Is this real?

It is hard to imagine that with the resources of the Canadian government at hand no answer was forthcoming from either the Minister of Justice or the then Trade Minister, now gone of course to rattle Canadian Sabers at Russia?

This request was made in November of last year.

 

This is a very simple request to the Attorney General of Canada and those most responsible for the negotiations of CETA.  I have not included the Prime Minister as he is neither a lawyer nor a negotiator, just a dictator.

In the definitions of the CETA are these:

Text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – Chapter one: General definitions and initial provisions

Section A – General definitions

Article 1.1 – Definitions of general application

 

 

 

national means a natural person who is a citizen as defined in Article 1.2, or is a permanent resident of a Party;

 

person means a natural person or an enterprise;

 

person of a Party means a national or an enterprise of a Party;

 

 

Article 1.2 – Party-specific definitions

For the purposes of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified:

citizen means:

  1. for Canada, a natural person who is a citizen of Canada under Canadian legislation;
  2. for the EU Party, a natural person holding the nationality of a Member State;

a)

Please explain to me the definition intended but not specified for a “natural person” .

b)

the inference here is that an enterprise has the same rights as a natural person (undefined as such but qualified under person).  

Does this mean that under CETA a legally established business has the same rights and standing as a natural person now?  If so please define those rights.

I have asked about this in relation to the TPP as well and no one has bothered to respond…is that because you are not willing to explain this  ludicrous situation or because to you do not know the answer even though you have  agreed to this wording?

Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Why Not Canada?

Why not Canada?

One of the biggest problems that Canada has developed over the years is the reduction of income to the Canadian treasury.

We no longer have a national railroad when we used to have two.  We have no longer have a merchant navy fleet.  We basically have given away all our commons so carefully built from 1935 to 1974.  In itself this is bad, but we have also lost the revenue which they were created to produce. The less the country’s income the more is required of the working poor who cannot afford overseas hidey-holes.

We have idle steel mills in Ontario, idle saw mills and pulp mills in BC and Alberta, we have closed manufacturing plants all across Canada, we have GMO crops that half the world doesn’t want, and we have no real ability to refine our crude oil or even that gunk from Athabasca.

We have coal all over for manufacturing steel but instead we are shipping it off shore and buying the steel back; we have miles and miles of fertile soil in the prairies poisoned by GMO and toxic fertilizers; we have livestock so full of steroids or GMO grains that they are susceptible to disease:  we have manufacturing plants dead because we won’t produce things that we buy from overseas using our raw products sold at giveaway prices..  We have lost all the jobs that go with this and we need to get them back.

It is time to look to what we can do not what we have been told we must do to survive in the global market.  We have done it before and we can do it again.

This is not protectionism but survival and it is time we stepped up to the plate again.  We cannot successfully trade if we have nothing to offer but raw resources which will eventually run out.

Why not nationalize CP and CN again?  They must be making money and why are we allowing that money to go abroad.  We used to have people traveling by rail from small towns everywhere to market towns , now everyone has a car they can’t really afford and that are costly to maintain and run.   Mom and pop stores have been decimated and replaced by big box stores, almost all foreign owned.  We are told that this is the only way as it is the way of the global market.

We do not believe it has to be this way.

Canada has so much to offer not only to our own citizens but to the world and we will never be complete and sovereign as long as we do not use what we have.   Trade is essential but not at the prices we are being asked to pay.

It is time to say enough is enough and educate our young to work at something other than the texting keyboard on their cell phones.  Give them pride in what they can make and accomplish.

We have a huge diversity of ideas and abilities which are being squandered behind the counters of Timmy’s or MacDonalds.  We have a work force that is unprepared at this time to do the things we all need.  What happens when the baby boomers are replaced with a workforce which does not know  which end of a wrench to use, which lever operates the plough, what wood to use for a solid and fire proof door, or how to shingle a roof or even how to use welding torch?

We have the resources and the manpower and they are both going to waste.

Enough is enough and it is time to face the facts that as a nation we are broke, we need work for our young and we need industries and specially infrastructure owned by and for us all.

