Friday, December 27, 2013

the Canadian Health Care System is Better than ….. it could be? Nope!

Prompted by:
21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare  click to see article

The Nader Page http://www.nader.org

IMHO .....this is an incomplete and simplistic comparison/contrast on (?Ralph?)Nader.org from an unidentified “outsider” with an agenda (although the letter is address to “America”, from “Canada”) …. trying to make “the point” that a “single-payer system is superior to Obamacare". I agree that the end-game of Prez Barry O’ and his ilk (Menshevik/ Fabian/ Syndicalist/ Corporatist/ Social-Democratic) is indeed a universal “single-payer” system -  the foundational “rock” of the post-modern Socialist-Utopia that the “we know better” do-gooding-patricians envision for the plebeians/ proletariat/ “precariat” (a new-ish "ism" - a portmanteau based on "precariously-employed" and the now out-of-time descriptor “proletariat”)

While I agree that Obamacare is the signature abomination of his administration:
-as a healthcare system;
-as an un-phased replacement for the existing American employment-based healthcare system;
-as an example of a new technology roll-out;
-as an example of a government central program that no one but the initiator’s identity-socio-econo-politico “humiliated” victim-class constituency desires/benefits from;
-in its implementation – fraught with innumerable, mid-stream, partial re-jiggings/ delays/ lies described as mis-speech/ obfuscations/ denials-of-intended (never mind UN-intended) consequences ….an abomination in so many, too many ways …
BUT ….. be it ever-so bumbling … the Affordable Healthcare Act WILL be the “disrupter”/ unsettling-point/ tipping-point that can (if not halted and repealed) lead to the accomplishment of the ultimate goals of it’s designers (see Menshevik/ Fabian/ Syndicalist/ Corporatist/ Social-Democratic).
The article’s headline and numbered points lay claim to the premise that “the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare” …. okay – based on what I’ve said above, I agree, but that’s not the point — the EXISTING AMERICAN system is better than Obamacare ….EVERY healthcare system is better than what Obamacare is destined to be.

So much for rhetoric in the abstract — I wish to shed light on the Canadian Healthcare FUNDING system – what it is, what it isn't and most importantly why it is NOT, in truth, what it is imagined/ portrayed to be in articles like the one that stimulated this post.
The Canadian system is a “funding” system. It’s about money. And just-long-ago enough Politics that the history has been re-written (by the victors).
It’s about “buying votes” with programs stolen in the 60′s from the UnioNDP/CCF platform so that Lester B. Pearson could get a majority government
It’s about proposing a potentially, unsustainably-expensive program to be funded with the voters’ own money and promising the same voter that there will be enough money (from ‘somebody else’s’ pocket) to fund the original voters’ “Universal, Accessible, Portable, Comprehensive, Publicly-administered on a non-profit basis” needs … forever.
This proposal MIGHT have been fiscally-sustainable (the risk that it might not be sustainable was the reason why Tommy Douglas stalled implementing H/care in Saskatchewan) IF …. the post-WW2 baby-boom was perpetual, if people continued to die at around 68 years of age, if prime interest rates never varied beyond the 4-6% range, if oil and commodity prices stayed constant, if inflation was constrained to 2-4%, if the extra healthcare that was to be provided didn’t change any of those variables, if the world’s monetary/ foreign currency system stayed on the Bretton-Woods Gold standard and if the USA continued to collaborate with Canada on the Branch Plant economy system that allowed southern Ontario and southern Quebec to subsidize the rest of the country (without letting on that the subsidy was really the return of a portion the RoC’s own money that had purchased the American-branded products manufactured-for the CDN market in southern Ontario and southern Quebec Branch Plants).
Unfortunately most of those “ifs” didn’t stay constant – by 1968-72 most everybody knew the baby-boom was over, the rest all just unfolded higglety-pigglety under the detached and aloof command of a Prime Minister who was a rich-man’s son, accustomed to getting anything he wanted (and then quickly got bored), thought he was the smartest guy/gal in the room and thought we could outsmart anyone on any topic (given 2-3 days to bone-up on cumulative human knowledge-base on that file).
Also unfortunately the J.M.(“in the long run…we’re all dead”) Keynesian idea that it was perfectly-OK for gov’ts to “borrow-to-spend-in-recessions, then save/repay debt-in-surplus times” was only HALF implemented BECAUSE the surpluses never came …. the borrowing to pay the interest on past borrowed money was the killer …esp when global interest rates were skyrocketed by the central banks (to stop people borrowing a) to lock-in ever-increasing tangible asset prices b) stop people borrowing to buy "big ticket" items on the assumption that their incomes would rise "due to inflation AND c) to stop them borrowing to buy services/ consumables/ wasting assets that disappeared before the loans were retired)
As I say the Canadian system is about FUNDING not providing Healthcare. The original 1965 “deal” (since Hospitals are a legislative “power” “distributed” by the 1867 BNA Act to the Provinces - because in 1867, hospitals were all run by Faith/ Religious/ Church organizations - NB primarily R Catholic in Quebec & N.B.provinces and by protestant orgs in the others) was that the Confederal govt would “set the rules” on national healthcare coverage etc, the provinces would implement the plan(s) and in exchange for the Provinces allowing the ConFeds to mess-around in Provincial jurisdiction, the Confeds agreed to pay 50% of the costs.
Until they could no longer afford to pay that 50% (the essential component that the whole bi-level agreement was predicated upon)…. so something had to give, then something else had to give and so on and so on for the last 30- 40 years.
So finally I get “to it” …

