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

TPP, CETA, TiSA yet again

26th September 2016

To the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,

Prime Minister of Canada.

Concerning: CETA, TPP and TiSA.

I have written now nine times to your Minster of Trade concerning one or all of these investment agreements and have received no response from her at all, and am therefore writing directly to you. As a Canadian I am somewhat miffed by this lack of response and as the interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party I am disgusted by the discourtesy of a highly paid member of your Cabinet.

Over the years Canada has been an exporter of a huge variety of items, from wheat to beef and pork, all manner of natural resources and innovation. We did not need special agreements – we simply did it. Mulroney’s FTA and the offshoot NAFTA changed all that with respect to Mexico and the USA and made trade more about corporate profits and their protection. During Jean Chretien’s time trade boomed because it was done on a personal and direct basis, with him going overseas with Canadian business men/women in tow talking directly to overseas counterparts. Did it work? Oh yes it did, we had a healthy surplus in trade in 2006.

Then came the era of destruction when everything from parliament to sovereignty and the rule of law was under severe attack, and the dark era of investment agreements disguised as and called trade agreements took place. Every one of them had within it an investor state dispute mechanism which had nothing to do with trade at all, but everything to do with protecting the perceived profits of corporations from those other countries.

Has this process worked? Well, we now have a huge trade deficit and have been taken before a corporate dispute tribunal more than any other country in the world. The reality or legality of the claims is immaterial as shown in the case of Abitibi Bowater. They had water and timber rights granted in the early 1900s by Newfoundland and Labrador for as long as they had an operating mill there employing Canadians. When they closed their last mill in 2008 those timber and water rights were taken back by the province as the conditions for those rights were no longer being fulfilled. The Harper Government of the time did not let the NAFTA claim go to arbitration but instead simply and quietly paid Abitibi Bowater $130 million rather than fight such a ridiculous claim and by this action deliberately opened the floodgates.

Worse yet is the fact that Canadian based companies such as Lone Pine Power of Calgary saw the advantage of incorporation in Delaware USA and when their intention to frack and drill in the St Lawrence River was rejected by Quebec because, among other things, a proper environmental study had not been done, Lone Pine Power lodged a tribunal claim against Canada for $250 million for perceived lost profits

Where exactly does trade fit into this picture?

Your Minister is so excited that CETA – which she erroneously called “a gold plated trade deal” – is not dead as it should be but has been resuscitated by the creation of a new court to deal with perceived profit loss disputes. I have asked for details of this new court such as where it will be based, who will provide the judges and lawyers and under what jurisprudence and at what cost to Canada, because we always seem to end up paying for these things , and how it will affect our court system and will that new court overrule our Supreme Court. I have, as usual, received not one word in answer, nor can I find answers on the Ministry of Trade website.

Perhaps you can tell me.

My understanding is that the Germans are not too happy about this new CETA court and rightly ask the same questions as to how it will affect their court system. The American equivalent of CETA (TTIP) is apparently dead so why is your Trade Minster and indeed the Government of Canada pursuing CETA instead of a real “trade” agreement?

Both CETA, the TPP and TiSA are extensions of Stephen Harper’s desire to subjugate Canada to the profits of international corporations. The Harper government was mercifully rejected and an ungrateful nation will now reward him for his treasonous behaviour with millions of dollars instead of a gold watch as he has quit his MP job to become a lobbyist; not of the Federal government I trust, as that would be contrary to the Lobbying Act.

The question, Prime Minister, is why are you and your Trade Minister continuing with these Harper government perfidious investment agreements, and where exactly is your mandate to turn our ability to make laws and regulations to protect both Canada and Canadians from corporate greed into an inability to do so, thereby destroying any sovereignty left after Harper? I actually think you were granted a mandate to scrap them along with Bill C51.

I have to tell you also Prime Minister that sunny ways and sunny days have turned to very dark and turbulent skies on this file and I am very fearful for my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I did not come to Canada in 1967 to raise a Canadian branch of the family here in BC only to have them subjected to the greedy whims of some CEO somewhere in the world while their country, Canada, has its sovereignty given over to international corporate interests.

