Social Justice

Corporations were conceived to provide limited liability for venture capitalists to invest in large high risk financial ventures. That is an interesting fact, a law designed to protect investors. Grand in concept, but look what we have done to it. The same thing applies to the banking industry, another grand concept, but look what we have done with it. What predates both things is government, where both things were legislated into reality. Our entire society now revolves around governments , business, and banks. These are the pillars for the foundation of our society, and all social designs, programs and services are structured around them. The salient point is that we have designed our way into a corner......things are the way they are. Taxes were created by governments to fund their operations, and income tax was created by government to pay government debt. While some may not see income tax as a problem, I do. Income tax discriminates against living citizens, who suffer from a withholding tax, and are denied the opportunity to invest levied taxes. Those funds withheld are a true reduction in disposable income, which by any definition is an impediment to any consumer spending index. In my view income taxes are regressive in economic terms. I believe income tax to be an issue.

That is not to say it can't be done though. In fact it has, burns much cleaner than gas and it a fraction of the cost. Like propane conversions you do lose some mileage.

Government all around the world is the same, and it is the very root of the paradigm confronting people today. The reality for government is not the reality for an actual person. Man created government, not government created man. Government is a thing given legal standing by man. This non living thing has been legislated to be treated under the law of the land in the same way a living person is. The same is true for corporations, they are given the legal status of a living citizen. They have all of the legal rights as any other living citizen. The relevance of this is that it is a fundamental precept upon which the rest of society has been based upon. It is flawed, it is a paradigm. Debt was not created by banks, I spoke figuratively. Yet since the creation of the modern banking system, governments have been in debt to banks. Commonly accepted public perception is that governments control their money supply through the issue of fiat currencies. If that is true then they should never have gone into debt in the first place because they could simply issue currency as they needed it. Since governments are in debt, they never were in control of the money supply, the money supply controls them. It is a paradigm. Taxation has numerous names all designed to create a revenue stream to fund the operations of government. While it is true that no money is actually removed from circulation in the process of taxation, the manner in which the government treats living and non living citizens is completely different. A withholding tax is applied to living citizens, not legal citizens and in a very real sense a living citizen has a personal loss of their own money supply whereas a legal citizen does not. It is a paradigm. The entire debate surrounding the current debt problems will lead to reforms in the central banking systems already in place. Those systems are in dire need of change five decades after leaving the gold standard. Today less than 10 percent of the entire money supply worldwide was created as hard currency, more than 90 percent was created as interest bearing debt. Currency is issued and regulated by governments and debt is issued by and regulated by private interest banks. The practical applications of the legislative efforts has created a system that leaves the governments responsible for the money supply without control of it. It is a paradigm.

As I understand the current constitution 7 provinces with 50% are required to agree with Parliament before any changes could be made. There are another ten governments who each have to approve the process at the provincial level. Given that the process is long and fraught with political impact, I would suggest the best course of action to be that of public mandate and referendum. Both Federal and Provincial governments should be compelled to use the next available First Ministers conference to formulate an aggressive mandate for constitutional reform. Since this process opens the constitution, all provinces can bring any matter regarding that constitution to the table at that time to be examined and abridged as required. In other words it opens the entire constitution. This would rapidly degenerate into constitutional debates further slowing the process. To that end I suggest a proposal to be put forward that would open the document for the specific purpose of Senate Reform. The proposal should merely indicate the desire of the House of Commons to approach the Provinces with a request for cooperation to reform the Senate. A single simple vote at a first Ministers conference will determine the outcome. With the consent of any seven Provinces with fifty percent of the population, work can go forward to create the desired changes, without that consent the attempt at reform will change. Legislation can then be written in the House of Commons to be ratified by each Provincial Legislature. Each provincial body could utilize a referendum to determine the question and then use Provincial Legislatures to adopt the majority will of their citizens as their vote. If there is will to change, then it can be done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/08/14/business-eurozone-recession-ends.html It seems that the politicians and bankers believe that the worst is over in the EU. With two countries suffering from unemployment rates in excess of 25% and only two countries in positive growth European leadership seems strangely upbeat about their position.

The real question id one of personal rights, but the public wont go there........not with smokes and booze being the current problems that they are. They wont go the route of prohibition again because it didn't work the first time. The public will buy into a debt reduction scheme based on use of sin taxes. It comes down to reducing judicial expense while increasing government revenues.

I believe that emergency services are not paid well enough. They offer their lives in service to citizens and they deserve more than merely good pay. These jobs save lives, period. Nothing being more precious than our lives, that said they are worth it.