Mostly what we need is to rekindle the dream called Canada.

The Canadian Action Party knows all this and can and will make it happen.  You can join us in this venture or you can sigh and carry on the way you are carrying on now.  We would rather you joined us to make that difference in the life of all Canadians, particularly the coming generations.

 

Jeremy Arney

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Trudeau and Bitumen Pipe Lines

Jeremy Arney on Bitumen Pipelines.

 After agreeing to the toxification of the Sacred Headwater Aquafer in NE BC  via the LNG fracking process, and a damn  (Site C ) being built on very unstable foundations and based on absolutely false need, Prime Minister Trudeau made three announcements on tar pipe lines and I offer these comments:

 Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline never an environmentally sound project either for the First Nations communities along it’s route or for BC’s interior and coast including the Great Bear Rain Forest, Douglas Channel or Hacate Strait, is now dead. Thus we can expect Enbridge to use Chapter 11 of NAFTA to claim perceived lost profits in the billions if not trillions of dollars in the near future.  What I can say is that the previous government would probably have just thrown taxpayers’ money in a large volume at them as they did with Abitibi Bowater. It remains to be seen what the Liberal government will do.

 Kinder Morgan’s twinning Project to Burnaby BC has been approved without the promised new improved revue panel and without the input of all people of BC, particularly those who will be affected by a spill, but with some oversimplified reviews by the same unqualified NEB.

This was supposedly balanced by the ‘promised’ Tanker Ban on the northern coast (way overdue and very welcome), and increased spill response capability from the coast guard.  Just what this later will be is anyone’s guess as at yet no method of cleaning up dilbitumen spills in the ocean is known; all that is known is that the dilutent used is toxic, and the bitumen will form into balls and sink. Oil spill booms will do nothing.  The effect this will have upon the ocean wildlife is completely unknown.

Until this problem is solved there should be no approval of this pipeline.  Yes, this product is already moving but with the 7 fold increase in supertankers the risk of a spill also increases by a factor of 7.

 The Enbridge Line 3 is another dilbit pipeline, with a lesser degree of hard terrain to cover and is supposedly a more up to date line into the USA, but again without the promised new review process. 

Question I am always asking is why are we not refining this tar in Canada?  We constantly ship this raw product south at a low price and buy back the refined products at a high price reflected in our pumps all across Canada.

The price of oil (or tar) has gone from $100 a barrel to $30 a barrel and the price of gasoline at the pumps in Victoria BC has stayed steady at $1.13 per liter with a change upwards in the summer.  Simple economics should show that refining in Canada would be a win win situation.  Our cheap exports would be down but so would our expensive imports. It seems to me that our trade imbalance is partially due to this current practice of sell low and buy high on our major export/import products.

 The simple measure of refining our gunk here would make a vaste difference to our economic situation and we could even export refined product at a price which would benefit us all.

 There is another aspect to this that should be taken into consideration.  The percentage of a product we can export to the USA,

 From NAFTA:

Article 605: Other Export Measures

Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Articles XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

 

  1. the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;

 

What this means is that we can not reduce our percentage of total Bitumen extracted from the sands and exported to the US, so in order to supply any bitumen to China, for instance, we will have to supply much more to the USA at a rock bottom price to maintain their percentage of our production

 On the other hand we have no history of supplying  refined product to the US as we buy it all from them,  so we are not tied by that percentage problem.   Win – win situation.

 Surely someone in the Canadian government has thought of this bitumen percentage because you can be sure that the US has it well under control, and are just waiting for us to try to export some of their percentage of our bitumen anywhere other than to them.

 Incidentally this was originally in the FTA as well, and obviously too good for the US to relinquish.

 What a mess!

 Jeremy

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Black Clouds over Canada

VERY BLACK CLOUDS ARE REPLACING “SUNNY DAYS”.

 This last month we have been presented with our worst fears about the so called “sunny days” government of Canada.

 We understood that sunny days and sunny ways meant that we had elected a government that was willing to listen to us and work with us and for us.   That concept was refreshing and even a little encouraging despite some inherent reservations.

