Sunset Sketches of a Little Country

Quantitative Easing - unsheathing the magic of Inflation (the enemy of my enemy)

2009-04-14T05:23:00.004-04:00

Dear Edward,

I'm really intrigued by the Bank of Canada's new monetary tool - known, in the best central circles, as Quantitative Easing (henceforth “QE”).

The sad aspect is no one is plainly explaining what that means ... i.e. control over the Quantity of What is being Eased? And what can be expected when that Easing takes effect?

June 26 Bloomberg Video
Inflation may 'Crop Up' in Six Months

Why Carney's caution is warranted
Derek DeCloet
Globe and Mail Update, Saturday, Jun. 20, 2009 -from 3rd last paragraph
"A government can raises taxes or invent new ones (goods and services tax, anyone?) – or, as a last resort, let the printing press run harder and longer, and allow inflation to work its painful magic."

Real Yields at 5% Show Inflation Fears Overdone: Chart of Day
June18 - Bloomberg
3rd para "“It seems that while participants have the right idea about the long-term inflationary impact of current monetary policy they have their timing off by several quarters,”

Bloomberg June 15/2009
Carney may ...

It seems at certain times within the economic cycle, "new money" can be created by the Central powers that is backed by 1) the Sovereign Assets of the Canadian Crown and 2) the CDN Crown's unlimited Authority to tax the Assets, Goods, Services, Wealth, Gains and Incomes of its Subject/Citizens, but ... this QE "money"(huge gobs of it) is un-encumbered by the annual interest costs associated with money created the old-fashioned "20th Century way" - by issuing interest-bearing bonds as "security/collateral".

The no-interest aspect of this new money-creation process is wonderful because of the huge gobs “quantity” being created. Oh yes, just imagine the extra tax burden that would have been imposed upon us Subject/Citizens if we'd have been obligated to pay interest (even at these low rates) on that amount of additional money “as debt”.

So this brings me to the intriguing part:

a) on the balance sheet of which government agency/ department/ crown corporation is the sum total of the "quantity of this easing" to be recorded, reported and accounted?

b) when the time comes to prudently remove some/all of the excess "quantity of money" from our monetary system and if these huge sums of QE "money" pay no interest (and earn no interest- we borrowed it from ourselves) ... will we pay off/retire/remove the QE "money" first ..... or shall we pay it off AFTER we retire some of the "20th Century money" that does bear interest?

c) if the Stewards of the Canadian Fisc were able to borrow-without-interest-from-ourselves just now, in the midst of a world-wide monetary and economic crisis - why didn't they do it before, when just Canada was experiencing fiscal/economic hardship?

d) if they had done so, would that not have saved Canadians the $20-40 Billion annual public debt service charges that have been ruining government budgets and driving up taxes over the last 30 years?

Ask around for me won't you? Perhaps that Dalton fellow or his Dwight hand man (ha, ha) – I daresay that Circus?Carnival (sp?) chap at the Bank of Canada and that short fellow from Whitby cannot be expected to provide a straight and/or simple answer.

Regards, your chum,

S(dot)

The Emperor's New Clothes on Display on Sussex Drive

2008-12-05T21:08:00.002-05:00

The Emperor's New Clothes on Display on Sussex Drive

published on the Ensign Dec 5/08

My dear Citizen-Subject of the Canadian Crown,

Before my first death in 1944, the Governor General was a "somebody".

... click the link for the rest, my sweet

Who Advises the Gov Gen? - In your opinion, does She have a popular mandate to decide?

2008-12-03T16:53:00.004-05:00

In your opinion does the charming and lovely individual currently occupying the Office of Governor General possess the Mandate and consumer confidence to make a "proper" decision on the Coalition/Minority Government mess?

I maintain that Her decision in September 08 was a mis-interpretation of the King-Byng precedent, please take a moment to consider:
a) If it's proper, legal, and good that She entertain the Opposition Leaders of the House, to ascertain if a gov't-in-waiting exists at this time, why did She not do the same thing in September? (when Mr Harper admitted that he no longer had the patience, ability and/or fortitude to proceed in minority, despite the provisions of his own fixed election date legislation)
and
b) In 1926 the Official Opposition actually held MORE SEATS than the Minority PM Mr King?

Who (so poorly) advised Her in September? and who is advising Her now?

If the decision is a poor one (only time will tell) what remedies would Canadians have available to ensure it doesn't happen thrice?

ELECT the Next Governor General!!

2008-12-03T07:40:00.002-05:00

Every cloud has a silver lining

ELECT THE NEXT GOVERNOR GENERAL - Give Him/Her a REAL Mandate

May we hope that the silver lining of this Minority vs Coalition debacle will be that public attention can be focussed on the method of selecting the next person to be recommended to the Queen as holder of Canada's greatest office, our TRUE Executive Head & National Leader - the Governor General.

If the GovGen was atop the Canadian power totem, all this wrangling in the lowest order of gov't would be minor details in the running of the country - barely needing the attention of the press and/or our Constitutionally empowered Executive.The partisan 'leadership' of the biggest bunch of charlatans in the elected assembly WAS NEVER intended to run Canada.

My preference is for that person to be found by a popular election held simultaneous with every-other General Election, with the term of Office to start 365 days after the House returns (Since any Citizen could run, a single-transferable ballot system -asking voters for their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices all at once - would be the only way to get even a 50% result).

IMHO only by electing the GG can we hope to have an Officeholder with the mandate to return our bastardized-by MacKenzie-King/too-much-PMO/PCO-power government system to the supremely-suitable and wonderfully-crafted, as-written format described in 1867. Perhaps you'd like to read the Plain Language Version of it

GovGen misinterpreted King-Byng precedent --who's advising Her NOW!

2008-12-01T12:31:00.001-05:00

Executive Summary

-The current Minority/Coalition crisis will end up on the Governor General's desk.

-Ms Jean must Stand Up to the self-serving individuals proffering advice to Her (particularly the elected ones) or in my opinion, She must Stand Down - acknowledging that She is unequal to the challenges of the full, as-written, authority of the Highest Office in the land.

-Ms Jean must tell Mr Harper to form an All-the-Talents Cabinet with members called from all the parties represented in the Lower House and to stipulate that this form of ministry will govern for the term set out in Mr Harper's Fixed Elections Date legislation, irrespective of who holds the office of Prime Minister and further stipulate that the Office of Clerk of the Privy Council will be returned to the control of the Governor General (simply by rescinding Order in Council P.C. 1040-1121 -see link below).

I respectfully ask the Canadian people to endorse this proposed solution.

Your Excellency, Rt Hon. Mr Harper, Editors, M. Belanger,

In my opinion, Ms Jean and her advisors mis-read the precedent established in the King-Byng affair when she granted Mr Harper a dissolution in September (never mind his fixed elections legislation).

Please consider:

King-Byng was much different - in this much-cited-but-never-fully-recounted example, the opposition Conservatives held more seats than Mr King, the Liberal PM, who had, legally-retained/stubbornly-refused-to-relinquish, power after "a defeat" in the popular election.

excerpt from Claude Bélanger,Department of History,Marianopolis College:"Mackenzie King's Liberals had come to office in December of 1921 (party standings: Liberals 117, Progressives 65, Conservatives 50, Labor 2, and Independent 1) but had been unable to achieve a majority because the Western provinces had supported a third party which promised reforms demanded in the West.Despite its minority position, the King government stayed in power until 1925 particularly because the Progressives continuously supported them. An election was called by King for October 29, 1925, under the pretext that the government lacked "a clear majority" and could not dispatch certain important business. The voters responded poorly to the appeal of the government. The results were: Conservatives 116, Liberals 101, Progressives 24, Labor 2, Independents 2."

A carefully reading of the whole backgrounder by M Belanger (or any), will lead the observer to conclude that based on this historic example (verified by our recent 2008 results), the Governor General should NOT have granted Mr Harper a dissolution in Sept 2008, but instead should have considered THEN what is being bounced around NOW regarding the existence of another Member of the Commons who might enjoy the "confidence of the House" and be able to continue conducting the business of a Parliament that Mr Harper had declared to be beyond his patience and/or ability.

Please excuse my impertinence, bordering on hubris.
I am trying not to be disrespectful to anyone or towards any political Officeholder.

I am a fiercely loyal Canadian, 55yrs old and a self-taught student of Canadian history, law and politics.
I am a strict BNA/Constitutionalist.
I see a gargantuan procedural mess unfolding - I am compelled to do something to stop it.

The ONLY Office in Canada with the power to contain this me-first, damn-the-consequences for Canada & Parliament schmozzle is the Governor General.
The GG has been delegated the powers of the Queen (Queen in Council expired with 1982) in the Letters Patent 1947.
The GG heads the Executive (ss.9-16) and needs not follow anyone's advice since this is not a s.13 (GG in Council) circumstance.

By no fault of Her own, Ms M Jean holds an Office that has been stripped of its independent advisors (the Privy Council) by Order in Council P.C. 1940-1121 .
Thereby, since 1940, control over the Privy Council (intended to supervise and contain the Legislative Order) has fallen into the hands of the Prime Minister.

Further, and again with all due respect, and by no fault of Her/their own, Ms Jean and most of Her predecessors since 1950 have been unfit for their Office, they were purposely chosen as recommendations to the Queen, by the then Prime Ministers knowing that they would be subservient to the office of Prime Minister.