The Canadian system is funded by income tax dollars and it is a “re-distributive” system –those who pay income taxes (i.e. excluding the tax-contributions of non-income earners, of low-income earners [regardless of assets] & excluding the well-deducted, trust-protected, tax-deferred etc income of everyone who has good tax advice AND enough income to take advantage of these shelters/ avoidance/deferral provisions of the Income Tax Act) fund the program for those who pay no taxes.
Now some will quibble with me about “what” tax dollars are used to “pay” for healthcare because ALL the tax inputs flow into a General Consolidated Fund, rather than into “dedicated” funds of revenue for attribution to “dedicated” expense types, but pls hold on, I have more on that in a para or two.
The best thing about the Canadian Healthcare “Insurance” plan (that is run without “insurance” risky-lifestyle principles) is that it includes everybody – the largest pool of contributors possible is included. “Everyone” (tacitly and wittingly or not) agrees to contribute based on the assurance that if anything “terrible” happens to one of their family members, healthcare will be provided immediately, competently, completely and fully by the system. Like all (non-Whole Life) insurance … we buy it, but hope to never need to make a claim.
We all ‘hope” that a catastrophic disease or accident does not befall us, but rest easy knowing that we/ours will be taken care of by professionals in wonderfully equipped clinics, hospitals et al if such a tragedy occurs.
Amazingly (this is an open secret that dares not be spoken about) … notwithstanding the social, moral, ethical, egalitarian, fraternal, equality aspects of our plan ….. we all cheat on it.
The citizen patients, visiting-from-a-nearby-jurisdiction patients, just-about-to-succumb prospective citizen patients (and their relatives) PLUS the doctors, nurses, administrators etc etc …. we all “fiddle with” the system to further our self-interest. We go to the Doctor for every little thing, participate in procedures done “in hospital” (free) that might be done “in clinic/office” and accept appointments within 9-5 business hours to get time off work (with pay), the Doctors charge for what the plan permits and know how much “fudge” there is in the billing system, the hospitals (until recent budget squeezes) are huge enterprises with lots of executives and Boards with lots of little cracks that money can fall/be directed through – and why not ….everybody’s doing it, it’s too big a money/ procedure/ personnel machine to catch every little excess or personal indulgence and (until recently) there seem so much of an abundance of funding …. that a little wast/ re-direction of $ resources is never going to affect the Big Picture …and what the heck .... everybody’s doing it …all the time… for years …. it’s built-in, like “spillage” at a tavern.
This behaviour proves that Canadians are human beings and prove that the Human Condition is alive and well in in a single payer system too (irrespective of this one's 13-headed sub-system apparatus) in at least a few ways:
——- Self-interest almost always prevails.
——- Incentives can distort.
——- Remuneration drives “work results”, most of the time.
PLUS cheating “the government” is not really considered a crime/ offense /sin against Canadian society.
It’s not considered an infraction against the common weal because a) everybody’s doing it and b) because “they” (the nebulous agglomeration of people, processes, mandates, authorities, hierarchies, sovereignties, over-reaching legislation/ regulations, unintended consequences and vote-buying schemes that we lump together into a single entity we call “government”) tax us too much and “they” waste so uch money and “they” are so glibly swarmy and “haughtily superior” when “they” stand up on TV to attempt-to-dispel that very (widely-held) notion about dissatisfaction with gov’t using power-pointy-headed stats on efficiency, effectiveness, openness, accountability etc on past performance (often compared to some totally-incomparable jurisdiction, using criteria that are impossible to verify —but surely-to-goodness sounding credible) AND/OR when “they” announce a study group/ commission/ task force/ panel-of-experts that will improve the future efficiency, effectiveness, openness, accountability etc that some crisis or colossal screw-up has unearthed.