 Yes, we saw a balanced cabinet, yes we saw an initial change in the atmosphere in the House when it convened to pass some immediate tax relief for the upper “middle class” – really how many Canadians are actually in the “middle class” bracket?   For those on CPP and OAS or those struggling to make $40,00 per year it was a completely meaningless exercise.

 But what has happened since then to give Canadians the idea that we are important, that we matter, that indeed we even count as far as this federal government is concerned?

 Well, there has been consultation on election reform held assiduously around the country and with thousands of people making presentations to the special committee.  Since the conservatives have been insisting on a referendum first (not sure on what as the vast majority of Canadians want a change) and now the NDP are going to support that, so maybe there is little chance of there being any development by 2019. Good tactics by the Cons so they can say: “See he didn’t keep this huge promise!”   How does maneuvering like this serve the Canadian people?

 TPP consultations were held to supposedly allow Canadians to express their views, but in fact the committee was presented to 95% by corporate sponsors with a smattering of individual views expressed so a foregone conclusion was reached in a flawed process.

 The aboriginal people of Canada were promised much for education, housing and health but is the money flowing or are consultations still preventing that from happening?

 The cracks are therefore beginning to appear.

 Questions in November and December of 2015 by yours truly about the Bank of Canada and the construction of the Infrastructure Bank were brushed off or simply ignored.

Then we have the CETA, a dodo bird like investment agreement, revived by the creation of a European court of unknown jurisprudence to replace corporately controlled tribunals and signed in Belgium with still some reservations within Europe and some huge hurdles to be passed there; but here in Canada our Government will gladly give the “farm” away to Europe. Our provinces will go along with it because they are being bribed by the federal government with compensation for losses.  Will these compensations be annual or one time and who is going to pay for them?   It is unclear but either way it is a sellout of our country and surrender of our sovereignty to international corporate whims and profits.  Sunny days?  Right!  

 Did you vote for this?

 How many Canadians are aware that we have our own public bank, the Bank of Canada designed and mandated to finance infrastructure (and more)?  A bank used between 1935 and 1974 to finance the period of the greatest growth and prosperity in Canada’s history?   A period of low inflation and low national debt?  It is generally thought that Trudeau senior was responsible for the change from the BOC to international bank loans, but in fact it was the then governor of the BOC, one Gerald Bouey, who agreed to the BIS demands and agreements. At that time our National debt was a mere $22 billion owed basically to ourselves through our own bank.  Today that debt is over $1 trillion and growing with a tail of compounding interest rates that are in fact the largest payment any federal government has to make every year.

 Trudeau junior, instead of reinstating the Bank of Canada as our primary source of finance, along with his corporate Minister of Finance is going to create a new privately owned bank. The Infrastructure Bank of Canada.  The necessity for this bank does not exist, but the need to surrender our commons or rapidly diminishing resources to the corporate world apparently does.  The result is that investors in this new bank will expect a profit worthy of their investment which means a 7-9% interest, most likely compounding at that. The only way this interest can be paid is to surrender the ownership of the infrastructures created or repaired to the Infrastructure Bank which will charge for the use either by tolls, usage fees or entry fees.  Thus the commons such as roads, bridges, water, sewage, garbage collection and recycling will then be owned by corporate interests through the new bank. One wonders how this will work when and if CETA comes into effect and Europeans can compete with the Infrastructure Bank for the right to provide those services.  Can you imagine the court claims?

 In comparison, the Bank of Canada charges a minimal rate without any ownership claims and when their expenses have been paid it returns a dividend to the government, or at least it used to when it was being used to carry out the mandate created by the Bank of Canada Act of 1935.

 We can blame Stephen Harper for his desire to destroy Canada expressed in 2006 or Justin Trudeau for the continuation of that path , or we can blame ourselves for allowing them to do what their corporate masters tell them to do.

 Who benefits from turning Canada into a corporation controlled state?   You can be sure that the answer is not the people of Canada, or at least not those who are part of the so called 99%.

 If this is what you want for your children and grandchildren, then you will be happy. 

