Parliamentary "RuleBook" - a Consolidation of Un-Written Parliamentary Traditions, Customs and Conventions

Dear Professor Russell,

cc Duff Conacher

Summary:

1) Given the de facto lack of observance of the de jure written text of our BNA/Constitution 1867, should we not first concentrate on enforcing compliance with the spirit and letter of the Highest Law of the Land?   

-- Especially, as you explain, when we consider that the motivation in both New Zealand and the UK to initiate a "Cabinet Manual" was the reality/apprehension of perpetual-hung/  minority-government Legislative Houses.

2a) Considering what we know about Parliaments and Westminsterly things, what level of Executive, Legislative and/or Imperial "agreement" should have been required in 1940 to Authorize the re-styling and amalgamation of the Executive Power's Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council with the Legislative Power's Office of the Cabinet Secretary via Order in Council P.C.1940-1121?

-- Especially in the absence of both a Clerk of the Privy Council (Lemaire had retired Jan 1/40) and a Governor General (Lord Tweedsmuir died suddenly in Feb/40)

2b) Should agreement in 1940 been similar to 50%+1 or 66.7% in the 2 Houses?; or 7/50? or 100% of the provinces? - or did that magnitude of change actually require an amendment to the BNA?

-- Especially, since this temporary, wartime, emergency  manoeuvre was most-certainly a "change" to the Office of Governor General (de facto stripping the GG of Her/His constitutionally-entrenched, sworn-for-life, institutional memory-bank of independent advisors), and,

-- particularly when we consider that this Order in Council has never been ratified/validated/approved/re-visited by a committee of our One Parliament, nor by Legislation, nor by Standing Order, nor by Royal Proclamation etc etc.

-- in fact it's impossible to find this "game-changer" on the Canada or Justice websites -it's only obtainable by special request from the Archives (see att .pdf)

Sir,

I have studied your superbly easy-to-read exhortation to adopt a Cabinet Manual or "Consolidation of Guidelines" concerning the unwritten, Westminster-like traditions, customs and parliamentary conventions available for use/potential-abuse-through-secrecy in Canada.

I am also cc'ing Duff Conacher - he too is advocating a "written set of rules for the PM & PMO" and I hope your paper and backgrounders from the PPF's Cabinet Manual in Canada Project can assist him.

I agree wholeheartedly with your team's project to establish a "Cabinet Manual" for Parliamentary procedure and feel it will be truly invaluable if 1) we ever/eventually adopt a proportional representation electoral system or if 2) our regionally/ ideologically, splintered opposition parties cannot coalesce into a critical mass of policies and/or personalities to balance the PMO/PCO juggernaut-of-today.

The reading prompted me to examine the New Zealand 1986 Constitution and the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand 1983 (as amended) and the NZ The Treaty of Waitangi -1840 together with a quick scan of their Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

It appears that the Realm of New Zealand also enjoys a "similar in principle" system as sovereign nation, in a Constitutional-Monarchy format with an integral democratic element. 

The many ways our foundational 1763 British Proclamation and New Zealand's 3-clause, Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 vary is also important (ceded by Chiefs vs Spoils of War) but not my focus today. 

It seems to me the New Zealand governance model's "similar principles" are as different from Canada's as Canada's are from the UK - and vice versa all around.

I take it from my 2 hour study that New Zealand: is a unitary state; has been termed a Dominion in the past, but describes itself as a Realm; is a member of the Commonwealth; did not sign the Statute of Westminster 1931; does not have an Upper House and that the Maoris play a vital role in land use and development of Crown assets.

The NZ 1983 Letters Patent contain no option for their (hyphenated) G-G to withhold Royal Assent, to Reserve Assent for Signification, or for the Disallowance of Bills by the Monarch-in-Council. 

The NZ Governor-General also seems to not hold the distinct right to act "as an individual" (ie without advice and/or Consent of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada) as our BNA/Const 1867 stipulates and emphasizes by differentiating the two roles our G.G. plays in s.12 vis-a-vis s.13. 

Our Constitution then particularizing the restricted "Governor General in Council" role in ss.58, 67, 90(see ss.56&57), 93(3), 93(4)(three times), 103, 120, 131(twice), 143, and in Footnote (50)(four times) re: Manitoba Education.

