are in high demand, (c)
– The ban would only be on federal projects, not provincial or municipal projects (g)
– The government contracts will be awarded to other companies who will hire employees.
– Jules Bourgeois – ‘province is dealing with an acute labour shortage…; in a situation of full employment….everyone’s looking for good employees (b)
– Around 2012 approximately 10,000 employees have left the company, many voluntarily. (g)(m) Apparently, most or all got other jobs.

So, why are the politicians lying/blackmailing Canadians, AGAIN?

– Possibilities:

  1. Trudeau is buddies with SNC-Lavalin management and didn’t want to see them go to court even when they didn’t qualify for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA).
  2. Trudeau wanted a made-up crisis so he could fake being the saviour and get Quebec votes in the next provincial and federal elections. “He also acknowledged that during his Sept. 17 meeting with Wilson-Raybould, he pointed out that he was the MP for Papineau, a riding in Quebec — where SNC-Lavalin is based — but denied he was pressuring her for partisan interests.” (i)
  3. SNC-Lavalin is still handing out bribes
  4. All of the above

But any way you look at it, the partisan reasons are, I understand, illegal in obtaining a DPA.  Martyn Brown said ‘“But if the public interest argument is based on a lie, and they knew that, then all that you’re left with is a political motive, an electoral motive that would be self-serving. And that to me would raise questions of obstruction of justice, breach of trust, all sorts of things that the RCMP would suddenly be concerned with.”’ (u)

Jody Wilson-Raybould and Kathleen Roussel were doing their jobs, serving the people of Canada (and trying to protect the Prime Minister from his own follies), which is what they were hired to do.  Jane Philpott was doing the same by standing up, and being counted, in the defense of the people of Canada and what’s left of our democracy, our freedom, our rights.

The other politicians in the Liberal party kept repeating that she had to be loyal to the party, they had to serve the leader of the party and the handful of others, most not elected, who run the party/country (w, x); this is also called Groupthink. (see future post Politicians, bootlickers and groupthink)  They didn’t care about the people of Canada, just the party which includes themselves.  If a politician asks for my vote so he/she can represent me I will call them what they are – LIARS; they represent the party, not me.  And maybe I will tell them and their families to go drink mercury (see future post Politicians, bootlickers and groupthink)

And the people of Canada cannot hold the politicians accountable.  The justice committee and ethics committee are both Liberal dominated so they “reviewed” in a manner beneficial to the Liberal party.  Andrew Coyne said “In our system, the prime minister decides whether the prime minister should be held to account. Virtually all of the mechanisms by which he might theoretically be required to answer to credible charges of serious wrongdoing — and meddling with a prosecution is about as serious as it gets — are under his control. That certainly includes the committee, whatever pretense of independence might be maintained”; and (o) “Got a complaint, likewise, about the government’s obvious lack of enthusiasm for investigating itself? Great: take it up with the government.” (o)  The results will be same as the ‘do nothing’ office of the privacy commissioner.

The politicians have people who will write op-eds without identifying that op-ed is being written on behalf of a political party, as stated by Katie Telford    Ms. Telford, chief of staff to the prime minister, also offered to line up “all kinds of people to write op-eds saying that what (Ms. Wilson-Raybould) is doing is proper”; in other words they will say whatever the politicians want them to say.   Isn’t this propaganda/brainwashing/indoctrination/newspeak?    Is Susan Delacourt one of them? (v)  And I suspect all political parties do this.  People judge what they read, at least partly, based on the source of the article.   The people have a right to know if, for all intents and purposes, the source of the article is the prime minister’s office, at least in a real democracy.

And yet, Philippe Lagasse claims “We know our system is working when the safeguards we’ve put in place to address government chicanery kick in and do their job”.  (y)  What safeguards, a ruling party-controlled committees fake “investigations”?  Two people who had to quit the party because one of them dared to speak the truth?  It’s a healthy democracy when two people can have a difference of “opinion” without one losing their job.  Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick, while culpable, were the fall guys so the Prime Minister was protected, the party was protected and nothing had to change.

