Six Crises

I find that Five US Crises have led to immediate political and social change and sometimes for generations and one could do so as well.

1860-1 - the coming Civil War, which led to Lincoln being elected, Abolition and over 50 years of political dominance for the fledgling GOP.

1930-32 - the Great Depression, which led to a Democratic White House for 20 straight years and control of Congress for all but 8 years until 1980 and 1994 and the New Deal and the Great Society entitlements.

1973-1980 - The Great American Malaise, which led to the Reagan Revolution, the Gingrich Common Sense Revolution, Welfare Reform, the end of the Cold War and GOP control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and for all but 6 of the past 26 years.

2001 - 911, which led to midterm success for a "minority" president, the War on Terror and the long and costly Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2008 - the Financial Meltdown, which led to Obama. the doubling of the National Debt, the slowest economic recovery in history, Obamacare and the Tea Party movement.

2020 - the COVID Crisis...which will lead to...? We will soon find out whether Americans think the real crisis is that they are not safe enough or that they are not free enough. The only questions then will become who benefits from that choice and for how long. What's a little disturbing is that, if you include the Deep State phenomenon, which emerged in all its ugliness, tyranny, politicization and illegality with Trump's campaign and presidency (but also figured in the Benghazi, IRS and other scandals of the Obama admin.) as a Crisis, too, four out of seven of these Crises have occurred in the past 19 years alone. Unsettling, indeed.

The Most Boring Name in the World

The Confederation of Canada and Confederation Day - An Argument for a new Official Name for Canada and Canada's Day

The most imaginatively boring name in the World has to be the official name that our Government decided some time ago to give itself and thus ourselves for the Public and the World to know us by - "The Government of Canada". It is a truism first to point out that every civilized nation in the World could call itself,"The Government of..." just as they could call themselves "The State of" or the "Nation of" or "The Country of". And, of course, they do not. Think People's Republic (however misleading) or Republic or Democratic Republic or Kingdom or Duchy or Commonwealth. Our official name is worse than a cliche and a dull oner indeed as it can apply to all and is thus meaningless as a way to tell people about us.

The former style,"The Dominion of Canada", which used to be on all ads, official documents. postage stamps, coins, stationery and other official finery like embassy signs or UN place cards and of course was the name of our National Holiday, was first partially removed in the 1950's and, after some thirty years, finally completely expunged, Canada Day taking over in the late 50's and the bureaucratic name referred to above starting its reign by the 90's (with the ubiquitous little Canadian flag attendant).

Why did this happen? After all, the Dominion name referred to exactly what happened on July 1, 1867: an Act of Parliament called the British North American Act and now called the Canada or Constitution Act as of the repatriation of our founding document in 1982 made us a "Dominion". That is, we were granted Dominion status and thus were autonomous or self-governing in all fields save Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Supreme Court. We were still a Dominion when the latter fields were granted to us by the Statute of Westminster in 1932 and by the Supreme Court Act in 1949 only more so. The process was completed with the coming of the repatriation but we were still a "Dominion" through it all. What changed?

In a word, our supposedly newfound Bicultural sensitivity to "the French Fact". But perhaps, this is a too neat and an unfair statement. By the postwar, not just the French Canadian population, but many English and other Canadians found the reference to "Dominion" to be either or both offensive and irrelevant to the modern Canadian experience. It was thought by the fashionable to be an artifact of a British Imperial relationship that was increasingly unconnected to Canada's true destiny and geopolitical position after World War 2. This was emphasized by Britain's decline and America's rise as the Superpower of the West. Further, many believed it was a reminder of hardship and oppression done by Britain to not only French Canada but our Natives and thus "disrespectful" to them. (Certainly, little thought seems to have been given to the fact that this "dominion", however hard to swallow, was also a reference to the fact that our Head of State was and still is the British monarch)

However, as Senator Eugene Forsey, renowned Constitutional expert, pointed out, if that were true, than how was one of the Founding Nations of Canada, the English, also "respected" by eliminating the name altogether? Further, of course, there was no more sensate discussion of how to replace it except by the awkward and uncreative expedients of the name,"Canada Day" and "The Government of Canada". No one, in any of these battles and debates over nomenclature,  seems to have come forward with a fair, respectful and vivid alternative that would be both elegant and at the same time accurately instruct all, whether young children conscious for the first time of their country, new Canadians or foreigners and other states about what we really are and where we came from.