Canada is soo much better than that.

Jeremy Arney

Interim leader of the Canadian Action Party


cc by mail to:

Minister of Trade, Minister of Justice and Minister of Foreign Affairs.


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

Voting reform in Canada?

In Canada we have been presented with an opportunity to bring some real democracy to our political scene, and it appears to me that we are going to pass on that opportunity.

We have a three party system here with a Quebec only based party and a fringe party – the Greens – making up the MP mix.

We have 22 registered political parties in Canada so how is it that only 5 parties are sharing the MPs?

The answer is as old as the hills really and that is power and money.

We call our system of government parliamentary democracy, which in essence means that we have a parliament that represents the people, but does it? Oh there are facts, figures and percentages quoted often to support the concept that it does, but how often does your MP manage to get anything done on a national level with which you approve or even give consent. I will not deny that on an individual problem they may be able to get help for you from the government,. But that largely depends on the MP and the party to which they belong. I remember when I approached Dr. Wallace who was for years a progressive conservative MP for Oak Bay about a problem he flatly told me there was nothing he could do because he was not a member of the government. That is a perfect example of lack of willingness by an MP to act democratically on any level simply because he was not a member of the government. Point here is that all our members of Parliament claim democracy for Canada when in fact we have probably never had such a state.

What we have had since our inception is a two or three party system of governance which is entirely partisan and self serving for those parties. From this we have developed a very finely tuned system of preserving that status quo.

Before we take a serious look at the voting itself, lets look at the process leading up to that vote.

The ability to have a candidate in every riding depends on the money available to a party to develop the machinery at every constituency level, and today that is only partly through individual donations from people and corporation. After each election EC refunds to five parties a large portion of their expenses thus giving them a huge bank account to run the next election. Is there some logic behind this? Of course not from the people of Canada’s point of view because they are paying for it, but from the parties who have developed this system of huge expenses and refunds it makes perfect sense that in essence the taxpayers should pay for their election expenses.

To illustrate what I mean, in 2011 there were 17 parties which had candidates in the election. Of these only 5 parties received a refund from Elections Canada to the total tune of $33,262,653.00.  (see table below from  EC website).

This money came from EC and who pays for EC? Yes that’s right you do. The remaining 12 parties received nothing and had all exhausted their finances and had to rebuild for 2015.

Then in the actual campaigns themselves at almost every town hall across the country “all candidates meetings” actually means the Cons,. Libs, NDP and Greens (and of course the Bloq in Quebec). For a smaller party to get on the stage is an extreme rarity. Even in 2015 when the conservative party candidate did not bother or was told not to to appear at town halls in Esquimalt BC a communist candidate who attended the meetings was totally refused entry to the stage or to even make a presentation to the attendees. The “rules” of participation are set by the holder of the town hall (ie a church or Chamber of Commerce) and are not governed by EC. There is only one way to change this and that involves the people of each riding to walk out of a meeting that does no offer every candidate the same opportunity to speak as would happen in a democracy, or in fact would be suggested by the “all candidates” designation. Problem is that these small parties have some very people oriented and good ideas and therefore must be excluded in order to protect those who only speak the party line.

Advertising is very expensive and here again the Broadcast Arbiter has stacked the deck to favour those major parties and give them the lions share of the advertising that CBC must carry free during an election. Small parties get on average 5 minutes each split between radio and TV, whereas those parties which can well afford to pay for their own get 80 – 100 minutes of free time. This is of course upside down and only further hinders democracy here in Canada.

What this all means is that some 17 registered political parties in Canada are largely excluded from the election process by design.

If this exclusion continues what difference does it make how the vote is conducted?

However that process is being looked at by both a special committee which is working hard and has done so to their credit all summer. Following a decade of completely dysfunctional committees this one has an opportunity to show Canadians that MPs can actually work together for Canadians. After much nonsense about a referendum from the Conservative party members of the committee they too have finally realised that this subject is important, and have started to actually take part rather than distract from the mandate at hand. Problem is that the whole subject is being conducted on the basis of there only being 3 parties, along with the Bloq and Greens, to be considered. In other words any proposal will simply remix the mix we presently have which is no longer functional as far a democracy is concerned.

