Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

 

 

Picking Bones with Christy Clark

An open letter to Ms. Clark, Premier of British Columbia.

 Ms. Clark I have a few bones I need to pick over with you.

When I arrived in BC in the late 1960s WAC Bennett was in the midst of building a province for the people of BC, creating crown corporations to look after our needs and provide for the future of the province.  Such corporations included BC Rail, BC Hydro, BC Medical Services and a very efficient and effective Highways department. The attitude of the people was one of “can do”, or  “will do” and helping others in trouble at all times of day or night was the normal.  His methods would not work today but at the time they worked well and his plan and aim was to improve the lot of all the people of BC.

 So here are some of the bones:

BCHydro.

Your BC Liberal party decided to sell off BC Hydro piece by piece and indeed this was started with the sale of the accounting process to Accenture before the Unions picked up upon this and so the Heritage Act was implemented by an angry Campbell, which made it impossible to sell BC Hydro.  This Act does not mention bankrupting BC Hydro and that is exactly what your predecessor proceeded to do, and you are continuing on this path.   High rates of purchase through corporate run of the river projects at a time when supply of power is at its highest and cheapest through our own dams, and ridiculously costly projects such as the Smart Meters, and now the Site C dam have all played their part.  At its best BC Hydro was providing a dividend to BC of around $300 million per year to go towards heath and education.  Since the asset to liabilities has now past the legally mandated point (80% – 20%) where a dividend can be paid and since Mr. Campbell cooked the books to include years of advance hydro billings so that he could get a payment of $600 million, BC Hydro is now in a real financial pickle and you are adding to that with this unnecessary site C dam.  Revenue for BC Hydro has fallen due to some extent to their very effective program to reduce the use of hydro in homes and businesses, and yet you continue to pile expenses on to BC Hydro which it cannot afford.  I know you claim that the dam is needed to power your LNG program, but where exactly is that now?   B C Hydro is carrying debt already that it cannot support and how long before your  BC Liberals succeed in breaking it?

B C Rail.

Surely this must go down as the most infamous deed ever perpetuated by any government in the history of BC.  From the promise not to sell BC rail prior to getting elected to actually going ahead with that sale and the subsequent perversion of the courts independence along with a tame prosecutor and bailing out those scapegoats elected to take the fall literally right before Campbell was due to be a witness, it can only be considered in the light of a premier who cried for forgiveness on TV after he was caught for DUI overseas and labelled as a criminal.  Such was his lack of shame that one could only expect what happened with BC rail and the subsequent loss of revenue for BC in favour of his eventual board seats.  Where were you when all this transpired Ms. Clark, and did you not learn anything from this betrayal of the people of BC?

LNG and the fracking process in North East BC and the Sacred Headwaters:

I have asked your Mr. Coleman (yours because he obviously does not work for the people of BC who pay his salary) many times just where he plans to get the water needed for this process but because he doesn’t know he ignores me.  There have been numerous potential investors in this process but I imagine they are dropping off like flies because they too know that there is a limited supply of water, and because the potential costs to them of permanently damaging the Sacred Headwaters and the aquifers there, so they are not as gung ho as you would like to believe.  Without investors there will be no LNG program and no need for huge amounts of Hydro. Is that why you are now asking Alberta to buy hydro power  produced eventually from a dam which will destroy many acres of agricultural land and First Nations treaty lands which include burial grounds and hunting grounds as well as their traditional crop growing area?   This whole concept is a nightmare for the people of north east BC but a potential for profit for some greedy and uncaring corporations.  They do care about their bottom lines however and I suspect the cost of claims against them for damage to the water tables will make even them stop and think.  

B C Medical Services:

Hello Maximus and Compass and goodbye BC medical services. Yes that’s right a US company organises BC medical services, and a UK company looking after our hospitals. I am assuming that you have renewed the Maximus contract and plan to spend more money overseas instead of having very capable BC people do the work.  There you go, and you claim that costs are rising and of course they are.  You cannot expect a US corporation to do the same work as that which was done so efficiently and locally by our own BC staff at anything but a profit.  At one time BC medical services was a very reasonable and effective plan, now I can barely afford to make my monthly premiums as at the age of 75 – nearly 76 – I have to pay some $75 a month for a service I hardly use, and for the benefit of some fat cat somewhere in the US.  It never fails to amaze me that your ultra conservative party and leaders, and that includes you, feel that increased costs by contracting out work and thereby loosing jobs here in BC is an effective way to supply a need.  The constant complaint that health costs are raising rings hollow to me because they should always be measured against revenue.  If the costs are almost constant but are still classified as a percentage of the falling revenue then yes they do appear to be a larger piece of the pie; fact is though that through tax cuts and your friend Harper’s reduction in payments to the provinces for health, the pie is decreasing in size, whilst the health costs remain relatively steady thus taking more of the decreasing pie.