If you'll allow me a digression that I feel is related to our topic  -- your references to NZ's fundamental laws led me to a wonderful surprise and, notwithstanding all the above-mentioned exclusions/differences-of-Executive-powers in NZ,  my fondest wish for the Office of Governor General in Canada amazingly already exists in the NZ Letters Patent:

V. Every person appointed to fill the office of Governor-General shall, before entering on any of the duties of the office, cause the Commission appointing him to be Governor-General to be publicly read, in the presence of the Chief Justice, or some other Judge of the High Court of New Zealand, and of Members of the Executive Council thereof (emphasis added)

VI. Our Governor-General shall, immediately after the public reading of the Commission

appointing him, take—

(a) The Oath of Allegiance in the form for the time being prescribed by the law of New Zealand; and

(b) The Oath for the due execution of the Office of Governor-General in the form following:

I, [name], swear that, as Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Realm of New Zealand, comprising New Zealand; the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue; Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency, I will faithfully and impartially serve Her [or His] Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, as thus: Queen Elizabeth the Second], Queen of New Zealand [or King of New Zealand], Her [or His] heirs and successors, and the people of the Realm of New Zealand, in accordance with their respective laws and customs. So help me God. (emphasis added)

which Oaths the Chief Justice or other Judge in whose presence the Commission is read is hereby required to administer.

Two points on this tidbit of new-to-me information: 

1) the G-G of New Zealand is "responsible for" (although not truly "accountable to") the people of the Realm (not in Canada - Pity) and,

 2) the Rules of the Game concerning the NZ G-G's mandate, authority and powers are "proclaimed" regularly - not hidden away and ignored as we do here (another Pity).

My guess is that after a public reading of our GG's 1947 Letters Patent, more than just one small child would shout from the sidelines "But Mommy, we don't do it that way in practice - How Come?"

Perhaps this is fundamentally-why the BNA/Constitution 1867 is not studied in schools in much depth (nor Parliamentary process in Law Schools, as you mention) and pragmatically-why the Letters Patent 1947 (nor the Executive Powers- Part III ss. 9-16) are never read aloud as a PM or GG are sworn into Office.... I mean practically, why ask for trouble, when no one's paying attention to THE RULES anyway?

Digression over, back to the Cabinet Manual.

While NZ's online Cabinet Manual is an excellent base for a public Guideline for Canadian Government operations/procedure (as is the UK version) the differences in the three "Similar in Principle" constitutions will dictate that our "rule book" is uniquely Canadian too.

My biggest concern (my bias/my passion) is that given the de facto lack of observance of the de jure written text of our BNA/Constitution 1867, should we not first concentrate on enforcing compliance with the spirit and letter of the Highest Law of the Land?   

-- Especially, as you explain, when we consider that the motivation in both New Zealand and the UK to initiate a "Cabinet Manual" was the reality/apprehension of perpetual-hung/  minority-government Legislative Houses.

Specifically, considering what we know about Parliaments and Westminsterly things, what level of Executive, Legislative and/or Imperial "agreement" should have been required in 1940 to Authorize the (re-styling and) amalgamation of the Executive Power's Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council with the Legislative Power's Office of the Cabinet Secretary via Order in Council P.C.1940-1121?

-- Especially in the absence of both a Clerk of the Privy Council (Lemaire had retired Jan 1/40) and a Governor General (Lord Tweedsmuir died suddenly in Feb/40)

Should agreement in 1940 been similar to 50%+1 or 66.7% in the 2 Houses?; or 7/50? or 100% of the provinces? - or did that magnitude of change actually require an amendment to the BNA?

-- Especially, since this temporary, wartime, emergency  manoeuvre was most-certainly a "change" to the Office of Governor General (de facto stripping the GG of Her/His constitutionally-entrenched, sworn-for-life, institutional memory-bank of independent advisors), and, particularly when we consider that this Order in Council has never been ratified/validated/approved/re-visited by a committee of our One Parliament, nor by Legislation, nor by Standing Order, nor by Royal Proclamation etc etc. -- worse yet,  it's impossible to find the text of this "game-changing" Executive-gone-wild Order on the Canada or Justice websites -it's only obtainable by special request from the Archives (see att .pdf)

Yours truly,

rce

 

 

Quite promptly, the good professor replies:

 

Dear Robert

Good to hear that you support the proposal to consolidate in a publicly accessible and politically consensual manner the principles of Canada's system of parliamentary government. That is my main focus these days. I dont think your argument that the text of the Constitutional Act, 1867 was violated by the 1940 o-i-c is very strong.

