Why and How …

 

As in, Why did Jim Flaherty quit as Canada’s Minister of Finance and How did he do during his 8 year term?

Let’s look first at why he did not quit:

1. It was not due to his health, since by all accounts he is well on the mend – plus the heavy lifting in his Portfolio was over …he could have simply cruised to an Election Surplus Budget.
2. It was not because he wanted more time with his wife – since she is a busy Tory MPP in Ontario and is gearing up for a possible Spring Election – and, appears to have plans to try to replace Hudak should he falter in that election.  Not much family time on the horizon for dear Jim.
3. And it is not to give the Prime Minister time to break in his replacement in advance of the 2015 Election.  He has consistently stated that he was in for the long term – i.e. he was determined to stand in his place for his final budget to declare officially that he had at last balanced the budget.
4. And it was not the result of a big job offer on Bay Street.  As a former Finance Minister for the Province of Ontario and now having completed 8 years in the same role for the Feds – the guy could name his price anytime he wants – now or a year from now.

The bottom-line here is that Flaherty is on record as saying he will be in place as Finance Minister for Canada when the 2015 Budget comes now announcing a surplus.  None of numbers 1 to 4 adequately explain his change of heart.

So if not for these reasons,  – then what?

Jason Kenny that’s what.

The two have been duking it out for the P.M.s approval, and dear reader – Jim Flaherty lost that fight.

Two recent examples – first was the tongue lashing Flaherty gave to Kenny for suggesting out loud that Jim’s good friend – bozo Rob Ford was … a bozo.

And more recently, Flaherty opined that the Tory promise to split the incomes of married folks with children, was dead in the water.

Kenny differed on this, even in the face of Harper appearing to side with his Finance Minister.  It then went to caucus and Kenny emerged the winner.

It was then obvious, even to Flaherty, that his star was on the decline.

That dear reader is the reason Flaherty took the bitter walk in the snow… and I suspect it was bitter since in Flaherty’s mind, he had positioned Canada’s economy to be the best in the G-8 or now G-7 and that is the thanks he got.  It had to be a bitter pill for him to swallow.

Plus, in this respect, his health issues may have proved to be partly responsible in that they had to have reduced his resilience and thereby made his decision to abruptly call it quits, in the face of such a humiliation, all the more understandable.

So that is Why…now How did the guy do during his 8 year tenure?

Here are the main pluses from my perspective and they are significant:

1. He reduced the GST from 7 to 5%.
2. He split the pension income of seniors.
3. He brought in the very popular Tax Free Savings Account.

On the negative ledger, there are a number of important matters as well:

1. He cancelled Income Trusts.  He was forced into this since a number of corporations were beginning to unfairly take advantage of this tax reducing provision however, he could have cancelled the program generally but kept it in place for the oil and gas industry which it was initially intended for and for which most investors ?
2. He needlessly plunged Canada into massive Debt / Deficits ostensibly to survive the US / European Financial melt down of 2008.  Canada was virtually untouched by the melt down – for instance only one of our six main Banks was heavily invested in US worthless mortgage bonds – the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. He could have pulled a Jean Chretien and go through the motions without actually committing any money to the folly.  That he didn’t and that it has taken most of his tenure to undo the damage that he did is testimony to this folly.
3. He interfered with our Financial Institutions ability to lend mortgage money on at least 4 separate occasions. Again this was to cool off the housing industry which was not hot in the first place – he was confusing the American situation where huge mortgage funds were loaned to migrant workers based on their misguided Government’s Policy.
4. He participated in the massive Auto Bailout of 2008 which admittedly helped GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy but in so doing  was not fair to other Canadian Auto Taxpayers . Ford, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Kia etc etc.

Throughout all this Flaherty holds himself out to be a Conservative …in reality he is a Liberal and in that regard have you noticed that the kindest comments for Flaherty, upon hearing of his leaving, have come from the Grits, the Dippers and of course the left leaning Media.

That said, I would give dear Jim an overall mark of B- .

Hopefully the new guy will do much better – the Tory future is dependent upon it.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

The Big Smoke …

 

As in our ‘Big Smoke’ – Toronto and more specifically, in regard to its upcoming municipal election on October 27, 2014.

For those interested, there are a number of large cities throughout the world referred to as the Big Smoke.  The common theory is that the term relates to an earlier time – at least in the Northern Hemisphere, when major cities were pollution and smoke ridden.

Be that as it may, I want to focus today on TO’s upcoming election and who – dear reader – might we expect to win it.