This is the opposite of the intention of the British Crown-in-Council and the 1864-7 BNA Act framers.

I make these statements not to hurt Ms Jean personally or professionally and politically but to re-establish the as-written provisions of the BNA/Constitution 1867.

The current Minority/Coalition crisis will end up on the Governor General's desk.

Ms Jean must Stand Up to the self-serving individuals proffering advice to Her (particularly the elected ones) or, in my opinion, She must Stand Down - acknowledging that She is unequal to the challenges of the full, as-written, authority of the Highest Office in the land.

Ms Jean must tell Mr Harper to form an All-the-Talents Cabinet with members called from all the parties represented in the Lower House and to stipulate that this form of ministry will govern for the term set out in Mr Harper's Fixed Elections Date legislation, irrespective of who holds the office of Prime Minister and further stipulate that the Office of Clerk of the Privy Council will be returned to the control of the Governor General (simply by rescinding Order in Council P.C. 1040-1121).

I respectfully ask the Canadian people to endorse this proposed solution.

Every cloud has a silver lining

ELECT THE NEXT GOVERNOR GENERAL - Give Him/Her a REAL Mandate

May we hope that the silver lining of this Minority vs Coalition debacle will be that public attention can be focussed on the method of selecting the next person to be recommended to the Queen as holder of Canada's greatest office, our TRUE Executive Head & National Leader - the Governor General.

If the GovGen was atop the Canadian power totem, all this wrangling in the lowest order of gov't would be minor details in the running of the country - barely needing the attention of the press and/or our Constitutionally empowered Executive.The partisan 'leadership' of the biggest bunch of charlatans in the elected assembly WAS NEVER intended to run Canada.

My preference is for that person to be found by a popular election held simultaneous with every-other General Election, with the term of Office to start 365 days after the House returns (Since any Citizen could run, a single-transferable ballot system -asking voters for their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices all at once - would be the only way to get even a 50% result).

IMHO only by electing the GG can we hope to have an Officeholder with the mandate to return our bastardized-by MacKenzie-King/too-much-PMO/PCO-power government system to the supremely-suitable and wonderfully-crafted, as-written format described in 1867. Perhaps you'd like to read the Plain Language Version of it

Parents without children, Children with 3 parents - Canada without a Constitution

2007-01-03T09:33:00.000-05:00

Ain't the DD's compilation of news and comment just about the best there is?

Niagara Joe has his pets, peeves and projects like the rest of us, but he often is ahead of the crowd and many times Socratic-ly engages us with questions-for-comment.

In this case, 'our Joe', (just after including Mr. Bob Taubman's excerpt from , "Dixie and the Dominion, Canada, the Confederacy, and the War for the Union", by Adam Mayers. "For Brown [of the Globe and Mail], this states' rights was "a great evil" and so the Canadians should ensure that any "implied" (ed. we call it residual) power rested with the federal government. The Civil War had proved this all too well. In the Canadian model there could never be a civil war, because there would be no basis to secede: the federal government would control the whole nation. ..." ) posed

"Two questions at this point:
(1) what do you believe was the "original deal" (struck in the British North American Act);
(2) what competencies/powers/jurisdictions ought to be transferred to the provincial governments and limitations placed on the federal?"

Word for consideration:
su·ze·rain
1.a sovereign or a state exercising political control over a dependent state.
2.History/Historical. a feudal overlord. –adjective
3.characteristic of or being a suzerain.

su·ze·rain·ty
1.the position or authority of a suzerain.
2.the domain or area subject to a suzerain.

IMHO, much discussion on the 'original 1867 intentions', (muddled and muddied by several, subsequent UK Privy Council decisions) can be avoided if the student of today starts with an examination of the Distribution of EXECUTIVE Powers in Canada i.e. in contrast to the written (and amended) BNA1867, Part VI, ss.91-95, Distribution on LEGISLATIVE Powers - NB make sure your reference copy has s.93A.)

This same student will see that there never was written and never has been any distribution of Executive Powers.

The only changes to the Executive Powers in Canada since 1867 are the Letters Patent 1947, re-stating the BNA1867, s.12 powers of the Governor General to Act on behalf of the Monarch-in-Council (also adding the role as Commander-in-Chief to reflect the independent foreign policy granted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931) and the Canada Act 1982,(U.K.) 1982, c.11 that excised the power of the UK Lords & Commons over Canada.

In other words, notwithstanding any prevarications, mis-information or dis-information that was widely circulated regarding "patriation" in 1982, TODAY, the Monarch still holds all the ultimate power and the Executive is just as superior to the Legislative as in 1867.

The Monarch (as an individual) holds suzerainty over Canada, albeit with most of those powers delegated to the Governor General (as an individual)

The General/Dominion government, through the Governor General IN COUNCIL holds suzerainty over the provinces.

Don't feel badly if this seems awkward or wrong ... with same-day news about Parents without children and Children with 3 parents - it's truly no wonder 21st Century Canadians cannot figure out what the 'Fathers' of Confederation intended.

Also, IMHO, until Canadians get a handle on how NOT-equal-to-the Dominion gov't the provinces are, (never mind the blatant inequality of their sizes, strengths, histories and futures)there is no point talking about transferring legislative powers.

S(dot)Leacock

Specifically,

-The Monarch is the Sovereign and the source of all Authority(s.9)
-The Monarch is the 'highest' office within our triune "One Parliament" s.17
-The Gov General holds all the Monarch's powers (save s.56's Imperial 2 yr Disallowance and the s.26 'GST senator' appointment-on-the-GG's-recommendation power) (s.12, Letters Patent)
-The Gov Gen chooses, appoints, removes members of the Executive's Privy Council s.11
-The Gov Gen assents to all of the General/Central/Federal Government's Bills and Orders
-The Gov Gen may withhold assent or reserve any Bill (s.55) "as an individual"(s.12)
-The Gov Gen appoints the Senators
-The Gov Gen must recommend any "Money" Bill before the Commons can adopt or pass such a measure (s.54)
-The Gov Gen IN COUNCIL (i.e. "by & with" the advice of the Privy Council for Canada s.13) appoints the Lieutenant Governors
-The Gov Gen IN COUNCIL may disallow any provincial Bill within 1 yr. (s.90)
-The Lt Governors assent to all provincial Bills & Orders and may withhold assent or reserve any Bill (s.90) "as an individual"(s.65)

Nowhere in the BNA/Constitution sections concerning the Executive is there one reference to Prime Minister, since that office is a creation of the House of Commons and the only source of that Office's power.

20-20 Hindsight on the Calgary Congress

2006-10-09T11:25:00.001-04:00

Being just one of almost 400 delegates, I waited til the Chairman of the Calgary Congress pronounced the meeting adjourned to make my move.

So as everyone was packing up their resolution kits and information packages, I worked my way to the stage and with a wink to Carol & Jean, the CPAC camera and sound persons (the friendship we built over double-doubles at a chance midnight meeting at a Tim's round-the-corner was ever so providential) I called out to the assembly "Ladies and Gentlemen, indulge me a moment ... invest a few minutes to consider a few of the burning questions that did not reach the agenda or the floor!"

"Who are you and what do you want?, someone bellowed.

"I've got a spouse and 2 kids expecting me home after 3 days away and besides my colleague, has a plane to catch?" someone else added.

I welled up my courage and let it rip, "With God as my witness, I beg you to give me the chance to speak to your minds about a few vital aspects of the Constitution and address your hearts with a new concept of Canada. Give me your ears for 15 minutes and I'll show you a way to finish the "patriation" job Trudeau's First Minister's started in 1982, ... show you how to solve your property rights issues once and for all and .... show you as well, with perhaps just a few minutes more, how to put to an end your concerns about a too-powerful, elected-dictator Prime Minister's Office ... and ... how to recovery our Supreme Court judges as protectors and arbitrators of the written law and de-throne them from their new role as un-elected legislation drafters.

After a short buzz of whispers, Link Byfield the Congress co-chair approached me and said "Friend, the meeting's over ... the hotel needs to tear down the room and I promised half the folks who attended that we'd be out of here before three-thirty ".

"But ... " as he turned towards the sea of faces and slipped the mike from my hand, "if you can cover all that territory, in that short a time ... it might be worth a go"

Link gave me a nod and with a forefinger tapping his wristwatch asked the crowd, "This chap's initiative has taken me by surprise, but something about his introduction has captured my imagination, something about what he said spoke to me and I'll give him the quarter hour ... any one else want a piece of that action?"

A short man in suspenders, with his hat in his hand piped up, "Link, on your say-so, I'll give him 10 minutes and maybe a bit more, but the moment he gets off those topics, .... I'm leavin!"

"Hear, Hear",

"I'm tired and I'm goin'",

"Fred, Daisey's waiting",

"What a dreamer, I'll meet you at the pub",

"Don't bother, let's go dear, I'm paying a 'sitter" and various other private and localized conversations erupted, but after a few seconds, about a third, maybe more of the room settled back in their seats, poured themselves a half-glass of now-tepid water and cracked open the plastic-wrap on just-one-more Westin Hotel mint, while the others went on their merry way.

What a grand, grace-of-God moment, I thought, now don't blow it.

A deep breath and I was off, "My dear western friends - and I include myself as a westerner, ... a resident of western Markham - you've spent quite some time these last few days talking about the elements of the Constitution and the other great rules, regulations and traditions of Legislative governance in Canada, but we did not include any official Congress time, nor did we propose any resolutions, regarding the Executive Powers and the Sovereignty of Canada.