Eliminate the external costs of contracting out, re hire locals and watch the change.

ICBC  more affectionately known back when it was created as Moscow Mutual

Mr Barrett introduced the Insurance Corporation of BC because he wanted to corner the automobile insurance profit to help pay for his excesses in other spending.  The fact we lost such companies as Allstate completely in BC was of no importance to him no matter how well they treated their customers.

Now of course ICBC has its talons into everything from acting as receiver general for BC, to having its own courts and rental cops (integrated police forces), and using money in trust to invest in shopping centers.  The aim of ICBC adjusters is to make sure that the minimum amount be paid out on claims, and their service generally is very antagonistic and unfriendly.  They are supposed to work for the people of BC and be helpful in our time of need, as were their predecessors, but they are anything but that. 

Work Safe BC, previously  known as Workers Compensation of BC:

Designed to bring about settlements between employers and employees who got injured on the job without going through costly court battles usually won by the employers who had more money for lawyers, and leaving badly injured workers to fend for themselves it was an excellent idea welcomed by both employers and workers. Their work almost invariably bought about safer work places without lost production.  This current newly named group is more interested in nit picking and flexing their muscles at the behest of their provincial bosses.  Has safety increased since the switch from WC to WS?  Doubt it because generally all were looking at the costs of being unsafe anyway.  But as another strong arm of the provincial government under a catchy name, as per conservative practice, the supposition that safety is more of a factor is a mute point.  I cannot say about claims as I have been fortunate enough to have avoided such a thing since about 1995.

 The Senate of Canada

For at least a decade but especially during the last 4 years, the Senate of Canada has become the last place in Canada where any nonpartisan sober second thought could be expected to take place.   Your fellow conservative Harper wanted to simply starve it to death by not appointing any new Senators (in contradiction to our constitution but what did he care), and he could do that without losing his majority hold on the votes there, whilst the NDP want to abolish the place.  Now we have a new concept on the appointment of Senators which would include public and provincial suggestions and approval.   You have publicly rejected this new concept on the grounds that BC does not have enough representation.  That is a matter for the constitution Ms. Clark and has nothing to do with the quality of those who would, should and could represent BC in the Senate of Canada.  I do not appreciate that the premier of the province in which I live is more interested in making conservative points than looking out for the people of BC, but even in my most optimistic moments I cannot expect a leopard to change its spots.

 

 That is enough for now, but believe me there are more bones, such as the health and education of my children and grandchildren, and indeed now two great grandchildren, for whom I fear for the value of their lives in BC.   You are threatening their environment ( Mount Polley mine comes to mind) as well as depriving them of the safety net social services so carefully built by WAC Bennett many years ago.

 

Jeremy Arney

BC Resident

Gary Doer and the TPP

Just by chance and I do not know why I recorded CPAC’s Public Record on 2nd December 2015, and I played it back a night or two ago.

One of the segments was Gary Doer, our outgoing Ambassador to the US, talking at the Economic Club of Canada on the subject of Canada- US Relations.

After rambling on rather disjointedly as usual about all sorts of things he came to the subject of the TPP, and here he showed himself to be just another lackey of the ex Harper bunch and the corporate agenda.

After he had finished his presentation he was asked a question about the likelihood of the TPP being passed by the US congress and when.

At the end of his reply he said this and I quote:

 

“My advice to Canada would be: be ready to make a decision. It’s your decision, it’s our decision. We are a sovereign country, we will make our decision but don’t do the, you know, due diligence. Don’t waste time on the due diligence on the public interest.”

 I replayed this segment several times to make sure I had heard it right and then again to write down what he actually said.

This is a man who has spent some 5+ years as the Harper Government representative to the USA so he can be forgiven for thinking like Harper, and indeed like the US congress neither of whom/which believe that the people of either country are anything more than a vote needed to be purchased every 2/4 years, and in between that time are there for the practice of arrogant, contemptuous behavior.  Since this has been Mr. Doer’s habitat for the last 5 years he can of course be forgiven for absorbing this attitude towards the people of both Canada and the US, but to actually come right out at the Economic Club and declare that the Canadian government should not waste any time talking to Canadians is an insult that I for one take personally.

