Author Archives: iamjema

Where have we been taken?

Maybe it’s time to look back a bit to see where and why we are where we are today.

 

We followed the USA inspired NATO invasion in Afghanistan, even though the Canadian People were not altogether behind it , thereby opening ourselves to the possibility of counter attacks on our civilians here in Canada.

 

We refused absolutely and completely to intercede in the Omar Kadyr affair particularly under this administration, washing our hands of him unlike every other country in the world whose citizens got swept up in the US net.

 

We supported and even encouraged Israel to slaughter the people of Gaza as and when they choose, and we supported their blockade of aid to those same people.

 

At the urging of the IMF we took part in a “NO FLY ZONE” over Libya which we quickly changed into an all out bombing of Libya to the point where our Minister of Foreign Affairs love for the so called freedom fighters gave them the ability, along with a huge loan from the IMF and the “donation” of a central bank controlled by the IMF, and support of the mercenary armed insurgence. to compete and win.  Eventually the Leader of the country was captured, tortured and killed and there was much rejoicing in Ottawa, in spite of the fact that we were signatories to the UN award for human rights endeavours by Libya just a few months before.

 

We cut off any diplomatic communications with who knows how many middle eastern countries, to show our administration’s disapproval of their behaviour. 

 

Our reputation in the entire Middle East region was and still is in tatters and completely un-Canadian.

 

Big brother says help and we leap in without parliamentary approval to send “advisors” to Iraq for 30 days.  Before that 30 days is completed, we are told by an announcement in another country, as is usual with this dictatorial PM, that we are now getting involved in a 6 month war, again without parliamentary approval.

 

When eventually this does come before parliament the only MPs who support this are the PMO puppets who always do what they are told, and we have the ridiculous Minister of war saying : “We have been very clear. What we did was get Parliament’s support. I think that is something different, something that we never saw before” Hansard recording of  Question Period  9th October 2014., completely forgetting that the Libyan affair got unanimous approval and lead us into war crimes against the Libyan people, where as this new war did not have unanimous approval.  What a buffoon.

 

Next we have two attacks on military personnel in Canada, neither of which do I condone by the way, but oh how convenient.   There does not appear to be any connection to ISIL by either of these attackers, but they were both mentally unstable and Muslim so that is enough evidence apparently for our war mongering PM to say they were radicalized by ISIL.  Where is the evidence of that?  The rational is obvious to create fear that we will be subject to lots of attacks and must give up our rights and freedoms to be safe!  Yeah, been there and seen that happen before.  What was it that crazy woman said in London after the underground false flag bombing attack: “I will gladly give up my rights to be free.”  Here we go again.

 

Some questions:

 

Where is the evidence that Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau were radicalised ISIL attackers?  

I have visited the CPC web site so does that mean I am now a mean spirited anti Canadian pro corporation bigot?

Where did Michael get his rifle from if indeed he was living in a homeless shelter? A Winchester 30-30 yet, not a cheap model and where did he keep it so the shelter was not aware he had it?

Was he being treated for his mental state, his drug problems and his criminal behaviour?

If he was known as a “druggy” with mental problems why was he not getting help?

How many more like him have been created by this administrations’ complete indifference to the plight of Canadian unemployed?

Since when does one’s religion automatically make one a radical in Canada?

Our PM claims to be some sort of christian, yet I know of no christian god who encourages war and killing, never mind hatred and contempt for fellow men be they from their own country or not; there are many clergy who preach that but gods?

As far as I know most gods seem to preach love, peace and tolerance, which is seldom shown by our present Canadian administration either here at home or abroad, why is that?

Whilst the leader of the administration was hiding in a closet, and the cabinet was trying to get in there with him, who was running the country?

Both the Privy council and the PMO can do nothing without his highness’s approval so who was in charge of the country? Beverly McLachlin? Did she know? Or maybe it was the HOC sergeant at arms. Did he know?  

How is it possible that so many bullets were fired before the “suicidal man” was killed?

What does that say for the marksmanship of the defenders of the parliament?

Why when the country is at war, was the security of parliament breached so easily?

Do the security people not understand that we are at war yet again under this adminstration?

If this is was what a mentally deranged individual can do, what happens when the real thing hits?

 

Who can be surprised that new legislation is in the immediate future to enable more invasion of privacy, supposedly for the betterment of our safety? Again convenient, no doubt part of the plan put into place months ago to go along with the escalation of observer status into war status.  Perhaps part of the plan to change Canada eh?

The country desperately needs the clear headed, people oriented thinking of the Canadian Action Party, not the whipped frenzy of our present non representative, undemocratic bunch of misfits.   

Vote for reality in 2015.

Jeremy Arney

Why do the UN let Harper in to talk?

New York City, New York 25 September 2014.

 

Words uttered by Stephen Harper, the leader of the Harper Government in Canada to the UN:

 

 

“And we feel strongly that no effort is ever in vain if it offers people an alternative to conflict and an opportunity to better their lives and those of their families.

“Canadians, therefore, seek a world where freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected.“We hold these things to be intrinsically right and good.“

And we also believe that they are the necessary foundation for a better world for more people, necessary for prosperity, and with prosperity comes hope, and with hope, the greater inclination of free peoples everywhere to find peaceful solutions to the things that divide them.“Indeed, we believe that freedom, prosperity and peace form a virtuous circle. –

 

See more at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/25/pm-addresses-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-city#sthash.0qOzEDeV.dpuf

 

 

Well Stevie baby that doesn’t even apply in Canada does it?

 

Freedom:

From what? Lies, distortion and “misspeaks” in our very own House of Commons?  To protest without harassment from the militarised police? To live in harmony with our neighbours without regulations separating us? Freedom from spying without justification and without judicial warrants? Freedom of choice to ask our employees (MPs) to do something and expect that request to even be listened to?

 

Democracy?

Just how much democracy do we have in Canada where even our MPs cannot vote the way their constituents want them to? In the name of democracy, we exported just what to Libya apart from death to civilians and the bombing of their homes, schools, hospitals and even their water supply from air attacks? The word “democracy’ should choke in your throat.

 

Human Rights?

Tell that to our original people here in Canada and listen to them laugh !

 

Rule of Law?