Currently, there are three legitimate candidates in the race and I use the term ‘legitimate’ rather loosely:

Current disgraced and Mayor lite – Rob Ford, along with John Tory and Olivia Chow M.P..

Ford, simply stated, is a buffoon and of the three it would be a great travesty if he was to win.

Tory, is a Red Tory and a three time loser in the field of politics – at all three levels of government.  He has shown time and again, that he has about as much political sense as fellow red tory.Joe Clark.  As such, Johnny does not deserve to win.  Full stop.

And then we have Olivia Chow, widow of the late Jack Layton and until a day or two ago was Member of Parliament for Toronto Riding Trinity Spadina. Of all three, she deserves to win the most.  Her only defect is that, as an NDPer, she is a left wing loon and would greatly increase spending. 

Fortunately for Chow, there are a lot of left wing loons in the big City.

So who will win Galagher?

Let’s do it by odds:

10 to 1 for Ford;

3 to one for Tory; and,

Even money 1:1 for Chow.

The only way Ford can win is if Tory and Chow split the anti Ford vote between them and Robbie comes up the middle. This will not happen though since Tory will not be strong enough to split the anti Ford vote.

The only way Tory can win is if Ford and Chow split the vote allowing Johnny to come down the middle with enough votes to take the crown.  This is a possibility hence the 3:1 odds I have given him.

So that leaves Chow to secure the left wing loony vote – no big deal, while Ford and Tory split the right. I also believe that many moderates will go with Chow as well if for no other reason than they are sick and tired of the circus that has been going on since the time of the last election with Ford being the ring master.  Hence the even money on her.

So it is Olivia’s to lose; she will bring a dignified presence to the office – it is just to bad that she is a loon.

So who would you vote for Galagher, if you were a resident of the Big Smoke?

• I would not vote for Ford.
• I would not vote for Chow given her NDP credentials but would be okay to see her win.
• I would hold my nose and vote for Tory since he holds himself out to be a Tory.

It is just too bad Chow is a Dipper.

 

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

That And A ….

 

‘Warm Bucket Of Spit’.

So said, John Nance Garner, FDR’s VP, in describing his esteem for the Office of the Vice President of the United States.

So how does this relate to today’s topic of Quebec’s Independence?

Permit me to explain.

Much has been said lately about the trials and tribulations which would result should Quebecers actually vote to leave the Canadian Confederation.

Federalist point out with pride that our top court – the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has ruled that Quebec can only begin negotiations to leave Canada after having voted to separate on a clear question and supported by a clear majority. 

That is to say – fuzzy wording, as appeared in the 1995 Referendum would not be allowed nor would a 50% plus 1 vote be deemed sufficient to go.

Given that current levels of support for separation in Quebec is at most 40%, the Supreme Court Ruling would seem to indicate that the Separatists will have little chance of successfully carrying out a split. 

Moreover, Federalists point to the Clarity Act which was passed in the days following the SSC judgment. The Act puts into legislation the salient provisions of the Court’s decision.

From my readings what this amounts to is as follows: a Referendum to be legal must have a clear question – i.e.  Do you wish to have Quebec separate from Canada and establish its own country? … Yes or No. 

If yes – a vote of at least 60% would be needed to satisfy the ‘clear majority’ requirement.

So tough stuff given that there remains in Quebec a sizable non-francophone presence which will vote nearly 100% to remain in Canada.

And there dear reader comes the Russia / Ukraine moment.

As my recent Blogs have so clearly indicated, there is nothing standing in the way of Russia taking over the Crimea and indeed all of Ukraine despite the international laws it is breaking.

If the West through NATO is not prepared to expend blood and treasure retaining Ukraine – and they are not, Russia is in the driver’s seat.  Yelling, screaming, and sanctions just won’t stop them.

Sadly, the same applies to Canada and Quebec.

If Canada is not prepared to send in the troops – and I do not see that happening since Canadians living outside of that province no longer care whether Quebec stays or goes. 

Ergo – like Russia – Quebec is in the driver’s seat.  It and it alone can decide what is sufficient to see their Province leave Confederation. 

I would even suggest that if Quebec held and received a majority vote for separation amongst francophones only – there would be nothing anyone outside of Quebec could do to prevent it.

So you can have all the Supreme Court Rulings and  many other laws such as the Clarity Act as you want, and they will not make one iota of difference in preventing Quebec separation.

In that light – such Rulings and Laws are but a warm bucket of spit.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

In For A Penny …

 

In For A Pound.

As in the Ukraine and Vlad Putin.

The West is in the process of slapping Vlad’s hand for taking the Crimea from the Ukraine.  And dear reader, it is not coming back – as I have pointed out in earlier blogs.