Peter Russell

 

Charter anomalies -- Remedies, Deference to Executive/Legislative Powers & "Reading In"

Ranjan K Agarwal & Carl J. Di Carlo

Bennett Jones LLP

Dear Messers Agarwal and Di Carlo,

Thank you for Remedies - Formalism in Rights Remedies  which I spotted in the August 23/12  Mondaq Newsletter.

Please excuse my inability to highlight the exact portions of your paper in .pdf (appended below) to show the precise references that made me recall the SCC decision to "write in" an analogous ground "sexual orientation" into 15(1) of the Code that-added-limits-and conditions to the Rights and Freedoms that we already enjoyed under the Common Law.

How can the Court cite and,  your article blithely discuss the following?

-   "that if Parliament intended to grant this ( ...)  it would have used this specific term.";       

-   "[a] liberal and purposive interpretation cannot supplant a textual and contextual analysis simply in order to give effect to a policy decision different from the one made by Parliament";       

-  [the Court] made clear that Charter remedies would not be available to the public in the face of legislative will to the contrary. Ultimately, the extension of the Charter's reach to "ordinary people" is fettered by the intent of the legislature." ;       

-   "Parliament was entitled to withdraw these powers from the Board and, barring a constitutional challenge to the legislation, no judicial fiat can overrule Parliament's clear expression of intent.";

-  ".. the Court's formalism. It is suggestive of a view of the law wherein courts should be careful not to impinge upon the (E)xecutive, (....) this decision suggests that the Court is conscious of maintaining the separation between the different branches of government";

-  "The results,  far from being "far-reaching", are reflective of this Court's deference to the legislature";

-  "in carrying out their duties, courts are not to second-guess legislatures and the (E)xecutives; they are not to make value judgments on what they regard as proper policy choice...";

-  "... the Charter was not intended to turn the Canadian legal system upside down ...s.24(1) did not confer new jurisdiction (...) beyond that which was intended by the legislator.";

-  "...unless the legislature explicitly grants this power in the enabling statute.";

-  "While this interpretation showed respect to the intents of Parliament (...) this interpretation (...) [has] lead[s] to inconsistencies between the stated purpose of the [Charter] and its implementation."

-  "... reveal a conception of the rule of law where there is a rigid separation of powers and courts should be circumspect regarding their role vis-a0vis the legislature".

When the "reading in" of a new "group" was initiated, permitted, accepted and incorporated in the Constitution Act 1982 by the same SCC and subsequently never challenged by anyone with a LLB?  or even someone with an LLM (constitutional Law)?

Did the 1995 Egan case (see History of Homo/Same-Sex law in Canada) galvanize the Public's attention upon a  ?perceived oversight? - were there no notes on the discussions of the premiers and poobahs that haggled over what was "in" or "out" the original s.15(1)?

or,  perhaps the SCC's thinking was based on the spontaneous-emergence of a totally-new, sub-category/group of Canadians" now-deemed worthy of protected-status/amelioration in an evolving "democratic constitutionalists" (1) society? 

Rce 

1.  Prof D. Dyzenhaus's term to describe a contrast-to-formalism that you include in the piece, is similar to the "Living Tree" idea - the gradualist-Menchevik approach of all post-modern, social-democrats working towards their Syndicalist/ Corporatist/ Fabian dream world where "they know better & therefore will decide what's best"

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)

from page 1524

From page 1526

from page 1527

from page 1528

Calculating the Purpose and Legitimacy of the Upper House

Calculating the Purpose and Legitimacy of the Upper House

Ms Molloy & Ms Vongdouanchanh

I have sent a personal note addressed thru your office to Mr Maurice Quinn and will attempt to phone him today to address the "arrogance" issue he expressed re: the phraseology of my of my Political Action Committee's name.

If you'd be kind enough to consider the following as an "on point" follow up to "Senate's $4,000 requirement $56,750 in today's dollar"

Dear Editor,

Two questions are at the nub of the discussion about the Senate of Canada 1) its Purpose and 2) its Legitimacy

On Purpose we must look at the name Upper House, and its antecedents a) the Legislative Council from the Constitutional Act of 1791, b) the US Senate, c) the Council of Grandmothers of the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy and d) the House of Lords. 

In all cases these Upper Chambers of Sober Second Thought (save the current, all-political version of the US equal-states body) were comprised of a representatives of distinctly different constituency from the Lower House - the best example being the Haudenosaunee's Council of Grandmothers (scoll to para 5&6)- any decision by the Warrior Council had to be approved by this Upper council of "institutional memory" and long-term vision, comprised solely of elderly women.