Also missing was an alternative that could both inspire and unify all Canadians and that could not possibly offend any type of Canadian and reinforce them as well. That alternative  is obviously close at hand. We should refer to ourselves as "The Confederation of Canada" and call our national holiday,"Confederation Day". After all, other than the granting of Dominion status by the UK, which is now a dead letter, the other thing that happened that day was that we became a confederation of former colonies of Britain, now styled as "provinces", set upon governing themselves with a central federal government.

 That latter fact is as vital and real today as it was then if not more. For example, thanks to the political, legal and even constitutional evolution of Canada, we are now more of a Confederation in practice as well as in name than ever. Our provinces are more politically independent and powerful in a true federalism than, say, American states. Even Quebec nationalists and Western malcontents can agree that the new name would be a pleasant, gentle and timely reminder that it is the peoples of the provinces that made Canada of their own free will not a monarch and that the Federal Government is the property of all Canadians not just some Ottawa bureaucrats.

How evocative and exciting and also beautiful and historical would be this title and name compared to the plain brown paper bag wrapping of "the government of" or "Canada". The US do not call their day, "USA" day. The French do not call theirs "France" day. Similarly, yes, Australia calls their day by the country, but its formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. So much more poetic, is it not? How much more instructive a memento annually to us of what we founded on July 1 than simply calling it by a name on the map. All the bunting and decoration of our national day festivities could be the same. The cost of changing stationery, philately and numismatics with a reasonable grandfathering attrition of the old stock (much like when a new monarch ascends) should be reduced to rather simple design changes and thus be quite modest.

When this is done, we will all have an official country name to be proud of and which will help us to teach our children, new fellow citizens, the World and maybe even ourselves a thing or two about how we came to be and in what form. A not so shabby but a momentous and simple way to reaffirm and recall our glorious past, celebrate our successful present and herald an even better future while truly bringing us together every July 1.

Public Health Care Redux

What the Canadian people saw for the first time last week in the infamous BCCA Day decision was the FINE PRINT of Canadian Public Health Care. Imagine if any Canadian politician spelled it out quite that way in a campaign: "We will provide you with the Health Care you need to live in return for your tax dollars UNLESS we can deprive you of it 'in accordance with the Principles of Fundamental Justice'". Their career would be at an end. Oh, and don't forget about the beautiful National Unity angle involved in this sage verdict -

"Not Applicable in the Province of Quebec and every other civilized jurisdiction in the World." Remember, when they tell you that preserving our single-provider Health Care System is all about preventing the advent of a "two tier" system, just say,"It's already here thanks to the Day Case!" (unless our equally politicized, elite govt-suckling and left wing supreme court somehow sees the intellectual irony of it all and, before killing themselves from their own confusion, rule in favour of the Plaintiffs)

For, the BC Appeals decision would make sense if we were allowed to do what every other country in the World allows its people to do - buy health insurance. Then the Court could have plausibly said that at least one principle of fundamental justice in real life - that you should pay the piper if you called the tune of leaving yourself uninsured and relied on the promise of free public health care to be fulfilled - can be used to deprive you of compensation or specific performance to restore your life, liberty and security of the person rights. But of course the private insurance option has been foreclosed to Canadians BY LAW for almost 40 years and so...Until that changes, Governments throughout Canada MUST pay, one way or the other, for the promise of giving you the health care you need NOW!

If the SCC upholds this execrable decision, then it will become apparent that the Weimar Republic wheeze, that was supposed to pass as a "Bill of Rights" for HUMANS and not Governments, in 1982, is a pointless load of drivel that was designed to protect our rights only at the convenience of Government of the State, for the State and by the State. We will have declared our full independence from Britain only to become slaves to and dependent on our own governments'  caprice.

Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité From Sea to Sea!

This is how the appeal of the Day Health Care Case should be argued before the SCC:

You should not have to be Rich to get the Health Care you need to preserve your Life, Liberty and Security of the Person in Accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Justice.

Let's break this down. First, we list just what are the Principles of Fundamental Justice. Among These are Equity (fairness!), Contract, Equality and Due Process.

It is patently unfair, inequitous, inequable and inequitable to deny a person the right to get the health care they need, when it was promised by law and one was denied the option of insuring oneself UNLESS one (like the judges who made the decision last week) is wealthy and/or well-connected and/or of a high social status and education.

It is contrary to any principle of contract law and a fundamental breach of contract to exact taxes from the citizen in return for delivering a health care system that will provide for your health care needs and fail to do it. Damages or compensation needs to be paid as a result,, in this case, money to seek private care. Worse, again, all provinces have made it illegal for someone to get Health Care Insurance for listed OHIP services reinforcing the breach and inequity of the circumstances and, of course, leaving only the Rich the chance to rectify this injustice for themselves.

It is versus not only the Section 7 provision but arguably also the section 15 (disability) Equality provisions of the Charter to deprive someone of their Section 7 rights due to social or economic status or conditions. (And, remember, Section 15 does not limit itself only to the headings of inequality that appear in the provision)

It is arguably against the Section 12 provision guaranteeing that you are not to be subjected to Cruel and Unusual TREATMENT or Punishment to deny someone the health care they need due to social or economic status or conditions.

It is against the general principles of Due Process, usually applied to those in the criminal justice system but also used in the civil system (e.g.: discovery) for a person to be deprived of their Section 7 rights due to social or economic status or conditions - Justice in Health Care Delayed is Literally Health Care Denied!

For all these reasons, I believe the Day Legal Team can amply prove that, by definition, Section 7 rights are being denied to the patient-plaintiffs and not in accordance with several of the most important "Principles of Fundamental Justice" that we all readily recognize, that are the bedrock of our Rule of Law (not to mention a Law School Syllabus) and that we all hold dear.

Above all, it is more than a blank, legal technicality but an excruciating obscenity for the very individuals who benefit from this iniquitous system to claim that those less fortunate than them should put up with this because of their pretzel-like legalisms. What is obviously a case of one set of members of the Elite (judges and lawyers) giving another set of the Elite (bureaucrats and politicians) cover for their breach of their express social contract with their constituents, many of them the most vulnerable and distressed in society, is only made more searingly shocking by the fact that these Elites are precisely the people who have the least to fear from the Grim Reaper of Public Health Care. Above all, this decision is meant to bail out the governments from paying for the health care promised ostensibly via legal "justice".But, I have the oddest feeling that, if this Home Truth was brought home to the Santa Clauses on the Rideau in argument, they would surely lose the case and be disqualified for being way too honest.

I find it bitterly ironic that I am using in some ways a Marxist classist analysis to achieve a conservative goal that I have sought all of my life, but the ones who erected the Marxist system that has brought all of this on can lie in the hospital bed they made!

Paradox 2

There is another paradox we find with trade today - as we get fatter and more comfortable from the goods and services we enjoy practically tariff-free, we get more tolerant of the tariffs that remain even when they obviously make the item more expensive. The perfect example is dairy. Most of us are not dependent on the price of food precisely because of the Free Trade World we live in.

 We are more prosperous than ever and get more goods and services than ever often at no tariff because they literally aren't covered by the obsolete "Tariff rate schedules" that used to be so encyclopedic (e.g.: computers and cellphones). It seems a small price to pay to have dairy or poultry be more dear than  it should when your main budget problem is whether you can go to Disney World this year (where you will blissfully consume BGH dairy!). Patriotism and ferocious lobbying of our "statesmen" does the rest.