"Time and patience are short at the end of a long day, so I'll get to the point and leave explanation of the details to questions later, from those among you interested to walk a further 1.6 kilometres in my hush puppies."

"Ladies and Gentlemen, if this meeting had been a Town Hall gathering to select issues to present at the Quebec or Charlottetown pre-Confederation meetings or if this was a gathering of town elders in Upper or Lower Canada preparing to meet with Lord Durham in 1839, there would have been discussion on the Crown, on the Governor's powers vis a vis the Assembly, on problems and grievances regarding land grants and title to land, on troubles within and about the Legislative Councils and Executive Councils ... in short, most of the same issues discussed here. "

"But if this meeting had truly been in the spirit of the Continental Congress of 1776, as it was softly inferred by one of the moderators, it would have been consumed with the concept of Liberty ... and Good Government. ... The processes and models necessary to implement Good Government, would have been relegated to a natural second place as the logical outflowings of the primary objective - Liberty."

"Can you imagine how quickly history would have forgotten that Congress' noble recital of Intolerable Acts and grievances if it had not included the "declaration of independence" resolution?"

The difference of course, is we are not in colonial times and are not an oppressed people and a 'world or two' of time and experience - that those Canadian and American Framers set in motion - has passed."

"Nevertheless, we can catch up their 'torch, and hold it high', we can take up their pen - the sword is not necessary, thanks to them- and we can set our sights on particularizing our very attainable goals - Sovereign-Canadian, Self-Government"

"We can do these things because, do to the thoughts and actions of these historic icons and the documents they created, ... we already enjoy tremendous Freedoms of thought, action, assembly, dissent, ... we already enjoy an almost-taken-for granted Liberty to live and worship, work and play, ... we already enjoy Security of our persons and property to a degree that is the envy of the most of the world ... and ... the only tyrants we face are those created by our Own Acts of Omission, ... Apathy, ... Non-vigilance, ... Blind Trust, ... Acquiescence to Authority, or ... in Mr Mulroney's excruciatingly accurate, choice of phrase ... our own Intolerable Acts of "Benign Neglect".

"Friends, the suggestions offered today on representation and responsibility in the Senate, the consolidation of 'who does what' and 'who taxes to do it' in Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations and for reining in a run-away Court system that 'reads in' what it deems more appropriate that what the legislators drafted, are all commendable precis of the wishes and intentions of the attendees of this Congress."

"But I daresay ... they leave untouched the true Sovereignty of Canada - the Queen, the Governor General, the Privy Council, ... they leave undiscussed the Executive Power and the Sovereign Authority to govern ourselves ... the work of this weekend is 'half-full' ... if we do not consider these components of the Constitution/BNA Act ... these aspects that are indeed ... the Essence of the Dominion."

"This meeting could start the process that 'finishes the job' started by the 1982 patriation exercise. (Telling word, patriation - a Canadianization of repatriation - created of necessity when it became common knowledge that the 1982 changes were not returning a constitution, or any powers to Canada, since no constitution or sovereign powers EVER existed here, ...but more on that in the Q & A)"

"We've heard these past few days about 'OR ELSE' -this congress finally saying aloud the second part of Mr Manning's Reform movement's slogan, 'The West wants In' ... or Else!"

"I submit to you, irrespective of the changes you or I agreed to propose regarding the Legislative Powers and Distribution of those Legislative Powers between and amongst the 1 Plus 10 Plus 3 governments in Canada, that 'UNLESS' .... we re-form, the Executive Power, ... make claim to the Sovereign Authority over Canada and re-Confederate the country with these bold new powers in our own hands .... we will not get anywhere."

"I will suggest 12 resolutions and will leave the background explanations of same to questions that may arise on any of the issues raised and solutions proposed that do not seem 'self-evident' to any and all here assembled:

BE IT RESOLVED:

1) That Canada belongs to the Citizens of Canada. We are the owners of its lands, its natural wealth, its assets, its liabilities and its Treasury;

2) That the governments of Canada are responsible to and accountable to the Citizens of Canada;

3) That the Citizens of Canada cast off subjecthood to the Crown-Governors and take up collective Ownership of the Crown in Canada, take up collectively the Sovereign Authority to constitute governments, courts, legislation, regulation, laws and bylaws to govern ourselves;

4) That the Citizens of Canada hereby convey, IN TRUST, our collective Crown Ownership & Sovereignty Authority over Canada, to the Office of Queen of Canada, as presently constituted. This Trust is not permanent 'And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves, Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to time to revoke, alter, or amend the terms of this trust as to Us or them shall seem fit'. (borrowed from Clause XV, Letters Patent GovGen 1947) ;

5) That the Citizens of Canada hereby continue the BNA Act precedent to entrust, to the Office of Governor General of Canada, all the Executive Powers and Authorities of the Crown, as written in the 1867 text and in the Letters Patent of 1947;

6) That the appointment of the next Governor General (NextGovGen) be announced with a public proclamation of the Powers and Authorities of the Office as described in the BNA Act 1867 and the Letters Patent of 1947.

7) That the Governor General next following the Officeholder described in resolution #6 (NextGovGen) be appointed only after having been elected, in a general cross-Canada election to be held simultaneous with the General Parliamentary Election.

8) That the election of Governor General be held simultaneously with every second General Parliamentary Election and that the term of Office of Governor General commence 365 days after the date of that election. This time delay will permit the GovGen-elect to familiarize her/himself with his/her role's responsibilities, the issues and opportunities of-the-day and to summon a new Privy Council.

9) That Order-in-Council PC 1940-1121 be revoked and the responsibility and control of the Privy Council be restored to the Office of the Governor General. The Prime Minister and not more than four (4) of the Prime Minister's Cabinet shall be ex officio members of the Privy Council, but none shall Chair a committee and no committee shall be comprised of a majority from the Prime Minister's Cabinet.

10) That the Four Thousand Dollar ($4,000.00) amounts, cited in BNA Act s.23 and s.31 concerning qualifications and dis-qualifications to hold office as Senator, shall be adjusted for inflation to January 1 2006 and applied with no exceptions, effective January 1, 2008 in accordance with the Acts provisions and in accordance with the Declaration of Qualifications in the Fifth Schedule .

11) That to fully inform Canadians (as Owners of Canada, its wealth, its Treasury and all its assets, liabilities) of the current state of fiscal affairs, of the future implications of current government policies and future fiscal decisions, all Federal & Provincial Budgets, Budget Programs, Foundations and Non-Budgetary Programs shall be presented annually and on, at minimum, a 25-year projection basis.

12) That as to fully inform Canadians, in their collective capacity as Owners of the Lands and Assets of Canada, a Statement of Accounts be prepared outlining i) the size and location of all parcels of Crown Land and Real Property (with improvements), ii) the current use, revenue, expenditure and encumbrances (if any) on each parcel, iii) the current valuation-at-cost of each parcel and the current market value, iv) the outstanding claims (if any) and contingent liabilities (if any) that affect each parcel, v) an accounting of all other financial and/or non-financial, tangible and/or non-tangible Assets of Canada, and that this Statement and Accounting shall be the basis for future Canadian decisions on the disposition, development or other use of these Assets and further to aid in determining the prudent rate of return, (from fees, taxation, royalties and any other revenue) to be expected and exacted from these Assets, ."

"Gentlemen & Ladies, I welcome your reactions, your questions and will remain available for further discussion until the last one of you is satisfied"

Link, took the first question, from a perky 'blonde lady' from Edmonton "I thought we already became a sovereign, independent country in 1931 and in 1982?"

And on it went ... incredulity, shock, dismay ... mis-information, dis-formation, no-information was transformed into knowledge and into power to Act .... a revelation of truth about what lay right beneath our noses.

We Canadians had known for some time that something was wrong ... but until now had just never been able to put our finger on exactly what was wrong.

Canada, reborn ...in its own image. Canada Re-Confederated and Re-constituted for the 21st Century without amending a single paragraph or not even changing one piece of letterhead (except for the $4000 part).

Oh my, ... what a difference there might have been ..... if Ihad just envisioned this scenario and written this text two weeks prior to the Congress.

Taking Toronto to 'the next level' - Provincehood

2006-07-23T13:05:00.000-04:00

Dear TorStar Editors,

I have just read through "A Chance to end this city's mediocrity" by Paul Bedford in the Sunday July 23rd Star, wherein he summarizes readers suggestions, and ideas in response to a recent TorStar series about Toronto's potential futures.

Mr Bedford identifies:
-that we are at a "tipping point",
-that there is a "lot of restless energy" looking for solutions,
-that "we can wait for others to solve our problems or spell out a clear plan ... together",
-that "We have all the ingredients to assume control of our own future if we are willing to think, act and plan differently.

In summary, "We are a great city that is full of potential and ambition looking to rise to the next level."

Exactly!

The "next level", the "new model" is for Toronto to become a province.

A province equal to all the others, encompassing at minimum, the Ontario 'Greenbelt Plan' boundaries and maybe using the recent 'Greater Golden Horseshoe' boundaries.

Carved out of Upper Canada/Canada West/ Ontario just as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of the North-West Territories, created to suit the developing governance needs of the times-at-hand.

