I have seen the future of taxation … and it is green peas and alfalfa sprouts, or any other vegetable mom forced you to gulp down as a kid.

As you dutifully swallowed and grimaced in agony she would say and repeat it out aloud with me, "it's good for you."

Now think back to last December's federal budget. The feds imposed a new $12 one-way and $24 round-trip flying tax that took effect on, how appropriate, April Fool's day. With flight volumes already back to pre-September 11th levels, experts are predicting that the tax will rake in at least $3 billion annually instead of the $2.2 billion offered up in Paul Martin's budget tables. Moreover, the tax haul will flow directly into general revenues with no assurances that it will be spent on its stated purpose or eliminated at the end of five years. But we were told this is "good for us."

Here's another example: In 1997, the B.C. government introduced a 15% ‘surcharge' on motor vehicle fines to finance a new ‘Neurotrauma Fund' dedicated to research and prevention programs of spinal cord and brain injuries. The government even managed an appearance by man-in-motion Rick Hansen at the press conference to endorse the initiative.

As it turns out, 15% of $66-million that the tax nets amounts to a cool $10-million. But the victims of neurotrauma see less than a quarter of it. The government only transfers $2-million to the fund annually, pocketing the remainder.

Here's the Cole's Notes version of the HOW TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS memo now circulating amongst politicians across the country.

First, link any new tax measure to a specific cause that is basically immune from criticism. Second, never call the new measure a tax, instead deflect and obfuscate away by invoking terms like ‘security fee', ‘user pay', ‘dedicated levy', or ‘investing in our future surcharges'. And finally, if anyone (like those pesky taxpayer advocates) dares to criticize the tax, boldly and indignantly wrap yourself in the flag of public good and accuse them of being against the specific cause that is immune from criticism … see point one of the memo.

While I'm no fan of the merchants of death (read: Big tobacco), the Ontario government's musings about hiking the tobacco tax are similar to the B.C. debacle and follow the points in the aforementioned memo to a tee. There is no guarantee whatsoever that these revenues will go into health care.

As health care reform remains topical, we will see more recommendations (like those being talked about in Nova Scotia) to tax junk foods for a ‘cardio-fund' to combat heart disease? But let's not stop there, how about municipal fines for these mean folks who don't hold elevator doors open for you as you race through the lobby of your office building? It could called the ‘kindness levy.'

Maybe this is what the innovation agenda is really all about: finding innovative ways to raise taxes. Governments will become more cunning in how they dress up new taxes all the while nodding in grave concern and telling us it's for our own good. So there you have it … green peas and alfalfa sprouts, the future of taxation.

= = = = = = = = = =

While you ponder the meaning of this "deep" revelation, let's first cast our eyes down on Parliament Hill.

The scandal, er, I mean story of the week concerns Public Works Minister Don Boudria and his brief family vacation at Claude Boulay's (Groupe Everest communications big wig) chalet on postcard perfect Lac Mephramagog in Quebec, hereafter referred to as the "binder boy brouhaha."

While it probably won't surprise loyal Sun readers to learn that this scribe/activist is no fan of the very partisan and acerbic Mr. Boudria, when it comes to labelling the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell MP as corrupt or accusing him of using his ministerial office and perks for personal gain, the accusations are unwarranted.

Even his most ardent opponents (read: Me) who disdain his politics and partisanship know that this is not in his character. Yes he was mean, vicious and savaged several Mulroney Ministers during his "principled" days as a rat-pack opposition MP. And yes there is a delicious irony in seeing him squirm under the same barrage he used to dish out. But let's be clear, he is neither a criminal nor a self-serving on-the-take politician as some have made him out to be.

To be charitable, he is guilty of poor judgment. But what no one has picked up on so far is that he is also fiercely protecting his son and daughter-in-law both of whom, according to media reports, work for other Ministers. And while the details are still murky, his kids are the ones that actually facilitated the chalet rental back in March.

The bizarre twist in this affair is the around the world tour that the $800 cheque (to pay for the chalet rental) took before being cashed this week. As one opposition MP put it, it passed through more hands than the collection plate. And speaking of the church, a signed affidavit from a priest attesting to the cheque's validity tabled in the House of Commons had to be a first as far as scandals go.

