Is It Time to Restructure the Financing of our Social Programs?

More “tymlee” than ever in light of our upcoming election.

Tymlee's Blog

Now is the time not only to manage government debt responsibly, but also to restructure debt financing through the government access to capital markets.

Following the Great Recession of 2008 to 2009, governments in North America and elsewhere are faced with smaller tax revenues at a time when citizens rely more heavily on government funded social programs. This has resulted in significantly increased government deficits and debts, which in turn have put pressure on governments to reduce fiscal outlays for social programs in order to reduce the debt load.

Here, and in the United States, most of the social programs, such as health care, government pension plans and social security, employment insurance, etc., may be described as “unfunded liabilities.” This means that, with the exception of the Canada Pension Plan, social programs rely largely on tax revenues and interest bearing notes for funding, and are not supported by capital investments.

View original post 285 more words

Advertisement

Dear Marci, My friend, My Hero

My dear friend Marci,

The very thought of you brings warmth to my being as an upturned face in the spring sun. The breadth of your caring and generosity of spirit is infinite, as I know will be its legacy. Your fidelity of conviction, and your commitment to putting action to your passionate belief that the most vulnerable amongst us are the most deserving of our efforts, are startling in their profundity and inspiring in this world hued by a “beggar thy neighbour” psyche. You truly are the embodiment of  compassion and humanity. You are, at once, brave and humble. Selfless and determined. Light hearted yet aching viscerally for those who suffer.

I only knew you for a few years and, though we never met, despite having tried a few times, I will cherish our friendship for the rest of my life. I will resolve to use your inspiration to continue to be engaged, to push this world forward, to be the better place that you knew it could be and that you strove to effect through myriad, cumulative acts.

I am so happy you were able to get to your daughter, Marlee’s wedding – I know how much joy it gave you. I know how proud you are of Barry’s work and Rachel’s music.

Your column on Twitter will always stay right beside mine, where it has always been. And tomorrow I am going to wear the Tweetnik t-shirt you sent me. I love you Marci and, though I’m in a pool of tears, I am also celebrating the remarkable mother, sister, friend, activist and person that you are. Go with peace my friend, your time here has left us all the richer for having known you. Good bye my friend, you unsung hero who would cringe with humility to hear this elegiac au revoir.

All my love,

Michelle (Tymlee)

P.S. You always said we would go to Kuwait together when Fayiz was freed – I promise I will still go and give thanks to you when I’m there.

Application of Quantized Metrics in the Treatment of Non-local Events as Produced in Double slit Experiments

Gregory C. Matthews

January  27, 2013 (copyright)

Abstract

This article provides an ontological interpretation of the results of standard double-slit experiments by consideration of formulations of quantized metrics. A quantized metric form describing particle propagation in a quantized space-form would result in non-local trajectories. A reexamination of the double slit experiments may confirm and describe experimentally the exact form of a quantized metric.

This essay explores a reinterpretation of the famous “double slit experiment” in the context of proposed formulations of quantized metrics, in part, to determine if the results of the experiments agree with the formulations of quantized metrics, and, in part, to advance ontological interpretations of the results. The essay argues that a quantized form of the metric is needed in order to model quantum gravity, and that any form of the metric would also yield ‘non-local effects.”

In standard Einstein models of the space-time metric, a fundamental precept of relativistic theories is that theories resulting in non-local effects are invalid, [1], where such phenomena are described by classical relativity theorists as “spooky action at a distance.” Most of relativistic theory was formulated before the advent of quantum mechanics and the formalism adopted in the Copenhagen Interpretation of 1929.

Much of the observed behavior of particles described by quantum mechanics seemed to defy the general intuition of physicists and mathematicians trained in classical and high energy relativistic physics. One of the most famous examples of particle behavior that seemingly violates basic models of space-time constructs is the double slit experiment [2], [3], [4]. In this experiment, single particles are admitted to an apparatus constructed with two slits available for the impingent particle to pass through, and then impinge on a detector. Observations of the pattern produced by the detector apparatus using many repeats of the experiment, show an interference pattern scatter consistent with a model where the impingent particle interferes with itself as it propagates through the double slit apparatus. The observed particle behavior may be seen as a violation of the predictions of classical and relativistic physics. The results of the double slit experiment seem to be consistent with a single particle propagating through both spatially separated slits at the same time.