Every Act you pass has removed the right of offenders to hearings in a court of law, because the “laws” are now controlled by regulations. These regulations when broken either deliberately or through the opaqueness of the regulations results in Ministerial review board hearings not visits to a court of law. So we have the ever expanding “rule by regulation” replacing “rule of law”.

 

And yet you claim to hold these things to be “intrinsically right and good”

 

 

.“Indeed, we believe that freedom, prosperity and peace form a virtuous circle. “

 

Where is that exactly? and for whom? Not here in our Canada which you have handed to the corporate interest of the world who, for the most part, are now free to challenge us at their corporate review panels every time they don’t make the profit they expected; thus the law courts are again bypassed. See your FIPA with China, Pacific Rim Partnership, CETA etc., etc., the list goes on and on.

 

It is bad enough when you lie to us your employers, but when you lie to the UN in our name you have shown us that you are just in way over your head.

 

Your idea, as a so called economist, is to hand the Canadian purse to international corporations and expect them to look after us !

 

I do not agree with or condone what you are doing to Canada Harper, and I am a long way from being alone in that sentiment. You claim to speak for the majority of Canadians, but you do not listen to anyone but your own base which at best now is 25% of Canadians. That’s a majority?   Your inability to be open and honest and clear to Canadians is the direct opposite to your ability and willingness to announce international and internal policies to overseas audiences prior to Canadians and only highlights your feeling of inferiority and yet contempt for Canadians here at home.

 

 

I will close with these words:

 

“Where human misery abounds, where grinding poverty is the rule, where justice is systematically denied, there is no real peace, only the seeds of future conflict. – See more at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/25/pm-addresses-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-city#sthash.0qOzEDeV.dpuf

 

Has it occurred to you that you were perfectly describing almost all of our reservations and downtown slums in every city in Canada? Where treaty rights no longer mean anything to you but are a nuisance; where promises made many years ago by our forefathers are broken systematically today with little thought to the results. Where the “rule of law” only applies in your administration’s verbal abuse of Canadians?

 

You may speak to the UN for yourself, but rest assured you do not speak for Canada or Canadians when you talk of freedom, democracy and peace and yet send war machines and military to attack civilians in other countries from the safety of the air not for the benefit of Canadians but for others. When did Canada start to need to hide beneath the skirts of our allies? Answer: since you became PM and replaced the Government of Canada with the Harper Government.

 

In absolute disgust at what you have done and are doing to Canada

 

 

Jeremy Arney

Canadian House of Commons today

Is this what we are paying our administration MPs to do?

 

Taken from Hansard 23rd Septrmber 2014.

 

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[English]

Foreign Affairs

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has failed to answer clear questions about his ill-defined military deployment in Iraq.

Yesterday, Conservatives refused once again to answer in this House, but the member for Selkirk—Interlake stated on CPAC that the mission will end on October 4.

Will the Conservative government confirm that the 30-day Canadian commitment in Iraq will indeed end on October 4?

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion with respect to the NDP position on Israel.

I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could confirm for me whether Alex Anderson, who identifies himself as a fundraiser at the New Democratic Party, speaks for the NDP when he says “[eff] the IDF and all who supports them. I am sick and tired of the media [BS] trying to sell lies and hide an [effing] genocide”.

Does Alex Anderson speak for the NDP when he says these shameful things?

(1420)

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the confusion. We are in the Middle East and we are under the I’s, but we are talking about Iraq.

It took over a week for the Prime Minister to answer a simple question about the number of troops involved in the Iraqi deployment. It now appears that Canadian soldiers may require visas approved by the Iraqi government.

Since this military deployment is still ongoing, and since it is set to conclude in 12 days, precisely how many Canadian soldiers are on the ground in Iraq today?

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what does the Leader of the Opposition not understand? Our friends in Israel are on the front lines combatting terrorism.

When people who work for the NDP, like Alex Anderson, who identifies himself as a fundraiser at Canada’s NDP, calls what the Israel Defense Forces are doing an effing genocide, and calls the media BS for not supporting the fact that they call it an effing genocide, what does he not understand?

Israel is on the front lines. Canada will continue to support our friends in Israel. We will stand up for peace and security around the world. Unlike them, we are not confused by our position.

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there are rules in the book about question period. You are our arbiter. We ask you to enforce the rules on relevance and on question period.

When asked at foreign affairs committee just a couple of weeks ago, the minister said that a status of forces agreement with Iraq outlining operating rules for Canadian forces had not yet been completed.

Has that agreement now been completed? If so, when can Canadians see it?

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, again, clearly the Leader of the Opposition does not identify or understand the fact that our friends in Israel are on the front lines combatting terrorism in the region.

That is why on this side of the House we support our friends in Israel. Unlike the NDP whose position is all over the place, Canada will stand up for Israel, will stand up for freedom around the world.

The NDP supporter calls it an effing IDF, and all those who support it. He claims that the media is ignoring it, and calls it BS.

We will stand up for Israel. We will stand up for—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, well, that does not speak very favourably about your neutrality in this House.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

 

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Papineau.

 

 

 

The contempt for Parliament, all members, the Canadian people and the function of Oral Questions – or question period – was soo clearly shown by Calandra in his three replies to the opening questions by the Opposition leader that I am still wondering why he was even allowed to stand in his place and utter such irrelevant drivel, not once, not twice but three times.

After appealing to the Speaker to take control and apply the rules of QP prior to his third attempt Mr. Mulcair made a very apt comment about the Speaker’s neutrality (which I too have been questioning openly for some time) and was immediately bypassed for the Liberal leader.

 

The fourth act of contempt in just few minutes.

 

This is only the second week of this last session of this deplorable administration and already we are seeing the increasing contempt of this administration – including their speaker – for parliamentary process.

 

We can expect that in the next year members statements will increase in their attacks on other members along with electioneering filled with lies and deceit. Van Loan and Butt opened the door for that earlier in the year * and now there is absolutely no reason to hold back from lies at any time. They are completely acceptable to this treasonous and corrupt administration headed by a man whose now obvious hatred of both Canada, Canadians and indeed all people who are not from Israel is known around the world.

 

Why are we allowing our so called representatives to do this?

 

The answer is very simple in that they are not our representatives because we do not hold them responsible for their actions. Again and again we re-elect men and women who have no interest in us once they have our vote in their name.