Perhaps someone at his level of paycheck, or Minister Dion, should point out to Mr. Doer that there is a new sheriff in town who preaches consultation rather than brute force, and that it is maybe a very good thing that he will soon be replaced as a relic of the most dysfunctional and destructive government Canada has ever had.

How long I wonder before all these Harperites are smoked out and replaced by real people?

I d0 not wholeheartedly support the Liberals but I am willing to give them a chance to prove that they are serious in their desire to consult with Canadians.   As a member and the interim leader of the Canadian Action Party we have some fundamental differences particularly about Money creation through the Bank of Canada and allowing any investment profit agreements thinly disguised as so called free trade agreements back to the FTA of Mulroney and Reagan to remain in place.

We do however believe that the Canadian people should have a say in their government and their government’s actions, and it remains to be seen if the new Liberals think that as well, and their handling of the TPP and newly revived CETA with its apparently new court, which has yet to be defined while location and jurisdiction are still unknown,  will tell me all most all I need to know as to whether or not they are for real, or just another shill for the big money boys.

Fingers crossed?…maybe.

Jeremy

Letter to Justin Trudeau about TPP and Bank of Canada

Dear Justin Trudeau,

 

May I as the interim leader of the Canadian Action Party congratulate you and your party on your success on 19th October 2015 due largely to the enthusiastic vision of hope and a bright future you portrayed for the country.

 

It was with great pleasure that I heard you say to your caucus:

“Regardless of the committee you’re on, the roles you have, regardless of party demands, regardless of everything else we do, your one job that you cannot ever forget is to be a strong voice in service of the people who sent you here.”

 

This was music to my ears as the Canadian Action Party has always agreed with this but have taken it a step further to say that we will represent all our constituents not just those who elected us. It was very refreshing to hear you say these words and this leads me to this.  On 19th October you and your party were elected to govern Canada on behalf of all of us not just those who voted for you, and therefore we as a whole country should be listened to and consulted on matters of national importance.

 

Since the government of New Zealand finally released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership, I have been slogging though it paying particular attention to Chapter 28 which is entitled Dispute Settlement. 

What is particularly striking in this chapter, written largely by the international corporations that were invited to consult on this TPP, is that now any corporation within the TPP area can ‘pile on’ with any other corporation which makes a claim against perceived profit loss due to laws or regulations which might hinder that profit. This is done through something called third party:

“third party means a Party, other than a disputing Party, that delivers a written notice in Accordance with Article 28.13 (Third Party Participation)”

Article 28.13: Third Party Participation

A Party that is not a disputing Party and that considers it has an interest in the matter before the panel shall, on delivery of a written notice to the disputing Parties, be entitled to attend all hearings, to make written submissions, to present views orally to the panel, and to receive written submissions of the disputing Parties. Such delivery shall occur no later than 10 days after the date of circulation of the request for the establishment of the panel pursuant to Article 28.7.2 (Establishment of a Panel).

 

Whereas in previous investment agreements, disguised as  trade deals, dating back to the Free Trade Agreement between Mulroney’s Government and that of Ronald Reagan, only the corporations of the two countries in the agreement could launch a financial attack upon the taxpayers of the other country, now we have multiple corporations from multiple countries jumping on each claim.  This means that we simply cannot afford any laws or regulations that would offend any corporation anywhere in the Pacific Rim area.  Simply and astonishingly ridiculous.  Or as stated in the Vienna Convention On The Law of Treaties signed at Vienna 13 May 1959 Article 32 Supplementary means of interpretation, “(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.”

 

It is also manifestly plain that this is nothing to do with a free trade zone as there are tariffs, quotas, import and export licenses, side deals, side agreements and many other impediments to a real free trade zone involved in this TPP agreement, all of which could lead to a dispute if a corporation (with third party hangers on) decides it can and should appeal to yet another monetary award panel due to perceived profit loss. Remember no court of law either domestic or international is involved here. Simply international corporate lawyers deciding how much should be awarded. This is simply a gold mine for corporations at the expense of tax payers of all the countries involved.