To this point, most methodologies applied in experimental work with quantum field mechanics have relied on classical measures, such as classical clocks and rulers. To date, observations made using the traditional apparatus of the double slit experiment have relied on classical clocks and rulers, instead of the possibility of using quantized clocks and rulers [5]. With a conjectured quantized metric, the results of the double slit experiment may be interpreted differently.

A number of theoretical physics conjecture have been proposed to explain this apparent “non- local’ behavior of quantized particles. An important aspect of quantum theory is the proposed treatment of quantized forms of the metric as described in [6], [7].

We postulate a quantized form of the metric as: gμν = ΦμΦν (1)

As part of this conjecture, we consider Φμ and Φν as waveforms of the vacuum of the constructed experimental apparatus at the loci of the double slits before impingement of a Dirac particle to the apparatus. We also postulate that the vacua waveforms are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and may share identical sets of quantum numbers.

A logical deduction that may be made, given these two assumptions, is that if two or more vacua share the same set of quantum numbers, then, from the perspective of classical space- time, they would have the property of seeming to occupy the same event locus as each other from the perspective of the impingement Dirac particle. The double slit apparatus itself is a form of a classical ruler used in determining classical measures of event loci. From the perspective of a quantized model of the metric, however, a set of vacua particles, including shared identical sets of quantum numbers, at the loci of the two slits would treat the apparent classical spatial- temporal separation of the two slits as a single event locus. We then apply the Calculus of Variations to the formulation of the expected propagation of Dirac particles admitted to the experimental apparatus. An assumption is applied that vacua may share identical sets of quantum numbers in the neighborhood of two classically separated loci corresponding to the two slits of the apparatus, as measured using classical rulers and clocks. Equation (2) models the wave-forms to be considered in application of the Calculus of Variations:

Φ(i)μ = ΦD(i) μ + Φv(i) (2)

Φ(i)μ ΦD(s1)μ + Φv(s1)μ = ΦD(s2)μ + Φv(s2)μ = Φ(s)μ, (3) Setting Φ(s1)Vμ = Φ(s2)Vμ, for vacua sharing identical sets of quantum numbers, and applying

Boolean algebra, A + A = A, for the vacua, we obtain: Φ(s)μ  Φ(f)μ = ΦD(f)μ + Φd(f)μ at the detector (4)

In Equations (2) to (4), ΦDμ represents the wave-form of a Dirac particle, Φv the wave-form of vacua particle. The use of notation of the form Φ(i), Φv(s), and Φv(f) denotes the terms of the waveform of the particles prior to interaction with the slits, the terms at particle interaction with the slits, and the terms for interaction with the detector, respectively. Φv(s1)μ and Φv(s2)μ represent the wave-form of virtual particles in the neighborhood of slits 1 and 2, which may share identical sets of quantum numbers. The term, Φd(f)μ, represents the wave-form of the detector.

Since, Φv (s1)μ and Φv (s2)μ are stated to represent the wave-form descriptor of the two slits, they are indistinguishable from each other as a consequence of sharing identical sets of quantum numbers. Included in this conjecture is an assumption, as suggested in [8], that all particle interactions may be treated as an observation inasmuch as particle interactions result in collapse of the superposed state, whether or not an experimental physicist observes the interaction. In this model, a distinction is made between observations made by bosonic detectors as opposed to fermionic detectors, the latter of which is subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Fermionic detectors are used in the classic description of the two-slit experiment. As a consequence, the interaction of the impingement particle on the detector behind the two-slits is entirely local since the detector is fermionic, and subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.1 No two particles of the detector may share the same set of quantum numbers, and therefore, the particle interaction with the detector is unique to the interaction with the fermionic particle of the detector on impingement.

