a watchdog with one eye on the sheep

There are a number of  "watchdog" institutions in Ottawa.The first was the Economic Council of Canada.It was a very gentle watchdog with rarely a harsh word to say.It was followed by the Conference Board and the C.D.Howe Institute.They kept a close eye on the government's economic forecasts and of course their budgets.They proved to be worthwhile when there was very little to watch.In effect, they were good at saving millions.But when the federal government was collecting G.S.T revenue and the deficit kept rising from $5 billion in 1991 to $42 billion in 2001 or 2002 the watch dogs were silent.Good at saving millions but not at saving billions.What can explain this lack of vigilance?

The most extreme situation was in 2009 when the department announced a forthcoming $13 billion surplus and Mr. Flaherty announced first a$25 billion deficit and finally a $56 billion deficit.This all within six weeks.The watchdogs should have been howling but were silent.It is possible that Mr. Flaherty was very clever and assembled these guys and explained that there was some crisis on the horizon.He needed the money to solve this crisis.He may have even increased their budgets a little bit.But how did he explain away a $40 to $46 billion deficit with the economy picking up and more G.S.T. revenue coming in?This is a mystery but Mr.Flaherty did a god job because we still have a deficit until 2015 and G.S.T revenues have increased every year.What can the watchdogs say about this?I don't know but soon there will be no more sheep left to watch.

a frivolous action in court

A previous blog on Workathon talked about the dubious actions by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.In fact, the court ruled that my claim and the following motion were frivolous actions and fined me $10,000  for bringing such frivolous actions before the court.This I find to be a travesty.

The defendant had not made a defence to be filed nor was it served on the plaintiff.I had made a requisition for the defendant to be noted in default and then a requisition for a default judgement. I notified the court clerk that I would be making a motion for summary judgement the next day and she said that the defendant was making a motion on that day.It was a motion to dismiss the requisition for being noted in default.The judge should have dismissed the entire action as no defence was filed and no Factum Book was filed.In fact, the motion had not been properly filed  ;it was filed in court.The judge accepted the motion for dismissal.The grounds were that my claim was filed on the short form and not the long form.Whereas Statute 76 states that these forms were convertible.It was purely a clerical matter.Nevertheless the judge dismissed my requisition for being noted in default but not my default judgement.

Later at my motion hearing the defendant improperly                   filed a motion for dismissal for my default judgement again at the last minute.The judge heard the defandant's motion first and I could only respond to points he made except in my summary argument.The judge again heard the defendant's motion although he had not filed a defence nor a Factum Book.Perhapsit helped that the defendant was the Scotiabank.After all these improper judicial procedures the court ruled that I had a frivolous action and fined me (not the defendant) a $10,000 fine.

theCanadian judiciary strikes

A previous blog on Workathon described the usage of illegal evictions and illegal foreclosures to take away my three houses in Cambridge,Ontario.In fact, this whole process was illegal and done almost completely without the use of any legal procedures except for registering the power of sale transaction in the Land Registry Office.All three transactions were recorded at well below "fair market price". Statute requires the sale at fair market price.

So I decided to test the legality of these three transactions in court.I took one to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Brampton and two before the Ontario Court of Justice in Barrie.I had a default judgement in Brampton court and as I went to bring a motion for summary judgement a judgement dismissing my action was put on the file although there was no defence nor factum book.There was no grounds  for the decision just the judgement.

In Barrie court I had a motion hearing.Although the defendant had not filed nor served a defence nor a factum book and he filed his motion at the last minute(in court).The judge (in both claims) decided to hear the defendant's motion first.So none of my evidence was heard except as an objection to a point made by the defendant.I had to make all my points in my summary of five minutes.It is no wonder that the judge in all three claims decided that my motion was frivolous and a waste of the court's time.It is a wonder however that the judges fined me $10,000 and in favour of a defendant with no filed nor served defence.  

whose pension is it?