 

On page 1-3 of Initial Provisions and General Definitions, under Section B, Article 1.3 General Definitions there are three definitions which throw this entire agreement into the area of the ridiculous, even treasonous, typical of the last ruling regime in Canada.
national means a natural person who has the nationality of a Party according to Annex 1-A(Party-Specific Definition) or a permanent resident of a Party.

person means a natural person or an enterprise

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

 

To those of us who are aware that we are all actually natural persons, but with careful and considerable forethought that natural person state has been altered over the last few decades as Canadians have been, and are now being, created into artificial people by our government without the rights of natural persons. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to expect us to accept that a corporate entity from one of the members of the TPP countries has been granted the status of a natural person with all the rights and privileges granted to natural persons, whilst we are not regarded in the same light by our governments. We are simply numbers expected to obey all laws and regulations without question and subject to fines and or imprisonment for failing to do so, but must also pick up the tab for those entities who attack our country for monetary gain..

 

The Canadian Action Party and I agree that this TPP scam should not be ratified and that all investment agreements dating back to and including the FTA with the USA should be scrapped and real trade deals signed in their place.

 

Point I am trying to make here Mr. Trudeau is that you will be globe trotting in the next few months to basically announce to the world that Canada is back as a sovereign country with the intent to be a real player for the people of the world, with the desire to help and be a country that can be relied on to be a good neighbour not a pugilistic war monger looking for a fight.   Is that your intent? I hope so.  Point is how can you do this if at the same time you are signing away our sovereignty and ability to make our own laws and regulations to corporations which care not one whit about people anywhere, only for their bottom lines.  This is what you will be doing by allowing Canada to be part of a faulty corporate investment deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership. 

 

The second point I want to bring up at this time is that both I and the Canadian Action Party applaud your intent to invest in Canada. Austerity never has been and never will be the way to prosperity in fact it leads to the opposite for the people of any country except those at the very top. 

I, and the Canadian Action Party, trust that as you will be using our own bank – the Bank of Canada – to finance these investments at a very low flat rate of interest rather than international banks and investors at a compounding interest rate.

As I am sure you are aware your new government is now under court attack by the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) due to the Bank of Canada not being used as mandated by the Bank of Canada Act of 1935; you could not do better than to use this incredible jewel we, the people of Canada, possess to return us to prosperity, and receive a dividend from our bank at the same time.   Of course by doing so we will be in line for review panel challenges from corporate banks and investors all over the world because they will lose a very lucrative golden egg.  This is another reason why the Canadian Action Party would excuse Canada from all those investment deals which would enable such challenges on how we finance our own country.

 

I wish you well, and trust that you will bring about that change you often talked about, scrapping TPP and using our Bank of Canada would be two excellent ways to start.

 

Jeremy Arney

The end to First Past the post elections?

Sunny days to follow the last ‘first past the post’ election in Canada.

 

 

There has been a suggestion made to me that arrogance, hatred and contempt for any Canadian who is not a supporter of the Reform/Alliance/Cons is now a thing of the past and I am not afraid to say I just laughed at the concept.

 

I offer just a few snippets from Hansard re Oral Questions during the one week of December 2015 sittings of the House of Commons to back up my concept that this attitude has just changed sides in the House and not gone at all.   It is also a good indication that the answers to questions they ask will not be listened to any more than the questions they were asked before they were fired were listened to. The words have no meaning to them apparently.

 

 

 

Hansard QP 7th Dec

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, in the past 15 years, three provinces have held referenda on electoral reform. In all three, voters rejected the proposals, so it seems a bit undemocratic, or even anti-democratic, for the government to assert in the throne speech that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first past the post voting system.

Would it not make more sense for the government, once it has designed a new system, to follow the example of British Columbia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island and allow Canadians to vote directly for or against the proposed new electoral system?

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, in this election, Canadians were clear that they were expecting us to deliver a change. This will be the last first past the post federal election in our history.

We have committed to listening to Canadians, not just in British Columbia but coast to coast to coast, and including them in a process and in the conversation that would change the history of this nation’s democracy.

 

 

 

Hansard QP 8th Dec

 

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, some questions must be answered with a clear yes or no. Yesterday, the Minister of Democratic Institutions skated around the question when asked whether the Liberals would be holding a referendum on a proposed new electoral system.

Today I will ask a very direct question. After the consultations on electoral reform have taken place and a proposed new electoral reform system has been designed, will the government hold a referendum on that proposed new system? Yes or no.