This is unlike the proposed bosonic descriptor of the vacua constituting the two-slits of the apparatus where the vacua of both slits may share identical quantum numbers. At the quantum scale, both slits may be treated as identical, and hence the particle impingent on the two slits interacts equally with both.

At the point of observation at the detector, however, the impingent particle will contain the total information of a particle that had interacted with both slits. An observation of the contained information of the impingement particle will be resolved at the fermionic detector as if the impingent particle interfered with itself. This set of equations predicts the interference pattern observed generally in the double slit experiments.

Solutions of the application of the Calculus of Variations in this model would predict that an impinging Dirac particle would propagate through both slits where the quantum numbers of the vacua in the neighborhood of the two slits were identical, as if, from a frame of reference of quantized rulers and clocks, the event loci of the two slits were identical. Solutions may be made by inspection.

In summary, by application of a postulated form of a quantized metric to the modeling of a double slit experiment, it may be stated that the event loci would have the appearance of non- local action at the two slits, where the vacua are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Such results may explain apparent contradictions with Einstein’s prohibitions on non-locality in cases where quantized metrics are conjectured as opposed to metrics based on classical clocks and rulers constructed of arrays of fermions. Similar models of the vacua may be developed to describe the electron cloud geometries.

References:

1. Einstein, A, Relativity, the Special and the General Theory, Crown, New York, 1961.

2. Feynman, Richard P. (1988). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02417-0.

3. Pfleegor, R. L. and Mandel, L. (July 1967). “Interference of Independent Photon Beams”. Phys. Rev. 159 (5): 1084–1088. Bibcode 1967PhRv..159.1084P. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.159.1084.

4. http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/11/interference_of_independent_ph.php>

1 A postulate is made that local behavior is required for fermions as a function of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Non-local behaviors would require a violation of the Exclusion Principle, a principle not applicable to bosons.

G. C. Matthews, January 27, 2013

-4-

5. G. C. Matthews, A Note on Einstein’s Twin Paradox Applied to the Behavior of Entangled Particles, unpublished, February 1, 2011.

6. G. C. Matthews, A Proposed Treatment of Quantum Vector Field Theory, unpublished, April 18, 2012.

7. G. C. Matthews, A Proposed Treatment of the Vacuum as a Field of Bosonic Virtual Particles, October 21, 2011.

8. G. C. Matthews, Bayes Theorem Applied to Scalar Wavefunctions and the Statistical Derivation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, unpublished, November 22,2008.

Two Proposed Policy Options to Raise Government Revenues without Increasing Personal Income Tax

This blog proposes two means of drawing increased revenues to support government programs and services as an alternative to raising income tax rates as follows:

1.    Apply a Small Toll Fee, Payable to Federal and/or State/Provincial Governments, to Sales of Equities:

This proposed means of drawing revenue is not a capital gains tax or a dividend tax. The toll fee payable to governments would apply to any sale of equities at, say, a nominal fee of $10 total for a sale of 100 shares of equities greater in value than $5/share, $50 dollars total for sales of 100 shares of equities greater in value than $25/share, and so on using graded scale proportional to share value.

This toll fee would generate large amounts of revenue income to governments, with relatively no major dampening effect on economic growth. Share prices fluctuate so greatly that attaching a nominally small toll fee would attach only a minor cost to investors by comparison, and such a toll fee would also be small relative to brokerage fees. Considering that volumes of equity trading on North American markets usually range in magnitude from a few hundred million shares to over a trillion shares, sustained over a period of 250 business days per year, this small toll fee would generate very large revenues. Similar toll fees could also be applied to options trading and possibly bond markets. The toll fee would also lessen fiscal pressures that would otherwise compel higher capital gains tax and dividend tax.

Since the toll fee would be applied only to equity sales, it would support market stability and investor confidence by providing a small incentive to investors to hold equities over longer periods.

2.    Provide Government Access to Investments in Financial Markets to Support Programs Such as Social Security, Health, and Infrastructure Programs:
Perhaps the greatest single driver of government debt loads is that the only funding means for most government programs lies with tax revenues. The result is a slate of unhealthy debt-equity ratios for those programs.