The issue now is what happens to the rest of the Ukraine and in that regard, nothing stands in Putin’s way from taking it all, save for the possibility of another hand slap.

So my question to you is – why would he not take   the whole enchilada?

Precisely.

Either way, the West will huff and puff and impose sanctions on Russia … as well as – are you ready for it … boot Vlad and his country out of the G-8. 

Makes one tremble.

But bear in mind that Putin is on record as saying the greatest geo-political mistake of the last 100 years is the breakup of the USSR.  He would like nothing better than to see it restored.

That being the case – pretend you are Vlad Putin – what would you do?

I am not sure of your answer but I know if I was he – I would take it all.  (just for the record – I am not he and hence would not take such action – but again – he is he and hence is most likely to entertain the thought … if you get my drift.

The West does not have to be such a milquetoast, it could step up to the plate and go to the brink of war to save the Ukraine – planes – ships and troops to flood the region. If it did that, Putin would back off.

But we in the West have already said we will not do that.

So what is left?

Surprisingly, there remains a step we could successfully take.

We (NATO) could put boots on the ground in the Rest of Ukraine – not to fight, since that will not be necessary – but rather to provide moral support to the beleaguered Ukrainian army.  In the face of this, Russia will not move further than where they currently are …i.e. the Crimea.

I proposed this action in a recent blog and since then Red Tory Hugh Segal has come to the same conclusion.  (This may be one of the rare occasions where Hugh Segal and I agree).

That said, there is no indication that NATO will take even this modest step.

Accordingly, whether or not the rest of the Ukraine stands or falls rests solely with the Vladster.

Embarrassing n’est pas?

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

Pierre Peladeau and I have something …

 

In Common … no, sadly, we are not both billionaires.

We Are Though Both Separatists.

If I was resident in Quebec, I too would vote for separation from Canada.

Canada and Quebec, since our history began, have been – as they say – like Chalk and Cheese.  We are simply too different, in too many ways.

Canada has the English common law while Quebec – the French Civil Law.

Canada is composed mainly of Anglophones while Quebec is composed mainly of Francophones.

Canada’s main language is English, while in Quebec, it is French.

Canada’s mother country in England, and for Quebec, France.

Basically what the two have in common is that they are uncommon to one another.

As an aside, my Grandfather emigrated to Canada at the turn of the last century from Scotland, and if I was living there now, I would be voting for separation from England in their upcoming Referendum.

I put a great deal of importance into history and how it effects our future and to ignore the former is to do so at the expense of the latter.

And speaking of history, Canadians have had to ignore their history since the 1960s and it is only latterly, with the rise of Stephen Harper, that an attempt has been made to reverse this.

But it is too little, too late.

So I’d vote along with PKP if and when a Referendum on Quebec Separation comes along.

So for the record, just who do we blame – if blame is the word – for this current state of affairs.

Why the Federalists of course.

Let’s take a quick look down memory lane:

Pearson refused to block Quebec’s blackmail of Newfoundland in regard to the Churchill Falls Power fiasco despite the fact that interprovincial transmission of power fell within federal responsibility and not provincial.

Trudeau introduced a new blackmail vehicle – the transfer payments - especially tailored for Quebec.  Today some $9 billion dollars go Quebec’s way each year for that alone. (No wonder they can disregard matters affecting their abysmal economy…the feds (other provinces) as always, are there to pick up the slack).

And over the years since – the Feds have given Quebec the authority to have its own transportation, pension and immigration systems.

Indeed with respect to the latter – much of their preoccupation today about heritage and laws to protect it, have be borne out of the fact that Quebec allowed thousands and thousands of immigrants from French Speaking Countries in Africa and from Haiti and now have seemingly come to regret it.

But there is more – health transfers and the like along with the transfer payments noted aboue, mean that Quebec receives over $20 Billion a year in subsidization from the Rest of Canada.

Even our current Prime Minister recently passed a motion in the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as its own State.

Hard to go back on that one.

So they are truly to blame for the current state within which we find ourselves.  That does not mean that a successful referendum is in the offing.

First, the PQ must win a majority vote in next month’s general election and I would put that happening at about 50%.

Then, assuming they get their majority, – they would have to convince 50% + 1 to vote for separation and with support for separation currently running at mid 30% – that would take some doing.

But don’t forget – separation is an emotional issue and polls especially those against separation can change rather quickly.

I would put it all at 50 – 50 – for this time – and please note - if not successful now – it will rear its head again at some future time – you can rest assured.

