Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 02:30 PM - Miscellaneous
"I am a Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
or free to choose those
who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom
I pledge to uphold
for myself and all mankind."
John Diefenbaker
From the Canadian Bill of Rights,
July 1, 1960.
| permalink
Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 02:09 PM - Miscellaneous
Congratulations on a strong victory in York Simcoe.
Vicki
| permalink
Thursday, October 9, 2008, 04:26 PM - Economy
Question for all the party leaders
Preamble to the question
From 1975 to1994 Canadian tax payers paid $777- billion in interest on public debt, and from 1995 to 2005 paid an additional $788-billion in interest. Had the Bank of Canada been used to finance public debt, governments at all levels would currently save over $60-billion every year. One year's interest is
600 times more than what the sponsorship scandal cost Canadians. Public debt interest costs every Canadian worker, on average, about $4,000 a year.
By 1974 (100 years after Confederation) federal government debt had reached $18-billion, but then government reduced its borrowing from the Bank of Canada and increased its borrowing from the private sector. Federal debt went from $18-billion in 1974 to $588-billion in 1997, resulting in huge increases in debt financing.
Canada has immense natural resources and a well-educated work force. Through the Bank of Canada the government could finance infrastructure renewal, education, health services, affordable housing and stimulate business development. This would create many well-paid jobs directly and help the private sector to create many more.
Our question is:
Will your government use our own Bank of Canada for very low cost loans to create thousands of good paying jobs by financing such things as infrastructure renewal, hospitals, schools, affordable housing and business development programs, instead of bailing out the Big Banks and borrowing privately for a total cost to all levels of government of sixty billion dollars each and every year?
Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform
Kingston Chapter
Richard Priestman, Keith Wilde, Henry Becker, Kevin Connolly, Hugh Jennie, Peter Zuuring,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ron Gray wrote:
Mr. Priestman has it right.
The problem with trying to introduce this concept is that the media (themselves ill-informed on economics) -- and therefore many people -- will automatically respond: "Oh,oh! Social Credit!", and dismiss the messenger who calls for Government Created Money (GCM) instead of Bank Created Money (BCM).
In the 1940s and 1950s, the Bank of Canada created at least 50% of Canada's money; today it creates none. Instead, it rents our money from the chartered banks. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the influence of those banks on our mainstream political parties, through donations to election campaigns and through the appointment of bankers to the Board of the BoC, has brought this situation about. Thus, although the BoC (unlike the American Federal Reserve) actually belongs to the people of Canada, it does not act in their best interests.
To correct this situation, the CHP has chosen not to advocate a sudden, dramatic change overnight (such as having the BoC create the money to pay off the National Debt); sudden changes in the realms of finance and monetary policy almost always produce disastrous effects on the citizenry! Instead, we have opted to propose the re-introduction of the infrastructure policy adopted by the King government in 1945, which financed most of the infrastructure Canada enjoys today (and which urgently needs renewing!): the government of the day instructed the Bank of Canada to create money internally, and use it to make loans, virtually interest-free, to provinces, municipalities, Crown corporations and local public authorities for infrastructure projects. The increased economic activity and the improved access to resources and markets generated the revenue to repay the loans.
Once the policy of GCM for public works has been again demonstrated to be effective, all arguments against the expansion of that policy into financing other government works -- R&D, capital projects for education and hospitals, etc. -- will disappear. We think this gradualist approach will be more palatable, and less disruptive of the economy. But an immediate goal, after the Infrastructure Program is under way, should be to bring the BoC to at least 50% GCM within five years.
Ron Gray
| permalink
Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 05:40 PM - Electoral Reform
STRATEGIC VOTING,
DEMOCRACY'S TACTICAL DEFEAT
by Randy Hillier
Thousands of years ago the ancient Greeks developed a simple and practical form of self-government and created democracy. However unlike today, the ancient Greeks did not have to contend with partisan political parties, backroom boys and media spin-doctors, strategic voting, and televised debates. Canadian elections are as far removed from this simple and practical democratic process, as we are from the ancient Greeks.
The objective of elections are to debate opinions, policies, and discuss principles; and to elect representatives that have principles and policies which best represent the majority's views. The recent Ontario election is evidence people no longer fully comprehend the objectives of democratic elections. The objective has become corrupt and no longer achieves the ends it was created to meet. People now believe winning an election is the prime objective; good governance and representative candidates are merely secondary thoughts or the means to win.
The objective of voting is to choose the person to best represent your principles and ethics, within parliament. The choice is to evaluate and determine which candidate has the best leadership skills, and who will listen to your concerns and vigorously defend them, and which policy platform coincides with your priorities. Canadians have one vote and it is reserved for the candidate who best represents their views. There should be nothing strategic, complicated, or confusing in this election process.
However, many Canadians believe there is more to this simple task, that we must forget who is best and strategically vote against who we don't want elected. That we should cast our ballot for whichever party we expect to win – not who's best.
