Walk a Kb or Two in my Moccasins- Nobody 'splained it to me like that!

Simple answers to Complex Questions and Complex Answers to Simple Questions. In real life, I'm a Greater-Toronto (Canada) Realtor with RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Ltd, Brokerage. I first joined RE/MAX in 1983 and was first Registered to Trade in Real Estate in Ontario in 1974. Formerly known as "Two-Finger Ramblings of a Forensic Acuitant turned Community Synthesizer"

My Photo
Name:

- Realtor (2nd or 3rd best you'll likely run into)
- Philosopher King of Real Estate Business in Ontario (self-assessed)
- Likes Public Policy & Governance Discussions
- Likes discussion on being an "Attestant" and First-Century Ecclesias(aka 'primitive congregations)

Sunday, March 27, 2011

36 Days of RAGE (Canadian-style) +The Road(s) not taken by the Governor General


repeat of introductory email-distributed letter of same name (small font italicized);  
**new post begins 7 pargraphs below
The GG had three options on March 26/11. He could have refused Mr Harper and called upon someone else he believed could curry the confidence of the Lower House, or, reserved his decision for a few days to allow input from All-the-Talents under his Executive Power (the Appointed-for-Life Privy Councillors starting with 'the Dean', 1957-appointed, Paul Hellyer) and, why not? the public.
We now know His Excellency acquiesced to the Pm's request.  Now what?
Suffer in silence as we're spoon-fed the stage-managed Leader photo-ops and well-rehearsed 20sec video clips and sound bites? PLUS patiently endure the TV/radio attack ads, the "Leader's Team" billboards and "vote for my party colours" lawn/roadway signs?
Sit through another horse race between Leaders while trying to find one of the few (partisan-packed) constituency, all-candidates meetings where the local candidates faithfully regurgitate the campaign brochure and HQ-vetted talking points?
Enough. Let's have our own Canadian-style 36 Days of Rage!  Maybe that means information, edification, epiphany, pointed questions to the fools who've fooled us so many times before ..... followed by thoughtful voting. Remembering you've not voting for a Prime Minister ... you're voting for some PERSON who thinks like you, has a job like you and lives near you ... who will be YOUR representative in Ottawa ....not just a flunkie party-junkie who's been told/ instructed/ indoctrinated-to-think s/he'll be representing the 'party's interests' in your little community.
May I submit a list of at least 20 issues for consideration (about 12 para's down) during the time you are without an Assembly of 50-foot Nobodies jockeying for position behind their Leader on the Question Period camera, that may stimulate some ideas of your own and thereby help you decide how to cast your ballot during your 55 seconds of Power (estimated time lapse between receiving & return your ballot from the Poll Clerk)
rce
PS In 1993's York North election platform, I noted that Jean & Carol Canuck (those of the age of 40+ anyway) knew-in-their-bones that something had 'gone wrong' with Canadian Governance and the Canadian way of socio-political life..... they just couldn't quite put their finger on it .... can they figure it out now?




Dear Sir, Madam,

You may have have seen the Cornwall Free News article on my day-in-advance pseudo-Press Release from Rideau Hall.

Now we know that THIS Governor General is as conservative a thinker and do-er (ie don't rock the boat, regardless of Constitutional Powers at hand) as the rest of the ever-so-grateful-drones-elevated-to-near-Royalty appointed since 1950.

I acknowledge that suggesting that any new-ish Governor General would:
- a) refuse a request from a Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament + ask the Official Opposition to form a government,
- b) refuse to appoint a House of Commons Member into the Privy Council,
- c) ask a Senator to resign under the property or net worth disqualification criteria (scroll to s.31),
- d) withhold Assent (scroll to s.55) on a Bill that had been passed by both Houses
or
- e) refuse to participate (in Council) in the Disallowance of a Provincial Bill scroll to (s.90)

....was a bit too much to expect.