The whole mess needs urgent attention. Harper is likely not the guy who can pull it off.

The reason that weed will get legalized is that government needs to reduce expenses and raise revenues, that is the long and short of it. It is mentally not physically addictive, and has attracted many citizens to its effects. The public no longer views consumption as as much of a problem as it was and it has become more socially acceptable,

I am not at all positive that fracking represents the end to conventional oil. Natural gas does not provide all the products that oil does. In addition don't forget methane ice on the shelf, a virtually limitless supply of natural gas for domestic consumption and export. There are lots of alternatives to oil, but none as economically viable. Both the EU and America have long and difficult paths to follow as the Chinese become the worlds largest market and worlds largest exporter; As this takes place Chinese dependence on foreign supplies will limit their growth and consume available supply causing a rise in price. Fracking growth will continue but will never cause the downfall of conventional oil.

Pot represents the biggest revenue windfall the government has seen since the creation of income tax.

The Senate could be used as it is in the United States. There it is used to protect the rights of each State in the union. It is a means of off setting representation by population with representation by region, it works well for them in the manner they designed it to. To do that here would be difficult, yet not impossible.

i see this debate has evolved I am compelled to respond, Let me begin by stating that before there were banks there was no debt. The original bank, Bank of England, lent money to the Crown on request and to this day the Government of England has owed the Bank of England a great deal of money that it has yet to repay. A great deal of time and a great deal of paid interest has been allocated to this debt. Fast forward to today and the entire system of government is buried in debt world wide. Debt is a very real issue, it has been since its inception and society has been conditioned to tax and spend their little hearts out. Each calculated tax dollar is removed from circulation in principle. That is a big deal, a very big deal. Removing currency from circulation translates into a a shrinkage of the money supply which by definition creations inflationary pressure. That form of pressure once exerted has been historically proven to be detrimental in its impact to income tax rates. Each rise to the consumer price index combined with a corresponding rise to taxation rates creates steps of disposable income reductions that are not recoverable from anywhere but the upper class. In very real terms the vast majority of the public are detrimentally impacted through this process. The bottom line to the majority of the public is very simply disposable income. Rising debt levels create increasing taxation which reduces disposable income and detracts from consumer spending. One way of describing the problem is to clearly state that we are taxing ourselves into debt. You can run an army of economists, lead by a heard of accountants to use a veritable plethora of media to prove how well the system works. It does work if you are the bank, most of us are not the bank. The system does not work, unless you are just reading numbers. In the real world a family does not last long borrowing more than it earns, but in the unreal world of the international monetary and financial systems, it does. The burden of debt repayment is not important to the government because the government is not a real person. A real person suffers consequences for their actions but governments do not. The reality of national debt is that it is an impediment to rises in the national standard of living. In my mind the role of government is to lead the population in an effort to raise the standard of living not detract from it. Any citizen raising a family can attest to the fact that increased taxation is a very bad idea. I find it strange that anyone would actually support the concept of government removing even more money from their pockets, but I guess they are the ones that can afford it. Let me finish my response with this thought; We are taxing our way into poverty because we can. We are indeed that stupid.

Well said! My poor attempt at humour has been exposed. I apologize for the incident. I should have said that collectively the opposition does not have the political ability to sustain a motion of non-confidence. I should not have suggested they were not smart enough to figure out how to do it on their own.

I must disagree, I think you are in error. Take the Alberta oil sands for an example, strange but true.....the oil sands vary in depth below the surface across the map. That right, from the Rockies to Saskatchewan..and beyond in fact. The land above it is contaminated and not suitable for habitation in many places. The contaminated soil leaches out to effect ground water tables, this is a natural state in Alberta. The process of extraction while entirely dirty from start to finish in most peoples minds in fact actually clean up the mess as they produce the extracted material. The largest waste product of with the greatest volume is clean sand, go figure. There is an enormous amount of energy and water that are used to extract the products from the raw material, which of course both of which have adverse environmental effects on their own. That said, the environment is cleaned up through the open pit mining process, you get what you pay for in simple terms. The real down side of oil sand development is the intensive use of water, which in the extraction process itself becomes contaminated. Fortunately all oil sand leases contain land recovery plans, which are unfortunately not properly enforced. Alberta is unique in that one respect of oil sand development.

I have read much theory posted here. From my perspective there is only one way to pay off the national debt. That would involve actually handing over money to the people that we borrowed from. There is no magic wand, even in bankruptcy the debt gets paid. There have been some folks suggesting we not pay our debts, that is folly and fraught with disaster. Why not simply approach the lenders and negotiate a resolution to the problem by proposing a compensation package in lieu of taxation. Provide a viable return on the investment for the banker over short term and watch them leap at the opportunity. A vast majority of our public debt is held internally and this option is available. External debt must be repaid as per contract. This is a simple math exercise, its not rocket science.

I doubt those numbers because they were produced by the group avoiding answering the question. Those were government numbers, being what they are I expect them to reflect their position, don't you? Stats are very simple things, you design a question to fit the answer you want, the government has a very talented propaganda corps. Economic common sense does not lead a person to believe that the most powerful military industrial complex in the world does not function on a for profit basis. That said, Canada getting more out of the project than it puts in is a blatant misrepresentation of fact. Only a fool would believe that Canada will make money out of this deal. That same fool would believe we will somehow break even, but they are fools. The price per delivered flying aircraft is the question, not whether or not Fred Barney or Joe believes it is worth it or not. What matters is how much it will cost the tax payer and how such a fleecing will occur. It is not a question of if but when we have to begin to pay for this program. The tax payers deserve to know the details of the program, that means costing it out. To do that we must know what each flying aircraft will cost to purchase, cost to fly, and cost to maintain over its planned lifespan. The reality is that this program will cost a great deal of money over many years. It (the costs) was misrepresented from the beginning and that is a fact. That cannot be changed, yet the replacement program is a requirement of national defense, and as such it will take place. Logically the only viable question about the program then becomes completing it as quickly as possible at the lowest net cost to the tax payer. How that actually takes place is the real issue, regardless of the aircraft of choice. Value per dollar invested is the only true benchmark for the tax payer. The government cannot be accused of stretching out the process, the manufacturer has encountered delivery issues, and more to the point relatively limited investment has to date been the extent of the risk. Having said that, delivery dates become relevant factoring in inflationary considerations. From a purely economic stand point, the longer it takes the more expensive it will become. We can pretend otherwise, but historically speaking development is neither cost nor time sensitive, it is to say the least unpredictable. With that in mind I suggested that in my original posting which would have required the reader to accept the premise that we would have been further ahead to have taken something off the shelf instead of getting involved with the developmental process. There are many airframes and may choices available to fill our needs. The word needs is the crux of the problem in my view. That is because this nation has undefined goals and objectives and can therefore not determine which direction it should be undertaking. By this I mean before we decide that we replace the equipment we have . we must define what equipment we need on a priority basis. In this specific case we have decided we need to replace the F-18, a multi-role attack aircraft chosen for operation in our climate with an aircraft designed for compatibility with nations we are allied with. Sound reasoning if you are preparing for a war of attrition where munitions and supplies are produced for instant use in a military situation, That is not the case in reality, the use of this equipment is more likely to be a very short engagement with limited use of rearm on any kind of sustained basis. Thus the current theory that we would be using forward secure bases of operations in countries we are allied with. In the entire length of service of the F-18 it has seen active service once. The aircraft it replaced never did fire a shot in anger. That is a historic reality, this is not a nation that uses military force in anything but a rare instance. Resupply with allied forces is a very bad reason to choose any airframe. Our own operational requirements should take precedence over allied concerns. So the essence of my doubt in the governments response and their numbers is based on what I believe to be their flawed approach to national defense. In my view, the defense of the nation has a greater priority than our ability to project force. For that reason alone I believe the government is undertaking a flawed procurrerment policy . If the nation is to be undertaking the development of an aircraft then it should be built in Canada, if the nation is to be buying an aircraft then it buys an aircraft. We did not learn enough from the failed Arrow program I guess for some. Developing aircraft is not our gig. We are really good at doing it, we just suck at selling the damned things. Its an expensive lesson we need to review. There are off the shelf alternatives that are being flown from factories as we speak, we can choose that option. It will be cheaper than sticking with this pre-production hanger queen.

The next government of Alberta needs to begin to set things right for the people of Alberta. Investment in Alberta is such a big deal that the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund needs to be resurrected to deal with the issue. Between the financial arm of the provincial government, ATB Financial and the AHTF the means are available to invest in Alberta in the name of the people with the money of the people for the benefit of the people. Alberta has no debt and it owns its own bank. What else could any citizen ever want more for their province? We have it all, but we don't use it and that is a disgrace.

There is no public debt on the books in Alberta. Call it creative accounting, we have and do run a deficit budget but acquire no debt in so doing. That is not to say much for the government. Just the reality.