Further on Purpose, irrespective of the Canadian dollar's value vs the US dollar ... what amount of land would $4,000.00 buy 1 mile, 10 miles or 100 miles distant from the core of Montreal, Toronto, Halifax or Ottawa - translate that acreage into 2012 money and I think we have a better idea of what the net-worth and property-equity dis/qualifications were intend to denote.

On Legitimacy, the current Senate (like it's equally disemboweled/disrespected Big Sister, the Office of Governor General) lacks legitimacy because of the uppity-ness of the Commons. After decades of stacking the Senate with grateful, Yes, Prime Minister party-disciples, there is not much second-thought going on (I'll resist a comment on the sober aspect), ESPECIALLY when it's crunch time and  Big Brother Pierre or Brian or Jean or Stephen needs a Bill approved.

Further on Legitimacy, if s.26 (the GST Senators clause, permitting the GovGen to appoint 4 or 8 new Senators to break up a logjam) is still "not spent" by time nor desuetude, then ALL of the BNA/Constitution Act 1867 (as amended) still stand . The problem is .... we're NOT following its written provisions!

Reading our foundational document in full (or even just the Executive ss.9-15 vs Legislative ss.17-57 + Royal Assent/Disallowance ss.55-57 + Prov. Exec. ss. 64-66 + Fed Disallowance of Prov. Bills s.90 parts) is an eye-opener for most Canadians since what is described de jure is so far different that what we have observed our whole lives de facto (our system only became turned in it's head in 1940 by one temporary, emergency, mid-war, Order in Council  PC 1940-1121, approved March 25/1940 by Wm L m King's inner circle in the absence of a Clerk (retired Jan 1/40) and Governor General (died suddenly Feb/40).

I respectfully submit that the structure of Canadian governance was designed and remains hierarchical. The Confederal/General Executive is superior to the Legislative, The Senate is superior to the Commons, The Confederal is superior to the provinces (can disallow any Provincial Bill s.90) and the Provincial Executive is superior to the Provincial Legislative.

Most egregiously (notwithstanding the fact that our Vice Regal Office of Governor General, who legally represents the Monarch from 1867, plus had its duties re-affirmed & expanded to Commander in Chief in 1947) is now-deemed nothing but the titular Head of State and that Officeholder dares not raise a peep of contrary advice, encouragement or warning to the Usurper-King of the PMO/PCO - wholly contrary to the law of the land) neither the 'People', nor the 'Citizens', nor the Taxpayers, nor the Residents, nor the 'Householders', nor the 'Voters', nor 'Members of the Public', nor 'Peoples', nor 'Individuals', nor 'Subjects of the Crown of Canada have ANY standing in the Hierarchical Power-Sharing Agreement we call "the Constitution".

rce

Robert Ede,     

The Majority of Canadians P.A.C.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)

http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/deganaweda-hopi-prophecy-2012.htm
"Women had equal status within the tribal council. They formed the Council of Grandmothers that looked out for the survival of the family structure above all things, for without the family structure, the people could not continue. No major decision that would affect the tribe as a whole was ever made by one individual of either gender, or any singular council; all councils were accountable to the Council of Grandmothers. Thus, they had devised a matriarchal system whereby no structure of dictatorship could arise and seize power from the people themselves. There simply was no position that allowed for the rise of a tyrant within their society."

the Cdn Senate is STILL superior to the House of Commons

Dear Editor, and through you to Mr Maurice Quinn,

Re: Senate’s $4,000 requirement $56,750 in today’s dollar -Letter-  Mr M. Quinn , Ottawa

Mr Quinn - I stand corrected.

Please allow me to repair any mistakes, errors or misapprehensions that are standing in the way of you considering my main point - the purposefully-designed, hierarchical structure of our BNA /Constitution Acts' power-sharing agreement.  (here's the whole Triple E-E-Effrontery letter)

First, a small editing omission at the paper deleted the P.A.C (political action committee) from the name The Majority of Canadians included on the Letter to the HT Editor. 

Second, I acknowledge often being accused of having an arrogant style of expression - in this case the feeling may simply flows from my continued use of the name "The Majority of Canadians", which was registered with Elections Canada for my national NO committee in the Federal Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992. 

NB. I thought the "M.of C's" were dazed, confused and overwhelmed by the implications of THAT omnibus set of amendments, too.

Third, on the calculation of 2012 Value

- 1) The Bank of Canada's website Inflation Calculator was the primary official source of my dollar adjustment from 1914 to date ($1.00 = $20.59) and I have also been told by other frail, human beings that the 1867-2012 adjustment should be between 60 times and 80 times. 