Funding programs such as Social Security, Health, and Infrastructure, by allowing government agencies access to investments in capital markets would, over time, provide lucrative financial support to the programs and would appreciably improve debt-equity fiscal issues. Such funding programs could be done on an actuarially sound basis, similar to models used in insurance companies.
The Canada Pension Plan funding program established by former Finance Minister and Prime Minister of Canada, Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, has demonstrated both the feasibility and success of such programs.

A. Luchnoi

A Compromise Solution For The Fiscal Cliff

The United States desperately needs a temporary compromise in order to avoid falling off the fiscal cliff for which I propose a 4-stage plan and strategy to address their immediate fiscal issues. The thrust of this solution is founded on a problem solving approach that would meet the needs of a bipartisan strategy and would also resolve the impasse resulting from divergent political values and doctrines.

The 4-stage plan includes:

STAGE 1: An immediate agreement to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for temporary relief in the debt ceiling until more permanent measures can be obtained. This agreement would be contingent on a strict timeline for development of a comprehensive and detailed plan and strategy for resolving fiscal issues before the U.S. Federal Government. The timeline would not be allowed to exceed the period of the first two fiscal quarters of 2013 and would be managed in such a manner as to minimize additional debt load. The agreement would also be contingent on a consensus view of the basic means and criteria to be addressed in Stages 2 to 4 of the Strategy. These issues include the following:

(a) Exploration of measures to restructure the existing and projected Federal Government debt loads through means such as debt swapping of interest bearing instruments;

(b) A commitment to review and prioritize essential, preferred, and optional budgetary expenditures;

(c) Immediate restrictions on strictly non-essential overtime expenses provided in the exercise of government services;

(d) Immediate restrictions on contract-letting to non-government third party organizations for non-essential services;

(e) An agreement to develop and overhaul the U.S. Tax Code with a view to establishing tax fairness with minimal impact on the business community.

(f) A commitment to priority areas of government spending, including social security, health care, military, judicial, educational, infrastructure, etc., which should include exploration of viable options for improved means of funding as, for example, may be gained by access of the Federal Government to market-place investments.

STAGE 2: A commitment to provide a detailed Level 2 and 3 Plan to develop recommendations for Items (a) through (f) of Stage 1. This Plan would be developed by the bipartisan House and Senate Committees in close consultation with the Treasury Secretary of the Administration. A firm commitment is required to develop the Level 2 Plan and submit it to Congress before the end of the 2nd Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013. The detailed plan must specify and distinguish those actions that may be taken immediately to address pressing fiscal policy issues, and those actions needed to address long- term structural issues in the fiscal planning.

STAGE 3: A commitment to pass legislation by the 3rd Quarter to take the immediate actions identified in Stage 2. The timeline should be coincidental with the expiration of the extended Bush tax cuts, and the extended relief of the debt ceiling provided in Stage 1.

STAGE 4: The passage of a bill to overhaul the U.S. Tax Code to address the long-term structural fiscal issues optimizing for both the prioritized government services and investments, as well as to spur and secure continued health and robustness in the U.S. Business Sector.

Bob Rae’s Farewell to the Leadership

A poised, witty and quintessentially statesman-like Bob Rae announced that he was not running for leadership of the Liberal Party today with this Shakespearean sonnet:

Let those who are in favour with their stars
Of public honour and proud titles boast,
Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars
Unlook’d for joy in that I honour most.
Great princes’ favourites their fair leaves spread
But as the marigold at the sun’s eye,
And in themselves their pride lies buried,
For at a frown they in their glory die.
The painful warrior famoused for fight,
After a thousand victories once foiled,
Is from the book of honour razed quite,
And all the rest forgot for which he toiled:
   Then happy I, that love and am beloved,
     Where I may not remove nor be removed.