But I submit it is not unreasonable for a Governor General to:
- i) Reserve a Bill for the "signification of HRH" (scroll to s.57) -which probably now would mean to submit the Bill to a Plebiscite/referendum of the voters at large
or
- ii) reserve judgement on a momentous decision for a day or two (especially a newbie GG) to consult with his/her constitutionally mandated Queen's Privy Council for Canada (s.11) or the Sovereign Herself.
In fact, who better for a newbie GG to consult with -- what person on earth has a better World-view than HRH.
An elite who also has had most familial problems that a mother might experience in addition to the finest formal education possible, the highest level of experience and advice on British-style Parliamentary procedure.
Who has lived a near-perfect, near-Diamond reign over the Commonwealth during which she has met virtually every world leader since WWII and who is the ONLY Monarch who, since 1982, has been released from Her obligations to follow Her UK "in-Council" ministers' wishes and is free to be Canada's Crown in right as an individual person (courtesy of the UK's 1982 Canada Act -See FootNote 80 superscript beside title - 1982). 
The more I think of it, HRH is the most-wasted of all Canadian resources. She should fire the stewards who allowed Her institutional memory and abilities to be so neglected and She should fire the stewards of all the other wasted assets and resources of Canada while She's at it! (oops! same officeholders on both counts)
Back on topic -- I sat on the edge of my seat until I saw Mr Harper's self-satisfied countenance appear at the Rideau Hall doorway - darn! he got away with it again.
- (1) 2008 dissolution after no defeat,
- (2) 2008 prorogation (no vote on Economic Statement, hence no defeat),
- (3) the 2nd prorogation (no vote, no defeat - remember the Afghan 'detainee problem' that was delayed til after the Olympics?)
and now
- (4) this pre-cooked & self-imposed dissolution (permitted by Harper's new-ish GG appointee)

Most all pundits and partisans know that Mr Harper had virtually set-up the opposition to present this "failure of confidence" to himself. Heck he's already announced the HST-compensation to Quebec (a la ON & BC) that probably would have brought the Bloc onside & avoided the Immoliation-of-Iggy Election.

Mr Harper has had months to prepare for this "bombshell" and now can capitalize on this "dastardly & selfish move by the opposition" and run for (another) early mandate-renewal with all the advantages and trappings of incumbency versus a scattered ("'Progessive" if not outright "Social Democratic") opposition of relative light-weights all who should combine under the Unionist/Syndicalist banner to make it an ideologically fair fight that would indeed be well-worth following.

NB Duceppe is not a light-weight, he's experienced and knows his stuff (even if you hate 'his stuff). He, better than the others, immediately exposed Mr Harper's flip-floppingly hypocritical position on "coalitions being only valid if declared before voting" while waggling his 'signed copy' of Harper's 2004 Ref-Con/ Bloc/ NDP proposal of an "alternate government' for the GG's consideration in the event dear ol' Mr Dithers' minority failed in the House)

So now we vote.

Issues?

*1)  Coalition? - likely to fade (until perhaps May2nd or 3rd) although it was on every reporter's lips today.

*2)  Censured for Contempt of the House of Commons? - unless Duceppe has 'is way, nope, Mr Stephen Glib-per will bury it.

*3)  Contempt of Voters? - I'm sick of candidates spouting homilies about healthcare-as-motherhood (although it's breaking the budget), multi-culturalism as a diversity-dream-come-true (except everybody knows it's wholly de-unifying - subtly breaking us into manageable voting segments), bi-lingualism (multi-cult's older brother) as if it were a reality, taxation as it it were a cheerful gift to a wise-spending benevolent steward of the Citizen/Subject's treasury and assets

*4)  2011 Budget? - apart from continuing tax-cuts for employers and mini-sops to various easily-bought voting blocks ... a milquetoast effort (as planned for use in this election).
**By the way, does anyone think Revenue can go up by 40+%, while debt service goes up by 30+%, while program spending creeps up just 8+% by 2014-15? (see Page180 of pdf of 2011 Budget)-- nobody? well, then fire that steward too (and everyone who rode up with him/her)

*5a)  Immigration Policy? -are we creating 33 million 'solitudes warring in the bosom of a single state' (with 10+3 sub-sovereignties {+ of course 604 $dependent, quasi-independent, semi-self-governing, autochthonous 'nations'}) - forget it! too hot!

*5b)  Boat-people and surprise arrivals without documentation? are we simply too dumb to know we're being duped? or hubris-hoist-humanitarians succumbing to the refugee& immigration industry's lobbists?

*5c) Too easily obtained Citizenship? phase-out dual citizenship over 5-10 yrs? ha! never!