For example STV allows for up to 5 candidates to be chosen for a larger constituency, so here in Canada each constituency would have an Lib, Con, NDP, Green and one other member of parliament- if that figure of 5 stands and that is not likely as it would open the door for a small party outside Quebec.. Now that sounds like stalemate to me, and anyone who knows chess knows that is not a great outcome.

MMP allows for party list to be chosen from as a secondary feature but that list would perhaps only be presented by a party with a 5-10% of the vote at the last election…so we are back to a list from 3 parties only as even the Greens did not manage 5% of the vote in 2015.

See how this is like a mathematical loop?

All we will get from this as it is playing out so far is a shuffling of the three party deck.

Seventeen small registered parties thought that sunny days and voting reform would help them to finally have some small level of representation in our Canadian House of Commons, to represent their members views and definitely bring new ideas to a stale establishment stuck in the mold of indifference to the people and acquiescence to the corporate lobbyists.

I fear that once again this chance at a new democracy will be sidelined in favour of partisan party politics and in defence of what those parties have.

I am still wondering why the Minister in charge of all this did not appear in Victoria as advertised but instead went to Saturna Island with a total population topping off at 350. Lack of venue? Maybe but we have a magnificent legislature building here in Victoria which is only used for about 7-10 days in any BC Liberals calendar year and I am sure that could have been a very good venue.


Jeremy Arney


Elections Canada Online | Total Paid Election Expenses and Reimbursements, by Registered Political Party – 2011 General Election

Total Paid Election Expenses and Reimbursements, by Registered Political Party – 2011 General Election

Registered political party Number of candidates Total paid election expenses ($) Authorized limit of election expenses ($) Reimbursement ($)
Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada 7 39,024 467,969 0
Bloc Québécois 75 5,344,678 5,373,818 2,669,961
Canadian Action Party 12 16,954 840,226 0
Christian Heritage Party of Canada 46 41,960 3,202,184 0
Communist Party of Canada 20 8,680 1,358,384 0
Conservative Party of Canada 307 19,457,420 20,955,089 9,728,710
First Peoples National Party of Canada 1 0 62,702 0
Green Party of Canada 304 1,924,478 20,764,345 962,239
Liberal Party of Canada 308 19,483,917 21,025,793 9,741,959
Libertarian Party of Canada 23 154 1,743,667 0
Marijuana Party 5 0 339,676 0
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada 70 3,511 5,162,705 0
New Democratic Party 308 20,319,567 21,025,793 10,159,784
Pirate Party of Canada 10 1,207 757,193 0
Progressive Canadian Party 9 1,424 765,502 0
Rhinoceros Party 14 0 982,437 0
United Party of Canada 3 0 241,407 0
Western Block Party 4 0 333,955 0
TOTAL 1,526 66,642,974 105,402,845 33,262,653
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

There must be something in the water in Ottawa

1st September 2016

Here we go into Alice’s looking glass again with Justin and Bill to my complete amazement, disgust and lack of approval. Seeking their god(s) approval I suppose and talking us further into the rabbit hole of debt.

The Infrastructure Bank of Asia?

We are going to invest in this?

Apart from the currency of choice how is this different from the IMF and their rapacious interest rates?

Canadian Infrastructure Bank?

We are going to create one of our own?

I saw no money set aside in the 2016 Budget for these two banks so by what sleight of hand will the money be created?

I have no problem with investing in Canada.

I have no problem with using the Bank of Canada to create money for that investment; but I do have an enormous problem with borrowing money from international banks and investors to create an unnecessary bank for our infrastructure, and borrowing money to invest in a foreign infrastructure bank, on which we will be paying compounding interest rates.