Here’s the “rub”and the “nub” —
An amount just-about “equal to” all the personal income taxes (PIT) collected at both sovereign orders of Cdn government (~$200 billion) is spent on Healthcare Funding by the 3 Territories, 10 Provinces and the ConFederal (still-called the “General” gov’t in the BNA Act 1867) orders of government, which means IF …. Joe/Carol Canuck didn’t have to supply the money to central-command through personal income taxes to provide their contribution to “free” healthcare, their PIT could be reduced to zero – so much for “free” healthcare ….unless, of course you don’t pay taxes ….
Is it not common knowledge that Canadian personal income taxes are higher than elsewhere in the free-enterprise zone …. that’s why.
This and the next point are want USA commentators don’t YET grasp
Is it not a cost-advantage to employers/businesses in Canada to NOT have to offer basic-intermediate healthcare as a “company benefit” … yes, because the employee pays that benefit him/herself.
Is it not common knowledge that…. nothing is free. AND does it make a bit of sense that the more hands that touch a gov’t funding envelope, the smaller that original “contributed” sum becomes – for paying to beneficiaries. – This is where the “economies of scale” rebuttal comes in –”We handle such huge quantities of money that the tiny bit that is used to cover the full-parity pay, full benefits, sweetheart defined-benefit pensions of three-four-five levels of public-sector-unionized workers (plus management/ supervisors) on at least two levels of government is ‘almost nothing’ in the greater scheme of things, -by centralizing the process we save money” …again compared to what?
Compared to leaving the tax-dollars in the “earners” hands and letting him/her buy insurance based on the risks involved in the taxpayer’s life activities?
No it’s more expensive that that … because the system’s concept demands that it collect from a subset of the population to fund the whole’s needs/benefits AND pay for the central administration (on at least two levels)
Here’s the next bit that is only now dawning on the general Cdn public (as it impacts their individual circumstance)
The Cdn system is NOT single-payer – the Confederal gov’t collects tax-money and re-distributes it (not $1 in from a given province and $1 out to the same jurisdiction) using a “formula” that changes from time to time.
In addition, once the 3 territories and 10 provinces receive their “transfer payment” from the Confederal gov’t, they add some of their local provincial tax money (and if not enough, they use borrowed, money-at-interest to make-up the shortfall) and then distribute it within their jurisdiction according to a “formula” that also changes from time to time.
The provinces/territories pay doctors inside and outside of hospitals, pay hospitals and all the rest of the system in categories of care ….. everything type of healthcare is in a “spending envelope” …. except:
-for the Healthcare-type services/ procedures/ treatments/ etc that are “not listed” in a given category;
-or become “de-listed”/discontinued-for-funding in a category that used to cover it;
-or fall into a category that is not covered at all ….
Over time, the list of covered services/ procedures/ treatments/ etc changes as the “formulae” change and the dollar amounts allocated change by %, by $ or by category (or all/any at once):
a) as inflation adds to costs of material, labour and premises;
b) as inflation undermines the value (purchasing power) of a dollar;
c) a category becomes “too expensive” or over-used (according to a formula),;
d) as more beneficiaries in another category take advantage of a new service (joint replacements);
e) as the voting clout of a group of beneficiaries in any category increases/decreases;
f) as overall funding from a senior order of gov’t is reduced;
g) as overall spending in a provinces budget must be cut-back (budgets $ grown slower than demographics and inflation would dictate);
h) as the budget for the provincial healthcare Ministry (or any/all Ministries) is cut (slower budget $ growth vis a vis demographics and inflation)
Bottom line … gradually the voter is paying more and more … for less and less coverage. But the voters still feels good about being led to believe it’s the best system in the world and the voter is still often heard describing the free healthcare system s/he enjoys in Canada.