When I was in Ottawa I had a few good jobs so I accumulated a sizeable pension after thirteen years in the civil service.In fact,my pension was reported to me as being $37,900.I was broke and confused after losing my government job.I had a pile of assets but no cash.So after talking to the general manager of the CSCOOP he explained that I could get my pension money if I paid ten percent withholding tax and I signed a letter stating that I needed the funds for essential items.I did and he released the funds minus the withholding tax.

In a previous blog I explained that I spent a considerable amount of time getting superannuation and pension from the civil service.I got one cheque but they held back about $120,000 for the second payment.A second payment I never got because they kept it for prepaid income tax.I did get money for my pension($37,900) but I couldn't touch it.I had to put it back into my pension.That was September2008.In September2011  I got papers saying that I earned $5000 in interest income.I knew the pension was put into a R.R.S.P. so I figured the income was coming from my pension.I called and emailed my pension administrator about how to get my pension and got no response.One email stated that I should talk to Revenue Canada.I went into the local office and talked to several agents and they said only Public Works  knew the location and amount of my pension.

I talked to two M.P.s about getting the pension and where it was Neither M.P. would tell me.So right now I am wondering just whose pension is it anyway?

in between the shows

I did a study on the Canadian broadcasting industry and I found out that there was no profit between the years of 2000 and 2011.Quite flat.The Thompsons bought CTV for $1.3 billion and sold it three years later at the same price but now it included a few CHUM television stations.I feel that there is not enough creativity to draw the audiences needed to get increasing advertising revenues.If you have a real unique product you probably are not advertising on Cnadian television.There are other places to advertise.

I think that the quality of programming on Canadian television has fallen over the last five years.Movies are shown five or six times rather than two.The networks are showing programming not as interesting as the specialty channels.One of the reasons is probably that budgets are smaller.If you look closely at the advertising you will see that the mix is different than before.Every channel uses this space to advertise their own shows.There is a lot of advertising time that goes to government programs.There is a lot of time for advertising for Bell Canada.Stations advertise their shows on other stations.This time does not bring much revenue in.There is also a lot more local advertising than before.Instead of five ads for  Pizza Pizza;there are now three and two for Joe's Pizza down the street.Lots of advertisements for local real estate agents.This makes less competition for the remaining real time.Here is the ads for new cars and new computer equipment and ads for cable companies.

There is not enough advertising time for new products and almost never any new,innovative products.But that is what is in between the shows.It is my feeling that the gap or residual is made up by donations from governments and other agencies.

RevenueCanada is too busy

I was in the Oshawa and Newcastle area for quite awhile.I was working on getting my federal civil service pension and superannuation.I dealt mostly with the federal and provincial members of parliament-Bev Oda and John Otoole.I spent months and months filling out forms and making phone calls.I also got a lot of help from Garfield Dunlop's office in Orillia.Final details and new forms were signed in the member(federal) for Oshawa.I got a cheque sent to Kitchener where I was staying in a hostel.The cheque apparently came from Oshawa.

I got one cheque and the stub said there was a second payment to be made later.Also they held back my pension;the payment was for superannuation only.I checked with the Department of Public Works and they said Revenue Canada would be sending the cheque .I called Revenue Canada several times and one officer asked me if I wanted cash.I said yes and he said he would give me $20,000 in cash for a $100,000 cheque.I declined.

I checked on the value of my pension with Revenue Canada and they said it was originally $38,000 and now was up to about $43,000 but I couldn't get my hands on it.Now it should be up to about$45,000(with interest earned).I tried to get help from the member for Collingwood,KellieLeitch, but she wouldn't come into her office and refuses to answer e-mails.She will not help me get my pension!

