adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

Black activist who became PM of Dominica was target of RCMP dirty tricks: documents

Published

 on

It has long been known that the RCMP Security Service took a keen interest in Roosevelt “Rosie” Douglas, a Black rights activist who attended school in Canada and would go on to be prime minister of Dominica.

But recently released records reveal just how far the Mounties would go in the early 1970s to keep an eye on the young visitor from the Caribbean.

Douglas, the son of a wealthy coconut grower in tiny Dominica, came to Ontario to study agriculture before moving on to Sir George Williams University in Montreal.

Initially a supporter of the federal Conservatives, he became an outspoken advocate for the advancement of Black people and forged ties with international movement leaders.

300x250x1

Though he was a master’s student at McGill University by early 1969, Douglas emerged as one of the leaders of a protest at Sir George Williams against alleged racism. As police moved to evict the student demonstrators from the university’s computer centre, a fire broke out and chaos ensued.

Douglas was among the dozens arrested and charged. He served 18 months in jail and was forced to leave Canada in 1976 after fighting to stay.

Douglas promoted the push for Dominica’s full independence from Britain and would lead the country as prime minister for a short time before his death in 2000 at age 58.

A commission of inquiry into questionable RCMP security activities publicly confirmed more than 40 years ago that Douglas was a target of Security Service surveillance while in Canada. The Mounties recruited an informant who infiltrated the Black activist community and became an associate of Douglas.

A special operations group at the Security Service developed a national program of disruptive countermeasures in the early 1970s to prevent or contain what the force saw as the potential for political violence by agitators of various stripes.

Specific targets of the program, which came to be known as Checkmate, were classified for many years. But records disclosed through the Access to Information Act reveal that one of these actions was aimed at eavesdropping on Douglas’s conversation with a fellow activist.

The RCMP knew Douglas used his own car to travel short distances but unwittingly depended on one of the force’s informants to transport him on longer trips.

Douglas was heading to Toronto to meet an important contact visiting Canada from the Caribbean. The RCMP reasoned that if his car were immobilized, Douglas would need to travel in the informant’s vehicle with the visitor, allowing “us to monitor their discussions through technical means,” says an internal account of the Checkmate program, released under the access law.

“A chemical, harmless to the engine, was introduced to the gas tank of Douglas’ car for this purpose. The operation was unsuccessful due to the chemical’s malfunction.”

However, another effort saw the RCMP “conduct an operation to discredit Douglas as a leader within the Black community and factionalize an already shaky alliance of Black groups Douglas was attempting to bring under his control.”

The RCMP adopted the proactive Checkmate tactics out of concern that existing legal mechanisms were either reactive and therefore inappropriate to intelligence needs, or inadequate to deal with new security threats.

The RCMP archival records highlight concerns about the emergence in the 1960s of more radical elements of the New Left and the extreme right. They point to expanding membership in Communist, Trotskyist, Maoist and other political organizations, including the separatist FLQ in Quebec.

The Mounties were also worried about “Canadian extremists” making links with foreign groups such as the Irish Republican Army, Palestinian organizations, and the Black Panther Party and Weathermen in the U.S., “all with a bloodied record of politically motivated violence and assassination.”

In the early 1970s, such Canadian elements were not united under a single banner, the RCMP wrote. “Individually, their actions seemed to be manageable, but the prospects of a Common Front foretold alarming consequences for civil order.”

It is one thing for authorities to take action against individuals who are directly advocating violence, but quite another to silence people who are simply espousing radical views on the basis they might take up weapons in the future, said Steve Hewitt, whose book “Spying 101” examined RCMP surveillance of university campuses.

“That strikes me as rather dangerous in a free society.”

Researcher Andrea Conte, who has also delved into police operations against activists during the period, doesn’t feel he has a complete picture of the RCMP activities with regard to Douglas. Conte points out that Douglas unsuccessfully appealed to appear at the inquiry into the RCMP in the late 1970s.

In a letter outlining why he should be allowed to testify, Douglas wrote he had been part of an open and democratic struggle against racial injustice that was attracting support from parliamentarians, churches and other prominent organizations.