And in that case, I wonder what the Feds will offer Quebec?  Hard to imagine more than what they have already handed over but that said, there seems to be no limit to their generosity.

And imagine how generous that will be should we elect another Prime Minister from the once Belle Province.  

Throughout it all though, I will be routing for Quebec in the knowledge that this will be best for all concerned; things can only return to normal, once the knot is cut.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

Let’s Pretend …

 

That You and I and the next Guy are appointed to run a Royal Commission on the disappearance of Young Native Women.

At the outset, let me assure each of you that I am not belittling the issue whatsoever, I am though belittling the thinking that a Royal Commission would add anything to this sad issue.

I say this since many Indian Associations, as well as a number of left wing organizations from society generally, have put forward the notion that a Royal Commission would prove able to get to the root cause of the problem.

As an aside, and not surprisingly – one of these, the Tyendinaga Mohawk tribe, outside of Belleville Ontario – better known as ‘the Tribe which can never find a protest it does not support’, just again this past week blocked rail traffic through the busy Montreal / Toronto corridor.  Heroes all.

Plus the costs of such Commissions are not insignificant – for instance, the Royal Commission into the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal cost Taxpayers a cool $100 million dollars.

But all that aside – You and I and the Next Guy will form the Commission’s Membership – You be the Chair.

And, we will all must wear our Politically Correct hats.

So we begin with setting up our empire, hiring staff, renting and furnishing offices – travelling from one end of the country to the next, first class in both travel and in accommodations.

You get the idea.

Plus money is paid out in droves to Native Professional Lobbyists to enable them and their hangers on to attend the many cross country hearings.

So now let’s pre-empt things and pretend our work is done and that we have written and published our following recommendations:

First – and foremost, more money will have to be spent on native affairs.  (can’t you just imagine Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence pulling up in her cadillac escalade to help herself to some of the cash).

Second – more money will need to be spent on enhanced social programs – counselling and the like for young natives.

Third – more money will need to be spent on better education for native youth.

Fourth – Dedicated Police Resources must be allocated to this issue.  (this one might even makes some sense).

Fifth – Canada’s Criminal Code needs to have greater penalties for offences against natives and lesser penalties for natives who commit offences.

Sixth – sensitivity training needs to be funded and given to non-native society.

That’s it – indeed with these 6 recommendations we have just saved the Canadian Taxpayer from the $100 million cost of a Royal Commission.

The left wing crowd – i.e. those that attended all of the hearings will be ecstatic …at least till next time.

You and I and the Next Guy, take a bow and go for a drink.

Over drinks:

After several in fact – The ‘Next Guy’ opinions that we – our Commission – really has not addressed the root of the problem-

“You and I know, the root cause dates back 150 years when natives lost their culture – they have been on hold in their lives ever since.”

‘I’ then pipe in “especially those on the reserves – where most of the tragic cases originate, they have nothing profitable to do with their lives – drugs and alcohol abuse across generations – high school drop out rates – lack of self worth. No wonder their young women get involved in dangerous activities.”

 And then ‘You’ add, “what is really needed is to have the reserves disbanded, especially those in remote areas but imagine if we had actually said that in our report, we would have all been lynched”.

Royal Commission anyone?

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

 

The Crimea …. Let It Go.

 

This may surprise many of you but I think the best thing to do in regard to the present situation in Ukraine is to see the Crimea return to Russia.

It was Russian territory until transferred to the Ukraine in 1954 by then Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

It provides Russia with its only year round Port.

70% of its population is Russian.

With the growing influence of Europe / NATO, Russia is understandably worried about western influence encroaching on its ever reduced sphere of influence.

The fact is, I feel a bit sorry for the once proud Bear…not though for its current henchman leader Vlad Putin.

Was Russia right in the way it invaded the Crimea?

No.

Is the Crimea worth the expenditure of the West’s treasure and blood?

No.

But what we need to focus on is the balance of the Ukraine – the real Ukraine.

Europe needs to bring Ukraine into the EU as soon as possible, as does NATO.

Russia needs to be told that if it has expansionist ideas, they end with the return of Crimea any further attempt at unilateral expansion needs to be stomped on.  Full Stop.

And Obama needs to proceed immediately with the missile shield it had originally planned for the protection of the former States of the USSR.

Having said the above, I know that there are many parallels with Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and I can see much clearer now why the folks back then strove for peace in the face of Churchill’s demand for military action.

There is no doubt in my mind that Churchill was correct then, but those striving for peace were not so very wrong either and in the case of Crimea today, some 65 years later, the facts do not add up to drawing a line in the sand over it. 

Let Crimea Go.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’