I decided to use the $100,000 as a deposit to be used to pay my income tax.After getting some R.R.S.P'S  and lots of other credits  I had a refund coming from Revenue Canada.Every year I use some of the $100,000 to get refunds.Now Revenue Canada owes me about $50,000 in back taxes.This in addition to my pension which I could use to buy a house.The problem is that Revenue Canada is too busy! 

the deficit years

In a previous blog I talked about the surplus predicted by the department of Finance but the correction by the Minister several weeks later.The final deficit was $69 billion greater than first predicted by the department.At the same time there was little noise from the "finance watchdogs".This is not a prediction error;this is merely the Minister asking for more money for his projects.This addition is on top of the ordinary program increase built in from last year.

It must be remembered that the deficit amounts are not tremenduously sensitive to the economic growth rate.The economy was in recession in 2009 but not by such a tremenduous amount.And in fact, the economy turned up in 2010 yet Mr.Flaherty still called for a deficit.The newspapers are not clear on the amount;I believe it changed at mid-year.But it was between $40 and $46 billion.The growth rate was fairly robust in 2011 and again Mr.Flaherty called for a deficit.This time it looked to be about $20 billion but these figures are not easy to find.There will likely be a deficit  until 2015.Then we can expect a balanced budget.

So here we have a slightly decreasing deficit while there is an increasing economic growth rate.At the same time the revenues from the G.ST. tax continue to grow by 1.5 to 3% each year.The point easily seen here is that the deficit doesn't seem to be connected to the positive growth rate.It  was still very large as the economy picked up.Secondly the additional discretionary revenue from the budget  deficits total about $130 to$140 billion.Added to the $660 billion from collected G.S.T. revenue not applied to the deficit this totals about $880 billion.Probably the department has a better idea what this "discretionary government revenue" was used for than I do.

The department and the Minister of Finance

In the days of Donald MacDonald and even Paul Martin, as the Minister of Finance, the tradition was that the Minister would give his forecast of the budget deficit or surplus a little before the actual numbers came out.Next the department of Finance would come out(before television) with the almost solid numbers that would be the budget numbers.I have had some experience with the department of finance and know that these numbers were indeed rock solid numbers.However the minister(especially Paul Martin) had a habit of adding $500 million or a billion onto the department's numbers.No one in Ottawa minded because it was probably a pet project of Paul Martin's and for sure it would be worthwhile.However this set the trend for the Minister's forecast being different from the Department.Nevertheless the watch dogs made a big noise over this procedure for a small amount of money.

Jim Flaherty,the present Minister of Finance, obviously saw this trend and Jim Flaherty embellished on it.In 2009 the Department of Finance made their forecast about a month before the actual budget figures would be released.The department said there would be a $13 billion surplus.The economy was picking up and the G.S.T tax was bringing it  in as usual.Mr. Flaherty made his presentation inside parliament which were not privy to but (I believe) it was not going to be accepted.He came outside of parliament and stated there would likely be a $25 billion deficit.He explained that 2008 had been a year of recession and so a deficit was likely.Another two or three weeks later he revised his deficit figures upwards to $40 billion.The department was silent on this revision.Mr.Flaherty's final deficit figure was a whopping $56 billion.It is very hard to imagine that the department of Finance with their very accurate forecasting models could have been so inaccurate.However it is clear now that Jim Flaherty made very different assumptions about spending government deficits than he gave to the department of Finance.Amazingly both the department and the watch dogs(such as The Conference Board) were at first silent and then in complete agreement with the Minister.So then Jim Flaherty completely changed the dynamic between himself and the department of Finance.And I believe between himself and parliament although that is for others to say.One thing is clear that Jim Flaherty has been very persuasive in convincing the Department of Finance to see that their models and their experts are wrong.

the other years

A previous blog concluded that about $738 billion in tax revenues was collected between 1991 and 2002 that was not applied towards the budget deficit nor the federal debt. But how much was collected and not spent from 2003 to 2013.This amount has to be estimated because it is not easily discovered.We start with the increase in the G.D.P. between 2003 and 2013.The economy increased from about$1.20 trillion to near $1.7 trillion.An increase of  $.5trillion or an increase of about 42% or almost 4.5%(not quite10 years).This increase of about 4.5% a year will be applied to the deficit.So the deficit would increase from $42 billion to about $60 billion.At the same time the G.S.T.tax went from about $85 billion to about$110 billion in 2009.In 2009 the tax was changed to 5% from 7% but there still was about $80 billion collected in 2010 and $85 billion in 2012.In very gross terms this would amount to another $220 to $240 billion collected and not spent on the growing deficit.This exercise allows that the deficit will grow by 4.5% per year.

If these increases in the deficit are close to being correct then the total of revenues collected but spent on the deficit would be about $660 billion from 1991 to 2013.This however does not allow for  the huge deficit that the Minister of Finance asked for in 2010 and 2011 and 2012.What can this money be used for? 

all the collected G.S.T.revenue

Two or three previous blogs have talked about G.S.T. tax revenue that has been collected but not applied towards the federal government budget deficit as it was intended.But how much does this revenue amount to?The G.S.T tax was put on, in the summer of 1991.So it was for 7% for half a year on half the goods and services.The economy was about$720 billion.So it is estimated that for the first year they collected about $11 billion.The next full year about $22 billion was collected.In 1994 (when Jean Chretien was elected)the tax was extended to all goods and services and close to $50 billion was collected.No money was applied to the deficit until Paul Martin did in his second year.I believe the year was2002.The economy was about $1.25 trillion at this time.So Paul Martin collected about $85 billion.The deficit had climbed every single year until then.Now the deficit was a whopping $42 billion.All parties jokingly refer to Paul Martin as the man who slayed the deficit.He took $85 billion and paid off $42 billion.Finally the G.S.T was used the way it was intendedAfter this year it is hard to calculate how much was used to pay the deficit.However G.S.T revenues continued to climb until 2009 when the tax was reduced to 5%.In 2009 the economy was about $1.5 trillion in size.That year the G.S.T.revenues were about$105 billion.The next year with a reduced tax rate they only collected about $80 billion -a real setback.

If you add all the revenuescollected but not applied to the budgetary deficit up to2002 the revanues amount to close to$738 billion.What did the government do with all this money?We can only speculate and speculate we will in another blog.

an illegal eviction

A previous blog described my dealings with the Canadian judiciary. In fact, I told how I had lost three houses in Cambridge,Ontario and got nothing back in consideration.All three cases I brought before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.All three were considered frivolous by the Canadian  judiciary.In fact,the judges fined me $10,000 for bringing frivolous actions before the court.

This whole process started when two property managers(from the banks in question ) and in the third case a bailiff for the Kitchener court evicted me.There was no Notice of Eviction given to me nor my lawyer.In fact, a proper eviction should be brought before the court and contested by both parties.But the three evictions were nev
er entered before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

So although there never was a proper eviction six weeks after each eviction was carried out there was a Power of Sale transaction.In order to get a quick sale the bank took less than market value for each property.One sold for $40,000 and one for $60,000 and one for $100,000.These properties were worth$225,000 to $425,000.I had made a lot of improvements in a short period of time.The equity I had in these three properties was equal to about $350,000.I had mortgages on each property which reduced the equity in the houses.Ontario Annual Practices states that in a power of sale the bank must be sure to get "fair market value".$60,000 for a $350,000 house does not meet that standard.

This is an example of what I have referred previously as a "wild west" approach to judicial practices.In this case at tremenduous cost to myself.

The Red Book

Jean Chretien defeated Brian Mulroney at the polls.The year was 1993 and he apparently won on the red book.It was a complete plan of what the liberals would do once elected.The main platform was scrapping the G.S.T. tax. but once he got in he expanded the tax to be on all goods and services.Formerly it applied to only half of the goods and services.Now the effective tax rate was truly 7% whereas before the effective rate was only about 3.5%.Chretien probably came to this conclusion when he saw the federal government budget deficit climb every year from1991 to1994.So in 1994 the new rate was in effect.

At this time the G.N.P. was about $770 billion.Now the amount of tax collected was about $50 billion a year. He was now well armed to slay the budget deficit.However strangely it climbed every year during his regime.His Minister of Finance during these years was a man called Paul Martin.

me and the Canadian judiciary

A previous blog called "Russia the emerging nation" talked about the foibles in both the Russian judiciary and the Canadian judiciary.Another earlier blog talked about specific unprosecuted fiascos in the Canadian  investment industry.In particular,Bre-x,Nortel,Yellow Pages and Conrad Black.The accusation that was made was not the lack of laws covering the investment industry nor the ability of the Candian judiciary.It was that it "appeared" to be a lack of authority and a lack of vigilance by the Canadian judiciary.It appears to be a "wild west" scenario in the Canadian investment industry.There are almost no hearings and any hearings never have any sentences for the participants.There is a "ho -hum" attitude towards investment piccadilos.Maybe next time we'll get them but not this time.

I speak here from personal experience.I had three houses in Cambridge ,Ontario and they were all three taken from me with no consideration given in return.The banks that owned the mortgages improperly evicted me and within six weeks all three were foreclosed on.Three houses that were worth about three hundred and fifty thousand were taken from me and I was given nothing in return.I had hearings and I made motions for the recovery of money "in lieu" of getting my houses back.I asked for about $700,000 because   the emotional damage from being evicted had to be worth something.However I could have only gotten $360,000 from the judge after the judge's deliberations.Instead three separate judges from the illustrious Canadian judiciary ruled that my actions were frivolous and forced me to pay another $10,000 to the court for wasting the courts time.This I take as another scene in a "wild west"Canadian judiciary play. 

the consumption tax

The G.S.T. tax is a consumption tax. It is levied on all goods and services consumed.In Europe it is often called a VAT tax or value added tax.It increases the value (or the price)of every item by the amount of the tax,It ,in effect is a gross income tax as it reduces income by the amount of the tax.So the extra income  to the government comes right out of the pockets of consumers.They consume less in direct proportion to the increased income to the government.

The rationale for a consumer tax is that it can be used to reduce national debt or even the deficit of the government.The consumer tax is not meant to be a permanent tax;the income and corporate taxes are permanent tax as they are paying for the government services that they receive.In Canada,the G.S.T tax has been in place for twenty -two years and it is time to reduce it or eliminate it.However it is clear that eliminating the consumption tax would put pressure on to increase the income tax or the corporate tax.So eliminating it is not likely.

In Canada,the G.S.T. tax was first introduced in 1991.It was introduced at 7% and was reduced to 5%.Brian Mulroney likely brought it in to reduce the growing deficit.It was about $5 billion at the time and considered to be quite large.I estimate that the G.S.Ttax in it's first full year brought in about $22 to $25 billion.This was enough to eliminate that pesky deficit.It is likely that in the first year the government did not know how much would be collected.However an even stranger phenomenon is that the deficit climbed from 1991 to 2000 even with the G.S.T.tax.

the Canadian judiciary

An earlier blog called "Russia the emerging nation" talked about the Russian judiciary and improvements that must be made.It also discussed foibles of the Canadian judiciary.Mention was made of the lack of prosecution in Canadian investment scandals.Since I have not had access to transcripts on these files I cannot properly assess the merits of defenses to these various hearings.Included here would be Bre-x, Nortel,Conrad Black and others.I also feel that when there is tremenduous and dramatic changes in price of a stock or commodity that a hearing should be called for.That would include Yellow Pages and the recent drop in the price of gold.You have to believe that some investors made lots of money on short-selling.Did the short-sellers help to drive the price down in both latter cases?The Canadian judiciary may be judicially proper but they appear to be lacking authority or at least vigilance.