Posts Tagged ‘Prime Minister of Canada’

During the 2015 Canadian federal election campaign, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, now Prime Minister, promised to borrow money (at interest) to pay for $60 billion in new infrastructure investments, as opposed to the NDP’s plan to balance the budget in their first year.

It was, and remains, a false frame of having to stay in a deficit and grow the debt by borrowing at interest for infrastructure investments when the government of Canada, all its provinces, and its municipalities, have the statutory authorization under the Bank of Canada Act to borrow money, effectively, or, in actuality, interest-free.

For instance, money can be borrowed effectively interest-free when the Bank of Canada issues bonds that are held by the government, and when it buys its own bonds, as the government of Canada is the sole shareholder of the bank, and all profits, after expenses, will go back to the government.

But even better, the federal government can borrow money, interest-free, by requesting interest-free money, to borrow for infrastructure investments today.

So, despite Trudeau seemingly one-upping the NDP in saying that he would invest in critical infrastructure by borrowing today, as opposed to putting off such investments in favour of immediately balancing the budget, he bought into the typical false frame that we have to borrow the money at interest as opposed to borrowing it interest-free.

Read Full Post »

Canadian Flag

My correspondence with a radio host who is featuring a guest discussing the global warming scam, suggesting that Canada is putting pressure on the U.S. to adopt the Kyoto Protocol and other such schemes:

As for Canada pressuring the U.S. to do anything, that’s like a beaver pressuring an elephant to do something, in sticking with the comparative metaphor we Canadians are raised with.

Recall that it was your House of Representatives that passed a cap-and-trade bill back in 2009 — something that didn’t even pass our House when the Conservatives were in a minority position with the Liberals and two avowed socialist parties.

Now, with a Conservative majority government, there is almost no chance of a cap-and-trade bill being passed for the next four years.

I can’t imagine that Canada would be pressuring the U.S. too hard even under a Liberal government, since when we ratified the first accord, our Liberal Prime Minister quickly gave an exemption to the auto sector, we were generating twice the per capita amount of (new) greenhouse gases than the U.S. was, and the tar sands were ramping up their production, so our government was never sincere about it to begin with. Here, treaties are ratified without a vote in the House and Senate, so it was the case of our PM doing what he wanted for political reasons.

Read Full Post »

Senate of Canada. Canada Parliament [Ottawa].

Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister since 2006, with a majority government since May 2011, has introduced so-called Senate reform legislation, calling for new senators to be term-limited to nine years, and to be elected by the people in their respective provinces, all under the guise of modernizing the Senate.

Given that he’s been Canada’s Head of Government since 2006, he really should know better that such a plan is unconstitutional, because he only plans to get the support of the House and Senate in passing it.

Part V, Section 42, Subsections (1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982 states:

42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

Subsection 38(1) requires:

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

The argument is that it’s not an amendment to the Constitution. However, the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land, and the institutions created by the Constitution can’t be changed by the institutions themselves, unless specifically authorized by the Constitution. Otherwise the creation is more powerful than the creator, and that’s non-sensical.

Read Full Post »