[antipolitico]

On September 18th, 2009 the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced changes in the Canadian bankruptcy laws that are significantly more punitive than those in the U.K. or the United States, as they relate to individuals who are declaring bankruptcy for the first time. In essence they offer no opportunity for bankrupt individuals to live, unless they want to live on the streets and Harper's government introduced wide sweeping changes that intrude upon the individual rights and freedoms that are supposed to be protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Previous to September 18th, Canadians who declared bankruptcy for the first time were subject to meeting certain conditions and paying back a percentage of debt for a period of nine months and if they met all the conditions they would receive an absolute discharge. That would appear to be fair enough, considering that the U.K. has a period of twelve months and in America it is four months in most cases.

Now here is the kicker, after September 18th, Canadians still had the same nine month period, but only if their net income does not exceed $2,000 per month. If it is $1 more than automatically the individual cannot be discharged for a period of twenty-one months minimum and only then if none of the creditors oppose the absolute discharge. During that period of time, in addition to paying their taxes and bankruptcy trustee fees, the bankrupt person must pay back 50% of all income in excess of $2,000 net per month. Some reading this, might again say, well that is fair, you dug the hole. When compared to the American threshold for net income, before the 50% kicks in, there is quite a difference. For instance one individual living in the state of New York, without a family is not considered to have surplus income, unless their net monthly income is in excess of $3,400, which represents a $1,400 gap per month. In essence the bankrupt person is actually able to stabilize their lives. Given that the Government of Canada states that the amount of money one individual needs to provide for the bare necessities of life is a net income of $1,865 per month and the government seizes the next two income tax return checks if those apply, the bankrupt individual is reduced to begging status.

The real problem enters in when the bankrupt individual tries to alter their living arrangements. It is a given that a property management company will not rent an apartment or other property to them, because they now have a poor credit rating. Again, that goes with the territory, but the crippling change that the government of Canada introduced on September 18th, is no longer can the individual take in a roommate or go live with someone else (and we are not talking about common law relationships here) because the government now requires any individuals living under the same roof at anytime during the bankruptcy process, to reveal their income and then the threshold through some magical formula is reduced further for the bankrupt person in terms of calculating surplus income. Also, all household income, meaning all persons residing in the same home, whether in a relationship or not and whether related to the debt or not, is included for the calculation of excess income. In other words now you have a scenario whereby the bankrupt person is paying 50% on income completely unrelated to them, because the government considers that all individuals living in the same home share in the costs. Effectively the government of Canada has closed all doors for the bankrupt person to not only recover, but to survive the bankruptcy period and they have done so at a time when Canada is still boasting about the amount of money that it extends in foreign add to less fortunate countries and we are not specifically referring to Haiti in this instance, but while allowing its own citizens to live impoverished lives.

The government has a bankruptcy assistance program for those who cannot afford to pay the trustee fees. First a package is sent to the bankrupt individual and it lists about a half dozen or so bankruptcy trustees in your area. You must have two of them sign the form saying they will not take you on as a client. It sounds easy doesn't it? Well not so much, because first of all the trustees only have a vested interest in first taking the individual on as a client, because they are then paid a trustee fee each month and they also have a vested interest in extending the period of time the person is in the bankruptcy process as the firm that the trustee works for will continue to collect monthly fees from the bankrupt person. Inquiries to several bankruptcy trustees who participate in the government's assistance program revealed that in some cases trustees were outright critical of the government program, in other cases used employees for consulting purposes who are not properly trained or licensed as a bankruptcy trustee and in still other cases appeared to operate in a cloak and dagger way, withholding information concerning how the bankruptcy process works.

Letters were sent to each elected Member of Parliament, regardless of the party that they belonged to and since Canada has a minority government and had a minority government at the time the new laws were introduced, some members of other parties would have had to support the new legislation and voted for it, in order for it to have been brought into law. At this time we are still trying to access information in the public record to indicate which members voted in favor of the new legislation, so we can publish those names. One party leader, Michael Ignatieff of the Liberal Party, who recently boasted about how Stephen Harper was acting in an way that was not Democratic, for prorouging parliament recently, deleted his letter without reading it. Yes we put a receipt on it Michael (gottcha'). Michael don't worry, because you are not alone, because to date 52 other elected officials have deleted their email without reading the letter. We will be publishing those names soon. Michael all we wanted to know is if your party members voted in favor of these new laws and why you did. Don't worry though, because 10 days have now passed and Jack Layton who was standing on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, presenting a united front against the evil Conservative government has not opened his mail either, nor has Gilles Duceppe. Since all of you are elected to act on behalf of Canadians, I guess we can conclude that you also are acting in a non Democratic fashion. By the way the Prime Minister's Office has not opened his email either, but then they were the ones that went on vacation, so what can we expect.