The Best system in the World — compared to $ spent on Healthcare /GDP … good ol’ Gross Domestic Product the great obfuscation tool (we used to say smoke and mirrors tool)
Do you remember when “they” used to say “GNP – Gross National Product” well they world economists switched to GDP – because it was bigger – making all the %’s lower. – Smoke and mirrors.
Anyway – GNP or GDP (you can look up the difference) are both NON measures for government expenditures (or debt levels), BECAUSE gov’ts do not control the WHOLE of the economy (with GNP or GDP measures), gov’ts ONLY control their Budgets (and some additional non-budget items that are part of their operations) …. a much smaller number.
IF …. the gov’t near you says it DOES control/ direct/ influence-more-than-any-other-entity the WHOLE GDP/GNP – it’s a firing or indictable offense … since they’ve done such a lousy job of “maximizing” it and “minimizing” the waste and damage.

What’s to be done?
Three choices (or all of them) PLUS “do nothing and hope for the best” …
1) Eliminate one level of gov’t in the administration (fewer hands touching each $ contributed:
2) Dedicate the tax dollar contributions to a separate account as is done with CPP:
3) Change the “from dollar one to infinity” aspect of coverage.
I suggest Nation-i-fying Healthcare funding -since everybody is “in the plan”, have just one administration – so no blame-game can ensue – no more “not our jurisdiction” nor the “other guys” cut the funding. The provinces will agree – despite how much they love to say they “provide” the hospital/healthcare system, they’ll love even more getting rid of this whale-sized albatross that grows more enormous every year. The provinces will have to “give back the tax points” that have been negotiated/ granted over time from/by the Confederal gov’t so that the amount of tax revenue that used to be collected up to the Confeds and then immediately fed-back down for the ConFeds share of provincial healthcare. This reduction in budget by about 40-50% in the provincial budget expenditures and revenue will help them get acclimatized to their “proper” (BNA Act) role handling “private and local matters” – not being independent, self-willed sub-sovereignties that are too big for their own britches.
For now (as much as it pains me to say), collect the income taxes using the same fiddle-fudge tax code we have now, but don’t put the dollars into Consolidated General Revenue. Take the funds “off the Budget” (as per CPP) and set the “rate” of tax that will generate the amount of $$ to fund the system, based on 105% of last year’s spending.
In this way, if money is saved, the “rate” can go down.
Finally, since there is an “unlimited demand for a free service” we must put some checks on the consumer.
My suggestion is to have the consumer cover the first $2400.00/year in healthcare expenses (in cash, or by use of private, get-it-yourself insurance, based on their life-style risks, age etc like any actuarial-table established insurance plan). Self-insurance or “terrible-risk” or “pre-existing condition” insurance would be no more than the max = $2400/yr or $200/mth
But, by removing $2400 x 33 million = $79.2 Billion from the annual national guaranteed-costs-to-cover expenditure ($79.2 Billion lets say $60Bn as % of $200Bn = 30%) the amount needed for taxes to fund could be reduced by 30% — every TAXPAYER’S burden could be cut by 30% from current levels…except the people who don’t pay taxes would still pay zero … how could they dream of complaining?
Since EVERYBODY would be paying $200/mth (or less if their life-style risks deemed them worthy of lower private premiums) – a VERY reasonable sum based on what we’re hearing about USA consumers being “dumped off their old plans” and being saddled w huge new premiums AND huge deductibles ie they pay the first $6000, 8000, 9000/yr)
and since EVERYBODY would have the same vested-interest in keeping “cheating” down and watching what the Cdn healthcare professionals and other practitioners are doing with their taxpayers FIRST $2400 and the rest of it ……since every saving would contribute to lower total costs and trickle down to lower % of income required to FUND the dedicated expenditures from dedicated taxation streams.


PS You don’t have to accept or believe what I say …. but why would you not?
What’s in it for me to try and deceive you?
I’m not asking you for anything … except to verify the possibility for yourself that these notions and concepts are viable
Rce
Dec 26/2013

Saturday, December 21, 2013

CNN (sorta) Looks at the PQ "Charter Affirming Socialist Values" ...oops s/read ..Secular Values"

Pretty Good - as far as it goes - but far from comprehensive
AND for an expat nothing more than "airing dirty laundry in public"

Prompted by"

Canada in 2014: Separatist issue looms

Editor’s note: Jonathan Kay is Comment Editor of the Toronto-based National Post newspaper. You can follow him @jonkay. The views expressed are his own. This is the fifth in the '14 in 2014' series, looking at what the year ahead holds for key countries.
The biggest challenge facing Canada in 2014? It’s the same one that has threatened Canadian unity since the country’s genesis: the status of the majority-French province of Quebec within Canada’s majority-Anglo confederation. But due to a series of political gambits recently launched by Quebec separatists, this age-old issue now comes with a new and disturbing post-9/11 twist.
Quotes from article on my first reading 

-(or lapsed Catholic)
-problematic because of the manner by which Quebec’s separatist government is eagerly exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment to further a parochial political agenda.
-turned its demagogic campaign inward, against Quebec residents who dress in an “overtly religious” manner.
 -thereby making nonsense of their evenhanded conceit
-Quebec separatists have sought to convince the world that their worldview and Canada’s is fundamentally incompatible. They may finally have succeeded, albeit in the ugliest manner possible

Unquote

The issue here can only be understood by understanding the Continental French (borrowed and adapted in Quebec) attitude towards the domination of the Roman Universal Church in years, decades, centuries past.

We hear the word "secular" in English and most non-Quebeckers understand that means "non-religious" or "without regard for any faith's doctrines", but the Quebec/France meaning is more accurately termed "laicite".

This is secularism PLUS anti-clericalism. The folks with this view as still so steamed up about the perceived (and real) "humiliation" they experienced personally and corporately-as-citizen/residents under the "Ancient Regime" under RC-influenced governments that they want to expunge all influences-in-govt of that Founding Religion - except when/where it's convenient/ beneficial/ useful/ Christmas  OR culturally-so-inherent that it cannot be tampered with.