He also states “But our constitution has mechanisms to hold governments to account”. (y) Perhaps he could explain those mechanisms, and how they are operating in this case because I don’t see them happening here, quite the opposite.  What the SNC-Lavalin scandal demonstrates is that we not only do NOT have “a healthy democratic immune system at work” but that, we don’t have much, if any, of a democracy.

Are the other political parties any different?  Not that I can see.  In fact, they don’t even have one, much less two, politicians that work for the people of Canada.

If I was in the riding of JWR or Dr. Philpott I would vote for them.  But since I’m not I will not be voting for someone who does not represent me; I will not willingly be their sucker. (q)

The system we have doesn’t work for the regular people of Canada.   JWR wants to change the party system: “Wilson-Raybould believes that the party system as it now exists has to be re-invented. It is not parties per se that are the problem, but the way in which they have evolved. They are too leader-centric, and far too partisan. In her view, both the PM and other party leaders have to be responsive to parliament, not the other way around.

‘I don’t believe in blind loyalty or blind partisanship. I do not believe in making decisions that set aside important public policy for the sake of political power. I do not believe that the best public policy is just getting re-elected. I believe in doing good public policy, regardless of what party is in power.”’  (z)  I hope she, and Jane Philpott, get the opportunity to change the party system and, if we’re lucky, it might work.

It would also be interesting to see what would happen if independents held the balance of power or formed a minority government.  Would the people of Canada actually be represented and would we get good public policy?

a. A closer look at SNC-Lavalin’s somewhat murky past–  Kathleen Blaze Baum, Tavia Grant and Wendy Stueck, 08 Feb 2019, CBC News
b.  Why many Quebecers want SNC-Lavalin to Stand Trial – Simone Nakonechny, 09 Mar 2016, CBC News
c. Four questions without answers about the SNC-Lavalin scandal – David Thurton, 12 Mar 2019, CBC News
d.  Liberal MP Who Led Committee Shutdown Denies Coverup, Says It’s Time For ‘Shift’ in SNC-Lavalin Debate – Kathleen Harris, 14 Mar 2019, CBC News
e.  Butts Sinks Trudeau Government Deeper into the Muck –  Michael Harris, 08 Mar 2019,
f.  A closer look at SNC-Lavalin’s somewhat murky past – Kathryn Blaze Baum, Tavia Grant and Wendy Stueck, 08 Feb 2019, CBC News
g.  An economic reality check on SNC-Lavalin:  Are 9,000 jobs really at stake? – Diana Swain, 08 Mar 2019, CBC News
h.  Here’s what a 10-year ban on federal contract bids would mean for SNC-Lavalin – The Canadian Press, 17 Mar 2019, CBC News
i.  What you need to know about the SNC-Lavalin affair – Mark Gollom, 13 Feb 2019, CBC News
j.  Budget documents show widespread use of ‘consultancy cost’ code – Dave Seglins, 15 May 2013, CBC News
k. Wilson-Raybould’s SNC-Lavalin claims set ‘all alarms sounding’ at OECD: spokesman – Joran Gowling, Vassy Kapelos, 13 Mar 2019, CBC News
l. World Bank Debars SNC-Lavalin Inc. And it’s Affiliates for 10 years – The World Bank, 17 Apr 2013
m.  SNC-Lavalin Affair –Wikipedia
n.  Trudeau’s No Good, Very Bad Week –  David Beers, 14 Mar 2019,
o.  Andrew Coyne: Sooner or later the truth comes out.  But in our system, not so much –  Andrew Coyne, 13 Mar 2019, National Post
p. B.C. Riding association leader quits after Trudeau ousts ex-ministers from caucus – Jessica Peters, 03 Apr 2019, Cloverdale Reporter
q.  Why I Don’t Vote – Update
r.  A Closer Look:  The 11 People Wilson-Raybould Said Were Involved in the SNC-Lavalin Affair –  Kathryn Blaze Baum, Tavia Grant and Wendy Stueck, 01 Mar 2019, Globe and Mail
s.  SNC-Lavalin CEO says firm never cited 9,000 jobs as reason for deserving DPA – Canadian Press, 20 Mar 2019, CBC News
t.  SNC-Lavalin backtracks on CEO’s comments surrounding potential job losses – Canadian Press, 25 Mar 2019, National Newswatch
Trudeau a Threat to Liberal Chances, Must Go:  Martyn Brown –  David Beers, 25 Mar 2019,
v.  SNC-Lavalin affair:  Philpott and Wilson-Raybould aren’t lifelong Liberals, and some say that’s the problem – CBC Radio transcript, 05 Mar 2019