“What did the RCMP fear in me — a non-violent civil libertarian?”

Security Service tactics during the era included illegal break-ins, the theft of a Parti Québécois membership list and the burning of a barn to prevent a meeting from taking place.

The RCMP’s deeds led to the disbandment of the Security Service and the 1984 creation of the civilian Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Eight years ago, CSIS received authority to go beyond traditional intelligence gathering and engage in threat reduction measures against targets — legalization of the kind of “dirty tricks” that got the RCMP in trouble.

In theory, there is more awareness of these techniques and restrictions in place today, but lingering tensions over allowing a domestic intelligence agency to carry out disruption operations, said Hewitt, a senior lecturer in American and Canadian studies at the University of Birmingham in England.

“There’s always the potential for it to be abused.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 26, 2023.

News

Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen brain drain – CBC.ca

Published

 on


A chorus of Canadian entrepreneurs and investors is blasting the federal government’s budget for expanding a tax on the rich. They say it will lead to brain drain and further degrade Canada’s already poor productivity.

In the 2024 budget unveiled Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said the government would increase the inclusion rate of the capital gains tax from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for businesses and trusts, generating an estimated $19 billion in new revenue.

Capital gains are the profits that individuals or businesses make from selling an asset — like a stock or a second home. Individuals are subject to the new changes on any profits over $250,000.

300x250x1

The government estimates that the changes would impact 40,000 individuals (or 0.13 per cent of Canadians in any given year) and 307,000 companies in Canada.

However, some members of the business community say that expanding the taxable amount will devastate productivity, investment and entrepreneurship in Canada, and might even compel some of the country’s talent and startups to take their business elsewhere.

WATCH | The federal budget hikes capital gains inclusion rate: 

Federal budget adds billions in spending, hikes capital gains tax

3 days ago

Duration 6:14

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland unveiled the government’s 2024 federal budget, with spending targeted at young voters and a plan to raise capital gains taxes for some of the wealthiest Canadians.

Benjamin Bergen, president of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), said the capital gains tax has overshadowed parts of the federal budget that the business community would otherwise be excited about.

“There were definitely some other stars in the budget that were interesting,” he said. “However, the … capital gains piece really is the sun, and it’s daylight. So this is really the only thing that innovators can see.”

The CCI has written and is circulating an open letter signed by more than 1,000 people in the Canadian business community to Trudeau’s government asking it to scrap the tax change.

Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke and president Harley Finkelstein also weighed in on the proposed hike on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Former finance minister Bill Morneau said his successor’s budget disincentivizes businesses from investing in the country’s innovation sector: “It’s probably very troubling for many investors.”

Canada’s productivity — a measure that compares economic output to hours worked — has been relatively poor for decades. It underperforms against the OECD average and against several other G7 countries, including the U.S., Germany, U.K. and Japan, on the measure. 

Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers sounded the alarm on Canada’s lagging productivity in a speech last month, saying the country’s need to increase the rate had reached emergency levels, following one of the weakest years for the economy in recent memory.

The government said it was proposing the tax change to make life more affordable for younger generations and fund efforts to boost housing supply — and that it would support productivity growth.

A challenge for investors, founders and workers

The change could have a chilling effect for several reasons, with companies already struggling to access funding in a high interest rate environment, said Bergen.

He questioned whether investors will want to fund Canadian companies if the government’s taxation policies make it difficult for those firms to grow — and whether founders might just pack up.

The expanded inclusion rate “is just one of the other potential concerns that firms are going to have as they’re looking to grow their companies.”

A man with short brown hair wearing a light blue suit jacket looks directly at the camera, with a white background behind him.
Benjamin Bergen, president of the Council of Canadian Innovators, said the proposed change could have a chilling effect for several reasons, with companies already struggling to access and raise financing in a high interest rate environment. (Submitted by Benjamin Bergen)

He said the rejigged tax is also an affront to high-skilled workers from low-innovation sectors who might have taken the risk of joining a startup for the opportunity, even taking a lower wage on the chance that a firm’s stock options grow in value.