At the same time we sent a letter to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy James Callon and we received a letter from his Office Manager Patrick Wolfe who indicated that the matter was being looked into and that they would follow up with us. That letter was received on January 21st. We will keep you posted on that front.

In one of our future blogs we will be taking a look at how the Customs and Revenue Agency in Canada (the equivalent of the IRS) has started revoking the charitable status of churches who voice their opinions concerning a wide range of public issues. Regardless of whether you belong to a religion of any sort or not, the ramifications are wide sweeping. Does this mean that for instance community leagues, Girl Guides and other not for profit organizations cannot voice their opinions if it appears to go against the grain of what the government's policies are? Can you say Police State?

We have therefore contacted all the bar associations in Canada who accredit lawyers. We have contacted several major media outlets and we are in the process of following up with them.
Posted by Anti Politico at 2:42 AM 0 comments
Monday, January 25, 2010
Rand Paul Rally for the Republicans
Rand Paul, following in the foosteps of his father Ron Paul who ran during the 2008 presedential election, is vying for the vacate senate seat in Kentucky. As of December 30th he was ahead in the polls by 19 points. Rand Paul is a Republican, but not the kind one normally sees representing the party in Washington and if anything he is probably considered to be an outsider and a nuissance, because he advocates smaller government and he is outspoken on many fronts concerning the erosion of the rights and liberties of the average American, through the implementation of laws such as the Patriot Act.

On January 30th, a rally will be held in Louisville Kentucky with special guest singer / songwriter Aimee Allen providing entertainment. Allen also campaigned in 2008 for Ron Paul.

See the information below.

Rally for the Republicans

Rand Paul will be joined by his father Dr. Ron Paul on Saturday January 30th in Louisville, Kentucky for a Rally! Special musical guest Aimee Allen will be making an appearance as well! The event starts at 4:00 PM (EST) and will be at the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center, South Wing Entrance B. 937 Phillips Lane, Louisville, KY Admission for this event is only $25 for adults but kids are free so bring the family! Spread the word!

Donor gathering
A smaller gathering will take place at 3:00 PM (EST) at Entrance A. Admission for this event is $500.
Campaign with Rand and family @ 10 AM

If you have time, help kick our campaign into high gear, by joining us at the Wal-Mart parking lot at 7101 Cedar Springs Blvd in Louisville on the morning of the rally. Join Rand and his family as we will collect voter data from 10:00 A.M. until 2:00 P.M., and then make our way to the Rally at the Kentucky Fair and Expo Center. This event is obviously free!
Posted by Anti Politico at 3:56 AM 0 comments
Do The Protests In Canada Mean Anything?
Recently, an estimated 25,000 people across Canada gathered in the streets and on Parliament Hill in the nation's capital in Ottawa to protest Prime Minister Stephen Harper canceling the resumption of government after the Christmas break, when the goverment was prorogued or suspended. The government will not resume sitting until March 3rd.

While most Americans will not be familiar with the intricacies of the Canadian political system and the average Canadian is only slightly better off, and therefore may not understand the greater implications of Harper's decision. Since the Conservative Party only has a minority goverment, meaning that they do not have enough elected members to pass legislation, they must rely on forming alliances with one or more of the other three official opposition parties, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party or the Block Quebecois, so they will have the support to pass legislation. For our American readers, it is a similar situation to what the Obama administration now finds itself in as a result of the election of a Republican senator in Massachussettes last week. The Obama adminstration will find itself in even a more grave situation, when Rand Paul is elected in Kentucky. What Stephen Harper's proroguing of the government accomplished, is it killed all of the bills that were being debated and all the ones that were ready to be voted on. If one of these key pieces of legislation had been defeated in a vote, then the governor general would have been required by law to ask the official oppostion party to see if it could form the next government and in this case that responsibility would have fallen to the liberal party who it is rumored have formed an alliance with the NDP to form a government. It is obvious that Mr. Harper did not want to see the government defeated with advent of the Vancouver Olympics in February, or perhaps a better way of putting it is that this simply amounts to ego satsifaction on behalf of the Conservative Party who want to ensure that the elected members can say that they formed the goverment at the time the Olympics were held, and supposedly have great stories to tell their grand children.