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and I remind the 337 other members of Parliament in this House that what we committed to was an open and robust process of consultation. I will not prejudice the outcome of that consultation process by committing to a referendum.

 

 

Hansard   QP 9th December 2015

 

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, last June, the Prime Minister offered this rationale for opposing a referendum, “electoral reform has had a lot of trouble getting through plebiscites”. No kidding. In 2007, only 37% of Ontarians supported MMP. How much better if we had not let that silly referendum prejudice the outcome of Ontario’s electoral reform process?

Fast forward to last October and the federal Liberals won only 39% of the vote. How exactly does 39% of the vote in an election constitute a better, clearer mandate for a specific form of electoral reform than 51% in a referendum?

(1505)

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 10 years, Canadians are being listened to. Canadians voted for change and they voted for a change in our electoral process. We will be delivering on that commitment. I will be working with the government House leader to convene an all-party parliamentary committee to review the various electoral reform options available to us.

 

 

 

Hansard QP 10th December

 

[Expand]

Hon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, when a government respects its democracy and wants to change it, it consults the people. Several provincial governments, including those of Ontario, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island, have done just that. In October, just 27% of Canadians voted for the Liberal Party.

What will it take for the Liberal government to understand that it cannot change the basic rules of our democracy, which date back to the time of Confederation, without consulting the entire population?

(1445)

[English]

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the member opposite’s new-found passion for public consultations.

Allow me to reiterate. In the months ahead, Canadians will have an ongoing conversation about electoral reform, a conversation that will answer many questions, not just one. I can appreciate that the party opposite may be uncomfortable with hearing a diverse range of views, but we are not.

[Expand]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, I am reliably informed that nothing is more diverse than the views expressed in a referendum.

In 2007, Ontario’s Liberal government consulted Ontarians in a referendum on electoral reform. It lost 37% to 63%, but the Liberal minister who administered that referendum still thinks it was the right thing to do. Back in June, she took issue with the Prime Minister’s undemocratic approach and said, “If you’re going to totally change the election system…I think it would have to be a referendum.”

However, what is the lesson the current Prime Minister has drawn from 2007? It is not to ask Canadians because they might not approve the system that his minions are designing.

Provincial Liberals do not fear a referendum. Why does the Prime Minister fear it?

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, allow me to try it this way.

As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures, such as ranked ballot, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting, are fully and fairly studied and considered. As part of that process, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are heard.

[Expand]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, the minister quotes from a platform that was supported by 39% of Canadians. She quotes from a platform as if that is the only reason anybody voted Liberal. Maybe she believes that.

However, Jonathan Rose, the expert who designed the electoral reform proposals that were put to Ontarians in 2007, also disputed the Prime Minister. He said, “I think it shouldn’t be a blue-ribbon panel deciding this, or politicians…it should be put to a national referendum for approval.”

If he is not afraid of it and if the Ontario Liberals are not afraid of it, why is Justin Trudeau afraid of it?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Expand]

The Speaker: 

I know members are very spirited today. It is December and it is the season and all that, but let us remember that we do not use personal names here. We refer to titles, riding names and so forth.

The hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions.

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, we firmly believe that a decision on an issue as important as this deserves a thoughtful and comprehensive process. We will not prejudge the outcome of this process. Early in the new year, I will work with the House leader to convene an all-party parliamentary committee to assess all possible options and move forward.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Expand]

The Speaker: 

Order, please. As always, let us all try to restrain ourselves and listen to the other person’s argument, whether we like it or not, and sometimes we do not. However, let us try to listen and show respect for him or her, but also, more important, for this place.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Expand]

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, and the minister has made it very clear, that the Liberals are doubling down, and they will refuse to ask Canadians about fundamentally changing our electoral system.

This is the method of voting that we have used since Confederation. I am not talking about routine amendments here. There are three provinces that have all proposed fundamental change, and they all knew that it was important enough to put that question to a referendum. If the Liberals are so sure that they have the support of Canadians, why are they so afraid to put it to a referendum?

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, Canadians entrusted us with a mission to restore the integrity in our electoral process, to restore fairness, and to ensure that every vote counts. We will deliver on that process, and we have committed to engaging the people of our country, young and young at heart, in this engagement process.

 

 

Hansard QP 11th December

[Expand]

Mr. Andrew Scheer (House Leader of the Official Opposition, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, I just hope that Mr. Coderre’s friend was not there and on the clock.