This move solves the revenue problem. Solves the "senior level of government participation" problem. Frees small-town Ontario from laws that are designed for great-big-city problems (rent controls, gun control, gang/mob control etc).

In short is what MUST happen - for the future of greater-Toronto, all our greater-Cities and the country.

Your humble scribe

Canada's Ptolemaic Equalization System

2006-06-09T08:41:00.000-04:00

Dear London Free Press Editors,

I've read your June 9/06 Editorial on Simpler, Fairer Equalization - the phrases "convoluted equalization formula, disentangle, tax-point transfers" all leading up to your concluding "cumbersome, complex and out of date" summary.

It reminds me of Claudius Ptolemy's earth-centred 'explanation' of the solar system - every time a planet's observed motion disagreed with the theory's model, he created a new 'epicycle' that 'explained-away' the observed fact and pertetuated the correctness of his thinking.

May I suggest that, just like with Ptolemaic theory, the premise of Canada's equalization is not-the-best, given the knowledge we possess in 2006.

In my view, the theory that Canadian life 'flows through and is best served by the 10+3 Provincial/Territorial Treasuries' must be placed in the 'proven-false' bin along with the geo-centric models of the solar system.

If Canada intends to be ONE country (vs 10+3 mini-kingdoms) then National Programs, ie programs of equal need/interest/benefit to all citizens regardless of place of residence, must be administered National. Similarly programs, issues, topics, matters of a strictly "local and private matter" should have the Principle of Subsidiarity applied.

The Equalization discussions should not be about how to "equalize" the revenues of the (blatantly UNequal) provinces through some central subsidy system (with fiscal 'epicycles' for each and all), but to create a Canada where 1) the provinces are much more equal, and much more able to provide for the "local and private" needs of their constituents and 2) 'the big stuff' is administered around the greatest pool of contributors and beneficiaries.

The question for the Little Kings at the upcoming Premiers Pow-Wow (alliteration not discriminatory) what would you accept in "trade" if Ottawa assumed full responsibility for Healthcare Funding?

Civil Service $$ Waste and new paint on an old barn

2006-05-29T17:19:00.000-04:00

Maclean's magazine has an article on wasteful gov't spending this week.

It's Ok as far as it goes, but the problem AND it's symptoms goes far beyond the scope the writers were allowed.

It quotes dear ol' Reg Alcock, Mr Dithers' President of the Treasury Board, who "studied these shortcomings (in reliable reporting data on civil service travel etc expenditures)closely during his two-year tenure. He discovered that they date back to at least the 1980s, when the government attempted to apply private sector management theory to its operations, spreading authority further and further down the food chain. "The new mantra was let the managers manage," he explains. "The idea was to move operating decisions as close to the point of contact with the customer as you can.""

Sorry Reggie, sorry Charlie Gillis and Michael Friscolanti (the Macleans' writers) but "Let the managers manage" came out of the 1962 Royal Commission on Government Organization headed by J. Grant Glassco (see their work as "milestone #9"s on the Treasury Board Website) .

In the 60's Canada was enjoying a time of plenty, there was tons of tax money flowing in, no debt and the government was contemplating taking on tasks that were huge (at the time).

During the Depression and in WWII the government intervened tremendously in private life (and business) for the greater common good. In the 50's the same bunch in gov't (Wm L M King and his extremely capable, right-hand man C.D. Howe) decided THEY could run the economy in peacetime prosperity just as well as they had in times of war and hardship.

So they did. They ran Canada as if they owned it. But unfortunately the Executive Council ( Cabinet) of the House of Commons has no statutory or Constitutional power to do anything like that on their own. The actions of the Legislative Order are vetted and approved by the Executive Order .... at least that's how it's written down.

But no one challenged them (apart from Dief and resulting the Pipeline Fiasco that caused a 5 year break in the Liberal Party's 'transformation of Canada').

The Cabinet just continued to use the powers of the Privy Council committees (Treasury Board et al) that they'd scooped up in 1940 (Order-in-Council P.C. 1940-1121) to supervise their own work and approve their own decisions.

Odd how so many are approved, eh?

Anyway, now you know why the government is a mess - the Privy Council WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE PRIME MINISTER.

The Privy Council was to be another double-checking level, populated with really wise & truly trusted associates of the GOVERNOR GENERAL, who is entrusted with all the powers to decide or deny (BNA Act ss. 55-57) everything done in Canada, on behalf of the Crown (another day for defining that one).

So, do-gooders, investigative reporters-with-spreadsheets and new-broom-Prime Ministers, before doing anything else on accountability, re-sever the Privy Council Office from the Prime Minister's Office (just repeal the Order-in-Council, no legislation required) and re-institute a double-check, by independent, officers-that-you-did-not-choose of your own minority-House decisions.

Without that, all is just new paint on an old barn.

Mullahcracy & the PMO-PCO's Power Combo-Platter

2006-05-22T11:17:00.000-04:00

Happy Victoria Day!

My goodness the observation of the Old Queen's birthday has certainly undergone some changes. Now there's nothing much done formally outside the members of the Royal Society of St George - except firecrackers and bottom of the driveway fireworks displays.

Hmmm, the Dominion of Canada (or should we say the Canada of Canada since even July 1st has been renamed) has put its British roots asunder. Pity. Pity indeed.

One good thing though, the Toronto Star delivered a 'complimentary' copy of its Holiday edition to my friend Edward's home and we all lounged outside on the patio and indulged ourselves on the 'extra time' that the Victoria Day Holiday had provided us.

This issue of the Star had an article on the "Mullahcracy" operating within today's Iran.

The author, Reza Aslan, characterizes the regime: " In truth, the Islamic Republic is neither Islamic nor a republic. It can be described neither as a theocracy nor as a democracy. Iran is something else entirely. It is a "mullahcracy," a bizarre hybrid of religious and third world fascism that, like the fascisms of the past century, has turned into an embarrassing example of populism gone awry."

The piece finishes with a question posed to the author's cousin's (Afshin) brother, Saleh, "Is this the Islamic Republic you had dreamed of? Is this what you fought for?"

Saleh shoots a quick glance at (his cousin) before stretching his gentle, bearded face into a gloomy half smile.

"No." He shakes his head. "This is something else entirely. I can't even remember what happened to that dream."

The article outlined a quick history of the post-Shah constitutional history:
"Too often, Iran's baffling, bipolar government is dismissed as a "theocracy." But Iran is actually not a theocracy. A theocracy suggests rule by God, and as any Iranian will tell you, God is noticeably absent in Iran.

In a theocracy, particularly an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Qur'an is the only constitution. Yet the Islamic Republic is constructed upon a remarkably modern and surprisingly enlightened constitutional framework in which are enshrined fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, education, and peaceful assembly. (bold emphasis added, ed.)

Iran's constitution calls for equality under the law with regard to race, ethnicity, language, and even gender. It provides for a comprehensive amendment process as well as the opportunity to launch national referendums to decide the course of the country.

Most importantly, Iran's constitution stipulates that all domestic affairs must be administered "on the basis of public opinion expressed by means of elections," thus establishing an empowered legislature and a strong, independent executive.

All of this exists under the moral guidance of a single clerical authority - the faqih - who is appointed by an "assembly of experts" based in Qom, which, in turn, is directly elected by the people (if no single religious authority is qualified for the post, then the assembly chooses a "Supreme Court" of three to five clerics).

In theory, the faqih was intended to be a papal figure who would ensure the "Islamic character" of the state. However, in the chaotic aftermath of the revolution, the parameters of the office were dramatically altered as Iran's powerful clerical establishment - helmed by the overwhelming charisma of Iran's first faqih, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who invented the post) - put into effect a series of constitutional amendments and judicial rulings that spectacularly extended the scope of their power.

They relied on their command of personal militias and extensive numbers of Orwellian subcommittees to wrest control of the provisional government from the hands of the capable, if rather dour, technocrats who had been appointed to lead Iran after the fall of the shah.

By the time Saddam Hussein invaded in 1980, the time for debate and dissent over the nature of the republic was over. What had begun as a vibrant experiment in Islamic democracy quickly deteriorated into an authoritarian quagmire - a state ruled by an inept clerical oligarchy with absolute religious and political power."

It goes on to talk about the revolution's supporters and their disenchantments:
"These days, there is a tendency, both in the West and in Iran, to view the revolution of 1979 as an Islamic revolution instigated at the behest of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This is a historical fiction that emerged out of two and a half decades of post-revolutionary propaganda.

The truth is, there were dozens of voices raised against the shah; Khomeini's was merely the loudest. In fact, a full 10 per cent of Iran's population actively took part in the overthrow of the shah, thus making it the largest popular revolution in modern history.

Feminists, communists, socialists, Marxists, secular democrats, Westernized intellectuals, traditional bazaari merchants, die-hard nationalists, religious fundamentalists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, men, women, and children: nearly every sector of Iranian society was represented in the revolution. Khomeini's genius was his intuition that, in a country steeped in the faith and culture of Shiism, only the symbols and metaphors of Shiite Islam could provide a collective language with which to mobilize a disparate coalition that had little in common save its virulent hatred of the shah.

By the time the shah was ousted and the Islamic Republic was born, both Afshin and Saleh had been lured away from their Marxist roots by Khomeini's mystifying Shiite populism.

In the 1980s, Saleh entered the Feyziyeh spurred by the dream of establishing a new kind of nation - one both democratic and Islamic, both quintessentially Muslim and uniquely Iranian - while Afshin fought on the front lines of the battle against Saddam Hussein to ensure that dream would survive.