Do not be fooled by the declarations on Parliament Hill by the leader of the Liberal Party Michael Ignatieff, who recently deleted our email without even reading it, or Jack Layton the leader of the NDP Party, whose office seems aloof when it comes to answering correspondence. The truth is that both leaders, despite Layton's proclamation for Stephen Harper to unlock the doors of the House of Commons, was nothing more than a photo opportunity. Sensing, the outrage of Canadians who are trying to survive during one of the worst economies since the 1930's, at a government that is disconnected and dispassionate and to adapt a phrase from history 'Harper fiddled while Canada burned,' Ignatieff and Layton are simply trying to garner favor with the voters. They likely would have made a similar move to suspend parliament if they were the goverment and the idea had occurred to them.

Where was the Bloc Quebecois in all of this? Why should their leader Gilles Duceppe care, for afterall the Bloc Quebecois simply exist to help support those Quebecors who want to separate from Canada, and any event which provides an image of the country in disarray merely strengthens their position and they can turn to the people of Quebec and ask, 'Do we really want to belong to that?' They can push for another referendum to be held, and the truth is that if one were held in the province of Quebec now, they would probably receive the majority vote that they need to separate from Canada and declare themselves a sovereign nation. Remember it was not all that long ago when Quebec came within a whisper of securing the majority vote that it required to set the process in motion.

As for the FaceBook site called Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament it can be assumed now with some certainty that this is nothing more than a grassroots movement for the Liberal Party, NDP Party or a coalition of both, for when a comment was posted on the Facebook Page, by this writer, supporting their petition, but also suggesting that the Liberals and the NDP's motives were somewhat dubious, the comment was deleted almost immediately, literally within minutes.

Back to the original question do the protests in the streets of Canada this past weekend mean anything? The sorry answer to the question is that they likely do not. The Conservative government in their folly misread the anger of the Canadian people, but right now they still hold the hammer and Parliament will remain suspended until March 3rd. The Canadian people however, will not forget, the opposition parties will vote down the next major piece of legislation and therefore the Governor General will be required by law to ask the Liberals to form a government and if they cannot an election will be called. One might ask where was Governor General Michaelle Jean in all of this, for although the Prime Minister can advise her to suspend parliament, she in fact has the final say. If an election is called, it is unlikely that the Canadian voters will elect a majority government. They have not done so in the past two elections and there is no reason to believe that they will now. The party forming the government may be different, but the result will be the same, a minority goverment.

Canadians election of minority governments is symbolic of a several things, key among them being their distrust of elected officials and the choice of multiple major political parties, and two minor ones which we have not mentioned, The Green Party and the Libertarian Party. In a Canadian system of government that has appointed senators rather than elected senators, as is the case in America, Canadian voters are hoping that politicians will want to ensure their re-election by acting in the best interests of Canadians. In reality, the politicans do not care. If you look up the definition of the word oligarchy, you will find that it means that power rests with a few elite individuals, and in Canada, most of those individuals fall into two categories; lawyers and lifetime politicans who have never known any other type of work.

No Canada, the protests do not signify a change, for in a country of 33 million people a mere 25,000 people protesting in the streets is a feeble protest at best and it will take a lot more people being a lot more vocal, before politicians begin to understand that their jobs are in jeopardy. Canada are you up to the task?

[romanP]

You won't go homeless making $2000 a month. I make less than that and I've been able to pay all of my bills without any trouble for the past two years. If you're a homeowner, you may have to sell your assets to meet that criteria, but if you're bankrupt you probably can't afford your house anyway. Renting, however, is still a far cry from homelessness.

[ASLplease]

if you have to post that many words to state your case against the new laws, then I tend to believe........or should I say disbelieve.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well, it's real easy to avoid bankruptcy as an individual. Don't spend more than you make. Quite frankly, the bakruptcy laws NEEDED to be changed because it was way too easy to declare bankruptcy.
Sorry but I'm having a real hard time garnering any sympathy for those that will fall under the new bankruptcy laws.
I also don't think this goes against our rights and freedoms. You should not have the right to rack up enormous debt and then walk away from it.

[Regina]

Don't worry the guys just dropped by to drop a little spam on the site and doubt will be back.

[uwish]

as a firearms owner, I have been putting up with laws that violate the charter with almost ever section of the act.

Charter? what charter??