If you do not want this then look to the Canadian Action Party which has steadfastly stood not only for the return of the Bank of Canada as our source of finance, the protection of our commons and our environment but also for the people of Canada. 

We have no corporate ties and are only answerable to you.

 

Join us at http://www.actionparty.ca and have you say in the future of Canada.

 

Jeremy Arney

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s Fall economic update, or how to follow Alice through the looking glass

Fall economic Update by Minister of Finance for Canada in the Canadian House of Commons 1st November 2016

 At approximately 1524 in the update the Minister of Finance announced this, and I quote from Hansard:

“Our communities need to keep people and goods moving. Our most vulnerable citizens need housing. Our kids need and deserve clean air and clean water. Our country needs long-term economic growth.

To solve these challenges, we need to think even bigger. We need reliable partners. Canada’s pension funds and institutional investors around the world have world-leading expertise and they are eager to make big, long-term investments in Canada.

I am happy to announce that the Government of Canada is establishing a new Canada infrastructure bank, through which at least $35 billion will flow to help us undertake transformative projects that might not otherwise get built. This bank will allow us to create thousands of jobs, get more projects built, and attract $4 to $5 in private capital for every tax dollar invested. That is progress.”

Then at 1525 or so this:

“Decades from now, when my kids tell the story of when their dad was finance minister, I want them to be able to look back and see our government’s first year in office as the year Canada began on the path towards a new, modern economy. We are well on our way”.

Now I am a simple man, not a lawyer, not a financial expert nor an economist; I have worked hard all my life to provide for my families and sometimes even myself. I simply cannot understand how anyone who claims to listen to the Canadian people, who claims to have the best interests of Canadians uppermost in his mind, and is looking to get the approval of his own children, can be so blind to the economic reality facing him.  He is privatising the entire infrastructure of Canada, from the federal, provincial and indeed to the municipal level.  The profits will not come to Canada for the benefit of Canadians but will go instead into off shore bank accounts.

 IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR?

 This bank, as he so blatantly stated, will be a private bank, owned and financed by corporate interests and the pension funds.  These investors will expect a profit in the neighbourhood of 7% – 9% or they will not invest.  Who will be paying this profit?  Why the Canadian people of course, or lets correct that, it will be the middle and lower earning Canadians, as the top earners are the ones who will be investing in this bank for profit and no doubt will find loop holes and write-offs to eliminate their share of taxes which would otherwise help to pay for this gross mismanagement of Canada’s wealth.

There is another aspect to this and that is CETA should it ever actually become a reality, because this bank could in fact stop profits from European banks which might like to invest directly in some of our projects, or make loans to our municipal or provincial governments. Not being able to do so at profit will give them the opportunity to take Canada to a European court of doubtful jurisprudence which will then dictate our laws to us and of course fine us. Wonder how much money the Minister has allowed for that and where he will get it from.

 Canada is in the enviable position of owning its own bank already, a public bank called the Bank of Canada which was responsible for financing the greatest period of growth and prosperity Canada has ever know, from 1935 to 1974.  Look at the history of financing our part in WW2, having the largest merchant navy in the world, the St Lawrence Seaway, CPP, healthcare, what used to be called Unemployment Insurance, Trans Canada highway, railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools – the list is almost endless and after all that and with minimal inflation we had a national debt in 1974  of just $22 billion basically owed to ourselves!

 Today, according to the World National debt clock, our national debt is over $1 trillion and rising fast.  

 What does the Finance Minister have to say about using the Bank of Canada?  I quote from part of a letter sent to me by one of his staff in reply to my letter concerning the refusal of this government to use of the Bank of Canada, and querying how the infrastructure bank mentioned in one of the leaders’ debates in 2015 would be financed:

 “It is sometimes suggested that the Government of Canada should fund part or all of its debt by borrowing from then Bank of Canada, rather than by borrowing in private sector markets. The Government does not support this approach, as it would require the Bank to create new domestic currency, which does not create any additional wealth.