We knew that Harper’s Government, acting as if it was the Government of Canada, did not have a single economist among their ranks, and they only managed to come vaguely close to balancing the budget by selling Canada’s assets at bargain basement prices, and really had no clue how to finance anything. The fact that the Liberals promised to invest in Canada instead of selling it off originally indicated to me that they had some plan and at least one economist in their midst.

Oh boy was I wrong!

At the Canadian Action Party we believe this:

What is physically possible, desirable and morally right, we can make it financially possible through the Bank of Canada.”

With the exception of the Libertarians every other registered but unrepresented Canadian Political party also believes this, but those parties which have representation in the House of Commons believe that we should be increasing debt instead to international banks and investors, paying them compounding interest rates to boot. The payment of the interest on our national debt is the single largest payment Canada has to make year after year and still this government of ours wants to increase that debt and the increasing interest payments. There is no way to realistically leave our children any sort of future in this country if we continue with this height of absurdity.

Our grand fathers created and left us with the Bank of Canada, something some 70 cities and counties and 8 or so States in the USA want to replicate by having proposals for creating public banking on their November Ballots this year; and yet there is no political party represented in our House of Commons which can see the value of what we have and is actually still mandated to do what it did so well from 1935 – 1974 when out national debt was $22 billion owed to ourselves through the Bank of Canada. Today our national debt stands at over $1, trillion with compounding interest owed on that to international banks and investors.

Tell me this makes sense.

Tell me that the MPs of Canada have not been subdued, threatened or bribed in some way to accept this on behalf of their children.

Tell me that you agree with this increasing and absolutely unnecessary debt.

Tell me that you agree with these infrastructure banks when we already have our own Bank of Canada which can do all these things here at home much more efficiently and cheaply .

Tell me that you want these problems of national indebtedness to be passed on to your children.

But better than that tell me that you want the stooges in Ottawa to start using their heads instead of their fears and act on behalf of their employers…you…and engage the Bank of Canada again to exercise it’s mandate to finance Canada’s needs.

Whatever hopes I entertained that we would see change with Justin Trudeau and his Liberals and their sunny days and ways has evaporated like the dew on a summer morning.

Jeremy Arney

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

Ms. Elizabeth May and BDS dilema

An Open letter to Ms. Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanich–Gulf Islands.

14th August.2016

Dear Elizabeth,

Yes, a bit familiar but then we do know each other.

I am writing this to you because you seem to have backed yourself into a bit of a corner.

From what I understand the members of the Green Party have decided at the recent party convention to back the BDS against Israel. For some reason this is causing you much angst.

As I have moved back into your riding and you are now my MP again I am concerned that you, along with every other politician in Canada, are supporting wholeheartedly the State of Israel in their atrocious, war criminal, genocidal even holocaustic behaviour towards the Palestinian people. I understand that you all believe that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, but then so do the Palestinians do they not? I have to question why you all support Israel with such blindness, and I would like to know what the hold they have over you all might be.

Maybe there is the fear that saying anything against the state of Israel can be construed as being anti semantic, and that of course is patently nonsense. I was and still am very much against both Stephen Harper and his recent anti Canadian government yet that does not make me anti Canadian does it? In my mind it makes me very patriotic and concerned for the health and well-being of my grand and great grandchildren. I also have to question our current government which seems hell bent on leading us into another open ended confrontation in Latvia, and signing away our sovereignty through fake free trade deals…CETA, TPP and TiSA. Does this make me anti Canadian as well?

So I guess the real question Elizabeth is do you think of the Green Party as your party now, or are you their leader and political voice and so far sole representative in our Canadian House of Commons? I know that as the interim leader of the Canadian Action Party I am proud that we are a people driven party, that I am simply the voice to express what our members think; and when I simply do not agree with an off the wall policy, such as a recent interim gun policy written by an extremist who is now off somewhere in Manitoba trying to form his own party, I simply accepted the NE decision until our members decided against it. It is their party, they are the supporters and I am just their voice. By the way you have not asked me as one of your constituents how I feel about this Israeli BDS either so your party speaks for me, you as my MP do not.

Religious extremists, combined with the CIA and corporate greed are our joint problem in today’s world combined with an “I am OK” reasoning for not getting involved by “the people”. The chaos in Europe shows this clearly. As you well know there are fanatical extremist in every religion and to them the means justify the ends. I do not object to anyone having a religious belief either by choice or birth indeed I think that many people obtain great comfort from their beliefs. But the extremists flourish because these ordinary people do nothing.

In the words of one Albert Einstein:

The world is a dangerous place not because of evil people, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

I am glad to hear that even though you may step down as leader of the Green Party for such a ridiculous reason, that you intend to run for MP again in 2019, and if you continue to blindly support the State of Israel then I might just have to challenge you at the polls.


Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party

North Saanich. BC

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An idea for elections in Canada

General Elections in Canada have devolved into a very expensive farce.

The concept is that the people of Canada vote for those they believe will best serve their interests to Ottawa.  The actuality is that the vast majority vote for the leader who they wish to be the PM. 

During the election, people are listened to in order to manufacture the promises that will appeal to people enough to get their votes.  The realities have no bearing on what is promised, and the promises sometimes cannot be carried out, and often never were intended to be anything but simple vote catchers.

Once the election is over so is any pretense of democracy and we settle back into one man/woman, one party rule.  The method of voting every 4 years is actually not relevant to this situation as there is no interest by the parties in changing this way of conducting the nation’s business.   It is simply a means to obtaining that power necessary to line their future pockets by listening to the lobbyist.

The cost of running these elections is enormous and is of course paid for by those who are lied to and then cheated during the next 4 years, ie the people of Canada.   Did you know for instance that all successful political parties have their expenses repaid by Elections Canada?  Oh yes we are still paying through the nose for our farcical elections, even as some of us are denied the ability to vote – The “Un”fair Election Act of 2014.

So is there a way to bring democracy back or perhaps bring about real democracy at least? 

Yes there are several ways, but the one I like best was developed by a friend and I over several lunches a year or so ago.


The number of ridings must be reduced to no more than 250 as 338 is way too many for every MP to have his/her say on anything. There simply is not enough time on any bill, and time seems to be the governing factor in both debates and committees. Thus the idea that there is better representation in numbers is simply ludicrous.

Second .

There must be a general election under any method, it really doesn’t matter which one.


On the first anniversary of that election there is an election on every week day in one riding after another, starting alphabetically perhaps, and lasting until every member has been re-elected or replaced.  Every anniversary of the election of 2019 for example the same process is repeated.   This only allows for 250 seats in the chamber if you factor in statutory holidays, which is more than sufficient for real representation, in fact 200 would probably be a better number.  The Speaker would also be up for reelection and would be the only one with an election date when the house was not sitting so that he could electioneer in his/her riding.  Should the speaker loose his/her seat then the first order of business the following sitting day would be the election of a new speaker.   If this proved to be unworkable then the Speaker could be the only MP to be reelected every 4 years, unless his/her constituents demanded a chance to replace an MP who could not vote on their behalf.

Is this expensive?  Not in comparison to the vast amounts spend currently by leaders flying all over Canada promising the earth and delivery dirt;  not by the national media  advertising by parties slamming the opposition and not by Elections Canada having to repay all those expenses.   There would be a maximum that any party could spend on any seat yet to be determined, but the main cost of those elections would be borne locally by the local EDAs.(Election District Associations)

What would happen under this system?

For starters if an MP did not pay attention to his/her constituents rather than party demands they would not get re-elected. The people of Canada could very quickly realise that they had power with their vote, and the interest and participation could well get close to 90%.

As there is no intention of doing away with the party system under this proposal, all parties, particularly the governing party would also have to pay very close attention, because if they did not a majority of 30 for instance could be lost in 15 days, and indeed the ability to hold onto even a minority government could be lost in short order.   Pay attention to the people of Canada or lose the ability to govern.   (There is another wrinkle to this I thought of which I will expand in another blog)

How would a government fall?   Simply by losing the confidence of the people of Canada and being voted out.  Nothing changes except the speed with which this can be achieved.