If the heat gets turned up another notch next week or new details come to light (as they usually do in scandal), don't be surprised to see a letter in support of Mr. Boudria from the Holy Father himself, Pope John Paul II, tabled in the House of Commons. Of course Mr. Boudria should have inquired if he didn't know, who owned the chalet and then put the kibosh on the family vacation before it ever occurred. And he has violated the Conflict of Interest guidelines - as vague as they are - for public office holders as there is the blatant perception of a conflict.

Fortunately for him, the PM's ego and loyalty to his Ministers will save his office, even if Mr. Boudria does (or already did) offer up his resignation, there is no doubt whatsoever that the PM would refuse (or has refused) it.

Pop quiz time: What company spends more money on advertising and sponsorship than any other in Canada? Here's a hint? It has almost 15 million shareholders. Still stumped? Well, it was a trick question. The correct answer is the Government of Canada; its shareholders being 15 million taxpayers.

Given that the combined size of all levels of government represents over 40% of our GDP, some advertising expenditures are inevitable. Die-hard small "c" conservatives will argue that government should only advertise changes to the bus schedule. Others may go further and argue that the buses should be privatized, hence, no need for any advertising.

But as we move from the pages of political theory to reality, some government advertising is necessary. Public information campaigns guarding against foot and mouth disease at our airports and borders come to mind. Vaccination campaigns for meningitis outbreaks or annual free flu shots are areas where reasonable people do not quibble with cost-effective and targeted advertising.

And announcements telling citizens how to access government services during public service strikes fall within the bounds of providing good government. These activities are not in question.

At issue is when governments pony up your hard earned cash to sponsor events like formula one races, hunting shows, tulip festivals, folk music gatherings, winter carnivals, fishing bonanzas, fireworks displays, etc. Or when monopoly service provision crown corporations (think Canada Post, Royal Canadian Mint, the LCBO, Ontario Lottery Corporation, TravelOntario, etc.) take out rink board and stadium advertising at sporting and cultural events.

Thankfully, federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser will likely recommend today that the RCMP be called to investigate the federal government's $40 million annual sponsorship program. This stems from recent revelations that Montreal-based GroupAction Marketing billed the feds $1.6 million for three reports, which were almost identical in content.

These revelations have spurred a flurry of opposition and media interest - like never before - into Ottawa's sponsorship portfolio and the fact that some the brokerage fees for placing advertising and the Canada logo, especially in the province of Quebec, went to firms that have donated generously to the Liberal Party of Canada.

We know that internal audits (hmmm, sounds like the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle) at Public Works have raised questions about this sponsorship activity. In some instances, auditors have raised questions about paperwork for sponsorship being prepared after cheques were cut and recipient events were finished. In other cases, little justification can be found for sponsorships to various festivals.

Of course the Mounties being called may not be that big of a deal. This is the same RCMP that has become more than a little politicized in recent years. Recall their baseless hounding of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney for alleged Airbus kickbacks. This investigation was clearly politically driven and ended up costing taxpayers dearly in terms of settlement fees for Mr. Mulroney's lawyers. (Note: Mr. Mulroney never received a penny from taxpayers in his settlement).

Nonetheless, from all the evidence dug up so far by media organizations, the opposition parties and advocacy/public interest groups, an investigation is warranted. And from my years of political observation - as young as I may be, I've been a political junkie for over 20 years - I truly think this is the tipping point for Jean Chretien's nine-year old visionless and directionless Liberal regime.
Thankfully, Canada has chugged along in spite of his administration.

Several media organizations are pursuing different angles of this story. All the opposition parties are hot to trot with questions that are more factual and pointed than those offered up during the previous Shawinigate and HRDC scandals. And more than one Minister is under the proverbial gun.

The public is engaged on this issue. Talk radio lines are buzzing with disgust, I even heard folks complaining at the downtown Tim Horton's in the shadow of Parliament Hill and if email traffic to CTF in-boxes along with a recent public opinion poll is any indication, 69% of us sincerely believe the federal government is corrupt.

Taxpayers of all partisan stripes can hopefully agree that sponsoring a formula one race through to advertising through on rink boards constitute a shameless waste of public funds. We pay our taxes to build roads, equip our forces, pay down our debt, fund health care, defend our borders and for a host of other "real" public goods and services. Sponsorship and political payoff advertising is an abhorrent use of scarce tax dollars.

And here's the final kicker. When the AG's report is released today, the Prime Minister won't be around to answer questions. He'll be off in Europe on "official business." I wonder if he'll have time to drop in on the man who was in charge of the whole GroupAction mess to start with, our Ambassador to Denmark - and former Public Works Minister - Alfonso Gagliano?