 

Is there a party represented in the House that doesn’t fall into this category? Are they not all party agenda driven and the people of Canada be damned?

 

It is time that real independents – not independent CPC or Liberals or NDP – and small party members were elected to the House to ensure that people are represented to Ottawa, not Ottawa dictating to the people.

 

This small example of the now common place workings of our House, for which we pay far too much money, and are due to pay even more after 2015 because there will be an extra 30 puppets to feed, house and sit in the Chamber and provide office space and staff for them, not to mention less so called representation in the House due to more people trying to get into the same limited denate time frame; unless we change that.

 

Now is the time for all Canadians to take back our country, our parliament and our MPs and make them what they were designed to be, our home, our future and our sanctuary. In 2015 vote for anyone but CPC, NDP, LIB.

 

Vote instead for parties like Canadian Action Party, Libertarians or the Green Party, or the Bloc even, where they have candidates and let’s get our country back.

 

Jeremy Arney

 

* (Hansard debates 6th February and 24th February 2014) and 4th March 2014 debate on NDP Motion and Speakers agreeing that there had been a breach of privilege. Adminstration members voted against the speaker’s ruling.

Ukraine hypocrisy in Canadian Parliament

To all Members of the Canadian House of Commons except one.

Some of you were not around the house a few years ago I grant, but your parties were, and as members of those parties you should all be included in this following statement.

You should every one of you, except Ms. May, look yourselves in the mirror and see the face of hypocrisy staring back at you concerning your actions, votes and intonations about the situation in the Ukraine​

You pontificate about so called ‘Russian invasion’, you talk about democracy and human rights as if you know what those words mean, and you claim as a badge of honour being banned from another country. You talk on and on about sanctions both personal and state against Russians and Russia for actions they have or are taking in Crimea, as if that is the greatest crime of the century so far.

Ladies and gentlemen ( I use the terms here loosely) of the Canadian House of Commons it is not.

That crime falls to the glorious parliament of Canada which led the charge against and the invasion and destruction of a country know as Libya.

You all supported that, except Ms. May, and then claimed honour and valour in the Canadian actions of attacking civilian targets from the safety of the undefended air, whilst encouraging the mercenary forces on the ground ( and did those include Canadian special forces units as well?) to rape, kill and torture civilians not matter where they were found, and eventually lead to the capture, torture and death of the leader of the country in a prime example of blood lust.

Yes you backed that action supporting our Foreign office and its  Minister’s ​unwavering support for the ‘incredibly impressive” rebels, against a man who had established in Libya a standard of living so far above what we have here in Canada, that when he annoyed the IMF by threatening their never ending gluttony for money and profits, you fell all over yourselves to get rid of him.

Now after you put that shame of war crimes actions on the conscience of all thinking Canadians you step forward again with your absurd claims of democracy and human rights at the very time when you are taking them away from Canadians here at home through Bill C-23 as one example.

People give you heads a shake and think what you are doing for once instead of what your inglorious leaders are getting you to do.

More and more as one from BC I have the feeling of such disconnect with our so called federal government of fools that I am seriously beginning to accept the fact of BC leaving Canada and stepping away from these absurd situations. Perhaps it really is time to allow BC and Quebec to go as we have become a nation of fools being lead by traitors who are in turn being lead by corporate promises of wealth when they have done the dirty work.

Yes that is you.

Look at yourself and claim it is not so…I dare you…and if you can refute what I claim, then do so by your actions not your pathetic words. Stand up and be counted or else we should abandon this once glorious dream called Canada.

In total disgust at our so called representatives and employees in Ottawa.

Jeremy Arney

A Letter to Canadian MPs.

I was clearing out my drafts in my email today and came accross this which it seems I never sent.  However it seems appropos so I am putting it up here for your reading pleasure !.

 

To all Members of the Canadian House of Commons except one.

Some of you were not around the house a few years ago I grant, but your parties were, and as members of those parties you should all be included in this following statement.

You should every one of you, except Ms. May, look yourselves in the mirror and see the face of hypocrisy staring back at you concerning your actions, votes and intonations about the situation in the Crime​a and the Ukraine

You pontificate about so called ‘Russian invasion’, you talk about democracy and human rights as if you know what those words mean, and you claim as a badge of honour being banned from another country. You talk on and on about sanctions both personal and state against Russians and Russia for actions they have orhave not taken in Crimea, as if that is the greatest crime of the century so far.

Ladies and gentlemen ( I use the terms here loosely) of the Canadian House of Commons it is not.

That crime falls to the glorious parliament of Canada which led the charge against and the invasion and destruction of a country know as Libya.

You all supported that, except Ms. May, and then claimed honour and valour in the Canadian actions of attacking civilian targets from the safety of the undefended air, whilst encouraging the mercenary forces on the ground ( and did those include Canadian special forces units as well?) to rape, kill and torture civilians not matter where they were found, and eventually lead to the capture, torture and death of the leader of the country in a prime example of blood lust.

Yes you backed that action supporting our Foreign office and its unwavering support for the ‘incredibly impressive” rebels, against a man who had established in Libya a standard of living so far above what we have here in Canada, that when he annoyed the IMF by threatening their never ending gluttony for money and profits, you fell all over yourselves to get rid of him.

Now after you put that shame of war crimes actions on the conscience of all thinking Canadians you step forward again with your absurd claims of democracy and human rights at the very time when you are taking them away from Canadians here at home.

People give you heads a shake and think what you are doing for once instead of what your glorious leaders are getting you to do.

More and more as one from BC I have the feeling of such disconnect with our so called federal government of fools that I am seriously beginning to accept the fact of BC leaving Canada and stepping away from these absurd situations. Perhaps it really is time to allow BC and Quebec to go as we have become a nation of fools being lead by traitors who are in turn being lead by corporate promises of wealth when they have done the dirty work.

Yes that is you.

Look at yourself and claim it is not so…I dare you…and if you can refute what I claim, then do so by your actions not your pathetic words. Stand up and be counted or else we should abandon this once glorious dream called Canada.

In total disgust at our so called representatives in Ottawa.

Jeremy Arney

Peter MacKay’s 2014 Bill C-36

2014s, Bill C-36 shows Mackay’s true colours.

 There are four professions that are almost as old as time, the oldest of which is the medicine man /woman which predates recorded time.