w.  Trudeau defends actions as Philpott asks if Wilson-Raybould was sidelined over SNC-Lavalin – Kathleen Harris, 21 Mar 2019, CBC News
x.  Jody Wilson-Raybould:  ‘The Liberal party is not something I understand anymore’ – John Geddes, 04 Apr 2019, Maclean’s
y.  The SNC-Lavalin scandal is proof our system of government is working.  Seriously –  Philippe Lagasse, 05 Mar 2019, Maclean’s
z.  Jody Wilson-Raybould on Her Path to Independence –  Michael Harris, 10 Jun 2019,              


(Also read prior posts “Assault” July 22, 2010, “Security Guards, August 8, 2009, ‘Threats” September 4, 2008)

I include this post because I think people should know what happens, in Canada, when they exercise free speech against the government. You will be threatened (life, limb, family, job…), intimidated and harassed, plus they will attempt to demean you, and will use diversionary tactics when they can’t prove that what is being said is false. I don’t say this to scare people off, to prevent them from speaking the truth, quite the opposite.  It is only when more voices speak out that these threats against our rights, our democracy, our lives, will stop.

Someone told me at the beginning of my time in front of St. Paul’s Hospital that the degree to which they try to intimidate, harass and threaten you is a reflection of how close you are to the bulls-eye. I thank the person for the comment because it helped me over the years to withstand the abuse.

A man, while professing to agree with my handout, claimed that he did not buy into conspiracy theories. I find the use of the words “conspiracy” and “paranoia” very manipulative.  If you want to demean someone and try to shut someone up those words are usually used.  My response to this man was that since the politicians, and the catholic/medical business, refuse to tell us with whom they are sharing our information and how it is being used then obviously something unethical and morally illegal is going on. These questions are so straight forward there shouldn’t even be an issue about answering them honestly.  So, until possibilities are proven to happen or not to happen, anything is possible.  I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities.

They also tried the “I’m your friend” tactic. They would pretend they agree with what you are doing, act as if they are on your side so they can collect information on you and try to manipulate you.  For example, a guy came up to me and said he was a doctor, agreed with everything I was saying, knew information was going all over the place, and so on.  By now I had given up talking to medical people because my experience was that they just lie, con, and harass.  But he knew information was going all over the place, and did I know what they were doing now so I was interested, he caught me.  As I listened to what they were doing now I heard him talk about medical personnel and how they had to get immunized and a list was posted showing who was and who wasn’t immunized, etc.  So he talked about the medical personnel, not the patients.  All he seemed to care about was his own self-interest, not the patients.  Then he said, what I believe was the real message, “everyone that walks by thinks you are striking, everyone who walks by thinks you are crazy, you can’t accomplish anything”, and so on.  What I found interesting in his comments was:

  1. His assumption that he knows what everyone who walks by is thinking.
  2. People thought I was striking and thought I was crazy. I think that says more about him and the rest of the medical personnel than me.
  3. If I wasn’t accomplishing anything then the medical system wouldn’t have people like him constantly trying to persuade me to “go away”.

I don’t mind people debating the issue(s) or telling me I’m wrong if they can prove it. But these people have no facts, evidence or rational argument to dispute what I say so they attack the messenger, not the message.  In fact, I would have loved to have had it proven that I was wrong.  But my own experience, investigations such as the auditor general’s, and breach after breach proves otherwise.  Actually I think they should change the word breach to a flood.  When everyone’s information is being shared that is no longer just a breach.  (see post Auditor General – PARIS report – 5/24/2010 and post Our Privacy Is Not Protected – Parts I and II – 12/27/2015 and 12/29/2015)

A man, walking by while I was at St. Paul’s Hospital, told me that if I pushed this issue too far “they” would put me in a padded room and then only god could help me.  I wouldn’t have been surprised because that’s our so-called democracy.