But Lindsay Tedds, an associate economics professor at the University of Calgary, said the tax change is one of the most misunderstood parts of the federal budget — and that its impact on the country’s talent has been overstated.

“This is not a major innovation-biting tax change treatment,” Tedds said. “In fact, when you talk to real grassroots entrepreneurs that are setting up businesses, tax rates do not come into their decision.”

As for productivity, Tedds said Canadians might see improvements in the long run “to the degree that some of our productivity problems are driven by stresses like housing affordability, access to child care, things like that.”

‘One foot on the gas, one foot on the brake’

Some say the government is sending mixed messages to entrepreneurs by touting tailored tax breaks — like the Canada Entrepreneurs’ Incentive, which reduces the capital gains inclusion rate to 33 per cent on a lifetime maximum of $2 million — while introducing measures they say would dampen investment and innovation.

“They seem to have one foot on the gas, one foot on the brake on the very same file,” said Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

WATCH | Could the capital gains tax changes impact small businesses?: 

How could capital gains tax increases impact Canadian small businesses? | Power & Politics

2 days ago

Duration 12:18

Some business groups are worried that new capital gains tax changes could hurt economic growth. But according to Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez, most Canadians won’t be impacted by that change — and it’s a move to create fairness.

A founder may be able to sell their successful company with a lower capital gains treatment than otherwise possible, he said.

“At the same time, though, big chunks of it may be subject to a higher rate of capital gains inclusion.”

Selling a company can fund an individual’s retirement, he said, which is why it’s one of the first things founders consider when they think about capital gains.

LISTEN | What does a hike on the capital gains tax mean?: 

Mainstreet NS7:03Ottawa is proposing a hike to capital gains tax. What does that mean?

Tuesday’s federal budget includes nearly $53 billion in new spending over the next five years with a clear focus on affordability and housing. To help pay for some of that new spending, Ottawa is proposing a hike to the capital gains tax. Moshe Lander, an economics lecturer at Concordia University, joins host Jeff Douglas to explain.

Dennis Darby, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says he was disappointed by the change — and that it sends the wrong message to Canadian industries like his own.

He wants to see the government commit to more tax credit proposals like the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses, which he said would incentivize business owners to stay and help make Canada competitive with the U.S.

“We’ve had a lot of difficulties attracting investment over the years. I don’t think this will make it any better.”

Tech titan says change will only impact richest of the rich

A man sits on an orange couch in an office.
Ali Asaria, the CEO of Transformation Lab and former CEO of Tulip Retail, told CBC News that the proposed change to the capital gains tax is ‘going to really affect the richest of the rich people.’ (Tulip Retail)

Toronto tech entrepreneur Ali Asaria will be one of those subject to the expanded capital gains inclusion rate — but he says it’s only fair.

“It’s going to really affect the richest of the rich people,” Asaria, CEO of open source platform Transformer Lab and founder of well.ca, told CBC News.

“The capital gains exemption is probably the largest tax break that I’ve ever received in my life,” he said. “So I know a lot about what that benefit can look like, but I’ve also always felt like it was probably one of the most unfair parts of the tax code today.”

While Asaria said Canada needs to continue encouraging talent to take risks and build companies in the country, taxation policies aren’t the most major problem.

“I think that the biggest central issue to the reason why people will leave Canada is bigger issues, like housing,” he said.

“How do we make it easier to live in Canada so that we can all invest in ourselves and invest in our companies? That’s a more important question than, ‘How do we help the top 0.13 per cent of Canadians make more money?'”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Canada Child Benefit payment on Friday | CTV News – CTV News Toronto

Published

 on


More money will land in the pockets of Canadian families on Friday for the latest Canada Child Benefit (CCB) installment.

The federal government program helps low and middle-income families struggling with the soaring cost of raising a child.

Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or refugees who are the primary caregivers for children under 18 years old are eligible for the program, introduced in 2016.

300x250x1

The non-taxable monthly payments are based on a family’s net income and how many children they have. Families that have an adjusted net income under $34,863 will receive the maximum amount per child.