Next are the three beauties, Prostitutes, Lawyers and Politicians.

 The first of these, the prostitute served a valuable service both back then and indeed today.

 The second and third are both parasites.

 Why do I start with these assertions? Well because one man, who is determined to eradicate one of these more recent, in comparison to the medicine man/woman, through bill C-36 is indeed all three himself.

 He is a lawyer, how much practicing he did is a mote point, he is a politician of very dubious believability, and a prostitute in the way he sold himself and the Progressive Conservative party of Canada to Harper’s bunch of Reform/Alliance religious misfits in order to give them a household name people could vote for, and ensuring himself of a permanent cabinet position no matter how badly he performed in any ministerial capacity.

This is what I managed to finally get from a government site:

“Before entering politics, Mr. MacKay had a private law practice in New Glasgow, specializing in criminal and family law. In 1993, he accepted an appointment as Crown Attorney for the Central Region of Nova Scotia. He prosecuted cases at all levels, including youth and provincial courts as well as the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. MacKay has served on volunteer boards including New Leaf and Tearmann House. As well, he has been active in Big Brothers-Big Sisters, the Pictou County Senior Rugby Club and the YMCA. After graduating from Acadia University, Mr. MacKay went on to study law at Dalhousie University. He was called to the Nova Scotia Bar in June 1991.”

So he was on his own for two years before he was rescued by the province of Nava Scotia to be a crown prosecutor. Impressive. Wonder how much his daddy had to do with that rescue?

From the same site:

“Peter MacKay was first elected to Parliament in 1997 and re-elected in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011. In July 2013, Mr. MacKay was appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Previously, he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in February 2006 and Minister of National Defence in August 2007. In his first five years in the House of Commons, Mr. MacKay served as House Leader for the Progressive Conservative caucus. On May 31, 2003, he became Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. In March 2004, he was named Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and was renamed Deputy Leader following the June 2004 election.”

Lets see now, He made an agreement with David Orchard to become leader of the progressive conservative party of Canada in 2003, and within a year he had completely betrayed that agreement with Orchard and sold Harper the name “Conservative”. He was appointed deputy leader of the CPC for his perfidy, and then made a cabinet member when Harper used the name Conservative to gain his minority Government, and has been a cabinet minister of doubtful abilities ever since.

According to the The Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary under the definition of prostitute is this:

2. a person who missuses his or her talents or skills for money…uses one’s abilities etc., wrongly or in a way that is not worthy of them especially in order to earn money.

Did he misuse his talents as a liar, thief and cheat to make money as the deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada? – I would say yes.

Did he use his abilities as the above to gain a permanent cabinet position for money? I would say yes.  This makes him a prostitute according to the Dictionary.

As for his political experience as a cabinet minister I quote from Wikipedia:

Minister of Foreign Affairs[edit]

Following the Conservative victory in the 2006 election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper named MacKay as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; he was also tasked to be the political minister for both his home province, and for neighbouring Prince Edward Island, just as his father Elmer had done between 1988 and 1993.[citation needed]

During the first mandate, his biggest issue was the Lebanon–Israel–Hezbollah crisis that occurred in July 2006. The government decided to evacuate thousands of Canadians from Lebanon to safer locations and many back to Canada. MacKay responded to critics saying that the process was slow, that the boats (those which were used to evacuate) had limited capacity. MacKay’s statements in support of the Israeli during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict created a national debate in Canada, especially among Arabs and Muslim Canadians who opposed MacKay’s position. During this period MacKay and the Conservative Party of Canada joined the Bush Administration in opposing the United Nations‘ call for a ceasefire. It was also during this period that MacKay made a controversial statement in which he referred to Hezbollah as a “cancer” in Lebanon.[7] Hezbollah is formally recognized by the government of Canada as a terrorist organization.[8]

Minister of Defence[edit]

Peter MacKay meeting with Condoleezza Rice, April 13, 2006.

On August 14, 2007, Stephen Harper shuffled MacKay from Foreign Affairs to Defence, replacing Gordon O’Connor. On November 6, 2007, while attending a meeting at Forward Operating Base Wilson, 20 kilometres west of Kandahar City, Mackay was unharmed as two rockets struck the base at about 11 a.m. local time. Mackay described the incident: “There was an explosion. It was a loud bang”, said MacKay. “When it happened, we heard the explosion, we heard the whistle overhead, we were told to get down and we did.”[9] The incident happened on the same day that a suicide bomber detonated an explosive in Baghlanin the northeastern part of the country killing at least 35 including several politicians. While Taliban insurgents were suspected of being behind the bombing, it was not believed to be related to the attack in Kandahar.[10]

MacKay with US Senator John McCain and Colombian Minister of National Defense Juan Carlos Pinzón Bueno at the Halifax International Security Forum 2012

In 2008, MacKay announced a broad exhaustive and very expensive program to upgrade the Canadian military’s equipment, spending over $400 billion over 25 years. Unlike every previous spending announcement of its kind, no “white paper” or detailed breakdown of this number was available nor was any claimed to exist. This led to widespread speculation that an election was coming. Stephen Harper did in fact declare Parliament “dysfunctional” in August 2008 and called on Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean to dissolve parliament for the 2008 federal election. The opposition objected but did not offer to form another government.

In July 2010, MacKay was involved in a scandal that involved the use of a Canadian Cormorant military helicopter in order to ferry the minister from a private fishing camp in Newfoundland to Gander Airport. The cost of this to taxpayers was approximately $16,000.[11]

On June 5, 2012, it was revealed that a widely publicized 2010 news conference announcing Conservative plans to buy 65 F-35 Stealth Fighters had cost $47,000. Documents provided to parliament by Peter Mackay indicated that Lockheed Martin had delivered the F-35 mockup used in the photo-op for free, and that the cost was primarily for services to support the news conference and one hundred invited guests.[12]

 

 

What is not mentioned here, and I wonder why, is the destruction of Libya and the murder of Gadhafi conducted under his Ministry at the urging of the IMF and NATO, John Baird and ,presumably, Harper himself. Good job Peter ! That I admit is sarcasm.

During the election of 2011 Harper claimed that a deal had been made and the purchase made of the F-35 aircraft, and MacKay who knew very well that was a lie, said nothing. Obviously a man of great integrity.