IN ADDITION, and this is where Mr JonKay was being polite/ brief/ simplistic, the PQ party is a socialist party ie No God, the state controls the machinery of labour etc etc.

The PQ are known to be dirigiste, corporatist, social-democratic, syndicalist etc - but this is all masked by their quest for "Separatism" and it's weak sister "Sovereignty" and even weaker friend "Sovereignty Association".

The party holds a (false) hope that by getting the population to "vote 50%+1" for even the weakest of these options, (or even to grant the PQ by that same UNdemocratic margin a "mandate to negotiate" for the weakest of the options) that step-by-step they can assemble the authority, mandate, powers, fiscal oomph to create their dream - a Francophone Socialist state (pure Marxian ie which has never been accomplished - never mind attempting it with French people)

The "Charter" of Values -- NB values are personal/societal choices, Virtues are innate and universal -- is indeed about anti-Muslim pushback and anti-Jewish pushback and anti-Asian pushback and and Caribbean pushback and anti-African pushback AND anti-clericalism. But as Mr JonKay says mainly political.

The success of the PQ's political gambit with it to "fool enough of the people" for long enough to a)get a majority, then b) hold a 3rd vote, then c) get "a mandate to negotiate", then d) cut a deal that the ConFederal apparatchik and pols will approve, then e) get approval of said "deal" within Quebec and then finally  f) get pan-Canadian popular ratification is very slim.

While I thank Mr JonKay for bring the Parti Quebecois' Charter Affirming the Values of "Laicite" to the int'l / USA marketplaces, I don't think it is Canada's greatest challenge in 2014, it is not "looming", it is not a "disturbing post-9/11 twist" and I do not think "airing dirty laundry" is journalism.

Friday, December 20, 2013

stare decisis -- "do not disturb" precedents (unless you can find a justification at law --or in your mind)

3 Prostitution laws thrown out


Exceprt  from pdf version of decision - Pg 7

The common law principle of stare decisis is subordinate to the 
Constitution and cannot require a court to uphold a law which is unconstitutional. 
However, a lower court is not entitled to ignore binding precedent, and the threshold 
for revisiting a matter is not an easy one to reach. The threshold is met when a new 
legal issue is raised, or if there is a significant change in the circumstances or 
evidence. In this case, the application judge was entitled to rule on the new legal 
issues of whether the laws in question violated the security of the person interests 
under s. 7, as the majority decision of this Court in the Prostitution Reference was 
based on the s. 7 physical liberty interest alone. Furthermore, the principles of 
fundamental justice considered in the Prostitution Reference dealt with vagueness and 
the permissibility of indirect criminalization. The principles raised in this case — 
arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality — have, to a large extent, 
developed only in the last 20 years. The application judge was not, however, entitled 
to decide the question of whether the communication provision is a justified limit on freedom of expression. That issue was decided in the Prostitution Reference and was 
binding on her. 
end Excerpt

Steward of the Crown, Moore - “Is it my job to to be totally on-top of my Dept's files and to be fully prepared for impromptu media attacks? I don’t think so,”


prompted by :

Andrew Coyne: James Moore’s poverty comment was ill-phrased, but, by and large, true

National Post December 18, 2013 8:48 PM ET

EXCERPT ....
“Of course nobody wants kids to go to school hungry… We want to make sure that kids go to school full-bellied… Empowering families with more power and resources so that they can feed their own children is, I think, a good thing.”
Mind you, those may not have been the statements you read. What you would be more likely to have seen quoted, from a scrum with a Vancouver radio reporter, would be: “Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so,” or “is that always the government’s job to be there to serve people their breakfast?” The story appeared on the radio station’s website under the headline “Federal minister says child poverty not Ottawa’s problem.”
snip....
"The statements were part of a long, rambling answer which the minister probably regrets giving. He had been asked — challenged, might be better: “Child poverty in B.C. is at an all-time high. What does the federal government plan to do about that?” The question, it is evident from the tape, flummoxed him, and it’s not hard to see why."
EXCERPT end

" flummoxed him" . The fact that he fumbled the answer, shows his lack of "complete & in the moment" grasp of his dept. 
This is not uncommon today -- they read pre-prepped speeches (and even questions) at Pressers, Meetings, and in the House. Abominable! Stop this charade of "speaking/talking points"! 

Solution Part 1- institute an all-party ban on (at least Opposition and maybe the G-of-Day will be humiliated into following) "reading" in the Houses of our One Parliament (s.17) - they used to jeer when some-newbie "read" his/her notes in the Assemblies. 