When I first stood in front of St. Paul’s Hospital it was mostly men who came to “talk” to me. Some would try to be my friend, some would make comments like “looking for a date”. I wondered if they were using a typical government tactic that I call the “pimping tactic”.  If a woman isn’t happy in her job (or whatever) just get her a man (or a second one) and get her F(well, you know the word) and she’ll be fine.  That didn’t work so after a while, they sent the women to “talk” to me.  That didn’t work either so it must have confused the hell out of their small minds.  The women sometimes even had “handlers”.  Example, a woman came to “talk” to me.  Realizing that she was from the hospital I turned and walked away.  When I turned around again I saw her ask, through gestures and voice, a male, standing on the steps of St. Paul’s Hospital, what to do next.  He told her to come back to the hospital.  When he saw me watching he weakly smiled and shrugged.                                                                                                                                                                                             I was at a public talk and the speaker said that they didn’t want anyone to be in the room who didn’t support public health care.  I got the impression that it was directed at me and possibly a few other people.  Some people have tried to claim that by raising awareness of what the medical system is doing that I am supporting private health care.  That was another ploy to try to make me go away, to discredit me.  I don’t support private health care and I have no doubt that their privacy issues are as bad or worse than the public sector.  You could look at the medical system like a child.  A child wants what it wants and will throw a tantrum to get it.  If you want that child to grow/evolve into a decent human being/institution then it has to learn morals, ethics, integrity, caring, compassion, accountability, transparency and that it does not pick on those more vulnerable (only cowards do that).  And, of course, a child/institution does not learn better behaviour if you ignore, or support, their wrong-doings.  Its people who don’t care about the public health system who ignore/support their bad behaviour.  Of course, those working in or running the catholic/medical system are adults but, apparently, they still need to be taught the values we want the institution to reflect.  They do have a bad influence, the politicians, so this will be difficult.

It was obvious I had been researched. They would tell me information, that was suppose to be private, in a variety of areas non-medical.  I assume the purpose was to intimidate me, as in ‘see we can access any information on you we want’.  Example, I had responded, years ago, to a request for comments, by the government, on the privatization of Canada Post.  The comment was suppose to be confidential.  At St. Paul’s Hospital, a person had approached me at the same time as another person, but supposedly independently, yet both asked questions, for whatever reason, about my views on the U.S.   As one of them was leaving, she had her back to me, then turned her head around and gave me a knowing look and, out of the blue, said that Canada Post would be privatized (this had not been part of our previous conversation).  So I guess that’s a done deal although maybe not with Trudeau “in power”.*   But I don’t think her comment was about Canada Post per se but about letting me know they had access to this confidential information.  I was raising awareness that our privacy was being violated and they thought they could scare me away by continuously proving that I was right.  Strange people!

I was threatened, intimidated, assaulted… and not just in front of St. Paul’s Hospital but I encountered this in the other areas of my life. This is just one example of the many things that happened, someone left a “gift” on my doorstep which I turned over to the police.  I could take it because I believed in the necessity and importance of what I was doing.  I actually found it fascinating, in a macabre way.  I knew that it wasn’t about me but it spoke volumes about them.  These are people who couldn’t refute what I was saying.  So, instead they pulled every underhanded trick they could to make me go away.  And this from people who claim to be caring, compassionate and democratic.  I would stand there and wonder, my gawd, what are they doing to us that they have to go to such lengths to hide it.  So, instead of scaring me away, they make me realize how important it was that I stay and raise awareness.

They said, and did, anything that they thought would intimidate me or embarrass or demean me. What they thought would embarrass/demean me was really a reflection of THEIR discriminations.  It certainly told me a lot of what they thought of certain segments of the population.  I wondered how these segments of the population were treated as patients (actually, I did find out a little bit -see “My Story”).