So what do we have here?

A lawyer who was basically rescued by the province of Nova Scotia, a politician who could not wait to break his word to David Orchard, and in the following 10 years has been a prime example of what a politician should not be, and ultimately a prostitute to himself and Canada.

So Peter, I guess the question is that made by Madam Boivine during your pathetic appearance at the summer recess version of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting #33…”Will you be ensuring that this (Bill C-36) will come before the House of Commons at report stage in the fall sitting of the House?” It was not clear from your answers to the repeated question that it would be and judging from your administration’s complete lack of regard for any House rules it would not surprise me if by the time the House returns in September it had already passed through your lap dog Senate and had received Royal Assent. Since your administration has absolutely no interest in improving any of its terrible proposed legislation, I suppose it would not matter anyway.

Does your father approve of your shenanigans Peter? Probably he taught you how to do them.

I know that I do not approve at all. In  fact as a Canadian you are a disgrace to Canada.

What we need in Canada is MPs who actually listen to and care about the people of Canada, and we do not (with the possible exception of Ms. May and Mr. Hyer) have any of them at this time.

In 2015 we must elect some independents and small party (such as the Canadian Action Party) MPs who can offer some control over the House and perhaps restore a vestige of belief that Canadian politicians are any bloody good at all.

 

Jeremy Arney

July 2014

Concerning Canadian Parliament Committees

Concerning Canadian Parliamentary Committees.

I have watched in frustration too many committees both in the House of Commons and in the Senate which are, under this government, completely functions in stupidity.
So I went looking for what committees are supposed to do and looked in both “Beauchesne Parliamentary Rules and Forms” and of course “O’Brien and Bosc”.

From the former I read:
Page 190 Chapter 15 (2)
“Committees receive their authority from the House itself and that authority overrides that of any committee” …Journals Dec 1 1964 pp 941-7

And (3)
“The speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for him to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure” , Journal Dec 1973 pp709-10
510. It is the duty of all committees to give to the matters referred to them due and sufficient consideration.

From these I deduce that it is Parliament, in the form of the House of Commons (or the Senate I suppose) that gives authority to the committees not the government of the day. But today that authority is usurped by the Harper government majority in all committees in both houses of parliament, and as such committees do not have the mastery of their own procedures any more, nor are they capable of giving matters referred to them sufficient consideration, simply because the Harper government will not allow it. There is such a rush to get things rammed through under this Harper Government that committees cannot spend time to really examine that which they have been entrusted by parliament to examine, amend or even reject. More than the questions, the answers, or even the attitude of the chairperson and members of the committees, is the constraint of time. More and more the chairperson is reminding members that their time is up when they are only just getting the presenters (specially the Ministers when they bother to appear) to the point of giving real answers. How can they make a real decision if they can’t get the answers they seek because they don’t have time? Does this lack of time come from the PMO or parliament? Is it not time for committee members to stand up and ask those questions not only of the chair of the committee but of parliament itself. Combine this lack of time with the lack of ability to make amendments or even suggestion there is an inevitable air of frustration appearing because members cannot fulfill their mandates.

On the matter of “In Camera” sittings, a very common practice today…
Page 199 (1)
“A committee having the right to exclude strangers at any time, it may be inferred, has the right to sit in private and have its proceedings protected by privilege. The publication of its proceedings in that case would be an offense which the House could deal with upon receiving a report from the committee.”
(2)
The purpose of the in camera sittings is to allow the members to feel free to negotiate, discuss, deliberate and, sometimes, compromise without the glare of publicity which might add to the difficulties of agreeing to reports when it is desirable for those proceedings to be treated in confidence. The final decision of whether to sit in camera, however, rests with the members themselves” …. Journals June 21 1955 pp781-2

To say the least, interesting.

Then from O’Brien and Bosc comes this quote to open the chapter on Committees:

“Experience has shown that smaller and more flexible committees, when entrusted with interesting matters, can have a very positive impact on the development of our parliamentary system, upgrade the role of Members of Parliament, sharpen their interest and ultimately enable this institution to produce much more enlightened measures that better meet the wishes of the Canadian people.”
Yvon Pinard, President of the Privy Council
(Debates, November 29, 1982, p. 21071

Obrien and Bosc has pages of information on the various committees and their functions, which I will not reproduce here but can be seen at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=DC42FA65-ADAA-426C-8763-C9B4F52A1277&sbpidx=1&Language=E&Mode=1
for anyone who wants to check it out.

It is interesting to see how far we have come in the last few years from functional committees to complete dysfunctionality.
By this I mean that committees were established all those centuries ago to ensure that all elected members had a say in what happened, and what was right and good for the people of, in this case, Canada. Rules were established to ensure that partisanship was not prevalent, and even in the original ‘Committees of the Whole’ in the UK any member could talk as often as he wanted, provided he kept to the subject.

Thus it was with some interest that I tuned in to CPAC today (Friday 6th April 2012) to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and there were two consecutive quests: Robert Marleau, a past clerk of the HOC, and John Williams a past MP and past chairman of that committee.
What they had to say rang a strong bell with me as I have believed for some time now that the HOC and Senate committees are a total waste of time.
I do not believe that in this 41st parliament either a motion or amendment proposed by the members of the opposition has been accepted, and all amendments or motions (including going into camera) from the government side have been automatically accepted.
So when the above gentlemen suggested to the members of this committee that they could indeed serve their constituents and help to keep the government answerable to parliament (under whose authority they actually exist) my interest was peeked.
It seems that this particular committee has some teeth, should they choose to exercise them, to hold government accountable as to why they are carrying out, or demolishing, certain programs and can indeed call the Ministers into the chamber of the House of Commons to answer their questions in front of the House on any sitting Wednesday at 1 pm.
What I found interesting in this committee was that there only appeared to be one excessive disciple of Mein Herr Harper, and the questions asked by members indicated a genuine interest in doing something about the present partisan nonsense that exists both in this committee and all the others.
Both Marleau and Williams suggested to the Committee on Government Operations and Expenses that they should examine their mandate and decide what they wanted to do to be effective. Williams suggested they should go in camera to do this.

Of course I had to check out their mandate and I found it had changed a bit since 2006 – what a surprise !