Solution Part 2 --Stop the farce of Cab Mins being "Heads" of departments - the Deputy Min, ADM and Asst ADMs are the REAL bosses (these behind-the-scenes Privy Council Office jobs ARE political appointments too) AND it is these gnomes who draft the points/speeches (vetted by Firewall Steve before uttering is permitted). 

Let the Cabinet be a real Board of Directors - no agendas to promote/ jockey for approval, no favours to repay, no butts to kiss upstairs (or behind the stairs) ---let these "Privy Councillors" judge and scrutinize ALL policies, programs, vote-buying-schemes that come across the Cabinet Table WITHOUT prejudice, pandering or promise .... but according to their pre-set "principles" of Stewardship on behalf of trhe Crown (and thru it, on behalf of the Cdn resident, taxpaying citizens) 

Oh yes, we all know there is an inner-inner sanctum of Priorities & Planning (or some-such name) that actually initiates and decides .... but if we're going to continue the anti-BNA/Constitutional charade of MP's (part of the penultimate ie subservient Legislative power) being sworn into the Privy Council (part of Executive Power) ...let them ACT as "deciders", not just 50-ft nobody-trained seals ..... IN LIMOS.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

2015 --If not Harper, then who?

Ron Thornton, Edmonton, Ab. asks more time, as a two parter.

1. If not Harper, then who?
2. If not the Conservatives, then whom?
May I reply with the actual ballot question

3)if not a Harper Majority, then what?

The ideal answer is: a Harper Minority. Which will prompt ol' Firewall to quit (again).

The Canadian people have recently made a series of excellent, albeit re-active (vs active) choices at 21st century elections.

In 2004, Mr Dithers was rewarded (quite reasonably) w a minority

In 2006 Mr Harper was given a chance w a minority

In 2008 Mr Harper "gave up on" trying to cope with being in minority govt anymore, bullied a dear sweet ex-CBC talking-head promoted-way-over-her Peter Principle head into assisting him in breaking the spirit and letter of his own 2007 Cda Elections Act amendments on fixed dates and was rewarded w another minority

In 2008 Mr Harper's #1 flunky's economic update and govern-like-a-majority nearly lost him his office to a coalition
So again he bullied the ex-CBC-visible-minority-francophone-immigrant non-male into proroguing Parliament, to sidestep that false step - I think he had The Clerk of the Privy Council (who s/be the head of the Privy Council, part of the Executive Power, which is 100% superior to the Legislative Power) tell Her Vice Regal-ship that there was an "apprehended insurrection" and since Ms Jean only had a rented govt-of-the-day lackey as her Constitutional advisor

 In 2010 Mr Harper bullied the same Vice-Regal Representative of Her Majesty (at pleasure) into proroguing again (to side step an inquiry into some nasty Somalia stuff that might have been hitting stride just about coincident w the Winter Olympics) - but this time the process was so streamlined The Rt Hon Mr H "just phoned it in" and the seal-heart nibbler acquiesced demurely as she stepped into the limo to jet off to ........ somewhere at 105% taxpayer expense ( GST y'know)

In 2011, Jack Layton was polling very well in Quebec - so much so that the national-ized, regional polls made it look (for about half of the 2nd and 3rd last weeks before the election) that our favourite labour-ite, the late Jack (what exactly was he doing in that bathhouse/massage place when the cops raided it, way back when) Layton was parading around at UnionDP rallies calling himself (only 1/3rd laughingly) Prime Minister Jack Layton 

The reality was Quebeckers were NOT going to vote Bloc anymore and were NOT going to give the Harvard-led Liberals any support or encouragement (at least not at that time) no matter how much they didn't want to support Mr Firewall/National Citizen Coalition/ REformAlliance masquerading as "Tories"  and so they were going to block-vote for their social-democratic "second choice" (i just don't know how the "signal" was communicated - surely not via the pulpit)

In 2015, Margaret's Boy will do better both Iggy and the knapsack, but his glib delivery of back-room-tested platitudes will bring no T-mania Two - irrespective of his hair, teeth or drama-teacher delivery.

Mr Mulcair will learn what the phrases "a mile-wide and an inch deep", strategic voting and "ABH" mean and lose many of the belle province seats that fell into his party's lap last time but can never be retained (despite all the party's province-pandering this term) by a no-chance of governing party in Ottawa.

 Mr Harper will be returned with a minority as a reward for his high-handed, autocratic, central command and control conduct (and his fiscal smoke and mirrors - everything's great  ie at least compared to our floundering military-whale of a neighbour and some over-extended social-democratic milk-toast nations soon to be swallowed whole by Germany.

As I say  --The ideal answer is: a Harper Minority. Which will prompt ol' Firewall to quit (again).