In fact, the experience of many nations has demonstrated that relying on domestic currency creation to finance government expenditures results in excessive inflation.

While some inflation is desirable to ensure price stability, too much inflation can adversely affect economic growth.  Furthermore, excessive spending and domestic currency creation often lead to a misallocation of scarce resources.”

There is so much inherently wrong with these two paragraphs, but I will simply ask how can anyone really understand the logic of turning a publicly owned bank from a mandated money supplier (Bank of Canada Act 1935) and even a dividend payer to the Minister of Finance, into a simple and toothless inflation watchdog?  The logic of this is beyond me and all I can think is that the current politicians, none of whom support the mandated use of the Bank of Canada, have somehow listened to the siren calls of the big international banks and investors, and believe their call over the needs of their constituents and indeed Canada.

 The fight to stop COMER from  taking the Bank of Canada, the Finance Minister and Government of Canada to court to force them to return to using the Bank of Canada continues, with appeal after appeal from the government in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.   How can they be right when we are heading further and further into an abyss since we stopped using the Bank of Canada.

 Now we know for sure that this Liberal Government is actually as bad as or even worse than the previous Harper regime, and although they claim to listen to the people of Canada, they do not.

 At least we knew that Harper wanted to destroy Canada as he said would in 2006, but this government is racing to out Harper Harper.

 Shame on them all, and shame on us for not fighting them tooth and nail. 

 Unlike the Minister’s wealthy children looking back in pride at their daddy’s perfidy, our children, grand children and great grand children will ask us the question: “Where were you when Canada was sold?”

 

Jeremy Arney

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CETA, Bill C-30, smoke and mirrors?

 

Bill C-30 – an act of destruction concerning Canada’s Sovereignty

In the first reading of the first part of this Bill there are so many contradictions, discrepancies or even sections that no longer apply that I have to wonder just who wrote this Bill and if it has been seen by the Attorney General of Canada who is supposed to vet all Bills.  I started this as a serious attempt to present a brief to both the House and Senate committees when they get ready to look at this but:

 Just as a few examples we find:

 Under the Bill Summary:

 (a) the Export and Import Permits Act to, among other things,

(i) authorize the Minister designated for the purposes of that Act to issue export permits for goods added to the Export Control List and subject to origin quotas in a country or territory to which the Agreement applies,

(ii) authorize that Minister, with respect to goods subject to origin quotas in another country that are added to the Export Control List for certain purposes, to determine the quantities of goods subject to such quotas and to issue export allocations for such goods, and

(iii) require that Minister to issue an export permit to any person who has been issued such an export allocation;

 

So if indeed this is a Free Trade agreement why are there quotas, export and import permits, and export control lists. Either it is free trade or it is not and these indicate that this is not a free trade agreement at all.

 

Interpretation consistent with Agreement

3 For greater certainty, this Act and any federal law that implements a provision of the Agreement or fulfils an obligation of the Government of Canada under the Agreement is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Agreement.

Does anyone else see that this means we now have to manufacture our laws (and presumably regulations to those laws) to conform to this “trade” agreement?

Non-application of Act and Agreement to water

4 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except Chapters Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four of the Agreement, applies to natural surface or ground water in liquid, gaseous or solid state.

Well that would be a relief if only we knew what Chapters 22 and 24 are now.  Does this mean that Nestles for instance can no longer draw free water from the Hope Lake in BC and export it?

Construction

5 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act, by specific mention or omission, is to be construed to affect in any manner the right of Parliament to enact legislation to implement any provision of the Agreement or fulfil any of the obligations of the Government of Canada under the Agreement.

Would I be correct in assuming that all the European countries are offering similarly vague construction?  “For greater certainty, by specific mention or omission,” seems to offer nothing about anything, or maybe anything about nothing.   Did this really pass the legal sniff test?

 

 

Purpose

Purpose

7 The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which, as elaborated more specifically through its provisions, are to

(a) establish a free trade area in accordance with the Agreement;

Tariffs, quotas, limitations of quantities, subsidiary payments to compensate for lost home markets (on an annual basis or just a onetime payment?) paid for by taxpayers in all the countries or just in Canada?  This is “free” trade?