In 2006 this is how it started:
Mandate
The mandate of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates enhances the traditional “government operations” committee mandate that focused on central agencies, with two innovations:
• First, it reflects recommendations of the 1998 Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Catterall-Williams Report), by locating, within a single committee, broad responsibilities relating to the supply process, and financial reporting to Parliament by government organizations.
• Second, it reflects the new importance of information and communication technologies, as an aspect of government operations having potentially transformative impacts on all aspects of governance.

Then in 2011 that had disappeared and was replaced with this:

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates Then (OGGO)
Then

Contact Committees | Contact OGGO | FAQ | Site Map | Subscribe | Text Mode
41st Parliament, 1st Session
June 2, 2011 – Present
Select a different Session ▼

About this Committee
Mandate
Pursuant to paragraph 108(3)(c) of the House of Commons Standing Orders, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates includes primarily the study of:
• the effectiveness of government operations;
• expenditure budgets of central departments and agencies;
• format and content of all Estimates documents;
• cross-departmental mandates – programs delivered by more than one department or agency;
• new information and communication technologies adopted by the government;
• statutory programs, tax expenditures, loan guaranties, contingency funds and private foundations deriving the majority of their funding from the Government of Canada.
The Committee is specifically mandated to examine and conduct studies related to the following organizations, whose operational responsibilities extend across the government:
Central Agencies and Departments
• Privy Council Office/Prime Minister’s Office
• Treasury Board Secretariat
• Public Works and Government Services Canada
Organizations Related to Human Resources Matters
• Public Service Commission
• Public Services Human Resources Management Agency of Canada
• Canada School of Public Service
Other Organizations
• Office of the Governor General
• Public Service Labour Relations Board
• Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
Crown Corporations
• Canada Lands Company
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
• Canada Post Corporation
• Defence Construction (1951) Limited
• Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc.
• Public Sector Pension Investment Board
• Queens Quay West Land Corporation
• Royal Canadian Mint

Bearing in mind that all the authority of this committee is from parliament, not the Government, there is potential here for some good if the members were to decide to look after the interests of Canadians and ensure that by choosing a few programs and concentrating upon them and determining if they are effective, or why they were cancelled etc., and forcing the Minister to defend his/her decision in the House perhaps we could see a change in some of the more ideological decisions this Harper government is making. Question is as always will Harper allow it to happen, or will he insist that his MPs are obedient to him, not loyal to the House and therefore Canadians?
Can you really see this committee being allowed to look at the ‘cooked’ books of the Privy Council, the PMO, the Treasury Board or even the office of the Governor General (cooked or otherwise)? I don’t think so either.

The fact is that time and again in this 41st parliament committees are a joke when you consider what they are supposed to be.

On about 12th March comes this:
Concerning C-11
“This week’s “clause-by-clause” review had left 39 amendments on the table: 17 from the NDP, 14 from the Liberals and eight from the Tories. Geist’s personal blog has a quick summary of the proposed amendments by party, but upon the conclusion of the review, the eight government amendments were successfully added while the 31 opposition amendments were effectively shelved.” Chase Kell of Yahoo News.

This summary of Bill C-11 committee states well the practices of present committees and their partisan destruction of both parliamentary ideals and what little democracy we have remaining here in Canada.

So what is my summary? The basic context of committees developed over the centuries is sound, but the makeup of them in Canada today is absolutely unbalanced and thus not representative of the Canadian people and thus the parliament of Canada. Let’s not confuse the parliament of Canada with the government of the day. 39% of the people who voted in 2011 did so for the Corporate Party of Canada and thus they should have no more than 39% of the members of the committees, and the chairpersons who should be none voting. Percentage of votes would be a better representation on decison making committees than number of seats of various parties, specially when there are two parties represented in the House that are excluded from committees.

This would have two results:
Firstly, bad legislation for the people of Canada would be rejected at this level and therefore cause better legislation to be proposed for Canadians by this present government.
Secondly, there would be ample time given to actually examining the Bills that will make a difference in the lives of Canadians resulting in the will of the people having a better chance of being complied with.

The chances of this happening under any government of Canada, never mind this one which is ideologically bound to destroy Canada anyway, is very unlikely as no government has the gumption to put itself up for real examination by the people of Canada, which is of course the basis of democracy.

Unfortunately we do not have democracy here in Canada.

Jeremy Arney

23rd April 2012

What if….

One night not so long ago I was in bed thinking instead of sleeping, which I seem to do more today than yesterday and I was thinking thus:

Power in the hands of a few people, or one person, has the ablility to be very destructive. It will overcome common sense, lead to acts of extravagant stupidty, blind ideology, destruction of values and to wars both within a country and in foreign lands.

Over the years checks and balances were created to protect against absolute power, but even those can be overcome as is now happening in Canada, where by mischance both the House of Commons and its Speaker, the House of Sober Second Thought and the courts have all fallen under the control of one man….Or have they.

This led me to write this letter to all the Conservative Party of Canada backbenchers on February 21st 2012:

The letter was entitled “What if”.

An open letter to Government backbenchers.

 

Some of you will not read this because I am not from your riding, but I hope most of you will as it is not an attack upon you or the government caucus to which you belong.

 

It is generally accepted that the power of government rests with the PMO and the Cabinet , but that is, in my view, an illusion. The power rests with you the “back benchers” because without your support the government and its agenda cease to be.

 

I have watched on CPAC as some of you read PMO statements and as you stumble over words like ‘democracy’ or phrases such as ‘represent your constituents’ (usually directed at the opposition members), I have to wonder if perhaps you are in entire agreement with what you are reading. Maybe you are but what if you are not? What if you question this whole represent your constituents thing?

 

The job of the opposition is to study proposed bills, offer suggestions or amendments to improve them in both the house and committee, or to vote against them if those improvement suggestions are rejected and they believe the bill to be bad for the Canadian people.

 

I would submit to you that your job as a government backbencher is no different.  I do not think your job is to just rise from your seat and vote when so directed by thePMO.

 

Being an MP is not an easy job; being away all week that the House is sitting;  being available to your constituents when you are home; sacrificing family life to live in a hotel or lonely apartment in Ottawa; working on committees and keeping up with what must be endless correspondence requires dedication, and I applaud you for that.

 

But is it not in the interests of your constituents to ensure that legislation is the best it can be for them? You were elected to be their MP.  If we look at the national average then 25% of eligible voters or 39% of actual voters in our current system elected this government. This means that 61% of the actual voters did not vote for you, yes in some ridings this was not the case but I am using the national average.  Does this mean that 61% of your constituents are not represented by you, and if so how democratic is that?

 

What if you actually went to the Liberal, NDP, or Green people who represent the majority in your riding and asked them what they think?  What if you actually represented your whole riding to Ottawa, not the government to your selected minority of the riding? That is your job, and if you do that why would you ever be rejected by the people or your party?

 

Democracy in Canada has been dead for years because we the people are not only under represented but are largely ignored except at election time, and it is, I think, because of fear of rejection  by the ‘party’ that causes MP obedience to the party line.  Yet the party of any government is made up largely of backbenchers such as you and without you they have no clout. If by standing up in the House, or in committee, and asking for the best for the people of Canada you feel you run the risk of being rejected by your party I have to ask:

 

Is this what you would be doing, going against the party or are you actually saying to the leader that you have a voice on behalf of all the people of your riding and you should be heard because your support is very important, actually vital, to the government?

 

I leave you with this thought. 

There is an opportunity to reclaim parliament, at all levels, for the people of Canada and it rests with you the backbenchers of this government to do this.

 

You have the power but will you use it?

 

Thank you for reading this.

 

Jeremy Arney

Why have Canadian Laws lost thier way

 

Well it’s not only the new Canadian laws that are totally flawed, but these laws of today are now being carried to a level of total absurdity and political games.

 

The point of laws is that they should create a framework in which every member of society, or businesses, should be protected from maleficence. Today, with this Harper Government, that is not the case with all the advertisable jingly catchy ACT names designed to make opposition to them anti Canadian no matter how “Harper ideological”  those Acts may be.

 

Way back the throne, whether regal or empiric, determined everything and taxed everyone and that was simple enough, but of course abused.  Governments were formed from which came the parliamentary system which we were given here in Canada. (This simple precise of history will be criticized by scholars as simplistic but so be it.)

 

Naturally enough this created a class of crooks called Lawyers, who wrote the laws and enforced them in courts created and peopled by them. Right from the start “legal” language was developed and is still used today, and it is very clear that the interpretation of the laws is up to the judges not to the people. Even politicians don’t understand the laws they enact.

 

A prime example of this is the current new proposed law in Canada, the omnibus crime bill otherwise known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, as yet still Bill C-10.   The Minister of Justice and for that matter the entire CPC caucus touts this as being hard on crime and standing up for victims, and indeed Nicholson has spat out to the opposition in the House of Commons many times that his government is the only one standing up for victims.  On the other hand the opposition claim that such a bill flies in the face of decreasing crime in Canada showing that the existing system is actually working, and mandatory sentences and mega jails are a waste of money and has already proven to be ineffectual in any jurisdiction where it has been imposed, particularly in the USA.

 

So, two diametrically opposed views of the same words? Or just political rhetoric?

 

Having examined all the bills that were rolled into this one I could not find anywhere where any victims of crime were protected, looked after or even fully recognized with the exception of the victims of acts of terrorism; those victims have been given the right to sue the terrorists ! Good luck with that.

For those whom this government claims this act was intended to defend and protect, ie; drug users, children used in pornography or even molested children there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-10 to ‘stand up for’, look after or protect them in any way.

 

The language of the bill is of course open to the same interpretation as are all bills (or Acts), and that really is the judge’s interpretation not anyone else’s.  I was watching a senate hearing on this the other day and heard a witness from the justice department talk about the word ‘may’ as opposed to ‘shall’ or ‘must’, and I know that in Blacks Law Dictionary, ‘may’ actually means ‘shall’ or ‘must’ when used in legislation;  but this learned member of the justice department was not saying that at all, as she was claiming that in legislation ‘may’ has the same meaning as in real life.  Goobleygook

 

Let’s not forget too that in BC where I live the legal system particularly the justice / court side of it is totally broken as shown by this comment:

 

B.C. Chief Justice Robert Bauman had warned that the  judicial system is nearing a “tipping point” because there wasn’t enough judges and funding to hear cases properly, with 2,500 cases waiting for 18 months and 7,600 cases over a year old, causing 109    cases to be tossed out in 2011, double the year before. (quoted by me not my grammar)

 

So the anticipated new criminals Nicholson claims are out there will just add to the problem of overloaded courts and too few judges.  Maybe it’s time he just bypassed the whole system and did what they are planning in the USA, which is just have the military pick up anyone without any real reason, trial or proof and imprison them indefinitely. How about that Nicholson, is that next?

 

There is a part of each bill called definitions, usually right at the front, clause 2 or 3, in which the meaning of words for that particular act are given .  Sometimes that makes sense, but in the case of the Income Tax Act for example ‘income’ is not defined nor is ‘profit’.  My assumption is that by not defining income, or profit upon which the original tax was based, the judges have the power to determine what meaning they choose to allot to those words. 

 

Why is this so important you may ask?

 

Well that’s the whole point of Canadian law. It is not simple, it is not designed for the ordinary person to read and understand, although they must obey it; it is designed to trap and ensnare us with double speak stupidity disguised as learned words.

 

Another contentious phrase is ‘natural person”. 

 

What is a natural person?

Blacks Law Dictionary  defines a natural person as: A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.

An artificial person: An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being.  Cf legal entity.

Legal entity: A body, other than a natural person, that can function legally, sue or be sued, and make decisions through agents.

 

If we were to refer to the Canadian Law dictionary it is a little different:

 

Natural Person:

A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties. compare artificial person ; corporation

Artificial person:

A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach eg: a body corporate; see corporation

Corporation:

An association of shareholders created under law and regarded as an artificial person by the courts and thus “treated like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself,”  A corporation has the capacity of taking, holding and conveying property, suing and being sued, and exercising such other powers as may be conferred on it by law, just as a natural person

 

This infers that a corporation is a human being ! Well that may be so in the USA but here?

 

It is interesting to note in the Bank Act that any director of a Canadian Bank must be a ‘natural’ person.

 

No matter what one thinks about natural or artificial persons, one has to wonder why these distinctions were created and why also none of the legal dictionaries define a human being. It is also interesting that the courts do not want to recognize human beings as natural persons, and seem to indicate that under law both natural and artificial persons are the same thing.  Why then are they defined separately and for that matter even acknowledged in the definitions in laws? More specifically why can only natural persons be bank directors?