Robert Ede, 

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Recommendation for Budget Consultations -

in reply to:

Peter Kent Welcomes Your Input

Local businesses and community partners invited to participate in 2014 Pre-Budget Consultations


snip ...

To submit your thoughts, please send me an email, or visit my website.Sincerely,
Hon. Peter Kent, P.C., M.P – ThornhillChair, House Standing Committee on National Defence



Robert Ede 
<robertede@gmail.com>
Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM
To: "peter.kent.c1a" <peter.kent.c1a@parl.gc.ca>, Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca

Dear Hon. Mr Kent P.C. M.P.,

Thank you for the invitation to participate in the Budget process right here in Thornhill

As an aside, I do think it's a shame about the limo and portfolio ... but, happily, Firewall Steve-the-Expedient, our evermore Impatiently Chief Autocrat/Emperor of the Canadian Crown cannot take the "honourability" of your Privy Council membership away from you, it'll be on your letterhead forever.

Back on topic, may I recommend you suggest to the Hon. Mr. ("Way over his Head" but too dull to perceive it) Flaherty, that a review of the mechanism of Funding the $892,014,427,913 (March 31/13) of Interest-Bearing Debt via interest-only Bonds and T-Bills is in order. 

A failure to address the 48.4% growth (increase of almost $291 billion, from $601.073 Bn to $892.014Bn since March 31/06) in the principal amount(s) of the Unmatured Debt and Public Pension liability accounts on his watch will soon force the Stewards of the Canadian economy who inherit this mess from the also-Hon Mr Flaherty, to let loose inflation (just a tad they'll explain, for the sake of growing the economy ...say from 2% to say 4.5%) in order to reduce the "real" value of these almost-perpetual bonds through the resultant currency devaluation.

These accounts are kept safely away from public/pundit scrutiny by the Budget Briefing's misdirective focus on the seemingly well-contained Public Debt Charges (due to dirt cheap rates) and the obfuscation of fiscal comparators like the totally dis-informative Debt to GDP ratio - as if the General/Confederal Stewards of the Crown's Treasury and Assets were actually IN CHARGE and CONTROL of the nation's whole Gross Domestic Product. 
(ed note: Remember when we used G National P? The world-wide switch was made to GDP because it is a "bigger number" -- it includes the contribution of international enterprises on a country's soil -- hence making all the "bad stuff" look smaller ...shrewd eh?)

Inflation is a borrower's best friend and a lender's worst enemy ...unless the interest rate is linked-to inflation, which reverses the aforementioned friend/enemy characterizations.

Again if Mr Flaherty's department cannot bear the political pain of bringing this foreseeable problem to public attention, then perhaps you could bring public attention 

Chart 6a  - a picture really is worth a billion dollars..... to bad this pie-chart is only in Percentages  (ie 24.5% of all interest-bearing debt is owed to PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS!!!! - payable at HIGHER rates of interest than "unmatured debt" because of some special deal worked out in (the Hon B) Mulroney's day

Inline image 1


rce
 

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Saturday, January 19, 2013

PM is NOT the EXECUTIVE POWER in Canada





                                             USA                                                    Canada

Imperial                          Tossed out 1776-1783                                 HM Queen Elizabeth (est 1763)
-Advisors                            n/a                                                          -UK Privy Council (abolished for Canada in-part 1931 and fully 1982)
                                                                                                       -can Disallow (Veto) any Cdn Bill within 2 yrs - no appeal


Executive                       President                                                   Governor General (est.1867) -recommended to HM by Cdn Prime Minister (est.~1947)    
                                       -can Veto any Bill                                      -can withhold Assent(Veto) on any Bill - no appeal
                                       -Veto can be overruled by 2/3 vote               -Gov-Gen in-Council (s.13 vs s.12) can Veto any Provincial Bill within 1 yr

-Exec Advisors                Cabinet                                                     -Queen's Privy Council for Canada (permanent appointment - can always we        summoned)
                                                                                                       


Legislative                     Bi-Cameral Congress                                   Bi-Cameral Upper & Lower Houses + The Monarch
                                      -Senate -equal rep by states                        -Senate -equal rep by "region" of Propertied Class
                                      -H of Rep - rep by pop (gerrymandered)         -Commons - rep by pop by provinces w special treatment for Que, PEI, N&L, 3 Territories
        



Sovereignty                  Vested in the People subject to laws            Vested in the Crown, with authority to Act delegated to Gov.Gen, at pleasure (recallable anytime)
                                     created by the Exec/Legis/Judicial                -All actions in Name of the Crown ... All 'officials' swear loyalty to the Crown
                                     -All actions in Name of People                      ... Question? in 2012 Canada ... who/what is the Crown to which all our 'officials' are accountable?






rce
 

"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
"There is no shame in turning back, when you discover you're on the wrong path"-Rce