Bob Rae, PWOPA’s & Other Words I Invented

The intertoobz have been awhirl with proclamations and castigations since it was discovered that the Liberal Party may change their rules and let Bob Rae run for leadership. This revelation was, coincidentally, on the same day that we became aware that Tory wonk Dean Del Mastro was being investigated by Elections Canada. So aligned were the gods of political opportunity for HarperCons on this fateful day that the Minister of Education may as well have announced that Bob Rae’s name would forthwith be spelled D.I.V.E.R.S.I.O.N.

Nonetheless we’ve all been there, done that and, dare I say, even got the t-shirt (which was promptly stripped off our backs). Nothing about these HarperCon tactics is new or even surprising. Harper drew a line in the sandbox a long time ago and he’s been hurling Tonka toys at anyone who disturbs it with such ho-hum regularity that I find myself stifling a yawn even describing it.

If you would indulge my whim, I’d rather talk about something that WAS surprising. It lies not within the folds of Liberal party mechanics which may reverse course on the Bob Rae ticket because this is, after all, politics. “It’s politics, duh!” – the new and improved iteration of “It’s the economy stupid!”. The surprise, for me at least, is in the vehemence with which non-Liberals are decrying the potential Rae run. Akin to someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre, I almost believed, but only for a fleeting moment, that the end of the world was going to chase me down the street, into Harper’s sandbox and hold me down until I cried uncle – though I’ve never understood why calling the word uncle was ever able to satisfy a bully’s need for dominance, but that’s just me. (Oh and I’d like to apologize to the old man I knocked down when I raced in abject terror from the theatre. Sorry dude. My bad.)

These “People With Other Party Affiliations”, or PWOPA’s™ as I affectionately call them, have dusted off and trotted out talking points that until now had been neatly stashed away in their petticoats. Someone please pass them the smelling salts quick before they faint again at the outrage of it all! Bob Rae running for Liberal leader! Harrumph!

These aforementioned petticoats remained perfectly unruffled when Bob Rae was doing a powerful job in opposition during the time of up-for-grabs leadership in the NDP. But like a wild-west gunman’s fingers twitching just above the holster, so did their talking points fidget to be freed.

Talking points: 1)“Bob Rae lied” … 2)“He used his position as interim Liberal leader to advance his agenda of becoming permanent leader” … 3)“He wasn’t able to change the needle on Liberal Party popularity during his tenure as interim leader”. In reality these are all non-issues. To adherents of talking point number one I say he did not lie, he said he would adhere to party regulations which he is doing. On the second point I counter that he was a strong voice on behalf of Canadians and progressivism – would they have found it more acceptable if he’d been a shrinking violet in an especially divisive House of Commons, I wonder? But more than that why does that mean he shouldn’t run for the top job? I don’t care if he used his position as a springboard for a leadership run (it would have been foolish to have done otherwise), I just want to choose the best possible leader. On the third talking point put forth by PWOPA’s™ I would argue that polls are not the political overlord that we are led to believe. In fact, don’t even get me started on polls or I may have to get out my sombrero and do the Hat Dance on a Nanos poll and, believe me, that would not be a pretty sight. Suffice it to say that three years are an eternity within the Canadian political aperture.

But here’s the nutshell: So what? So what if he didn’t move the poll numbers, it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have the right to have him included in the pool of candidates. So what if he had a higher profile due to his position as interim leader – in fact, more reason to have him in the pool. There’s no smoke without fire… unless you include dry ice, which I won’t since it would render my adage meaningless.

None of these detractors has shown even a spark of appreciation for the work Rae did in standing up not just for Liberal values but – hold your breath while I tiptoe onto a limb here for a moment – progressive Canadian values. So, fine we have party politics as usual – you demean my leader and I’ll demean yours and we’ll all feel good about ourselves after. What bothers me, intensely, about this twaddle is the implied limitation non-Liberals feel they need to impose on my choices for Liberal leader. The Harper arrgle-bargle and fog of politics is spreading to the progressives of this country and making them behave in a HarperCon kind of way (read cynical). It has permeated our mentality so much so that some are now able to pronounce on outcomes before the empirical data is in. In fact before these outcomes have even ‘outcomed’, so to speak! (Science! Huh-yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!)