As it stands now, the only vote the Liberals are planning to hold on changes to the electoral process is a vote in this House where they can use their majority to get their preferred outcome. Only 184 Liberals will get the final say on how 30 million Canadians choose their next government.

The Prime Minister has used language like “strong” and “broad consultations” when talking about electoral reform. We all know that the ultimate way of consulting Canadians is through a referendum where every Canadian has the right to be heard. Why would the government settle for anything less than the best, and not hold a referendum?

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, as I have been clear in this House all week, we will convene an all-party committee to review the process and to ensure that it is a collaborative one and a thoughtful one. We believe decisions on this issue deserve to be approached in such a manner, and I look forward to working with my colleagues opposite to make sure that the next electoral system we introduce makes sure that every vote counts.

[Expand]

Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ajax said this week that to presume the outcome of consultations on electoral reform is nonsense, but that is exactly what the Liberals are doing.

They have already decided for Canadians that one option is not on the table, and they will not commit to giving Canadians a say in a referendum. Even if Canadians do want change, there is no consensus on what it should look like. All Canadians should get to make that choice.

Why is the government scared to let Canadians choose in a referendum?

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, if we want Canadians to trust that their votes really matter, we must be willing, as members of Parliament, to set aside party preoccupations and undertake a serious examination of the way elections work.

We want to explore this issue in the right way. That means that, before taking action, we are going to engage in a thoughtful and thorough process about the various electoral reform options available. Unlike the previous government, we have every interest in making sure that the voices of Canadians are heard throughout this process.

 

 

 

Later:

 

Democratic Reform

[Expand]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): 

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan for electoral reform without a referendum has been universally panned in the media. For example, theToronto Star states that the “government’s approach displays unprecedented arrogance.”

The Star is right for the following reason. If first past the post gives false mandates as the Liberals claim, then surely 39% of the vote under first past the post gives the Liberals a mandate to put options before Canadians, but nothing more.

Canadians themselves must make the final choice, and only a referendum represents a true mandate for any particular change to the present system. Is that not so?

[Expand]

Hon. Maryam Monsef (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): 

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we begin a conversation with Canadians and parliamentarians about how we will bring our voting system into the 21st century. That is why we are bringing forward historic changes to the electoral system. We will engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue, and those in the House. The government has no intention of prejudicing that debate. We have every interest that all voices be heard.

I hope all my colleagues across the aisle will join us in this effort.

 

So what does all this mean ?

 

On the face of it some indignant people demanding that things be done differently than planned by a new government because they themselves didn’t do it that way!

 

But,

 

Let us go back just a bit and look at the doings of the last government – the Harper Government, a one man band government and certainly not the government of Canada.…

 

 

1st session 41st  parliament re 30 new ridings

C20

 

Were the Canadian people asked if this decrease in representation, but increase in  costs to the tune of some $11 million annually, was what they wanted? No they were not, and remember this was one of those time limited debates as well, and what was the real reason for adding these extra  30 MPs in most likely conservative areas?  To bolster their ranks of course and they anticipated winning 26 of the 30…..just how well did that work out? 

 

2nd session 41 parliament

C23 re new voting rules, also known as the unfair elections act.

 

This Bill was introduced with no consultation with anyone outside of Harper’s caucus, and quite likely not even some of them.  Elections Canada was not consulted, the opposition parties were not consulted, the Canadian people were simply and totally ignored, committees were a travesty with witnesses being harassed and badgered  – a normal tactic of Poilievre, who as usual was as arrogant as he could be in the House of Commons telling falsehood after falsehood and encouraging Brad Butt to outright lie in the House twice in one day in support of this monstrous bill.  The purpose of this Bill was not fair elections at all but to deprive thousands of voters of the right to vote.  Big increase in the number of voters in October so how well did that work out?

 

 

C37 new riding names

 

Well when the deed is done we might as well get the new names, but again how much consultation was done even on this simple process? It was a fractious mess all round.

 

 

C50 re Restriction of Canadians overseas voting ability.

 

I guess Poilievre was getting nervous that he hadn’t done enough to stop Canadians from voting so now he comes up with this lulu to stop or at least make it very hard for any Canadian living outside of Canada to vote.  This would include Embassy workers (yes we had a few left), Canadians who worked abroad including in the USA ( hockey players for instance), and construction workers for the famously corrupt and criminally destructive mining and banking companies. Consultation? What for when you have an established course you are following?  That course was of course to steal another ‘first past the post’ election.