These two sources combined with my personal experience [ C$-1961 is a 7.74 times adjustment, C$-1971 = 5.79 times, C$ 1981 = 2.43 times, C$ 1991 = 1.46 times , C$ 2001 = 1.23 times] had lead me to think that the Senate's net-worth and property-equity qualifications(s.23) / disqualifications(s.31),  twenty-first century equivalent would be in a range from $280,000 to-$320,000. 

This amount seemed to be in keeping (in 2012 dollars) with my reading of the BNA 1867's intention to have our Upper House be a chamber representing property-owners (equally from the 3, now 4 divisions). 

I dare not point the finger at any sitting Senators regarding their holdings vis a vis an approximate $300,000 adjusted standard - but I will wager that more that one (see below on the late Senator Butts from Nova Scotia) past appointee would have failed the $4,000.00-adjusted-to-their-appointment-year test of their financial "quality".

- 2) Your precision re $57,650 has made me re-examine the Bank of Canada online publication "A History of the Canadian Dollar (2 charts below) which seem to corroborate your assertion of the $2,800 value of 1867 C$ in 1914. 

Page 36 -----Chart 1 

Canadian Dollar in terms of the U.S. Dollar

Monthly Averages (1861-79)

Page 38 -----Chart  2

Canadian Dollar in terms of the U.S. Dollar

Monthly Averages (1914-26)

Fourth, on the 'precious' $4,000.00  - I cannot think of one other "dollar amount" in use within all of Canadian government or administration that has NOT been adjusted for inflation - can you suggest one?

Fifth, as above-mentioned re: the late, former Senator Mary Alice "Peggy" Butts. My criticism here is directed at the all-political actions of the government-of-the-day not Ms Butts. 

Perhaps a review of her 1997 appointment as described here (from Wiki) will provide the example on non-qualification as well as an example of party-hackmanship, and the collusion/confusion/obfuscation of the BNA/Constitutional facts that have undermined the "value" of the Senate in the minds of "a lot of" Canadians ( I dare not say 'majority' again).

Ms Butts (according to her bio) an extremely well-educated woman, a catholic, a Cape Breton-er and of a mature age was appointed, in my opinion, by Mr J Chretien as a representative of all those voting-blocks - with total disregard for/ nescience of s.23 &. s31: 

At the age of 73, Peggy was appointed to the Canadian Senate.[1] However, qualification laws for senators caused problems with her appointment. All Canadian senators are required to possess land worth at least $4,000 in the province for which he or she is appointed, as well as own real and personal property worth at least $4,000, above his or her debts and liabilities. Having taken a vow of poverty upon becoming a nun,[2] Butts was able to officially be sworn in only after her order formally transferred a small parcel of land to her name.[2] Butts resigned at the age of 75 as required by law,[1] and for her two years of service donated her entire salary to charity

My point here is based on a comparison of that narrative to the text of the Oath designed expressly for Upper House members in the Fifth Schedule of BNA 1867

DECLARATION OF QUALIFICATION

I A.B. do declare and testify, That I am by Law duly qualified to be appointed a Member of the Senate of Canada [or as the Case may be], and that I am legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for my own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage [or seised or possessed for my own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture (as the Case may be),] in the Province of Nova Scotia [or as the Case may be] of the Value of Four thousand Dollars over and above all Rents, Dues, Debts, Mortgages, Charges, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same, and that I have not collusively or colourably obtained a Title to or become possessed of the said Lands and Tenements or any Part thereof for the Purpose of enabling me to become a Member of the Senate of Canada [or as the Case may be], and that my Real and Personal Property are together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above my Debts and Liabilities.:

In summary and to re-state my original letter's intended response to Senator B Brown's cheer-leading regarding the revived (for appearances sake) Senate reform Bill, "the Senate IS superior to the Commons", but inflation and all-political machinations over time have undermined the public's perception of the Upper House's position, value and place within our perfectly-suited,  constitutionally-limited Monarchy system (with a democratic element at the bottom) as presciently devised in 1864-67.

rce

 

Canada's unstated State Religion + RESPONSE & Reply

 Dear ipolitics Editors,

cc Behiels, MacKay, Rowe

I've been drawn to portions of your recent series prompted by a column from the always-provocative Mr Lawrence Martin (author of "Harperland" a caustic expose on the PM-of-the-day, that actually just exposes Mr Martin's rationale for his visceral loathing of Firewall Steve 'the quitter') 

- as always, 'consider the source'.