(b) promote, through the expansion of reciprocal trade, the harmonious development of the economic relations between Canada and the European Union in order to create opportunities for economic development;

This is what it is all about, hidden away in a small subsection. Corporate profit disguised as “free” trade.

(c) promote conditions of fair competition affecting trade between Canada and the European Union;

So why all the tariffs and quotas?  Just let trade happen naturally.   Where do all our GMO grain products fit in this as generally Europeans do not like GMO produce?

(d) substantially increase investment opportunities in Canada and the European Union, while preserving the right of each of the parties to the Agreement to regulate to achieve legitimate policy goals;

Yeah, right!

(e) eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services in order to contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world and regional trade;

Here is the number two killer of sovereignty, services.  This is why all the provinces had to agree with CETA because services include provincial and municipal procurements. Any municipality which does not grant their water, sewage or even electrical or recycling services to an applicant private enterprise European company can cause Canada to be attacked by a tribunal.  Except that Walloon has vetoed the tribunal so why is it even mentioned so prominently in this Bill C-30, and even the Minister has promoted the concept of a European court deciding upon our laws. 

(f) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the territory where the Agreement applies;

This will apply to any company purchased by European investors and then moved to Europe?  Under NAFTA we have seen so much of our intellectual property move south, now we can expect it to move east as well? Can we really trust this anymore?

(g) protect, enhance and enforce basic workers’ rights, strengthen cooperation on labour matters, and build on the respective international commitments of Canada and the European Union on labour matters;

Interesting idea as in Europe they have free transfer of workers from one country to another, here in Canada only basic labourers can move from one province to another.  So how will that work under CETA?  Any qualified professional from Europe can move freely among provinces but Canadians cannot?

(h) enhance and enforce environmental laws and regulations and strengthen cooperation between Canada and the European Union on environmental matters; and

(i) promote sustainable development.

So here we then proceed to the Tribunals already rejected by Walloon and therefore Belgium, yet we are still proceeding to add into an investment Bill this whole section about them.    How can we be expected to take this Bill C 30 seriously?

 I did however persevere for a while:

 

Tribunals, Arbitration Panels and Panels of Experts

Powers of Minister

11 (1) The Minister may

(a) propose the names of individuals to serve as members of the tribunals established under Section F of Chapter Eight of the Agreement; and

(b) propose the names of individuals to be included in the sub-lists referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 29.‍8 of the Agreement.

 Can there be any serious comment to make here?

Operation of Chapter Twenty-Nine

12 The Minister is to designate an agency, division or branch of the Government of Canada to facilitate the operation of Chapter Twenty-Nine of the Agreement.

Or here?

 

 

Expenses

Payment of expenses

.

13 The Government of Canada is to pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of

(a) the expenses incurred by tribunals established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to members of those tribunals;

(b) the expenses incurred by arbitration panels and Panels of Experts established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to those arbitrators, panellists on those Panels of Experts and mediators; and

(c) the expenses incurred by the CETA Joint Committee and the specialized committees, bilateral dialogues, working groups and other bodies established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to representatives on the CETA Joint Committee and those specialized committees and to members of those bilateral dialogues, working groups and other bodies.

 

We know that this government is more anxious to spend money abroad than here at home but is it not taking it a bit far to expect us to take on the expenses of tribunals which will not happen?  Will we then be expected to pay the European court costs when they rule against us in disputes which is I suppose fair, or will we have to also pay a share of a dispute between let’s say France and Poland?  Absolutely opaque here.

 

Orders

Orders re Article 29.14 of Agreement

14 (1) The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of suspending obligations in accordance with Article 29.‍14 of the Agreement, by order, do any one or more of the following:

(a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to the European Union and its member states or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of the European Union and its member states under the Agreement or any federal law;

(b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the European Union and its member states or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of the European Union and its member states;

(c) extend the application of any federal law to the European Union and its member states or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of the European Union and its member states;

(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

Now this is where we step through Alice’s looking glass.  If we can do all this, including imposing our federal laws on Europe, they can also do the same, so we have all the European countries imposing their individual laws on us and we are imposing our laws on them.  