 

 

In all these a examples of Harper’s conservatives new election laws,  lack of consultation looms over all of them, and the blind support of the puppets on the back benches. Of those perhaps the loudest of all were Scott Reid, Brad Butt and Gordon Brown.   Scheer was just treated like garbage b y his own party when he, as Speaker, tried to support the sending of Butt to a committee to explain his open outright lies to the House, and yet here he is parroting the party line!

 

So what kind of a message is this?  From MPs who didn’t, wouldn’t or couldn’t listen to the Canadians who lived in their ridings and who had hired them to be their representatives to Ottawa,  who are now crying foul within minutes of being put into opposition.   The sunny days government is attempting to reassure them that not only Canadians but they too will be consulted and yet because they couldn’t or wouldn’t do it themselves they are incapable of believing that a new group could be any different from them.

 

Any referendum is only as good as the question posed, and if there had ever been any thought by Harper’s bunch of even talking with Canadians they would know that.  It is not so much the question asked but more the way it is asked.

 

Have they not learned anything at all from what happened on 19th October 2015?

 

Jeremy

Open letter to treason stephen

AN OPEN LETTER TO TREASON STEPHEN HARPER

Mr. Stephen Harper.

In an ultimate act of contempt towards the intelligence of Canadians you have made an advertisement which is saturating both TV and radio and has you saying: 

“My opponents have made this election about me. It is not about me it is about you the Canadian people……”

Three lies in just that statement by you.  Your opponents have not made this about you, and you know that very well. You have made every election since 2006 about you. As for  the Canadian people you care not one whit about them do you?

You have made this election all about you since the death of Jack Layton and the election of Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader.  In everything you say about your opponents they are in your eyes inferior to you, when in fact anyone is better than you as you are the very worst Prime Minister Canada has ever had, and no Prime Minister in Canadian history has so openly hated both Canada and Canadians as you do. For you to say that this election is about Canadians is as ridiculous as the Unfair Elections Act being designed to increase voter turnout.

Elections are supposed to be about all the Canadian people electing a representative to Ottawa, and as a result of that a Prime Minister will emerge.   You have made this election all about the Prime Minister.  You have made it about you and you will lie, cheat and steal again to keep the position, and a certain portion of Canadians will be frightened enough by your fear tactics, and taken in by your deliberate lies about the alternatives  to vote for you rather than a real local representative to Ottawa, thus helping you to erode Canadians elections even more. A perfect example of your deceit is you calling an additional pension contribution a payroll tax. No one but a fool would equate a pension contribution with a tax.

THIS ELECTION IS ALL ABOUT STEPHEN HARPER

You are a religious bigot Harper, whose only real loyalty is towards the corporate profits of your puppet masters.

You have destroyed out parliamentary process; you have destroyed our social safety nets; you have depleted our national income whilst increasing our national debt; you have abandoned our vets, seniors, sick, homeless, aboriginal peoples, scientists, environment and even attacked our sovereignty through your corporate investment and profit protection deals disguised as trade agreements.

You have changed Canada from being a friend to the world to being a pathetic gunslinger without empty weapons. You promised to change Canada and you have done so with the same arrogant contemptuous hatred that you showed The House of Commons and the Canadian people in 2011 and ever since.

It is amazing to me that you can find 337 people to carry the Reform/Alliance/Conservative coalition banner and have to wonder what they have been promised, apart from a great paycheck and tax free pension of course, to act as your puppets. They have been discouraged from even granting interviews to those who are expected to hire them as employees. Which means their being hired or not is on your shoulders, and you say what again? This election is not about you?

Hopefully this time Canadians will see through your American Republican/Tea Party style of attacks, fear mongering and red herrings such as the niqab and they will send you and your party of robots into oblivion.   You deserve nothing less.

I am very aware that this letter, being one of dissent, makes me a target of your man Blaney’s police forces, who will probably be given the go ahead to shoot me on sight as a dissenter just like they did to James McIntyre of Dawson Creek. BC and Blaney applauded them. He is supposed to be the Minister of Public Safety not an applauder of wanton public killing.

Where has the real Canada gone under your horrendous leadership?

Jeremy Arney

Victoria BC

V9B 1N1