*6) How about discussion on stopping the the TSX, the world's finest system for mine development from being gobbled by a aging older brother (who's not really British anymore) based in London?- why? does that affect anyone?
-Most cetainly! EVERYONE! If we're going to lead a sound fiscal and financial world based on natural resources we'll need our industry-leading skill set here at home (never mind the impact on restaurants, embassies, hotels, entertainment, residential real estate, commercial real estate etc etc due to the flight-to-Head-Office of the top players from Bay St that would occur if the merger succeeded).

*7)  Greenhouse Gas as fundamental underpinning of all economic decisions? gone away

*8a)  Urban/Rural today's 'Two Solitudes warring in the bosom of a single state' Cities as holders of 80% of population needing special "big city" rules while rural areas need exemption from those same rules .... think gun control, rent control etc?  not on radar
---.(Ed.Note - yes, I used "Solitudes in the Bosom" in 'immigation' above, but I compiled these points from separate articles and this phrase is the quintessentially accurate & still-lingering quote from Durham's Report albeit applied by me now to many more population sub-groups (created & nurtured to allow 'divide & rule') than the French-Catholic vs English-Protestant conflict he referred to)

*9a) WHY do we pretend the 10 provinces are "equal" - they're not equal in ANY way! Re-examine the applicability of lines of latitude and longitude as provincial boundaries and consider adopting watershed boundaries as the new guiding principle.  Canadians don't live in provinces they live near (or far) from major urban centres (even PEI has an urban-rural split personality). Urban centres have 'big-city' problems, but sadly the most brilliantly applicable big-city solutions rarely fit when spread across the non-urban Rest-of-Province.
-9b) Let's take a look at the 26 Cantons of the Swiss Confederacy -serving 7.8 million multi-heritaged peoples over 15,940 sq mi (vs Canada's 32-33 million over 3,511,023 Sq mi -land area only) and see if a greater number of highly-localized sub-sovereignties might create a government structure with more "quality, equality and equity".

*10) Simplification of Tax Code - Single or Flat taxation on PIT & CIT? Thus returning taxation to its proper income-based, Revenue-gathering model as opposed to disadvantage-ameliorating, economy-tinkering for political advantage as well as out-and-out vote-buying of small and large interest-group segments.- forget it, we couldn't 'manage the economy' without those tax fiddles & diddles?

*11) Phase-out criss-cross, two-way, bi-jurisdictional, Subidization-of-Everything as Standard Procedure (in tandem with Tax Code simplification)- It be far easier to reduce the Personal (PIT)and Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rates after elimination of all but the widest-reaching and broadest-ranging tax-breaks, deductions, tax-expenditures (ie stop subsidizing EVERYTHING)! Reduce the tax brackets to 2 levels (suggest PIT: the first $20,000 of personal income exempt and a single rate on the balance; CIT: 2-5% off the top).

*12a) Analysis of each Party platforms regarding their plan for debt retirement/reduction over next 25-50-100 yrs? huh? you mean there's a difference between deficit and debt?
-- USA's Rep.Paul Ryan of the Republicans has just issued such a 40 &70 yr plan


-12b) EDUCATIONAL Segment (Sorry Larry who also talks about USA debt on 4/4/11 show)
*****PLEASE SEE 1993 Auditor-General's Report to Parliament *******
It's entitled Understanding Debts & Deficits -- NB 1993 this was published!! If we'd started then, the austerity/debt retirement program would have been almost completed now!!

*13) On the Debt retirement point-why not repeat what was done in 1867? --upload and consolidate all the provincial/municipal  debts and refinance it all at the lowest rates possible (even with commensurate reductions in transfer grants to the provinces this would go a long way towards clearing up the "Fiscal Imbalance")

*14) As a dirty-little-Budget-Secret example, re-examine the premium (6.9% vs. 5.0%) paid on $179.9 billion in the Public Service "Pension & other accounts" component of our Interest-bearing Debt
-As an accounability example (and to support (on paper) the new consolidated debt balance), place all the assets of Canada - Real, Tangible, Financial, - ON the Statement of Assets and Liabilities

*15) the general (and generally-accepted) Waste of Crown Assets & Resources (in addition to the top-mentioned HRH, in person)

NB the real property assets of Canada (ie 85% of land mass & the timber, mineral, water etc assets thereon) are NOT on the Government's Statement of Assets & Liabilities
-- no wonder they sell/license access/harvesting of these assets so cheaply ... they've placed no value on these assets .... how can they determine a "proper return" 
--by the way, whose assets and whose forgone revenue are we talking about?  the Queen's personally? the Cdn Crown's? the Parliament's? yours?  ponder that one and you'll be able to answer the foundational question to my whole position "Whose Dominion IS Canada?"