This is supposed to be a serious bill and a serious agreement?

 

Then there is this curious introduction of another entity:

 

(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

 

EU country or other CETA beneficiary has the same meaning as in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff; (pays de l’Union européenne ou autre bénéficiaire de l’AÉCG)

 

There is no explanation I could find of a CETA beneficiary, so I imagine this means the lawyers who will simply move from the tribunal positions to the proposed European court that will “try” the cases among us all.  I mean who or what else could it be?

This is far as I could go into Bill C-30 without simply bursting out into laughter:

 

To those who wrote this Bill C-30 and those who are actively supporting it, you can certainly do much better, and we are paying you way too much money for you to allow or support such sloppy work.  The speed with which this was introduced to parliament after the October 30th signing  indicates that it was an out of date bill and certainly it appears to be that way.

 Finally, openness and transparency mean just that; so we should have the complete text of the signed agreement readily available with Bill C-30 so that references made to the agreement can be checked.   We should have the full text of the agreement available anyway, or now that the investor dispute part (the most important part of the agreement) has changed does it have to go through a multilateral legal re scrubbing?   If it does what on earth is Bill C30 doing in front of our parliament at this time anyway?

 

A second finally, can someone, anyone show me where our MPs of any stripe have been given the mandate to subject our laws and regulations to overseas courts, or tribunals controlled by foreign governments or corporations?  Or for that matter to impose our laws on foreign countries.   A majority in the House of Commons is just that; it is not a mandate to surrender our sovereignty.

 Jeremy Arney

 

 Ps. I suppose I should have read more, but this Bill is soo bad that it has to be re- written and I will go further then.  As Canadians we deserve a great deal more from our elected employees.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

My Submission to the ERRE House of Commons committee on Electoral Reform

Submission to the special ERRE Committee of the House of Commons.

I have been watching or reading the transcripts of as many of the hearings as I can and I have come to a rather alarming conclusion. The present discussions are about remixing the mix, not making the mix more people orientated and inclusive.

The first section of the mandate of the committee is to research ways to: and I quote

Effectiveness and legitimacy: that the proposed measure would increase public confidence among Canadians that their democratic will, as expressed by their votes, will be fairly translated and that the proposed measure reduces distortion and strengthens the link between voter intention and the election of representatives;

In all the watching and reading I have done it is clear that while STV has some advantages there is only one method of voting that will be inclusive if it is allowed to be.MMP with a secondary list for choice of party representatives will be, if allowed, inclusive of those parties registered with Elections Canada but so far not represented in the House of Commons. It matters not if those lists are open or closed if they exclude seventeen duly registered parties conforming to Elections Canada obligations, but not rich enough to compete with the current costs of a national election. By deliberate exclusion at Town Hall meetings, TV debates , local or national forums, these parties have had little chance of having their ideas heard by the general population.

While you are not here to discuss the conduct of the campaigns, you are to determine how the interests of the people are best served. When I asked Ms. May at her town hall in Sidney BC about this she suggested that any party with 5-10% of the vote should be allowed to have a list, which would exclude her party and the Bloq from having a list of representatives for the second choice and would in fact be very exclusive. We are heading into a new system and to take old figures into that system would be a rather backward step in my view.

My suggestion for your consideration is that any party that runs a candidate in a riding has the right to present a secondary list for the voters in that riding.

There is no doubt that the small registered parties have some very good ideas for Canada and Canadians and are not encumbered by donors needs and desires. To be blunt they represent their members and Canadians, not outside interests or lobbyists, and they should be included in the process of government not excluded as they are now

.By having the small parties submit lists the Canadian people would have the ability to choose for greater representation than the established party MPs are capable of providing under their current party discipline systems; new ideas and real representation can only be good for Canada.

I will be attending the 27th September meeting in Victoria BC, and if not invited to submit this proposal I will be in line to ask questions of you about this.

Thank you

Jeremy Arney

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment