Author Archives: iamjema

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.

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

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.

 

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

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.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada

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

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.

Regards

Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party

North Saanich. BC

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.

First:

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.

Third:

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.

Jeremy

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.

Jeremy

The fear of the words anti-Semitic.

Who is afraid of the big bad wolf?

Who is afraid of the black mamba snake?
Who is afraid of the mother bear?

Who is afraid of the daddy swan or Canada goose?

 

I could go on but the answer is anyone who knows what these creatures can do if you threaten them, or more importantly their offspring, should be afraid.

They do not know about money, power, greed, excessive profit or persecution and out right deceit and robbery.

They just know that they have the duty to protect their young.

 

I will not buy anything from Israel, and if I find something I need is from Palestine I will not hesitate to buy it.

 

Yes in a way this is a deliberate attack on those in Israel who make anything for sale here in Canada who support the actions of the State of Israel. If they are not willing to stand up and be real Jews, proud of their country,  and say to their government that they are not supporting the Israeli state terror and killing of Palestinians, then they themselves are not worth supporting. If they keep electing the same monsters then they condone those actions and are asking for the same reaction from around the world. The same can be said, and I have done so, for those who blindly followed the treasonous maniacal puppet we had for PM for a decade; those who stood by and allowed his intended destruction of the country of Canada, our sovereignty, our parliament, the people of Canada and whatever else he could are not worthy of the support of any Canadian. Perhaps this is why in Question period for the last week or so they haven’t been asking questions, they have been personally attacking members of the Liberal front bench. They have nothing else to offer.

 

But this is about Israel, not Canada although in my mind the similarities are striking.

Here in Canada we have 337 MPs who all swear that they love Israel and state that that murderous State is our best friend and can do no wrong.   Do they really think that or are they just following the party lines?  Are they scared to be falsely labelled as anti-Semitic if they really speak their minds or are they all in favour of the killing of Palestinians civilians, and the continuous theft of their homes for the Israeli settlers?

Does this sound as if maybe this is happening to the members of the Israeli parliament too?  Are they all afraid of the power of the expression “anti-Semitic”?  Are they all bought and paid for puppets as our politicians are here in Canada and in the USA too?  Does no one understand that when the truth is told heads will roll, and the heads will belong to the truth speakers, not the deceivers, liars, cheats and killers.

 

Why would Israel not want to talk to Iran?  Are they afraid perhaps that Iran has no desire to go to war with Israel, in fact they want nothing to do with them at all because they have no human values they can trust.  Maybe Iran has some values we do not understand either but we want to talk to them now rather than fight them.  Fighting just cost money and lives and ultimately achieves nothing for the people, in fact the only winners are the money people.

 

The logic of sanctions is to encourage those to whom the sanctions are applying to wake up and change their ways. In today’s world these sanctions are almost exclusively financial or trade and hurt the people of the sanctioned country not necessarily those who rule it.

 

Yet,

 

The world is saying that what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people is wrong and yet no sanctions have been imposed by any country have they?  No because all countries are afraid of being called ant-Semitic.

 

We used to say when I was a little boy, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”  So go ahead and try to prove that I am anti-Semitic, you will have a lot of trouble with that.  Say I am anti the State of Israel and its actions and I will agree with you and confess to that.   Say that I am against Israeli soldiers killing Palestinians for no other reason than that they exist and I will agree with that too,

 

But none of that makes me anti-Semitic, any more than saying that because I am anti Conservative Party of Canada and all they stand for makes me anti Canadian people.

 

Those roses are smelling really good at this time of year.

 

Jeremy Arney

Bank of Canada v Liberal Infrastructure Bank

To the Right Honourable Mr. William Morneau, 

Minister of Finance for Canada

Dear Mr. Morneau,

I thank you for the electronic letter 2016FIN428702 sent to me by Veena Bhullar (Senior Special Assistant –Operations) , in response to the section on The Bank of Canada from my letter to the Prime Minster of 25thNovember 2015.

First let me say that I do appreciate a response from your office but I have some serious problems with the content of the response.  I quote paragraphs two and three in particular to start with:

“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.”