Saturday, January 12, 2013

"High-Level" means "not-detailed, hitting the high points", "Idle no more" means "Genuinely p*ssed-off"


Dear Ottawa Citizen Editor,
cc all other Benignly-Neglectful Editors-in-Chief,
cc Apologists-in-Chief for Firewall Steve,
cc Canadians who know something is wrong, but just can't put their finger on exactly what the trouble is


SUMMARY
The solution to the Autochthonous AND non-Autochthonous people's root problem is three-fold and requires no multi-jurisdictional squabbling about the BNA/Constitution: 
A) to redefine "The Crown of Canada" to mean "the resident, taxpaying citizens" (it's a deemed disposition -just an attitude change); 
B) rescind Order in Council PC 1940-1121 and thereby restore the Privy Council to the Governor General's control;
and 
C) select Canada's recommendation to the Monarch for future Governor Generals by election-at-large (by single, transferable balloting, every-other General Election with a term commencing 365 days after the return of the Writs).


In this way all Canadian Stewards - elected, appointed, employed - will have a Boss to be accountable to AND Each and Every citizen will have an (restored as intended) order of governance that represents their particular self-interest - consistently, conscientiously AND as part of a greater whole that can "just say NO" to the shenanigans of the government-of-the-day.


Ladies and Gentlemen,

Re: Fiasco on the Hill Citizen Editorial Jan 12/2013

I am dumb-founded by your editorial's lack of accuracy.  
"The main principle the protesters seem to be standing on now is the involvement 
of the Governor General. On this they aren’t likely to find widespread support.
The importance of the Crown in the history of First Nations is undeniable, 
 but the idea that “the Crown” translates into a governor general who helps craft policy is unfounded."

Your words are (with hope, mistakenly) dis-leading the general public on the Autochthonous peoples reasons for including the Governor General in these discussions and simultaneously furthering the widespread dis-information regarding "The Crown" of Canada AND the as-written & affirmed role of the Governor General in Canada's power-sharing hierarchy.

The Sovereignty/Authority of Canada is vested in "The Crown" and that "interest" is represented locally (1867 communication was by ship) by the Governor General - at the pleasure of the Monarch. Read the Letters Patent of 1947 and thens.12, s.13, s.64, s.65, s90 of the BNA/Constitution

"The Crown" of Canada as represented by the GovGen i) is head of our Executive Power, ii) has a Privy Council of independent advisors accountable to him/her, iii) is Commander in Chief (since 1947) and iv) can Veto any Bill presented for Royal Assent - no appeal, no questions asked AND v) is 1/3 of our tri-part Legislative Power (see BNA s.17)

The reason the Autochthonous representatives and Chiefs want the GG present is a) to "go over the heads" of the current (anti-BNA) cabal controlling the Legislative Power AND the Executive Power (since 1940 Order in Council PC 1940-1121 -attached) and b) deal nation-to-nation with the Crown's representative. See Royal Proclamation of 1763 para 17-21.

There are four categories of Autochthonous peoples in Canada a) those subject to a valid Treaty, b) those subject to an non-valid-at-the-outset Treaty, c) those subject to a Treaty that has been broken by "The Crown" and d) everybody else with a small or large percentage of Autochthonous blood who want "part of the $$/power action".

Most of the one million-plus Autochthonous peoples in Canada (who are NOT chiefs or relatives/favourites of chiefs), regardless of my categories, are genuinely p*ssed-off

They are "idle no more" because they are tired of the bureaucratic run-arounds (this high-level, future consultation-with-Ministers-and-Staff being only the latest) that change nothing, improve nothing - just stall, delay, and at best, divide-and-conquer.

Aren't you genuinely p*ssed-off too, Mr/Ms Jean/Carol Canuck?

While I in no way endorse threats of blockades or violent civil-disobedience, I applaud their analysis of "what's gone wrong with Canada since 1955 or so" and support their "outing" of the usurpation of the Executive Power by the Legislative Power.

The Solution to the Autochthonous (and heterochthonous and allochthonous) people's root problem is three-fold and requires no Constitutional dabbling: A) to redefine "The Crown of Canada" to mean "the resident, taxpaying citizens" (it's a deemed disposition -just an attitude change); B) rescind Order in Council PC 1940-1121 and thereby restore the Privy Council to the Governor General's control: and C) select Canada's recommendation to the Monarch for GovGen by election-at-large (every-other General Election with a term commencing 365 days after the return of the Writs).

In this way all Canadian Stewards - elected, appointed, employed - will have a Boss to be accountable to AND Each and Every citizen will have an (restored as intended) order of governance that represents their particular self-interest - consistently, conscientiously AND as part of a greater whole that can "just say NO" to the shenanigans of the government-of-the-day.



rce