Keep church out of state or democratic governance suffers - By Michael Behiels | Aug15

Harper’s ideology has little to do with his faith -  By John McKay, M.P. | Aug 16

Mr. Harper and our religious selves - By Paul S. Rowe | Aug 10

May I address the 'separation of church and state' side-issue (as per Mr Behiels piece) that often sidelines our thinking on moral aspects of good-for-the-governed public policy and administration.

I agree with Paul S Rowe when he says "But the separation of church and state was never intended as a means of distancing the individual from the faith that he or she embraces. It was instead aimed at ensuring that ecclesial authorities did not have temporal power", in other words the public policy/assurance of Separation of Church and State simply means that 'there will never be a State Religion in this country'.

With this definition - an assurance to Attestant/Protestants that neither the Church of England, nor the Roman Catholic Church, nor ANY institution of religion (ie man-made & finite explanations for inifinite things) would be officially sanctioned by the government, that adherence to that set of beliefs would never be made mandatory and that no religious institution would have ex-officio positions within, nor special influence on, public administration.

This breaks down in North America today because regardless of the lessons of the American Revolution, the French Revolution or the US Civil War, our struggles with church-state politics has always been between Christians. The "tolerance of all religions" policy was an accord of mutual non-interference amongst Bible-believing denominations - all(almost all) built upon the same foundational Rock.

More to the point today,  this policy of denominational tolerance breaks down again in Canada where we DO have an unstated and unacknowledged, but nonetheless omnipresent and omnipotent State Religion.

Whether we agree/disagree, enjoy/despair on its tenets, "Secular Humanism" -every wo/man d(oes) what was right in his/her own eyes - and its baby-sister/big-brother "Science" (~"we must take back time/history from Moses"~) rule the post-modern era in most of the Western World and sadly, public life in Canada 2012 embodies the quintessence of this we-don't-need-God's-rules-telling-us-we're-morally-ethically-spiritually-errant movement.

Returning the volley of Mr Behiels' summary and conclusion (with obvious amendments):

 "If one (ir)religious group, majority or minority, uses powerful state institutions to impose its (ir)religious beliefs on the rest of society, then this becomes a recipe for a disrupti(on) and ...damag(e) .... "

"If a particular government’s (ir)religious beliefs happen to reflect those of the majority (ir)religion – as is more often than not the case – the government will get re-elected. This means that this (ir)religiously driven majority government will continue to impose with impunity the (ir)religious beliefs of the majority on all minority religious communities."

To maintain stable, productive and democratic governance, it is imperative that pluralistic states adhere to the concept of the separation of church and state. The powerful institutions of the state and taxpayers hard-earned taxes should not be used to advance the (ir)religious beliefs or institutional development of any (ir)religious community."

Whether Mr Harper is a pragmatist or a RedTory or a BlueLiberal in his belief system and/or his governance style is immaterial, what's important for Canadians to recognize is the EXISTENCE and dominance and intolerance of this God-Free Religion in this model country made of gold and liquid gold.

The feel-good-now philosophy that every wo/man d(oes) what is right in his/her own eyes PLUS "not that there's anything wrong with that" pervades our country's courts, public school classrooms, Universities, Human Rights Codes, national media, sophisticated/elite private discourse on public policy as well as in our Lower House, our Upper House, the halls of the PMO/PCO's In-Council community and everywhere egalitarianism and "social democractic" Corporatist/Syndicalism is spoken.

 It is still true that if you don't stand for "something" ... you'll fall for anything. 

rce

A reply from

Michael Behiels, PhD, FRSC

Dear Sir,

Indeed, a fine screed against secular humanism, a mode of reasoned thought born out of the Enlightenment that brought the dominance of the Christian Churches to an end after several centuries of brutal and destructive governance at their hands.

Secular humanism, like democracy, is messy and at times ineffective intellectual movement but it is the best instrument that we have at the moment.  It has and will keep the destructive dark side of humanity from wiping us all out!

If you have another more effective and human governance model please oblige us all by explaining just what it is.

Have a good day.