Let me give you an example: it has been suggested by these modern day prophesiers and PWOPA’s™ that the new mechanics by which the Liberals propose to choose their next leader have failed. Wait! What? It hasn’t even happened yet, has it? Has Stephen Hawking been throwing tachyons of providence into our political mix? Let’s calm the hyper-partisan spin down and stick to the facts, when we get them in the future after the Liberal leadership experiment has been tried and tested.

My puzzlement about the wrath of non-Liberals over a potential run by Rae centres on why they are so passionate about the Liberal choice for leader. Why are they, seemingly, intent on limiting our choices? Most of us prefer to squeeze the fruit and pick the most delectable before throwing our money in the till and so it should be with those who we choose to represent us in government. I say give me options, give me all the options, tell me your plans and values and let it percolate and only then will I throw my money in the till. Only when I have squeezed your fruit, so to speak. But don’t expect me to believe that an apple is rotten when I haven’t squeezed it for myself. I don’t know who my vote will go to in the Leadership convention for the simple reason that no one has even officially thrown their hat in the ring and no platforms have yet been heard. The assumption that Liberals will vote based on celebrity as opposed to policy is a miscalculation and is immediately revelatory of a shallow understanding of core Liberal values.

I don’t know if Bob Rae is the best choice for the Liberal party going forward. I don’t care about poll numbers, particularly since an election is three years away. I don’t care about age or celebrity because in the end excellence is the great unifier. I do care about core values and policy. I do care about preventing the slow and painful erosion of my country due to the ideologically driven HarperCon agenda. And I do know that Bob Rae has done a great job for all progressives as interim leader and for that I am grateful. Bring on the leadership race and allow us to choose from a pool of strong, varied and interesting candidates, a pool which would be all the poorer were Bob Rae to be excluded.

P.S. Guys I was only kidding about the ™ symbol on PWOPA – I just thought it would make it look all academic and thoughtful.

The Liberals Are The Best Managers Of Our Economy

The Liberal Party is the only party that knows that a strong economy requires both a strong business sector and a strong workforce. Only the Liberal Party knows how, and has the experience, to put forward policy that ensures the health of both sectors.

The kind of policy that drives our economic health recognizes that fiscal and monetary approaches must ensure that people are educated with the necessary skills, that people are healthy, that there are necessary safety nets available should they lose their jobs, and that their children are provided the same opportunities afforded to their parents. At the same time, fiscal and monetary policy must be managed and balanced to support business confidence and growth.

The Liberal Party ensures that policies on the environment, trade, infrastructure growth, and health and safety, are implemented in a manner that is also supportive of economic growth. The Liberal Party makes sure that focus on short term profits do not impede the long-term basis for economic health, while also ensuring that conditions for the business sector promote sustained growth through sound fiscal management.

The Liberal Party is the only party that can manage economic policy to ensure that a healthy business sector is developed and encouraged by ensuring a fair and optimal balance of taxation and government spending to provide a healthy workforce that enjoys clean air and water, and by ensuring the infrastructure necessary for sustained economic growth is in place. Appropriate arrays of regulatory approaches are tailored to provide optimal conditions for sustained business growth, and for a healthy, strong, and well compensated workforce.

Over time, in this country, and in Western civilization generally, history has shown that only with this type of balanced policy approach, centering equally on both sectors of the economy, have our economies performed optimally over a sustained period, generating wealth that is shared justly. Experiments with neo-conservative or socialist policies have consistently proved detrimental to our economic health each and every time they are implemented.

Policies that promote both a strong business sector and a strong labor force working together are the essential wealth creation engines. Economic history has proven this time and time again. By these means, only the Liberal Party has the value system, knowledge base, and skill to manage our economies to the optimal benefit of every Canadian.

‘Twas The Night Before Question Period

‘Twas the night before QP when all through the House
Not an MP was stirring. Not even Head Lout!
The underlings were hung by their ankles with care,
In hopes the Greyhound soon would be there.