In the 1990s, Afshin and Saleh were brought together again, this time as leaders in the energizing reform movement that gripped Tehran in the wake of the stunning 1997 presidential election of Muhammad Khatami, whose goal was to unearth the democratic principles of the constitution that had been blithely ignored for more than a decade.

But Khatami proved unable (some say unwilling) to propel the reform movement to its fruition. He withdrew his support, allowing the movement to disintegrate under mass arrests, torture, and murder. The reform movement fractured, and Afshin and Saleh went their separate ways. Saleh returned to the Feyziyeh to fight for democracy from within the system; Afshin now claims that the system itself is the problem and must be abandoned.

Just before the aforementioned closing paragraphs the author recounts the "theory behind clerical rule":
"There are many ways to get from Tehran to Qom," he says. "We could take a car, a bus, a plane, or we could walk. But the cleric is the one who has spent a lifetime studying the map. He has taken the trip many times. He knows with certainty which is the best way. And if he declares `by plane,' then everyone follows him."

"But if I choose to walk, won't I still get to Qom?" I ask.

"Of course. However, the path will be longer and more arduous."

"And if two clerics differ on the best path, which one is right?"

"Technically the senior-most cleric - the one who has taken the trip most often. But really, they are both right. It is up to you and me to decide which one to follow."

And therein lies the central paradox of the Islamic Republic. Shiism is a religion founded upon open debate and rational discourse. In its nearly 1,400 years of history, no Shiite cleric has ever enjoyed unconditional authority over another Shiite cleric of equal learning.

Nor has any cleric ever held sole interpretive powers over the meaning of the faith. The Shia have always been free to follow the cleric of their choice, which is in part why Shiism has blossomed into such a wonderfully eclectic faith.

It is also why the majority of Shia both inside and outside Iran no longer view the Islamic Republic as the paradigm of the Shiite state, but rather as its corruption."

So, with flagging patience, my friend's wife hesitantly asks, "What's that got to do with Victoria Day or the darn "Canada of Canada", as you've just started calling it? (The hesitancy was in case the query brought on a long discourse about abstract concepts and long-forgotten aspects of special interest to me - the usual format and subject matter of almost ALL my pontifications)

"Well, the same thing, albeit side-ways, has happened to the superbly-crafted governance system here!", I exclaimed, "Just look at the 'analysis' piece by Susan Delacourt, in the first section of our complimentary Holiday issue!"

In "PM needs to show respect on the job" we learn of the tough time the Rt. Hon. 'respect me, if you cannot like me' S. Harper had last week.

It seems Ms D and her pals in the press corps (who already were upset about the new rules he had in mind for scrums, press conferences and casual chats with his Cabinet & caucus members), thought Mr Harper was 'angrily pre-emptive' on Afghanistan, high-handed on withdrawing the whole concept of an Appointments Officer (til he had more guns in the House) and dictatorial for announcing both the windup of a registry for long-guns and withdrawal from the (third-world's cash-for-emission-credits) Kyoto protocol, without bothering to bring the later two issues up in the Commons.

Ms D. has taken such umbrage with the new guy's lack of respect for "those they see as mere obstacles to getting their way" that she trots out, the 'hidden agenda' card as the reason for Mr Harper's "obsessiveness about control" right after accusing him of "blatant mimicry" of dear, ol', Mr. 14%-in-the-polls, Myron Baloney's "style" towards the press.

Does the press corp forget the arbitrary, Cabinet decisions of past administrations? Have they forgotten how many Orders-in-Council have affected the lives of Canadians without a breath in the Green Chamber?

The only thing audacious about the current minority-PM is his willingness to assert himself and the obviousness of his agenda of event and legislation management geared to proving his administration worthy of a 50%+1 mandate.

If you were that close to being in virtually-unchecked power over a whole country, would you do anything differently?

Our friend and PM, Stephen (Alberta Wants In -or else!) Harper is within 18 months of BEING the Pierre Trudeau of Alberta, the Wm L.M.King of Calgary, the M. Baloney of Fort McMurray and he is NOT going to blow the opportunity.

The way convention-has-modified-constitution in Canada, being majority Prime Minister means YOU ARE the King - but more powerful than any king of England has been since 1688's "Glorious Revolution".

It may be disrespectful of me to bring up the past on Victoria Day, but since Mackenzie King decided he was wise enough to start 'managing the whole economy' (Economic Depression, WWII and, why not, thereafter), every Prime Minister has had far too much power.

More power than was ever decided to be allocated to the Leader of the biggest bunch of the 'lowest rung on the ladder' of Canada's triune "One Parliament" (BNA Act s.17) hierarchy.

Mackenzie King usurped the Governor General's Advisors, their supervisory role over his Cabinet and then undermined the independence and freedom-to-veto of the Governor General's Office itself - masterful done, but his revenge on Lord Byng resulted in too much power being concentrated in the Office of the PM for any one man.

Could Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien have done what they did in any other country?

Most recently, if time (and trials) convince the Canadian public to strongly suspect that the PMO/PCO combo-power package was vitally involved in controlling the flow of (excess) funds created in exchange for not-much-work by contractors under the Sponsorship Program, surely ( some say shurely) the call will go out to rein in the power and double-check the powers of the King/PM.

I can see the pickets' slogan-boards now "Reverse Order-in-Council P.C. 1940-1121" and "Give the GG back Her Prerogative Powers" plus "There's no Shame in Withholding Assent on a bad Bill"

My lands, could it possibly happen here?

May the day be lovely
and the BBQ be heavy laden,
Enjoy the day that celebrates your country's British roots!

QPP/CPP -present expenses-future benefits & the Debt?

2006-05-13T18:02:00.000-04:00

Dear Financial Post & Jon Kesselman,

re: "Rebalance public pensions", FinPost, May 12/06

If we are mandatorily removing 9.9% of an employee's pay in addition to each taxpayer's contribution of 15% of every tax-dollar (let's call that 30% of every personal income-tax-dollar) why don't we stop fiddling with 'generational equity' issues in CPP/QPP contributions vs benefits and just focus on paying off the $600B Gross (~$500B net) national debt?

Less debt = less interest charges = less revenue necessary to service debt = lower taxes = more affordable life = more money leftover to save for retirement.

Ontario's Loss of Clout is whose gain?

2006-05-13T17:33:00.001-04:00

Dear Windsor Star Editors & Barbara Yaffe,

Ms Yaffe's article "Ontario's loss of clout" Fri May 12/06 was well-written in a nice easy readable style.

In my view, it accurately represents the current conventional-wisdom feeling towards the pretty-darn-good-so-far Conservative minority government.

But this is a chess game. Phase I may look like it's favouring Quebec and is motivated by seat-pandering in the next election as Ms Yaffe suggests, but there's more to come.

It's decided already.

Phase II (the big Fed-Prov conference on equalization and fiscal imbalance etc) may look like it's favouring ALL the provinces at the expense of the (former) bloated central gov'ts bureaucracy and expensive 'big' programs idea of how Canada is administered.

But Phase III (and the real agenda) will favour the oil-and-gas-fired stewards of the Alberta economy.

Mr Harper thinks he's managing things (and the media) quite well - and indeed he is (as anyone with a plan and some savvy could with the arsenal of weapons inherent in the office of 'Friendly Dictator' of Canada)

But the question-of-the day remains: Would Mr Harper (or anyone) be taking the steps he's planning if oil was $15/barrel?

Ontario's Loss of Clout is whose gain?

2006-05-13T17:33:00.000-04:00

How to fix Cdn Judges, Ministers, Gov't - out of control?

2006-05-10T07:45:00.000-04:00

I'm ever so glad to have "missed" the years 1944 through 2005 - some say I was dead, some regretted my passing, others never missed me.

The unique perspective that comes from being 'away' from a topic or place, allows you the opportunity to see with your own "fresh eyes" what you, yourself already knew/know/ think you know.

Since my revival late last year, I've studied the comings, goings, sayings and commentary of Canadian politics and found myself so devastatingly out-of-touch with current 'public' behaviour and 'public' procedure that I had to go right back to my old textbooks and encyclopedia to establish whether I was crazy or if 'everybody else' was.

I'm prompted to try to outline the symptoms plaguing the Canadian politico-socio-economic psyche, summarize them as a 'root problem' and then make a recommendation or two to address the root problem.

Instead, I'll say but this:
Canada has lost its Crown.

Every single Judge, Minister, Prime Minister, Senator, Privy Counsellor, Deputy-Minister, Asst-Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Assistant, Premier, MP, MPP, MLA, MNA (every public official) is accountable to ONLY one entity - The Crown ( and of course, their own conscience).

Read the Oaths of Office.

If the Government and all it's officials are accountable ONLY to the Crown, the question then is, Who/What is the Crown?

1) A solitary person headquartered in London England?

2) The Office that individual holds?

3) The Office of the individual who holds the title of Governor General in Ottawa/ Lt Governor in each province?

4) The individual who holds the title Prime Minister?

5) The tripartite 'One Parliament' outlined in s.17 of the BNA Act 1867 ?

6) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

7) The people of Canada, collectively?

8) No one and no thing?

It must be one of these.

But which one.

And the most fascinating part of this exercise is that, Canada, Canadians, all the experts, all the pundits KNOW the answer.