I reached a point where I thought they couldn’t shock me anymore and then they would do something that would shock me. Finally, I realized that I can’t think as low as they can sink.  So each time they pull something that is even lower than usual I am shocked.

I had already planned on leaving B.C. for a variety of reasons such as the continual violation of privacy. I didn’t want to be sold/traded/bartered.  So my illness didn’t scare me away but it did move the agenda up a bit (see future post “My Story”).

It certainly appears they have been trying to find something to hang me with, to blackmail me into going away. Since I haven’t totally disappeared I’m sure they will keep trying.  It’s what they do to hide things.  But who/what I am doesn’t matter, whether I’m evil or a bloody saint, what matters is whether the information I give out is true.  And that is easy enough for people to determine besides the sources I provide.  Ask the health system exactly who they share your information with, and the purpose, and when they won’t give you a real answer, ask yourself why.  What information does the medical system collect on you, why, and is it necessary for your specific health concern?  If they want information for any other purpose, why don’t they let you know and ask your permission?  And, of course, there are the continual scandals proving that our information is not being protected.

You do have to use common sense when you ask them questions. When I was in front of St. Paul’s Hospital a person told me that she had asked the medical staff about whether her privacy was protected.  And they said it was protected.  Well, what did she think they would say?  Seriously, to assume that the medical staff would admit that her information wasn’t protected, was being shared all over the place, was farcical.  You have to get any answers in writing or, otherwise, tell them to prove it because they lie, as all the evidence proves.

*An aside – After I moved I contacted Canada Post regarding an issue with mail forwarding. I was told that, before they would look into the issue, I would have to give them my phone number or email address because they don’t communicate by mail.  I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled Canada Post Head Makes Big Bet on his ‘winning horse’ , by Barrie McKenna, May 25, 2015, in which CEO Deepak Chopra chastised Canadians for not using mail.  I wrote to the CEO Deepak Chopra about my issue and his hypocrisy.  I received a response by mail.  Was he selected as CEO to ensure Canada Post’s privatization?




January 27, 2016





The Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Fundamental Rights:


Section 15.


  1. Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination   (1)


The privacy act is a legal document.


Yet, the medical business has a two-tiered system, those who have the right to privacy (those with a sense of self-entitlement) and those who do not, those who are sold/traded/bartered/experimented on and those who are not.  The self-entitled people, as selected by the medical business, have rights the rest of the citizens do not.  The self-entitled people include medical personnel.  That’s one of the reasons they don’t care about our rights because their rights are protected.


And isn’t it called discrimination when one group has privileges that is denied to another group.


I believe the two-tiered system, giving some people rights and privileges denied to others, is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a violation of the law, a violation of our fundamental rights. But, as we know, the medical business/government do not care about the rights of most citizens or the law.



Elites, Upper/Lower Class


I often hear/read the terms elites, upper/middle/lower class which imply that some people are better than others, that some people are “inferior”. It usually is used relative to money and power.  I would hope people would find new words because some people are NOT better than others.  For example, a person gains a lot of money by brown-bagging (Brian Mulroney, and others, were accused of this), and other unscrupulous means vs a person who wins a lottery and gives it away, not because they have a lot of money but they have enough and others do not.  Who would you consider the better person, the elite, the upper class?  I would hope that people would start using specific terms like the 1%, or people with more money or people with political control.


Sometimes the terms are used in relation to someone who is well-educated in political science or mathematics, etc. but who knows little or nothing about growing food, building a house, or social work and so on.   So who is “more important” or is neither and each is simply educated in a particular area (school and/or self educated).


This also applies to the concept of social status; for example, doctors are usually considered to have a higher “social status” again due to money and the “job title”.


I find these terms arrogant, manipulative, a form of brainwashing, as well as archaic, baggage from the past that should be left behind. If the terms social status, elites, etc. referred to people with values such as morals, ethics, integrity they might be appropriate..  But they don’t.  So – Let’s evolve and get rid of them.