*16a) Nation-ification of Healthcare FUNDING - upload responsibility for collecting the money to fund this "sacred national" boondoggle (suffering a death-of-1000-defunding/delisting-cuts everyday on 10+3+1 fronts) to the broadest tax-base?    what? and offend the provinces (actually you Ottawa folks might find the provinces are open to the concept fiscally but one or two would balk  s.91 (Fed. powers) vs s.92(Prov-power)-wise)

16b)The FUNDING of this newly-unified-by-uploading Nation's "Sickness-care Insurance" / also could be known as (acbka) Defined-benefit restorative Health & Wellness program / acbka Huge (formerly) employee-benefit-paid-by-employer "cost" that is shared by ALL taxpayers, for the benefit of all residents (note the smaller group {taxFILERS ~50% of Pop. but # of actual taxPAYERS is smaller than 50%} is paying for the larger group{residents ~95+% of Pop.}) should now be taken OFF the BUDGET of the Confederal/General/Federal gov't that has just received the responsibility for it - in the same way that the Canada Pension Plan is OFF the budget and for the same reason (the program has dedicated contributions paid into separate accounts from which benefits are paid).
--With a dedicated stream of payments collected as a simple & single % of Gross (no deductions) personal income (regardless of source) that would vary annually (as Municipal Property Taxes do) based on the coming years estimated cost FUNDING the Canada's "Sickness&Wellness-care".
--The healthier our population was + the more efficient the (currently unionized, government-monopoly, bureaucrat-administered) system was in delivering the services .... the lower the simple& single % could be or the reverse (as we have experienced since 1965 or so).
--With the establishment of this Canadian Healthcare "Club" we all would feel more like joint-owners than taxpayers, more like the 'Lords of the Collective Manor" rather than tenant-farmers, more like proprietors/shareholders than employees.
--Just as Equity-ownership Golf clubs welcome new members -- "Join the club absolutely!!... pay your initiation dues, pay your annual fees ...... but do it our way, please and thank you"
- perhaps this can be the attitude we all use towards health spending, court-made, ground-breaking decisions on civil, legal and human "rights and obligations", immigration & citizenship .... the whole ball of wax we call Canadian citizenship.
The whole ball of wax is decided by our voting.  Now's the time to vote as a citizen -not a subject!


-16c)How about examining the actual dollar numbers in and out of Consolidated Gen Rev Accts for Healthcare system - since every dollar of income tax goes into GENERAL REVENUE & every Healthcare dollars comes OUT of SAME ACCOUNTS (regardless of the circuitous route that the funding actually takes)

Total spent on Healthcare in Canada
est for 2009 ---- $181 Billion
Total Federal Personal Income Tax (fPIT)
2008-09 ------- $116.024Bn Fiscal Reference Table #3

Total Provincial Personal Income Tax (pPIT)
2008-09 ------- $74.301Bn Fiscal Reference Table #38

Grand Total PIT 116.024+ 74.301 = $190.325Bn

If the total spent on Healthcare ($181Bn) roughly equals the Total Personal Income Tax ($190.325 Bn)
That MUST mean that "everything else" in taxation, pays for "everything else" on the Fed+Prov Budgets!!

----the numbers suggest that if we switched to a national program with dedicated "healthcare premiums" .....we would totally eliminate the need for Prov AND Fed Personal Income Taxes!!

---- what aspect of Healthcare is FREE? 
-----During this election ANYONE WHO SUGGESTS BOOSTING or EXPANDING healthcare coverage is actually recommending BOOSTING income taxes!