But no one seems to be 'connecting-the-dots' to see the implications on Canada and Canadians.

IF our Stewards of the Crown's assets, liabilities and treasury are ONLY accountable (constitutionally) to the Crown, then why isn't 'the Crown' supervising and managing their activities and behaviour with a stronger hand?

IF these same Stewards are NOT accountable to the people (except to influence their vote at election time), WHY does everyone seem to think we have a 'democratic' system?

Or does democratic now mean "the right of each and every individual to be personally beguiled/bribed with their own share of the public purse"?

So if you can see this as 'a problem' (i.e. no one caring who/what is the source of all Canadian Sovereignty), can you see that some of the Stewards might be taking advantage of the situation?

If this "cats away... mice will play" scenario seems likely to you .... what might be the solution?

My friend Ed(ward) E. Trober tried to address this from the Monarch's perspective when he wrote a re-vision of the Quebec Act of 1774, as a modern-day Royal Proclamation.

Perhaps his idea of a 'deemed disposition' of Crown sovereignty might resonate with you.

Harper's Budget stalling? saviour-in-waiting? SoCred in PC clothing?

2006-05-08T16:30:00.000-04:00

Dear Editors & Mr Radwanski,

Thank you for drawing my attention to "Restoring Fiscal Balance in Canada - Focusing on Priorities" in your excellent piece on May 5/06, "Harper's just getting started"

I agree with your 'stalling-tactic in a minority' analysis, and therefore the point we all must consider is where will Harper try to lead, once he has a majority?

I'm a little more skeptical than you on any cabinet-gov't's ability to do things in a hurry and while I DO think this current bunch have a MISSION and a PLAN, I'm less concerned about Harper-in-gov't than I was when the Liberals were in power, particularly after reading "Restoring ..." as you suggested.

The Liberals mission was to get re-elected, the plan: do anything to achieve it. These Reformed SoCreds in PC clothing have a mission: emancipate the provinces (i.e. the oil-and-gas businesses in Alberta, and if Quebec or somebody else gets emancipated too - all the better) and a plan to accomplish the emancipation by un-bundling taxes/ services/ programs/ responsibilities/ jurisdictions once in majority.

But may I suggest that rather than letting Canadians worry about 'what's up the sleeve' of this cabinet or the next one, AND rather than letting this, or any subsequent administration spend too much time worrying about 'getting tossed out before they can condition the voting public to accept implementation of their bare minimum objectives', that instead, we as voters and taxpayers participate fully in the (piles of) consultations suggested in the Budget 2006 document.

Our one plea, our one demand, our one 'must-have' item at these "all-stakeholder" conflabs - 25 year budgeting.

For if we can see the 'plan' for a generation ahead (along with supporting stats, premises for projections etc), then we will be able to ascertain the direction of the cabinet and be able to discern variations from 'the plan', ask intelligent questions and vote accordingly.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, the springboard for installing a poor/bad/'hidden agenda' government is complacency and the vital (now-missing) component in accountability to the public is access to full and comprehensive data.

If we as voters/citizens move up the sovereignty ladder from 'trusting stakeholder/passive taxpayer' and start acting more as 'informed shareholders', DEMANDING accountability from the stewards of OUR assets, OUR liabilities, OUR collective treasury perhaps we'll get the government we deserve.

Stephen(dot)Leacock

If an economist falls in the Forest, does it make a sound?

2006-01-28T06:50:00.000-05:00

My, my, my Canada is sure enough at a crossroads.

A dilemma perhaps, but surely a point of decision and opportunity.

During the 'Phoney War' phase of WWII, Canada's central government used its extraordinary powers under the War Measures Act, the Income Tax Act, its budget 'spending power' and its sovereignty/suzerainty over the Bank of Canada to transform Canada's industrial focus from comfy self-satisfying complacency into a war-production mega-corporation.

Wm L M King's government saw Canada was the last hope for Great Britain's survival and mobilized everything towards solving the Mother country's problem. The government took over the economy - industry by industry, factory by factory, commodity by commodity and person by person. It was a roaringly successful 'planned' achievement.

Canada, after acquitting itself admirably with personnel in WWI, came into its own as an industrial nation through this grand socio-economic-political-industrial 'plan', proving that indeed necessity IS the mother of invention.

After the war two things happened. 1)The conceivers and executors of this grand undertaking needed 'another project', and 2) a new government philosophy 'central government planning' became desirable in the minds of 'people who stood to gain from it' - the central planners and the citizens who thought they'd personally benefit from the government 'looking after them'.

Farmers, Unionists, the poor, the educators, 'communist-socialist' thinkers as well as the 'we can do more FOR our people' governors all saw the Canadian war effort (and both the enemy National Socialists and allied Russian communist economies) as proof that central management of the entire economy was do-able, a public GoodThing and a political GoodThing.

The government i.e the House of Commons Cabinet decided to 'run' the economy in peacetime too.

It's not too much to imagine - after all, these fellas had been hobnobbing with Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin (who were planning to re-construct and 'run' the world. Surely the Canadians could 'run' Canada.

They had reams of Statistics (and statistic gathering departments) to monitor performance, they were in tight with (if not in control of) the manufacturers, the banks, the markets and resource producers, they had absolute control over the Crown's sovereign assets - the land, the mines, the forests, the waters- and they had the confidence of the people who were acclimatized by the war-effort to having the government tell them what to do and what not to do.

The Office of Governor General was 'patriated' and the decision made to place a well-respected malleable sort of 'local' in that job (the GG's constitutionally-entrenched set of independent advisors, the Privy Council, had already been absorbed into the Office of the Secretary to the Cabinet by Order in Council P.C. 1121, 25 March 1940).

Hooray!! the 2nd half of the 20th Century would (at least might) belong to Canada!

Industry was stimulated, investment was sought (& found), highways and seaways and pipelines and homes (like crazy) were built. Consumers bought cars and appliances and homes. Newcomers poured in. Virtually everybody had a job AND THREE KIDS. - Marvellous.

Then the 'we can do more FOR the citizens' crowd took over.

In addition to baby bonuses, old age pensions and unemployment insurance, the decision was made to provide government coverage of "major Medical" expenses - anything that required Hospitalization (the little stuff was covered by private insurance, savings or charity). The upshot being that zillions of hospitals were built.

AND WHY NOT!! all the babies, all the immigration, all the employment, the opportunities still untouched - the all-around prosperity prompted the feeling that Canada was on a never-ending 'up' cycle and the government COULD do more and BE a vital force in Canadian everyday life.

How grand. So grand that the decision was made to cover all medical expenses (especially if the minority-in-the House Cabinet wanted the support of the CCF/UnionDP to keep it in office)

And it would have grand ... if the baby boom had continued unabated.

But as soon as the 'statistic' showed that the birth rate was levelling and then falling away all that ended. New 'plans' needed formulation. New projections needed analysis.

But no new plan was enacted. No new course of action -from the new data- was followed.

As revenues slipped relative to expenses, a decision had to be made. Cut services, raise taxes or borrow the shortfall.

So thought went into deciding to borrow. After all Keynes had said that governments could borrow in (typically short-term) 'bad times' as long as they paid off the debt in the (bound to be) ensuing 'good times'.

Tommy Douglas didn't believe in that - he only introduced medical coverage because he had the revenue to cover it (and because he was a Big Government is Good, central planning kind of guy).

Hmmmm. The Minority in the House Cabinet took the easy way out.

Pity. Only in Canada, you say?

No it was done all over the world - governments borrowing the money to pay for the programs that they'd promised to deliver instead of raising the "premiums" to cover the proven and predictable increased costs.

Insurance. Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance - were they devised and run on 'insurance' principles?

Baby Bonus, Old Age Pension, Canada Pension. Were these programs paid for by 'magic money' that flowed from the natural resource wealth of the country and flowed as dedicated revenue streams to the programs?

Nope, they were funded by pay-as-you-go plans. The current earning public paid each year for the benefits each year. As soon as the 'statistics' showed that the Baby Boom was over, these plans were dead-in-the-water.

When did we know the Baby Boom was over? 1965? 1968? 1972? 1974? 1979?

Was it discussed it the general election of that year? the next one?

Hmmmm was somebody pulling the wool over somebody's eyes? or did we all just keep our eyes shut?

With all that borrowed money out at interest and more money being borrowed every year to PAY the interest (and this is happening in many other countries too) - what happens if interests rates go through the roof?

We all know what happens.

Joe Clark & John Crosby tried to tell us. But we didn't want to hear.

Trudeau was busy on legacy matters (after all you cannot expect a legend to admit he was wrong and that he and Pearson had screwed up the fisc for the next two generations just to maintain minority Cabinets).

Brian, Mike & Maz expounded on the concepts of 'operating' deficits, budget deficits and debt reduction, but interest rates and inflation ran against them.

Finally a world-wide bank-recession with high interest rates brought everything to a halt, a realization of errors and a determination that "if another boom came, we wouldn't flit it all way"

Except we were flitting it all away - and only the interest cuts of post-9.11.2001 have kept the federal budget in surplus (albeit at the expense of the greedy provinces, now forgetting that they agreed to accept lower federal transfers IF those transfers came without strings-attached)

So here we are. A country accustomed to central planning, accustomed to government telling us what's good for us, accustomed to being misled by half-true information, accustomed to having our butts saved by the 'next boom' and accustomed to not really paying that close attention to the charts and graphs that show the 'economic plan for the next 25 years'.