For a child under six years old, an applicant can annually receive up to $7,437 per child, and up to $6,275 per child for kids between the ages of six through 17.

That translates to up to $619.75 per month for the younger cohort and $522.91 per month for the older group.

The benefit is recalculated every July and most recently increased 6.3 per cent in order to adjust to the rate of inflation, and cost of living.

To apply, an applicant can submit through a child’s birth registration, complete an online form or mail in an application to a tax centre.

The next payment date will take place on May 17. 

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Ontario Legislature keffiyeh ban remains in place – CBC.ca

Published

 on


Keffiyehs remain banned in the Ontario Legislature after a unanimous consent motion that would have allowed the scarf to be worn failed to pass at Queen’s Park Thursday.

That vote, brought forth by NDP Leader Marit Stiles, failed despite Premier Doug Ford and the leaders of the province’s opposition parties all stating they want to see the ban overturned. Complete agreement from all MPPs is required for a motion like this to pass, and there were a smattering of “nos” after it was read into the record.

In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”

300x250x1

“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.

Speaking at Queen’s Park Thursday, Arnott said he would reconsider the ban with unanimous consent from MPPs.

“If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts,” he said.

Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas war continues.

Premier calls for reversal

Ford said Thursday he’s hopeful Arnott will reverse the ban, but he didn’t say if he would instruct his caucus to support the NDP’s motion.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Ford said the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.

“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said.

WATCH | Ford talks Keffiyeh ban: 

Ford says division over keffiyeh ‘not healthy’

19 hours ago

Duration 1:20

Ontario Premier Doug Ford reiterated Thursday that he does not support Speaker Ted Arnott banning keffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature because they are “intended to be a political statement,” as Arnott said in an email Wednesday.

PC Party MPP Robin Martin, who represents Eglinton–Lawrence, voted against the unanimous consent motion Thursday and told reporters she believes the speaker’s initial ruling was the correct one.

“We have to follow the rules of the legislature, otherwise we politicize the entire debate inside the legislature, and that’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is we come there and use our words to persuade, not items of clothing.”

When asked if she had defied a directive from the premier, Martin said, “It has nothing to do with the premier, it’s a decision of the speaker of the legislative assembly.”

Stiles told reporters Thursday she’s happy Ford is on her side on this issue, but added she is disappointed the motion didn’t pass.

“The premier needs to talk to his people and make sure they do the right thing,” she said.

Robin Martin answers questions from reporters.
PC Party MPP Robin Martin voted against a unanimous consent motion Thursday that would have overturned a ban on Keffiyehs at Queen’s Park. (Pelin Sidki/CBC)

Stiles first urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter. She said concerns over the directive first surfaced after being flagged by members of her staff, however they have gained prominence after Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, posted about the issue on X, formerly Twitter.

Jama was removed from the NDP caucus for her social media comments on the Israel-Hamas war shortly after Oct. 7. 

Jama has said she believes she was kicked out of the party because she called for a ceasefire in Gaza “too early” and because she called Israel an “apartheid state.”

Arnott told reporters Thursday that he began examining a ban on the Keffiyeh after one MPP made a complaint about another MPP, who he believes was Jama, who was wearing one.

Liberals also call for reversal

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.

“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.

WATCH | An explainer on the cultural significance of keffiyehs:  

Keffiyeh: How it became a symbol of the Palestinian people

4 months ago

Duration 3:08

Keffiyehs are a common garment across the Arab world, but they hold a special meaning in the Palestinian resistance movement.

Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”

She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance. 

“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.

“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”

Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”

Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP

Jama said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part. 

Sarah Jama
Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, is pictured here outside her office in the Ontario Legislature wearing a keffiyeh. (Sarah Jama/Twitter)

“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.

Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.

Protesters who blocked a rail line in Toronto on Tuesday wear keffiyehs. The protest was organized by World Beyond War on April 16, 2024.
Protesters who blocked a rail line in Toronto on Tuesday are shown here wearing keffiyehs. The protest was organized by World Beyond War on April 16, 2024. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.

“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending