Could Canada be headed for sky-high inflation?

Could Canada be headed for sky-high inflation?
Updated Sat. Sep. 19 2009 7:11 AM ET
By Angela Mulholland, CTV.ca News Staff
CTV.ca presents the last in a six-part series on Canada's economy: the damage done, the recovery that lies ahead -- and whether we might climb out of the financial crisis even stronger.


GOOD QUESTION, Ms Mulholland!
Her piece offers incomplete, light-weight analysis, but a key and vital point IS raised:

"So are deficits in and of themselves wrong? Not at all. As the old adage goes: sometimes you gotta spend money to make money. This is not the first time governments have tried to spend themselves out of a recession. The problem lies in how that spending is financed."

But although the point is raised .. no answer is offered - how ARE these Billions financed?

Let's try ...

NB they did NOT raise the money backed by an equal amount of Bonds. The Bank Of Canada just "created the money" out of nothing (as IS their mandate) with the understanding that a the sovereign government of the country (see why sovereignty is important) would be responsible for withdrawing the money from the economy as seamlessly and effortlessly as they created it.

We loaned it to ourselves -at no interest- and will pay ourselves back .... or that's the theory.

We secured the loan with .... the assets of the country which are ACTUALLY the assets of the Crown ... which is .... actually not too clear in Canada.

All the mucking around in 1982 really never address who/what IS or IS NOT the Crown.

Is 'the Crown' that nice lady currently holding the Office of Monarch over 'home?

Does Sovereignty reside in the OFFICE of Monarch?

In the OFFICE of Governor General? Prime Minister? Speaker? .... well where then does Sovereignty lie?

If the best answer is "in the Office of Monarch" .... then WHO/WHAT is the top "steward" of that power, those assets (and liabilities) and treasury ?

The BNA/Constitution says one thing (i.e. de jure the top steward is the GovGen with assistance of His/Her appointed, permanent , above-the-political-fray EXECUTIVE advisors ... the Privy Council)

and -sadly for those who prefer to follow the laws of the land- in reality, the de facto top steward of the Crown's power, assets and treasury is the transitory, oft-in-minority, all-political, favour-granting, LEGISLATIVE, Prime Minister's Office (having usurped the power of the Privy Council in 1940 with Order in Council PC 1940-1121 as preventive-revenge for the rightful exercise of GG power in the King/Byng thing of 1926)

So whether you think having a Crown is important or not ... don't you think it's important to have checks and balances on the "top steward" of the Power/Assets/Treasury?

Should one, elected-by fooling-37.5% to 44% of-the-people, by-design-transitory, oft-in-minority , preferring-to-REMAIN-PM-rather-than-not, INDIVIDUAL hold control over all that power? with NO oversight? with no countermand?

SURELY, this is not the system that was devised in 1867?

NO it's not.

If you don't belive me - read just the first 16 sections (add 17 to s.57 if you're bold) of the as-written Document! (my plain language version if you prefer) and start thinking about the simplest way to reinstate the as-written provisions of the highest law in the land!

OR ... do you prefer someone with unlimited power being allowed to NOT FOLLOW the BNA/Constitution indefinately ...

"Walk a KB or 2 in my Mocassins" blog is about this thought-process.

There are 2 answers
1) Elect the Governor General - at large, every other General election, for a term that starts 365 days after the return of the writs and lasts for 2 General Elections

or

2) Institute a convention that no bill will be given Royal Assent by the Governor General unless it passes the House with 2/3rds majority AND the Senate with 2/3rds majority.

No one person or party will ever control 2/3 of both Houses, thereby making EVERY M.P. & EVERY Senator's vote vital.