The Tories were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of strong mandates danced in their heads,
And Steve-O in his sweater vest with Rob Anders on his lap
Had just settled their brains for a long QP nap,

When out on the Hill there arose such a noise
Bev Oda spilled OJ all over the ^Savoy.
Away to the heliport McKay flew like a flash,
And off he was gone to a lobbyist’s bash

The cellphone in the hands of the now-fallen Sona
Gave rise to some bluster from Baird and pal Rona,
When, what to their wandering eyes should appear,
But a tweeter called Carroll, disrupting their cheer.

Over coals did they drag this lone tweeting Grit,
And in front of committee they forced him to sit.
But this bold Vikileaker was so lively and quick
They knew in a moment they were knee-deep in it.

With jowls all atremble Del Mastro did shout,
He jumped and he hollered and then did he pout,
When more rapid than eagles Carroll’s answers they came,
As he chuckled, and shouted, and called them by name!

“Now Dean! Now John! Now Peter and Tony!
Your smears are entirely made of baloney
Just hold up a mirror to see what I say
For B.S. on your side has always held sway”

And then in a twinkling they heard from below,
The prancing and pawing of a media show.
As they stared at each other, dumbfounded all round,
Down the chimney a new scandal came with a bound.

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with the Opposition, mount to the sky,
Up to the House-top the F-35’s they flew,
With a fistful of hidden costs and an extra zero or two.

And then, in an instant, they heard on the roof,
The banging and clanging of a political spoof.
As they stared at the pilot, making the motor go round,
The F-35 got stuck on the ground.

He was grumpy this pilot, a right sulky old guy,
And we shuddered when he turned on us his evil blue eye!
A hiss from his tongue and a twist of his head,
Soon gave us to know we had much to dread.

He spoke many words, that made little sense,
“Fight me on this, and I’ll abolish your dear Cent”.
And holding his middle finger up in front of his nose,
And giving a nod, to the clown car he goes!

He slunk to this car, to his team gave a shout,
And away they all clugged, like an old man with gout.
But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,
“You guys are all Nazis!…Hmmm, think I’ll prorogue tonight!”

HUZZAH!!!!

Three Reasons Affirming Quebec Assent to the Canada Act

Thirty years later, we still hear from some parties the myth that Québec did not ratify the Constitution known as the Canada Act, 1982, and then use the myth to political advantage.  The record needs to be set straight once and for all.

First, during the publicly televised constitution debates before the nation, all of the Canadian Premiers and the Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, signed the agreement, including René Lévesque when he used an asterisk as his “mark” on the agreement.  A “mark” such as the René Lévesque asterisk on the Constitution would, in any court of law in the land, serve as legal tender as an instrument of ratification of the agreement.  The fact that the Québec premier chose to use a mark instead of his signature is immaterial in legal terms.  A mark is recognized as such in our laws, including the laws on the books at the time.  In a challenge before the courts in this matter, the challenge would likely fail, and the courts would recognize that Québec did sign the constitution.

The fact that a few months later, René Lévesque tried to say that he didn’t sign the constitution when he put his mark on it, is no different than someone signing a contract or any other legal writ in such a manner, and then trying to extricate himself from the contract or writ by saying his mark on the contract was not a form of legal assent.  In law, the witnessed mark would serve as legal assent and signature to the contract or writ.

Secondly, the courts of the land, including the Supreme Court of Canada and Québec courts which constitute the judicial branch of our government, have accepted the Canada Act, 1982, as the supreme law of the land as duly adopted and promulgated.  We stress that the Québec courts, the judicial branch of the Québec government, fully recognize the legal validity of the Canada Act, 1982, and by doing so, has given their assent to the Act.

Thirdly, as the framers of the Constitution have repeatedly insisted, the large representation of federal parliamentarians and senators from Québec at the time voted to affirm to Canada Act, 1982.

It’s time to stop playing political football with the myth that Québec did not sign the Constitution.  René Lévesque himself ratified the agreement with his mark.