Sincerely,

--

Michael Behiels, PhD, FRSC

and my reply to the Professor,

To: Michael Behiels <

Thank you for your wholly accurate reply. We all 'gotta serve somebody' -Bob Dylan. I agree as well about the "messy-ness" of human endeavour. The (much belabored) point in my screed was to express my observation that we DO have a State Religion (perhaps I offended you by inaccurately calling it Secular Humanism- if so, I apologize and ask you to overlook that slight-of-nomenclature). Further, I agree with you on the historic malevolence and avarice of the men purporting to be acting in the name of the Messiah Yeshua, but who were actually acting on their own perception of what might further the R.C. and/or C.of E. In my opinion, a church is a collection of "called out ones" (ecclesia) and not an hierarchical power structure of quasi-political/social/military might, comprised of vow-breaking priests/elders/deacons who are determined to maintain their 'superior positions' by keeping their blindly-trusting flock barefoot, pregnant, nescient and enslaved to a fief. I was attempting to express that a god-free "country" does NOT exist in Canada (here I do not mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - never mind the derivative and never-judging G*d presented for guilt-free consumption by money-gathering entities in the tax-free, place of worship business - proffering bland pap to the (dwindling) masses in our anything-goes popular culture of today). My view is that we do 'enjoy' a State Religion and we should acknowledge this new reality, declare Science, Humanism and man-made Laws as our worship-worthy deities and stop pretending otherwise. At one time, British North America WAS a Protestant (i.e.Vehemently-Attestant)/ Christian one, but that is gone. Declare the truth of the situation and let the current 'religion-that-seems-to-dare-not-speak-its-name' abide by the Separation of Church and State policy. This national declaration of our now-unstated 'religion reality' will also make clear why all faiths (except Messiah-following, Bible-believers + the self-styled, and commonly-seen-as-being-Christian denominations/ sects) are tolerated in Canada. I endeavoured to reuse your column's last few paragraphs -with the added prefix (ir) - to make this point on application of the doctrine/dogma of Separation of Church and State . I agree with your logic - I just wish it was universally applied. Rce

NEXEN and other Crown Asset Sales

NEXEN and other Crown Asset Sales - who's the bonehead responsible for selling off all the good stuff - so cheap?

---

Robert Ede <robertede@gmail.com>	Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM
To: macleans <letters@macleans.ca> Cc: "elizabeth.may" <Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca>
Dear Ms Lunau & Editors, Thank you for "Our Chinese oils sands. Nexen could just be the beginning ..." Wednesday, August 8, 2012 Our Great Red Hope (lots of Money) but ... no Change Your article points out the 3 "interests" in these leased Crown-owned lands:  1) the interests of the Shareholders of the company that leases the land and operates the extraction business;  2) the interests of the Government-of-the-Day that (takes care of it's own electoral future and) is entrusted with day-to-day Operations of the Canadian Crown's Assets and Treasury;  and 3) the Canadian Crown's interest in  "... being desirous that all Our loving Subjects, ... may avail themselves with all convenient Speed, of the great Benefits and Advantages which must accrue therefrom to their Commerce, Manufactures, and Navigation"  re: NEXEN Shareholders - As outlined in Ms Lunau's article the self-interest of Nexen shareholders receiving a 61% premium to the (languishing and troubled) stock price is not questioned by anyone. The fact that CNOOC is offering $15 Billion for Nexen's world wide assets plus buying their lease and existing operations at Long Lake, shows the company has value .... and as far as the Oil Sands assets, Nexen just doesn't have the capital to bring the expensive Long Lake development to fruition ... Nexen's stock was languishing and CNOOC had already purchased it's 35% partner in Long Lake from near-bankruptcy for $2.1 Billion CNOOC already has a toehold in the oilsands, through the company's $2.1 billion deal to buy OPTI Canada out of creditor protection last year. OPTI owned the other third of the Long Lake oilsands project that Nexen didn't. That previous partnership with Nexen makes CNOOC the optimal buyer for the company, Sam La Bell of Toronto-based Veritas investment research says. "CNOOC is the natural buyer," he said. "We view this as full value for the deal." He too, suspects Ottawa will likely approve the takeover "Definitely the political rhetoric is going to get cranked up here. The political angle is hard to evaluate," he said, "It’s a great fit with CNOOC and their overseas assets. re: the STEWARDS - The self-interest of the Prime Minister-of-the-Day is also made clear - He wooed the Chinese central administrators (before and after the Keystone pipeline was put on temporary hold until Barry O'Syndicalist/ O'Corporatist/ O'Fabian "could be more flexible after my election").  I hope that good ol' "Firewall around Alberta" (9 lines from end on 2nd page) Steve pays some pan-Canadian attention to some of the criticisms of this mammoth investment by sovereign wealth funds (NB one with not-exactly unstated intentions of taking over the world)  "s/be a two way street";  "we don't want my way or the highway operators" and even hesitations based on the reality that "Foreign acquisition pledges have a short (18-36 months) shelf life" before instructing his minions to sign-off on this Nexen deal - that he helped set up on the last couple of mission-trips to the "Great Red Hope (Money, but no Change)" re: The Canadian CROWN - The self-interest of the Crown has no champion, no one demanding a reasonable return on investment from the land in question and the other thousands of billions of dollars worth of Canadian Crown "tangible assets". (NB the vast majority of lands/non-financial assets of Canada are NOT accounted for on the Budget's "Non-Financial Assets Line" of their Balance Sheet- Table 6.8), nor anywhere in the Public Accounts, nor within the Annual Financial Report, nor valued in the Fiscal Reference Tables ... nope - nowhere ... no wonder no one is asking for a return on those Trillions of Dollars of assets .... they're on the books at "no value") IMHO someone must defend the interest of All Canadians' in our Crown Assets and Treasury in this NEXEN deal and generally. There is a great need to fill the "power vacuum" created by the withdrawal/elimination of the Executive Power of our Constitution from "active duty" -as a check on the (otherwise) unlimited power of a 37%-mandated PM controlling (as little as) 50%+1 of the Lower House.  Despite the reluctance of Her Majesty's (4th paragraph) or Her 'local' Representative's (para 3) to directly or indirectly intervene in / be consulted about / give advice/ give encouragement/ give warning about the day-to-day "stewardship" of Canada, someone must step up to "Just Say No" to the (only merged in 1940) seemingly-unstoppable, Executive+Legislative (wholly anti-BNA) hybrid, command and control centre we call the PMO/PCO - on the Nexen deal, the Omnibus Bill, the 2 Prorogations, the 2008 Dissolution etc etc I hear no person/Office/Department presenting the case for the silent majority - the Taxpaying-Resident-Citizens (TCR's) who pay the freight for boneheaded, short-term all-political decisions made with THEIR assets-in-trust. Collectively, we're like the blinding trusting "widows, orphans and little guys/gals" who left their/our savings in mutual funds as the stock market swooned (on several occasions recently), detachedly watching the value of their/our RRSP's dwindle, while continuing to pay the 1%-4% management fee to their sworn-to-know-your-client advisor-who-never-phones.