Para #2

Are you seriously suggesting that the experience of “growth” in Canada between 1935 and 1974, including financing our part in WW2, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans Canada Highway, CPP, Our National Heath system along with a myriad of social services among so many other things, did not lead to growth and wealth of the country and the Canadian people?   It is completely obvious the private banks and investors of the world were angry that we were doing so well and that they were not making a huge profit from it, thus the creation of the Bank of International Settlements and its accompanying Basel agreements; through the signing of these agreements we gave them the right to gouge us with compounding interest rates as we started to borrow on credit from them. Your suggestion that the creation of national debt in 1974 of $22 billion owed basically to ourselves through our own Bank of Canada creating money to be spent into the economy is not preferable to the over $1 trillion currently owed to international banks and investors at that aforementioned compounding interest rate, based I might say on a series of computer strokes credit.    But you are right, the creation of new domestic money printed by the Bank of Canada to be spent by the government for the benefit of the people of Canada does not make money for the banks and international investors, even though it will benefit all Canadians, and indeed all our businesses too.  Sad that you cannot accept the Bank of Canada as a good thing for Canada, and essentially for our sovereignty as well.

Para#3

Please provide me with the names of those countries which own their own bank and have fallen into the path of excessive inflation through government expenditures.  I could give you many examples of countries which do not own their central bank which have fallen into that trap, (the UK and USA to mention just two), and offer instead the example of North Dakota a state of the USA which owns its own bank and thrives with no compounding interest debt to outsiders and no deficit in their budgets.  It should also be mentioned that Libya owned its own bank and was threatening to help create a Bank of Africa to be jointly owned by the African Nations and as a result of this threat to the IMF  we helped to destroy that country completely and allowed the IMF to establish a private central bank in place of the Libyan people owned bank.  Libya is now in financial ruins and complete chaos politically and socially. That is what happens when  private central banks get mad at potential lost profits..

As I mentioned above the concept that creation of money by the Bank of Canada to be spent into the economy (particularly for the people’s benefit) did not create excessive inflation between 1935 and 1974 and, is not creating inflation even now in North Dakota so that argument is spurious and very weak.

How will using the bank of Canada to finance our needs lead to misallocation of scarce resources?

 I would refer you to Paras #4 and 5:

“Since 1991, the Government and the Bank have jointly agreed that the central objective of monetary policy should be for the Bank to target an inflation rate of 2%. This is the best contribution monetary policy can make to solid performance.

Canada’s policy of low, stable and predictable inflation has served Canadians extremely well. This policy has contributed to creating a more stable economic environment relative to that of previous decades and has allowed households and businesses to make better long-term financial plans.”

Surely this government cannot believe that increasing the national debt from 22 billion owed to ourselves at a low flat rate interest, to close to or over $1 trillion today at a compounding interest rate owed to outside and private interests is an improvement.  Do you really think that households can make long-term plans when they are not sure if the breadwinners will even have a good job job next week? Or that business can make those same long term plans when they have no idea how long they will be in business, or when they will be bought out by foreigners and closed down. When, during the last decade, our manufacturing was sacrificed for bitumen production from Alberta, and the price for that bitumen feel through the floor our economy became as unstable as is our looney leading me to question the concept of “a more stable economic environment.”

No Mr. Morneau, I cannot believe or accept that the best use of the Bank of Canada is to simply be an inflation watchdog.

To move to another topic, I understand that this government intends to create an Infrastructure Bank. I have some questions about this.

What will it be called?

Who will own the bank?

Who will finance it?

Will there be an Act of Parliament to create it? (If the answer is yes, why would it have any teeth as the Bank of Canada Act has been ignored since 1974 and your government shows no signs of obeying the mandate created in 1935, as clearly stated in Para#1)

Will this new bank be subject to the Basel agreements?

Will this bank’s activities cause us to be challenged by the investments agreements already in place through a myriad of so called free trade deals and the CETA and TPP? (Yes I know these are under a different ministry but they refuse to answer my questions) because those multi million/billion dollar awards will affect your budget.

Which Ministry will administer this new bank’s activities or will it be a joint venture?

Will there be consultations with Canadians to determine if this extra national debt is acceptable to us?

 

Finally what is the point of this new Bank when we already have the Bank of Canada mandated to do this work? And how will the activities of this new bank not adversely affect inflation as you claim would the use of the Bank of Canada?  Surely if this bank is to operate on credit only supplied by international banks and investors at compounding interest rates that will drive our national debt through to the $2 trillion mark very quickly.

 

I cannot condone what your government is planning as I do not believe it is in the best interest of Canadians or Canada.

 

Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party