Lost votes
Fringe parties illustrate this strategic and modern, but faulty thinking. Many Canadians believe voting for a fringe party is a "lost vote," because fringe parties will not win. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact votes are lost when they're cast for people other than your first choice. It is evident that strategic votes don't represent the electors' views. A spoiled ballot is more valuable than a strategic vote, because it's truthful and states: no candidate represents my views. Strategic votes cast for second choice candidates are lost, as they reward candidates you do not value. There is another consequence of strategic voting; electing second-rate candidates from "mainstream" parties lowers democracy's overall standard and the quality of elected politicians.
There are further consequences hidden from our view as strategic voting and winning replaces the objective of representation. When people deny their first choice of a fringe party (like the Green, Freedom or Family Coalition parties here in Ontario) and choose an alternate, the perception arises that there are few people who share the principles and values of the fringe. In reality, there are far greater numbers of people who share these values and policy platforms, but strategically choose someone else – who will win. This corruption of choice insures fringe parties never become mainstream and democratic choice is limited to two or three "main parties." It further provides mainstream parties with a false sense that their policies' are acceptable to the majority.
In Canada approximately forty percent of voters choose not to vote. Many people cannot find a party that represents their principles, but also have a chance of winning. These disenfranchised stay at home on election day and are never represented; they in affect create their own destiny of unrepresentative governments.
Democracy is not a horse race or a game of roulette where placing a bet on a winner is the payoff. Democracy's payoff is found with quality representation, and with governments that represent people's principles, values and ideals. Democracy's wheel spins easily on an axle of freedom, which must be oiled with the individuals best "choice." Strategic voting creates a playing field where parties with money, candidates with name recognition, and those who are perceived to win, will always win; and it assures quality is subtracted from the odds of winning.
In our efforts to pick a winner, we defeat the very purpose and objective we expect of democratic governments, and we deprive ourselves of the tactical advantage of a quality democracy.
The old adage "We get the government we deserve," is tried and true in Canada. We have strategically downgraded our democracy, and the results are obvious: strategic voting insures Canadians are always "led by lesser men."
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/031108-3.htm
| permalink
Thursday, October 2, 2008, 11:12 AM - Economy
It's time to plan for our future rather than allowing the government to spend our retirement and Employment Insurance money purchasing today's votes!
A Personal Income Security Account would provide a portable investment portfolio, vested in the name of each worker, for health, employment and retirement income. This plan was proposed for Canada in 1980 by a Christian politician, Dr. Robert N. Thomson. It was rejected by Parliament, but a few years later it was adopted by Chile. Chilean workers at that time were given the option of continuing on the tax-funded pension plan , or going on the new investment plan. Those who chose the investment plan are now retiring wealthy -- and Chile has become an economic powerhouse in Latin America because of the pools of investment created.
How will this plan work?
Beginning with an individual’s first job, they and their employer would contribute to the plan as a source deduction, just as we do now with CPP and EI, and in Ontario, the Health fund.
Beginning with one’s first job, 10% of an individual’s income would begin to accumulate in their account. Five percent contributed by the employee and 5% by the employer.
In the event of some unforeseen circumstance like unemployment or illness, the individual would be allowed to withdraw up to 15% per year of what had accrued in the account. After that, government assistance would meet the needs of any individual or family.
The account would never be completely depleted, but would continue to grow.
Welfare, disability and healthcare would continue to be government programs. We will always have what we may call “the deserving poor”, and we must care for them with the utmost compassion.
It is no secret that in Canada we also have serious abuse of our social systems. The undeserving poor, those who would choose to abuse the system and thereby the taxpayer, will be motivated—for example, in the case of unemployment—to find new employment quickly so as to use as little as possible of the allowable 15% of their account. As a party we believe very strongly in individual responsibility and accountability; but not disproportionately to compassion.
This policy would inculcate an ethic of individual responsibility in the majority of people, reduce payouts as a result, and therefore allow us to care of the truly unfortunate much better.
The experience in Chile has been an overwhelming success, and voters would do well to seriously consider the CHP’s better solution for the looming CPP crisis.
| permalink
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 01:43 AM - Economy
Our plan to repay the national debt in 25 years is also important to the people of York Simcoe because our debt takes $6,000 from each family’s pocket every year to maintain.
The CHP would repay our national debt in the same way a homeowner pays down their mortgage. Our debt is approx. $600 billion. Our present federal plan is to pay $3 billion per year which would take us about 125 years to repay. We have mortgaged our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. This is stealing from them! Our historic heritage has been to provide for our children not leave them indentured.
Using the same money that other parties are using to buy your vote, we would apply $4 billion dollars a month… every month… on the national debt. This would leave our children federally debt free in 25-30 years depending on the interest rates.
How much brighter future would your children have, if they didn’t have to carry the debt burden, which we created, through their entire adult lives?
The CHP is looking out for future Canadians rather than sabotaging their future. Better solutions do begin at the Christian Heritage Party.
| permalink
Back Next