In the event such a change does happen then a 2 week suspension of the House would take place for the change of power and rearrangement of the seats, but the mini elections would still continue during this time.  Over a period of time governing parties have grown stale and we all know they need to be replaced, but this avoids waiting for 4 years for fresh ideas.  In the event of a constant minority government and a vote of non confidence in the House, there would be an automatic suspension of the House for one month, during which the mini elections would continue to see if the people of Canada agreed or not and what the new alignment would look like.  There would not be any mass national advertising by any party to try to influence the outcome of the mini elections. News media would be sufficient coverage.

Democracy means that it is the people who control government not the government that dictates to the people, and this system would certainly make that happen.  Listen to the people and persuade them that an action is to their benefit or suffer the consequences.  There will be no more hiding of actions and anything against the people would bring an almost instant reaction.   The TPP, TiSA or CETA for instance could bring about a government change almost right away and send a very clear, in fact unmistakable, message to all wanna be governments that the people of Canada will not give their sovereignty to corporate board rooms around the world.

To those who say this would bring chaos, I say bring it on because out of chaos comes beauty and even perfection.  Have you ever been entranced by a fountain or waterfall, or the rain drops on a puddle, or the wind’s actions in the trees and plants and grass?   They all survive and indeed often thrive in such chaos.  In the same way once the people of Canada – or any country that follows our lead – understand the power they should have and indeed will have under this system, anything undemocratic will simply not happen.

The other beauty of this system is that there will never again be a 4 yearly farce called a General Election, and every mini election day small registered Canadian parties will have a chance to prove their worth, and indeed could well get enough members in the House to be able to have some effect.

The more I think about this the more I like it, and the current way of doing politics in  Canada is totally broken, as shown by the influence wielded by the corporate lobbies in almost every aspect of our lives.

Bring on chaos and bring on change.  It is overdue.


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

Canadian Parliamentary hatred boils over.

Parliamentary Games.

28th May 2016

Written first on 18th May 2016.

This will be done over two days because I want to check Hansard tomorrow, but the fiasco we witnessed, or at least I did as it happened and again ad nauseoum on CPAC, of hysterical behavour by MPs who are paid far too much money to behave this way.

Let me say that in no way do I condone violence in our House of Commons, though there have been times when I wished I was there to cross the floor to smack some idiot, liar or cheat down but have had to satisfy myself with just shouting at the poor innocent TV.

Ok so today:

A very necessary vote was scheduled – which was why I was getting ready to watch anyway – on C14 a bill demanded by the Supreme Court by 6th June this year and there is almost no time left.

The bells had stopped ringing which means that the House should proceed with the vote.  The whips are needed to enter to advise the Speaker that their members are in place.   Here is where it went into stupid…the NDP, led prominently and plain to see on the broadcast, by Mulcair blocked the passage of the conservative whip down his side of the chamber and it was also plain to see they had no intention of allowing him through.  

OK this is where things went wrong. Young Trudeau appears to have lost it and instead of motioning his whip to take his seat – a clear notice to the Speaker to proceed with the vote, he rises from his seat and strides down the chamber floor to rescue the opposition whip.   So far no real problem, and IF he had proceeded to the back of the scrum barring the whips passage and then escorted him down the government side of the chamber all would have been well, but…he did not.  He approached the gaggle of NDP idiots, who parted to let him through and he took the whip by the arm and turned with him to escort him to his place through the gap now created in the DNP mess. In the turning he brushed against Ruth Ellen Brosseau…who it appeared to me fell dramatically back against the desk against which she was already leaning, and it seemed to me that she did not respond until something was said to her, whereupon she seemed to grab her chest as if she had broken ribs.

The PM retook his seat and apparently  was informed he had bumped into  Ms. Brosseau who was still there on the floor showing no signs of distress  in the NDP gaggle.  The PM left his seat again to make his way back to apologise to her and she seeing him coming or on the advise of others  fled out of the chamber, thus avoiding receiving his personal apology.  Now Mulcair started shouting and waving his fist at Trudeau and the benches cleared as they say in baseball.

Here is where it gets interesting, Ms. Brosseau, did not return to her seat in time to make her vote on the motion against the C14 vote….but did shortly thereafter, showing no signs of wear or tear but ready to do mischief again.  What a well orchestrated chain of events quickly organized by the opposition, mostly I imagine the NDP who are still smarting from their loss of official opposition status.

So the vote on a motion is done and then Peter Julian stands to start the circus by saying he has never witnessed  anything like this in all his 12 years in the House, a member laying hands on another member is unheard of….oh really?  Where has he been as Speakers were elected and then dragged into the House?   Maybe that is theater but to me that is what happened today.  Theater.  Ms. Brosseau  to put it into a sporting phrase dove, and dove very late but allowing the opposition to get rid of any pent up frustration they were harbouring over this entire assisted dying bill, and indeed over the whole weeks shenanigans.

This is where I have to stop and check Hansard tomorrow because I think things were said that were to say the very least hypocritical, but also very much in the way of personal attacks.

19th May 2016.

I had been meaning to write a blog on the nonstop personal attacks being levied against the front benches of the government by the opposition during Oral Questions, a circus at best and a horror show often, don’t take my word for it, watch the videos or read Hansard and see for yourself.  

I have not watched what happened earlier in the week but it seems there has been escalation on both sides of the House in the contempt and hatred shown towards each other.  I can describe it no other way and it bothers me that we are paying them all $167,000.00 minimum per year to treat each other this way. This is democracy? No it is not but it is what Harper deliberately cultivated over his tenure.

OK back to yesterday and the ex-government house leader covered himself with slime.

From Hansard:

Hon. Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, he strode across the floor toward a group of individuals here, and I think the film will show it, but certainly there are many other witnesses here who can speak to what they saw take place. What took place was the Prime Minister physically grabbing people, elbowing people, hauling them down the way; and I am sure his defence will be that he was in some way, on their behalf, asserting their privileges.

(The man was right there and could not see that the PM only “grabbed” one man not people, accidentally brushed against one woman (one woman too many I agree) , and no elbowing of people happened as Van Loan clearly suggested)

That is not his job. It is the job of individual members to assert their own privileges. It is his job to respect the privileges of every member in this House. From a man who had for 4 years quite deliberately and with the malice of forethought shown absolutely no respect even to the speaker this was a bit rich.

O’Brien and Bosc is entirely clear on this matter that, in a case such as this, the Speaker will normally find that the privileges of the members have been offended, that the conduct is unacceptable, and will make that finding of privilege.

I will point out that the individual member—and I witnessed it all right in front of me here, and I do not know if she has returned to the House—was so shaken up by the episode that she left the House.  (she did not leave the House, just the Chamber, and was back right after the vote) Her ability to participate in the vote was affected and denied. Her privileges were interfered with in a most direct and physical fashion that is unacceptable in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think you should make the appropriate finding in the circumstances, and I will invite any of my other colleagues who witnessed this to provide further evidence to the House.


Can anyone else remember Van Loan ‘s actions re Brad Butt’s deliberate lies in the House during debate on the Unfair Elections Act?  Twice in one day Butt lied about voter information cards.  Only 20 days later after Elections Canada came calling to ask him why he had not reported this at the time did he stand in the House and make a very weak and half-hearted non apology to the House.  When the speaker eventually agreed that he should be asked to appear in front of a committee to explain himself, Van Loan led the defeat of the speaker’s ruling and Butt was off scot free to continue to mislead the house.   Now here is Van Loan getting ready to support the hanging of a  liberal member with as much fervour as he defended a liar among his own members.


Do not get me wrong, I am not condoning Trudeau’s actions, I consider them to be most misguided and wrong, but the hypocrisy and hysteria shown among those who are demanding his head does  not I believe serve them well nor does it serve our parliament well.  To say that it does nothing for our democracy is silly because democracy has left Canada a long time ago and we are now under a kind of  Westminster style of corporate dictatorship.

Way to go peoples’ employees, you are serving another master well.


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