 

Show me any Bill that does not refer to another bill, or two or three ,if  you can find one. Of course this does not include Bill C-1, which is as meaningless as any of them and is never debated nor enacted even though it has been proposed and printed about 41 times !

 

One more thing which really bothers me is the trend set by this Harper regime to change the focus of law breaking to regulation contravention.  An example of this is the Consumer Product Protection Act, which clearly states that charges will be on noncompliance with regulations and are subject only to Ministerial hearings and dictate.  No access to courts will be available to the offenders because no law has been broken! The Navigable Waters Act was amended to do the same thing so in other words we are changing from rule of law to rule by regulation. In the case of the CPPA it was rushed through with much fanfare and as yet the regulations are still not in place that I can find even now 14 months later.

 

As long as we continue to enact laws that are based on words that have multiple meanings that are subject to the individual interpretations of anyone who can take the time to decipher them but only the interpretations of the judges count, we will never have the democracy that all MPs, Senators, media and sound bite talking heads say we have but Canadians know only too well we do not.

 

K I S S

 

Jeremy Arney

Letter to the Premier of BC re 2012

Dear Premier,

I am sure you are overwhelmed with advice and suggestions from political pundits, journalists or lobbyists all paid to bend your mind in their favour, and with little interest in the people and families of BC. Here then are some thoughts from someone who is just a BC resident for you to consider (maybe) in this new year stretching ahead of us.

It is often said that health care costs are becoming too large a part of the provincial (and I suppose federal) budget, and my thought on this is that as you decrease the revenue, by decreasing or eliminating major corporate taxes, then inevitably the health care cost increases (even though in fact relatively meager) become a larger percentage of the decreased available budget. But then so does the cost of each MLA and the attendant staff for them. The point here is that even if health care costs were to remain static, their proportion in a decreasing pie increases upwards. The percentage tells only that there is a falsehood in announcing that health care costs are increasingly too high. No – the pie is being made too small.

I am a simple man without any degrees in economics but I do know that if my expenses outstrip my income I am heading for trouble. In fact I am now old enough that I should be able to survive without having to work, but it appears that I will still be working when I reach 8o simply to be able to eat and pay my MSP premium now increased to $64 per month, thank you. The other alternative is to borrow against the future and that incurs interest on the monies borrowed. This is what BC is doing and foolishly you are paying way too high compounding interest to commercial, probably international, banks instead of using the Bank of Canada. In fact you have told municipalities which borrowing organizations they should use have you not? and they do not include the Bank of Canada.

How often I have heard politicians of all stripes saying we have to lower or eliminate corporate taxes to invite investment in our country or province, and that to me is absurd. We have resources that the world needs and people who can and will work hard. I say to those corporations: “Come and get them and pay a fair share for them”. We have water we are giving away to resource developments which will poison our headwaters and eventually all our rivers, aquafers and lakes and then what will we use to drink and to irrigate our farms? But by then all our water will be owned and controlled by French companies through CETA ( and you had better believe they will not allow free access to “their” water for hydraulic fracturing for instance) , but we will still have the same problem and that is: how do you get around a toxic water supply?

It would seem to me that any company wishing to invest in a province would like to know foremost that the province is financially sound not going broke, and able to provide the manpower and services they will require. It is said that if you build a better mouse trap the world will buy it, in the same way BC can and should be a place where being a partner in prosperity for ALL is a requirement, not just a place that allows itself to be plundered for the sake of a dollar or two profit to outsiders.

Everything stems from a healthy budget which in turn means healthy revenues from ALL participants in our province not just the working stiffs.

Ms. Clark, the Bank of Canada was designed to help the Federal and Provincial governments and even the municipalities to avoid the high compounding interest of the commercial banks you are using now to cover your budgetary shortfalls. I recommend that you use the Bank of Canada to benefit us all today and help us establish a financially strong and vibrant BC for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Your so called “work plan” seems to revolve around drilling, digging or “fracking” things from the ground and shipping the result along with raw logs to Asia and that really does us a lot of good doesn’t it? How about manufacturing some things Ms. Clark? We used to do that once and used B C people to do it . Now we only use people to dig and cut and then to ship raw materials overseas just so we can get those loaded container ships sent back here again with those same raw materials changed into cheaply made goods as it shows in your TV ads. Shouldn’t we be sending those containers back loaded with BC made products?

The BC Green plan is and always was a double standard and simply a Campbell/Liberal con game. If you add a carbon tax on fuels, and then use that tax to promote coal, gold and copper mines, as well as oil and gas exploration – including drilling in the Georgia Straight and up through the Charlottes ! – all of which are many times more carbon intensive and destructive than automotive fuels then there is an obvious self-defeating effect. With your tax exemptions and subsidies to the resource sector this carbon tax is paid for largely by the people who have to use cars because public transport is soo poor everywhere except perhaps Vancouver. Everyone knows that a certain amount of carbon is necessary for healthy forests and plant life and for healthy oceans. It is the commercial excesses and by products that are the main problem along with their attending toxic gasses and liquids. The fact is Ms. Clark that the only real beneficiaries of carbon taxes are corporations such as Goldman Sachs who corner the market in carbon futures and make a financial fortune without producing or doing anything of value. Surely you understand that the unproductive oil futures are what causes the price at the pumps and heating fuels to be so high? What we really need is a pollution tax exempted from any futures plan. So let’s have a REAL Green plan, not some flimflam mumbo jumbo.

Finally, Ms. Clark, Premier of BC, the biggest capital that BC has is not in the ground, but is above it in the form of the people of BC.

We are BC.

We are the past, present and future of BC and until politicians such as yourself not only recognize that but act upon it, BC has little of real value to offer the country or the world except to be open to the exploitation of our resources.

It’s not rocket science Ms Clarke, but rather common sense, which seems to have but little value today in the Canadian political worlds.

Please instead of expensive American and Harper style attack ads against your opponents, why not concentrate on BC and our real problems and fix them. That in itself would serve you much better in the eyes of those whose votes you are seeking. We are all tired of attack ads which indicate we are fearful children unable to think for ourselves.

Jeremy