So the numbers say the Canadian tax payer spent 400 million and Canadian companies made 450 million dollars. Interesting, somehow I seriously doubt those numbers. I find it odd that between the tax payers and the companies in Canada we somehow managed to get the companies in the United States pay us 50 million dollars to buy their airplanes.......really? Who knew that we would benefit that much from this program that has not yet even been approved by the Government of Canada. These guys are a lot smarter than I thought. The new price or the old price doesn't really matter other than to provide a fixed number for budget purposes. It seems that that particular number is hard to find, strange but true. If the price of the F-35 is supposed to be 100 million dollars without an engine....I believe that the next question should be a little more than merely obvious. How much does an actual flying aircraft cost? That was the question two decades ago when the program was getting off the ground and it is the same question today. The reality is that we never were buying an aircraft, we have been from the start financing the development of the aircraft. We need to admit our first mistake was in investing in development instead of purchasing a product. We did this when we built the Arrow, then we did it behind the backs of the public with the F35.

That is what our system is all about.......We have a government of a majority and an opposition of the minority. The time and energy spent on the issue is manifested in reality. The election can come under the current system every time the House sits as per the rules. Fixed election dates are a mere dream and at this point a milestone for the Harper government. The only way forward for Harper is through an election that he can only lose. Between now and 2015 an election at Harper choice is a flip flop of great proportion, not a sound platform to say the least. The opposition has no means available until the next election without more cranial fortitude than they are collectively capable of.

Pot is not legal, but it is here. It isn't going anywhere and it is a multi-billion dollar industry that costs tax payers more every year. It represents a source of tax revenue that is as of this moment untouched by the government. Think of that for a minute, the government would rather tax the crap out of you to do something that has never been done and can never be done instead of making money to pay its expenses. Nice........

I am confused with this debate....84 pages of it. It seems we have spent money on this plane already, I think citizens should have a number to consider of how much we have spent on this effort to replace the F-18 to date. It is relevant in deciding what to do next, costing an alternative is a requirement, and it represents a portion of the total expense of the project. Keeping in mind the total value of the project needs to be viewed as money exported out of the country in exchange for the products we choose to buy. That is a reality we need to consider. To prove that point we are now discussing buying an aircraft for use in the RCAF that costs 100 million dollars and an engine to use it is not included in the price. The entertaining thing about this is that it is supposed to be a serious debate. In other words back to square one, we don't really know how much this plane is going to cost the tax payer. Our government wants us to buy it anyway, I will suggest the question be answered by means of public mandate.

Both the government and the petrochemical industry are at odds with a significant demographic of the public. The reality is that industrial development has evolved our international culture into an energy dependent society. The quest continues to fuel economic engines that sustain this society at environmental expense. Energy production is one of few functional sources of wealth creation with sustained demand, therefore the historical development is understood to have been robust. Extraction, refinement and transportation of natural resources are defined as nation building efforts of massive scale. Canada is a resource rich nation whose development to date has been largely based on primary industry, with the single exception of the auto industry. The development of a functional delivery system for value added secondary industrial output based on domestic resources is relevant in economic terms for future development. The nation can produce and export raw energy at the same time as it consumes the energy to produce value added products for both domestic and export consumption. In my view, pipelines, ports, rail yards, and road terminals are all integrated portions of our current infrastructure that are not currently perceived to be as much as a functional energy grid as that of the electrical generation industry. There exists at this moment a vast network of industries involved in the production and delivery of energy that operate without functional organizational efficiency. This energy network is continent wide and operates outside of direct political control, virtual corporate governance competes with political authority, well hidden from public view. To suggest that development will stop in folly. The pipeline is a delivery system required for our energy grid infrastructure and it will be upgraded and expanded without doubt. When that delivery system fails, the companies will be liable and that is a fact. Would it not make sense to legislate penalties for failure instead of legislating to prevent opportunities? People need to understand that in order to protect the environment we need to prosecute environmental crimes, Development should be a good thing, not a bad thing. Society should move forward, not backward. Its as simple cleaning things up as we go. Leaving a mess behind is not an option, just like not moving forward is not an option. Pipelines leak, Pipe casings crack Boats sink Trains derail If its made by man it breaks, that is a fact. We need to understand that fact very well and understand the consequences of that reality. There will be accidents there is no doubt about it. Liability and individual rights are where the legal matters appear, and therefore where the government should plan to meet these issues. I believe that government should take the high ground and place individual right above corporate profit. To do less for its own citizens is to act against them.