But wait, we don't get to see 25 year projections.

We got 5 year ones (but always too optimistic under Maz et al), 2 year ones under pre-Dithers Martin and now 5 year projections again(this time always too pessimistic).

Only the Ontario Government (Toward 2025) & the Clear-eyed Vision committee in Quebec are making assessments of the least likely,best possible and most likely scenarios for the next generation.

And they say it cannot go on this way!

The Canadian attitude of entitlement-to-our-entitlements is un-sustainable.

There will not be enough people and money to pay for all the stuff the 'caring and sharing' crowd promised based on perpetual Baby Boom projections.

Why do you think immigration policy has gone nuts? the central planners are trying to save their butts by bringing in MORE people.

Sadly the 'trade Guild' attitude (and regulations) and our ridiculous taxes are keeping the entrepreneurs and professionals out and we're just getting reunification of family grandparents etc, ne-er do wells/ spongers from around the world that think that free medical and a free education for their kids is a bargain (the smart ones keep dual citizenship and play in both countries).

Enough of the complaining.

I started out saying that Canada is poised at a crossroads.

We are perfectly equipped to be one of two extra ordinary nations.
1) The dream centrally planned 'true-socialist' country. Where everybody OWNS everything, but OWNS nothing. Everybody contributes to the general good and is given what they need. No one goes hungry, no one has extravagant wealth.

Why socialist heaven? because they are no property rights in Canada - everything here is a Crown grant. The Crown owns everything (save trademarks and copyrights) and the government has usurped control over the powers of the Crown.
Plus we're overloaded with people 'making a living' or just scrapping by who have no idea how their going to live next year, nevermind how they'll retire.
A Government that promised (and could prove) that they'd take care of all those worries would be elected immediately (just check the Family Income Averages on Statscan)

2) The Dream Mixed-Economy. Where everybody shares a piece of the natural wealth revenue, contributes a fixed and predictable portion of their income to the provision of government programs that are NOT insurance-based and everyone contributes to INSURANCE based programs based on the risk they present TO those programs.

Take the biggest INSURANCE-based program, healthcare funding, OFF the budget.

Take that $80-100 billion in taxation off too.NB that is a sum just about equal to total fed +prov personal income taxes !! Take it off the budget, dedicate it to healthcare!! Let there BE a single payer and let that payer be accountable for what they collect and how they spend it!
Nationalize the program, enlarge the pool of contributors and unify the coverage. Go back to1950's basic philosophy, totally cover the big stuff and let citizens cover the first oh, $2500/yr themselves through, private insurance or savings.

With the provincial budgets cut in half and much less need for equalization and criss-cross govt-to-gov't subsidization look at Section 94 and consider unifying all the laws in the non-civil-code provinces (Quebec can participate too if they so choose).

With the laws all similar across the country, look real hard at the boundaries.
Does Longitude matter?(latitude does sortof represent climate)

Since the governors of the country have officially given up on God (and are indoctrinating the public in the Secular Humanist me-first, me now State Religion), why preserve boundaries based Protestant & Catholic sentiments?

Further since we know longer 'discriminate' based on ethnic or national origins, why keep boundaries based on those historic settlement zones?

Then maybe we'll look at creating 10-30 city-provinces that can finance they're own everything-but-healthcare provincial mandates and the balance, the Great Non-urban, East-North &-West can provide for itself from stewardship and husbandry of the natural resources.

Toronto can sustain itself, so can Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary and Edmonton BUT they cannot not when the natural resources are sold off as raw materials, the short-term jobs are in the hinterlands (benefiting the provinces) and these same cities are forced to pay through Ottawa for the under-developed areas of Canada where the resources are being stripped to be sent out of the country as raw materials (and that's where I started)

Canada you choose.

Tell your governors you what 25 yr plans.

See if they can fool you again

The (Forgotten) True Purpose of the Upper House, styled the Senate

2006-01-18T09:15:00.000-05:00

Dear Edmonton Sun Editors,

Ms Romanowska does an excellent job on Jan 16th/06, of outlining the implications and pitfalls for half-measure-reform of the Upper House.

The true purpose of the Senate (in addition to giving the 2, less-populated "regions" representation equal to the 2, more-populated ones) is to represent the propertied class of Canadians - why else is this office the only position in Canadian governance and public service to have a property ownership standard and a net-worth qualification (s. 23.3, 23.4. 23.5, 31.3, 31.5)?

Unfortunately in my view, this is the only number/statistic/paylevel/etc in all of Canadian history, politics or economics that has NEVER been "seasonally-adjusted".

True Senate reform will come from first applying an adjustment-for-inflation to the $4,000 ownership & net-worth qualifications thereby restoring public appreciation of the Senate's superior constitutional place in the triune hierarchy of our "One Parliament" (s.17).

Reckless Revisitation of A Bad Law

2006-01-17T22:09:00.000-05:00

Dear Globe & Mail Editors,

The write up the other day by that well-groomed feller with the nice clothes, Andre Picard, only covers half the story and in my view, was crafted with a wee 'slant' on some of the facts.

The article seems to indicate that it is somehow improper for a duly-elected government to repeal a law.

Further the inference is that the law in question has already been vetted and totally approved by the Supreme Court when in fact this is untrue.

The Civil Marriages Act resulted from 7 provinces following the lead of the Appeals Court of Ontario that decided in the Halpern case to disregard the 3 other provincial courts decision to stay the application of their "redefinition" of marriage until the Parliament of Canada had had the opportunity to consider and legislate on the fact that no express definition of marriage existed in Canadian or British legislation.

No definition in statute law that is except s.1.1 of the Modernization of Obligations and Benefits Act of 2000 that stated "For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word "marriage", that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others " that the Ontario court simply chose to dance out of their orb of consideration.

In other words, 3 of 4 courts found even though they felt that in light of the Charter (with the read-in analogous ground of sexual orientation) the denial of marriage licences and registrations to SameSex couples was wrong, they still felt obligated to defer to the Federal Parliament (that holds constitutional jurisdiction over Marriage).

The Civil Marriages Act is based on the one Court that bulled ahead and "made new law" based on a common law definition from an off-point, bigamy case from 1866, while simultaneously disregarding the 'for greater certainty' section of a 2000 Canadian statute that expressly dealt with SameSex benefits and obligations.

In addition, the Reference to the Supreme Court was completely inconclusive -they refused to answer question #4 (Is the opposite‑sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?)

They refused because they had no authority to answer YES - there was no case on appeal before them.

They could not legally overturn the Halpern case because it was not before them - Ontario and the Federal Justice Dept had purposely NOT appealed it.

The Court was legally powerless to say Yes and unwilling to say NO when that was the only choice left.

Further, the article's panel of 'constitutional experts' have forgotten the Disallowance power (s.56 BNA Act 1867).

Mr Harper can simply get a majority vote in the House and with that and his position as Prime Minister simply ask the Queen personally (i.e.no longer "in-Council" since Canada Act UK) to disallow the Civil Marriges Act any time before July 20, 2007.

Perhaps in future you'll cover all the story, not just the parts you prefer to support.

Backgrounder & References

http://robertede.blogspot.com/2005/12/homosex-marriage-act-saves-canada-or.html

A party, good ale and a leak - what's unusual?

2006-01-05T11:36:00.000-05:00

Simplicity out of Complicity - the Income Trust Mish-Mash

Well, a certain pall has dropped over the Finance Department, the Prime Minister's Own Office, the Liberal party and all the fellers and gals who work therein.

Poor ol' Ralph Goodale has been asked to 'fall on his sword' for the good of the Liberal party and so far he seems reluctant to do so.

Nothing strange here really - seems to me every time there is a party, with good ale, there WILL be a leak sooner or later. (A little 'boys night out' pun, excuse me. )

At any rate, sometimes good can come from bad and every cloud has etc etc.

If we look at this Income Trust idea we see it as a new, wider application on Flow-Through shares used in the mining and oil exploration worlds. In this scheme, Designated Companies don't pay taxes on revenue in the 'normal way', they just flow-the-revenue-through to the shareholder.

It sort of eliminates one layer of taxation on the revenue.

The Toronto Star says the recent hub-bub is all about the Hon Mr Goodale making an announcement to not-cool-off (as he'd intimated earlier) on allowing regular companies to convert themselves into this type of "special tax treatment" entity.

At the same time Min. Goodale announced some other "special tax treatments" to dividend-paying companies to minimize the difference, to investors, between owning one or the other type of company.

Imagine you have two pet dogs, you tickle one, you must tickle the other, if one just happens to be new, young and cute, it is tempting to tickle it more, but the old faithful dog actually deserves the attention more.

It's like that.

Except when you hold yorself out to be Manager of the Canadian Economy and Head Administrator of the Simple, Fair, Efficient & Neutral Taxation system rather than just the owner of two pups, things get complicated.

Reminds me of the Ptolemaic system of demonstrating the planetary system with all sorts of reverse-spinning adjustments and back-flowing, counter-clockwise fiddly-diddles built into it to explain all the observable idiosyncrasies that didn't fit the accepted theory.

So, in the interests of both man and science why don't they make every company an Income Trust? or every firm just pay some simple straight percentage off the top or a bit bigger one of the bottom?

Then everyone would know how to figure the 'tax cost' into their investment decisions and we could put all those high-powered brains in accounting, tax planning and tax collection to work actually doing something.