 Thus, the more benefit from free trade, the more likely we are to tolerate marginal protectionism. It's not fair or right, especially to those of us who live from one grocery bill to the next, but it explains (along with shall we say "low information" habits) why there appears to be absolutely no real political constituency to fight this even in the urban areas where you would think it would  be a natural cause (witness the absurd Lewis memo). What happened to Bernier certainly is used pour encourager les autres on the issue! Can a constituency be created and rallied to fight this? Of course. But it will need leadership and heft and I do not know where it will come from in a country where one of the reasons we ignore the issue is free trade has already made us too comfortable to worry.

That is why a more global approach is needed. The Supply Management system must be held up as just one of the many reasons we are not as prosperous as we should be. We are earning less than African Americans and as much as West Virginians. We are at least 33% behind the purchasing power of Ireland and the US. To get at and root out the last vestiges of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers like the Milk Laws (my favourite campaign moniker for them), we may have to use the "blind" of emphasizing the general theme that, whether it is because of regulation, tariff or monopoly, we are all making less money than we should and thus our quality of life and standard of living is being degraded (and has been in comparison to the US since at least the 1980's).

Protecting Free Trade

The "Protectionism" article on Wikipedia tells us a number of counter-intuitive things about Protection and Free Trade or Reciprocity. First, it notes the work of an economist named Irwin that asserts that it is a myth that America's industry grew and prospered due to high tariffs. America really grew he says because of her openness to people and ideas. In Sandburg's Lincoln, Abe points out that, by the 1830's, the UK had 170 million dollars invested in the US. Corn Laws, Hamiltonian tariffs and the fresh memory of two wars were not going to make the US any less an attractive place in which to invest for Britain.

Second, there are actually three reasons tariffs are imposed by a country: 1. to get revenue; for what is a "tariff" but a tax on trade? Second, protection. Third, to force other countries to arrive at reciprocity agreements to increase TRADE! Let's review that. 

First, the tariff today does not collect revenue. As Irwin's charts (a real eye opener for people who want to know about Protection history) show, the World as a whole gets not even 1% of GNP from tariffs. We get barely 1% of our federal revenue from them. Second, the tariffs, with one big exception are not protecting any one. Most of the industries our tariffs were supposed to protect either are miniscule parts of our economy now (e.g. shoes) or are gone. The exception is supply management but it is the reminder of the exception rather than the rule. The real barriers to trade are non-tariff like the ban on BGH or the Telecomms, Airline and Banking laws that give Canadian firms monopolies or "buy Canadian" policies and programs.

The third point is surely the paradox and the dilemma - sometimes maybe often you have to erect tariffs to induce potential trade partners to negotiate free trade agreements with you. This is exhibit A for the proposition that Donald Trump is the true free trader in using what appears to be on the surface a protectionist hammer. Trump makes it explicit like a Mafiosi selling protection to a shopkeeper (if the thuggish analogy pleases Trump haters so be it):"You do a deal with me, I will drop the tariffs" and usually starts dealing the moment the tariffs go up and takes them down when the deal is done. The Irwin charts show clearly that the US has been in trade deficit since 1970 with it often equalling 6% of her economy. There is no reason why the US should tolerate that if she can rectify the balance with better deals as was done with both the Chinese and USMCA deals. Yet, Wikipedia still manages to put in a few nasty shots at Trump as "trade neanderthal" anyways. 

This brings me to the other note - we're living in an era of free trade such as we have never known. Average Tariffs on Total Imports and Dutiable Imports are lower than they have ever been, especially since the coming of the Bretton Woods Agreements, the GATT/WTO and the various Trade "Rounds". This is especially true of the US but even more true of Europe. The average tariff was 20-60% from 1833 to 1945. It is now 5. The real threat to trade today is not only non-tariff barriers as mentioned above (of which Europe in particular has been an avid and hypocritical practitioner) but lopsided and unhelpful deals or non-deals that naturally enough create ill will in the countries on the wrong end of them and real damage to their economies. If you do not like Trump's trade policy know that it is the incompetent, ill-considered and insensitive fanatical devotion to free trade at any price of his predecessors that invented it. This gave Trump the constituency to take the presidency and implement a vision shared by many Americans who feel that free trade unvarnished and without looking out for the interests of the US has hollowed out their industries and denied good jobs to them.