*17a) EXECUTIVE re-Form (in it's original image) Take a look at the ACTUAL as-written Role and mandate of GG ( ie end the procession of  thankfully-beholden 'drones' & the selection process (let's elect GG's every-other General Election) for this highest (unappealable veto-holding) political office in the land? -no chance

*17b)  Going back to the "something's gone wrong" of the introduction  --Let's examine how the Privy Council (supervisory body within Executive Power s.11) got usurped by the (Legislative Power) Prime Minister's office in 1940 (by a single, simple-to-rescind Order in Council P.C.1940-1121) .... and whether we need that check and balance on the Legislative Power returned to its intended place? what are you talking about?
--Don't worry about the opinion of the (govt payrolled or fully-tenured) 'legal experts' (who've built their whole careers blithely overlooking this non-constitutional sleight-of-hand, right under their noses), but if you get a chance ask them to explain the BNA/Constitutional Act 1867 'difference' between the Privy Council of Canada & the Cabinet? ask why one is particularized in the Executive and the other is never even mentioned in the Acts, Schedules or End Notes?? 
--Then ask these "authorities' if this might be one of the "similar-in-principle" but distinctly and purposely-different aspects of our Cdn system vis a vis the UK?

*18a)  LEGISLATIVE re-FORM (in its original image) Take a look at adjusting-for-inflation the 1867 dollar amount set as property-ownership & net-worth disqualifications/ qualifications (ss.23 & 31) for the Propertied-class' (aka Gentry with Land) House of Representatives (aka Upper House) ? (Did you know the Senate has its own Oath? 5th Schedule) - what?

*18b)  How about raising the bar for agreement in both Houses and their Committees - how about 66.67% instead of 50%+1? -- think of all the dumb Bills and patronage crap that would never pass without real scrutiny & consensus (except pay-raises of course) - not on sonar, radar or Hubble telescope
.
*19) Fabian Society's most Recent Great Accomplishment Talk about the skinny-edge implications of Chretien's Civil Marriages Act? esp. in light of the Bountiful case (and whatever is next) - do we want our battered and tattered sense of morality towards all these "new types" of sex-based unions tested? appealed? and then imposed? - don't be silly...all that's settled now, don't be paedophilia-phobic.

If that's not enough --How about Canada's future role in the world as Banking, Currency, Fiscal and Financial Leader? ..... with a perpetually 'Hung' House of Commons? (NB our tri-part One Parliament (s.17) is a much 'bigger entity' than just the Commons)


So if we're going to spend 36 days doing the 'election-thing'  let's spend those 36 days forcing the Candidates and their Leader's spin doctors and media-management whiz-kids talking about something important to YOU!!

"The Government system of Canada should 'fit' the people of Canada,
our government's leaders must stop forcing Canadians to 'fit' the government system".
Rce - Speech at Aurora High School -York North Riding, 1993 Federal Election

Robert Ede
There is no shame in turning back, when you find yourself on the wrong path.
Copyright rce 2006


PPS I wish the Cornwall Free Press had included
the Backgrounders I sent them: -- Governor General in BNA 1867: ss. 10,11,12,13,14,24,26,27,30,32,34,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,67,90, 93(3)&(4),96,97,99,103,105,120,128.
-- Governor General in Council in BNA 1867 ss. 13, 131, 143. in 1982 s.48
  
Look it up online
and the comments
Eric says:
I had to check the date, I thought it was April 1st!
“We have decided to save the money and give the “majority” in the House an opportunity to govern”.
Actually, the majority will be a combination of three parties. The “majority” of seats were won by one party, the Conservatives, and if this document from the future holds true, the Bloc, who want to destroy Canada as it is, will get veto power. How much would this cost the country, and I mean more than financially.
The liberals needed 80 more seats than they got from voters, so now they want to steal them? NO!

 Robert Ede says:
Dear Eric,
Don’t confuse “plurality” of seats with majority.
Having the most seats (but not a numerical 50%+1) only gives the Leader of that gaggle of “50ft nobodies” the first opportunity to form a government (unless the incumbent wants to struggle on as Wm L m King attempted in 1925 &26).
The 50%+1 gaggle-Leader is automatically given the opportunity to form a government … the will of the electorate transcends the GG’s decision.
Just because you don’t “like” a possible outcome, doesn’t mean it’s not procedurally possible.
Just because you’re nescient of the full facts, doesn’t mean they don’t apply. Remember the GST Senators? the (prescient) BNA provisions were sitting there, awaiting the applicable circumstances.
Pivotal edification point – Canada is a (top-down) Constitutional-Monarchy (with a democratic element at the bottom of the power-totem) NOT a democracy. ie sovereignty & authority flows from the Crown NOT the populace.
check my Plain language Version of the BNA 1867 Act



0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Politics Blog Top Sites