Ah, my lunch is ready!

United Canadian Loyalists - are you one yet?

2006-01-03T08:24:00.000-05:00

My, my, I can see why this televisioning squawk-box IS all the rage - so much entertainment -right in your living room (parlour is an out-dated term, I've been informed).

Each night, well-groomed men & women explain all sorts of bad news in every place you can imagine. If there's no bad news locally, they'll bring you some from America or the Phillipines or Antarctica if they have to.

Edward says it's always been that way.

I suppose it's the same philosophy as with the newspapers- tell people how 'bad' some other feller has it and you'll make the one's reading feel better about their own state of affairs.

"Whew!, I'm glad that didn't happen to me!" they'll say inside (but not out loud, or perhaps the other folks in the same room'll think the speaker is self-centred and uncaring, all the while the 'other folks' are thinking the exact same thing)

Anyway, as I get more familiar with the way Canadians carry on in these modern super-technological days, I get to see some of the things, the comforting things, that seem to have been lost in the shuffle.

After the Great War, Canadians felt special and felt they WERE something special - no matter where they lived.

BEING a Canadian was a way of thinking and doing, not just a place to live.

Pride, I guess you'd call it. Pride IN the place and pride in being PART of it, MAKING IT WHAT IT WAS.

The people WERE Canada and the only time they thought of government was when they went to the post office or when the Prime Minister spoke on the radio.

Nowadays -perhaps the election's got something to do with it- everyone's got a complaint -a local complaint or a personal copmplaint, some wrong that needs righting that they want fixed up BY the Canadian government.

When did the government get so rich? get so all-involved in people's everyday lives?

Must have been in those 1960's everyone seems to remember so fondly - everything then got challenge & changed or challenged and ignored from then on.

Which brings me 'round to my thought - whatever happened to the U.E.L. designation? Ordinary folks with a family history of loyalty to the British Crown could jot those three letters after their names, United Empire Loyalist, and everyone knew that they picked where they were living ON PURPOSE and were happy there and happy to let everyone know it.

The British Empire seems to have faded now and the only Imperialists left are at Esso stations and MENTIONED in anti-American press releases.

So why not renew an old thing in a new way - United Canadian Loyalist - U.C.L.

Institute a "Title" for just plain folks from Canada. A 'club' that's open to all who feel just fine about BEING a Canadian, warts and all.

No matter where you (or your people) came from, or no matter what provinces or region or town you live in and no matter your race or colour or religion or sex or age or mental/physical state.

The only qualification being that you are pretty darn happy with Canada and happy to let everyone know about it.

I think having a goodly number of members in that kind of a self-identified 'club' would be good for all of us and probably affect people's thinking about their country a great deal more than citizenship.

Think on it.

Stephen.Leacock U.C.L.

1982 Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

2005-12-29T08:21:00.000-05:00

What a lovely time of year - snow covered trees and lawns even in the busiest city. All the truck and trouble covered for a moment by a shimmering white cloak.

My dear friend Edward provided me with a second reference book to help me fill the gaps between my departure in 1944 and the present.

He explained that the existing British legislation outlining the authorities and limitations of Canadian governments was altered in 1982 and all the old British North America Acts were renamed Constitution Acts of the original year.

Splendid, I thought. Canada will move forward to take its proper place in the world and have a new set of operating rules - rules designed for the 20th Century.

Two things struck me as I reviewed this documentation - the new importance of the Supreme Court and the fact that none of the pre-1867 British Acts were changed at all.

It all starts with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that states as its introductory premise "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" and then flows on to outline some limits on the (thereby) conditional freedoms and rights it thereafter describes.

I am brought to this observation by the recent Judgments of the Supreme Court on Indecency, (R. v. Labaye,2005 SCC 80 and R. v. Kouri, 2005 SCC 81 ).

This split-decision's reasons defy everything but gravity!

The 'winning side's' discussions seem to be taking place in a blissful paradise where the residents are assumed to deem tolerance (of what these same residents surely find distasteful, nay disgusting and degenerate) as the greatest of virtues.

After reading the Court's artistically devised sophistry, my attention was returned to the Charter's introductory phrase and my thoughts crystallized on one concept - the libertine Court is taking the Charter out of context.

The Canadian people are getting doctored-truths and back-drafted judgments crafted to justify the predispositions and biases of the Court's members while they protest (too much) that their wordy machinations are intended to produce the opposite result.

It seems some one of the Justices had this "reasoning" prepared and ready for a HomoSexualist 'Bathhouse' case to be brought and pulled it out for use on this convenient HeteroSex situation.
Why else in Labaye (at 46 ) would they refer to "targeted groups" (or have fornicators and adulterers also been "read in" as analogous groups?)

This is preposterous! How can this Court so deftly ignore the foundational principle of the document that empowered their emboldenment?

How can this be? Does no one read the Judgments? the Constitution?

Time for a walk with my dear little dogs.

Another day.

The Root of the Problem with Government in Canada.

2005-12-27T13:07:00.000-05:00

It really is a Horror to be 'Out of Time", particularly when The World you thought you knew and now must be a part of has gone mad in the meantime.

That's maybe not the quite correct term these days, but to a man who has jumped ahead over 60 years in one giant leap, the magnitude of the changes that have been wrought, makes me uneasy all over and sometimes shudder to the bone.

Socially, the world has gone truly upside-down and inside-out! This IS still Canada, but there scant resemblance to the politely reserved, British-style society. Everyone is everywhere and in such a rush. There seems now to be no need for pleasantries and no time for respect, just dogged determination to take care of one's own best and immediate interests.

Ah well, more on that later, for today's edition I've found a more fundamental point to discuss.

Edward's first catching-up selection for me-the perfect thing actually - was a short history of Canada since the Second Great War. From this slim, Queen's Printer published volume I have gleaned the essence of what has changed in the time I 'was away'.

You "Crazy Canucks" (another wee joke) have turned your perfectly suitable government system on its head - the top is at the bottom and the least is considered most.

Let me illustrate and explain by a comparison with large corporate business.

Corporate Model --Canada as Designed--- Canada 2005

The Owner -----The Queen-in-Council -------Prime Minister

Chief Exec Officer ----Governor General ---------Prime Minister

Bd of Directors ----Privy Council---PrivyC. comprised of Inner Cab.

Vice Presidents -----Cabinet Gov't -------Enormous Cabinet

Line Managers -----Senate -----Gov't Dominated Committees

Union Reps -----Members of Commons ----Members of Commons

Employees -----The Voting Public --------------The Voting Public

The whole delicately balanced system to "divide the power" and create double-checks on any one person or party getting carried away with power has been step-by-step undermined.

The Queen is thought of as an anachronism and of no purpose.

The Governor General (even with full re-establishment of all its office's powers in 1947) is considered as much a frill as the Monarch.

The Senate place as Executive Councillors and its 'propertied class' purpose has been lost to inflation (the $4,000 net worth & property qualifications, just are not what they were in 1867).

The House of Commons is as riotously infantile as when C. D. Howe termed Question Period "the Children's Hour",

BUT now,

the lowly Commons is seen as the only legitimate legislative House.

The Prime Minister, having usurped the Governor General's Independent Advisors and subsumed the Vice Regal's power, is possessed of nearly un-checked Executive Power.

Exactly what the original design was expected to forestall.

And now its Election time!

May we add to the organizational chart the Registered Political Parties?

They are nothing but 'piece-work scalawags from competing unions' trying any old trick to fool just enough folks into signing up with their crew and thereby wriggling themselves into the management mix -with not a penny of capital invested.

The Worst of this scandalous set of circumstances is that they now wriggle themselves directly into the Boss' chair - and no dear sole holds a place, post or position to countermand the rascals once they've taking over.

Can no one see? Has no one been watching?

Has the Emperor No Clothes?

Ah, dinner's ready, I'll see you next time.

My Most Astounding Discovery!

2005-12-15T07:37:00.000-05:00

Hmpf.

I've recovered my bearings a little now.

It seems a happenstance occurred to me, and with me, that normally only happens in fiction.

I sort of Rip Van Winkled away the time from 1944 until 2005.

My first thought on regaining awareness was of Scrooge - within one night seeing the past, future and then returning to the present with renewed insight and appreciation.

But I didn't snooze the time away, I actually expired (it's reliably documented) and have re-materialized in every way except my ailments and maladies are gone.

It's more like the Looking Backwards from 2000 to 1887, by Ralph Bellamy written from the prespective of an old codger who awakes 113 years later to find himself living in an American transformed into Utopia (I won't digress into the socialistic aspects just now).

I am alive, possessing all the facts, theories and notions I knew in my 'real' life but I've flown ahead in time. I am seeing this radically new world with the same 'old' eyes and brain and it is quite a shock to the system of a man who thought he knew a thing or two about life.

I have found a good companion, quite fortunately I daresay and we've had a good chat since I first touched that button on my new writing machine. Word Processing it's termed - everyone treats the device like personal literary sausage manufactory.

My new chum and guide, Ed(ward) E.Trebor, has planned some visits to my relatives over the upcoming Christmas holiday time and he has promised to bring some up to date books on Political Economy and the Sciences from the library for my consumption as we travel.

Simply amazing

2005-12-14T17:43:00.000-05:00

The freedom .... a new lease on life

a new identity

I feel like a new man.