Thus protection comes in many guises as does reciprocity and free trade. The course of history and the consensus among economists on free trade is encouraging as is the overwhelming evidence that it enriches consumers, grows economies and liberates business. However, several things must be kept in mind going forward so as to build on this critical  part of history's liberating Human Consensus:

1. Tariffs are no longer a serious revenue-collecting tool but a tool, if at all, for expanding reciprocity and freer and fairer trade. They protect no one except the specific interest it was supposed to protect but usually, if long term, leave that interest also poorer, less efficient and, sometimes, no more;

2. The two biggest enemies to free trade and reciprocity are non-tariff barriers to trade and elites who mistake their interests for the interests of their nations in this matter;

3. The Villains of trade (and we and they know who they are) must be blocked, prosecuted and ultimately punished so that they and others thinking of adopting their trade practices will be appropriately discouraged from such a course. It is true that, like in an arms race or a war, tit for tat usually just leads to worse races and wars. However, the good players should never be afraid to use the weapons given to them by the WTO to combat the baddies (I'll translate that to Chinese later).

We live in an unprecedented era of free trade and reciprocity across the globe. Paradoxically, we may have to use the tools of protection to ensure that this endures and thrives.

P.S.: BTW, check out the cartoon that heads up the "Protectionism" article in the Wikipedia. It's a delightfully metaphorical British Liberal Party Ad from 1906 that extolls free trade. That is almost certainly the great Tariff advocate, Joseph Chamberlain, as the forlorn Protection shopkeeper! I wish this ad was on the wall of the office of every legislator in the World.

A speech

What I wish the next Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada would say as soon as they are Elected:

You've heard a lot about "social conservatives" and "fiscal conservatives" and "red tories" in the Press and from Pollsters during this Leadership Campaign. Well, I believe they're forgetting about the most important type of Conservative of all - the Freedom Conservatives. Because I believe that's what this Party you have honoured me by selecting me to lead is all about - protecting and expanding the freedom of Canadians. Today, We are all Freedom Conservatives.

We express the heritage of two Prime Ministers, one of the old Liberal Party of classical liberalism who once said,"Canada is free and freedom is its nationality!" The other of the old Progressive Conservative Party who, in introducing the first Canadian Bill of Rights to the Parliament that he and his idol, the same Liberal PM loved, said,

"I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak my mind, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."

Now that should be the pledge all of us on this party make as Conservatives, too. For it is more important than ever that we do so in this troubled time where not only our freedoms but our way of life and the Rule of Law, our Constitution are under unprecedented assault not only by interest groups, the social media and outright thugs but, I am sad to say, by our own Government.

I am here to say you all, incuding those who did not support me but also those who did not vote for our Party in the last election or may never have voted for us, that I wish to be inclusive. But, if you do not support me on the following tenets, you should vote for someone else or go home. It will be alk the same to me and the other 337 candidates on mour Team. We do not want you to support us out of convenience or boredom or tradition or even because you cannot stand the other teams.

We ant you to support us for what we stand for and because you think what we want will be better for you, your family and Canada.

If you are threatened by free markets and free enterprise, don't vote for us.

If you believe capitalism is great as long as it's politically correct and has guaranteed profits, don't vote for us.

If you are one of those people who believe that there ought to be a law to forbid every little thing that offends you, don't vote for us.

If you believe that the government is the answer and the solution for every ill we face, then please don't vote for us.

If you believe any of those things than for the love of God don't vote Bloc but please feel free to vote for one of the three other socialist parties of Canada.

On the other hand, if you support the freedom to speak without fear; the freedom to worship without penalty and the freedom to work without

hindrance, then welcome to the Conservative Party of Canada!

Come help me and my Team rid Canada of the Trudeau Gang, save our Parliament and together we'll make Freedom our National Creed again!