For Perspective: Who owns the Canadian Crown Assets?

- Let's say as an illustration, that the Crown's assets in Canada are "owned" by the Monarch "in Trust" for the collective advantage of the taxpaying, resident citizens of Canada -we CAN say that ...even if it's not legally true ... only to ask the question .... should not the Assets of Canada BE "owned in trust for all Canadians" and operated/stewarded/husbanded on behalf of the TRC's?

Sadly by the official rule book of Canada -the BNA/Constitution of Canada, the Crown's assets ARE NOT held in trust for the taxpaying, resident citizens. Nope, the Crown "owns" these Trillions of $ of assets and neither the Monarch nor Her Vice Regal Representative pays any attention to the prudent/imprudent/ wasteful or shrewd administration of these assets by Her Majesty's Stewards/ Trustees/ Authorized Managers.

What can we do about it? 

Forget amending the Constitution ... the real solution is simply an attitude thing - if the Assets of the Crown are not operated in/for/by the best interests of  the TRC of Canada de jure, then lets make it that way de facto by simply declaring a "Deemed Disposition" of the Monarch's Canadian assets into the collective hand of our TRC's ... and then by simply suggesting to the Taxpaying, Resident Citizens that they smarten up before everything is sold-off or encumbered by debt.

We must exhort the TRC's of Canada TO START ACTING AS PROPRIETORS not tenant-farmers... it IS an attitude thing. 

If we (the TRC's) own the country ... then why aren't we in the "consultation equation" or in the "decision-making loop" when something BIG happens? 

No point complaining after the fact ... some things CANNOT BE REVERSED ONCE APPROVED 

Again .... in your opinion, Who should be the owner of the Canadian Crown Assets?

For further undiscussed aspects 

See Ownership Breakdown of Syncrude: their own webchart shows Nexen 7.23% as well as Sinopec owning 9.03%).

rce

TRIPLE E-E-Effrontery

see TRIPLE E-E-Effrontery  on  my Realty/Economics blog

Reply to PMO/PCO underlings talking points under name of Sen Bert Brown, representing the propertied class in Alberta, part of the Western Division of Canada. BNA/Constitution Act 1867 s.22

Published in Edited Form

Senate is superior to House, not equal

Monday, 08/13/2012 12:00 am EDT