Tag Archives: Andrew Scheer

The state of justice in the USA

And a little now in Canada

Well, Friday 31st January 2020 confirmed what most of us think about the state of justice in the USA.

If you are black person specially or for that matter any person of colour (other than orange that is) and you are lucky enough not to be shot by the police simply because you are black and they feel it their duty to gun you down, you cannot expect a fair trial.  Your colour will always be a prejudice against you and you will most likely go to jail whether or not you are guilty of even a simple perceived traffic violation.

If on the other hand you are what Bill Maher described as an angry orangutan you will not even receive a proper trial; because in your case there will be no witnesses called at your trial and your obedient republican members of the senate – minus one –  (in spite of their oaths, which clearly meant nothing, to conduct a fair trial) will render a partisan verdict of not guilty.  The interest and support of the US constitution has been abandoned in favour of a man of prejudice, bigotry and white supremist beliefs who delighted in ordering and boasted about the killing of a man on a peace mission bringing us to the very brink of WW3. Peace in the middle east is not in the interest of either the USA (money) or Israel (lust for power and land), and so any real peace maker had to be gunned down.

Justice demands a fair trial because no man/woman should be above the law, and a fair trial must include witnesses from both sides. Since this was refused then one has to assume that this president of the USA is above the law (so much for their vaunted constitution), or that a fair trial could not and would not be held in this case to prevent impeachment of someone whose desire for personal success is paramount and everyone else is just a utensil.

The not guilty verdict unleashed a barrage of ugly tweets from a somewhat deranged person, followed last week with the presidential pardon of some serious criminals just like him.  I think it is a fairly safe bet that Roger Stone will only serve a few days in jail if at all.

The home of “the brave and free” is now blessed by a devilish reality show host, not some form of mythical god and unless the good people of the USA do something about it they will suffer for many years of agony.

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.”

Now regretfully there is an unhealthy discussion here in Canada too, what else can you expect from Canada’s version of the republican party, concerning “whiteman’s law” and the original peoples’ law long preceding the Magna Carta.  Some how we are arrogant enough to think our modern version is better.

What will it take to get us all to accept that we are all human beings regardless of our skin colour, religious beliefs, orientation, or desire to just live in peace; just let our national pride out when we play games against each other.  Would that be too much to ask?

Jeremy

Do not pity poor Andrew Scheer.

What happens to a man whose entire working career has been that of a Canadian politician?

 He has stepped down as leader of the opposition which means he loses his free house, free car and chauffeur, chef and household manager.  He also has now to pay for his childrens’ private schooling and to cap it all off he takes a $100,000.00 pay cut!  Wow.  I guess the question is does he get to keep all those goodies until a new leader is elected?  Probably.

 I guess that is what happens when someone relies on the Canadian people for his livelihood. On the other hand. he can remain as a lifelong member of the House of Commons as he belongs to a party which is so well established in his home province that he is not in jeopardy of losing his conservative seat no matter how irrelevant he may be. By the time he finally retires his tax-free monthly pension will be the equivalent of a working man/woman’s annual wage.  Of course, as a US citizen, he could always go south and run for the senate there!

 There was some sort of joke that he would try again to be Speaker of the House, and that indeed would be a cruel joke as he was perhaps the most partisan and weak Speaker in Canadian History as his actions in the Brad Butt affair clearly showed.   To have him return in that position would indeed be an apt judgment on the value the elected representatives have in the so-called peoples’ House.

 Perhaps if he had been paying attention to the mood of Canadians rather than personally attacking his opponent, he would have been PM but he choose instead to be a fool. That should be a lesson to any would-be PM.  The people do have a say in who governs them, or should I say represents the corporate lobbyists to us all, and should be paid attention to.

 

His resignation has caused some speculation about who will take his place, which leads to:

                                            New Leader for the Conservatives?

 Well sure if they want to get anywhere other than opposition, they do need a leader with charisma and pizzazz and that doesn’t mean a constant anaemic smile. But look who the CBC in their never-ending speculating instead of reporting news is presenting as possible replacements.

 Peter MacKay. The man that betrayed his promise and written agreement to David Orchard who for the good of the party was willing to step aside for MacKay to be the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The deal was that Stephen Harper would not be given the conservative name.  Well, we all know how that worked out, and how no matter what he did wrong – and he did plenty –  MacKay would always have a cabinet seat in any Harper government.

 Stephen Harper himself….Seems he retired only to promote himself as the world’s greatest conservative in case he got the chance to mess up Canada again.  His destruction of the working process of the Canadian Parliament is well documented and here is just one sample. (John Baird claiming the right he would not grant Ms.May as a duly elected Member of Parliament)

 Christy Clark, the ultra-conservative, libertarian who disguised herself as a BC Liberal and couldn’t name a corporate entity in BC which does not love her and gave her oodles of money in her failed bid to remain Dictatress of BC. Now openly supporting any conservative she knows and heaping praise on Brian Mulroney and Harper claiming they were saviours of Canada. Listening to her talk on the Power and Politics Premiers Panel on CBC is, to one from BC, sickening

 John Baird.  Perhaps single-handedly managed to get the CIA anti- Libyan mercenaries to keep fighting so he could arrange to bomb civilians, hospitals, universities, schools and water supply pipelines (and the factories to make more pipes) without any threat of air interference.  Perhaps his greatest asset was that he could escort Loraine Harper to functions when Stephen was out gadding around feathering his private nest al la Mulroney.

 Pierre Poilievre.  The architect of the unfair elections act, designed to stop First Nations and the homeless from voting, and pulling the teeth of Elections Canada to enforce a democratic election system in Canada.  Since being part of the opposition, he has attacked the PM personally too many times to count which is against parliamentary rules but he simply doesn’t care.  No thanks, Pierre.

 Surely there must be some real person of integrity and personality somewhere in the conservative ranks who can appeal to all Canadians of conservative ilk and they don’t need to exhume these people, except Pierre of course.

 But all in all, a very good day for Canada and a very bad day for Andrew Scheer.

Election 2019 musings

Written in early November and I forgot to post it…..

 

We are told over and over by those who should know better that Canada is a democracy. And yet we have just been shown again that democracy is a word that does not apply to Canada, and indeed the way Canada was formed did not have democracy in mind at all.

The Magna Carta, signed by King John on 15th June 1215, was the start of and the basis for Westminster styled parliaments since that day.  It laid out among other things, rights and privileges designed to curb the Royal power of a king, corrupt or not, and to give power to some of the people – Lords, Dukes Earls etc., and indeed the first parliament was made up of just those people. Rich and influential. But it was a start.

Canada, being a colony of England, was designated a Westminster style parliamentary system as were all the colonies of the old “Empire” now known as the Commonwealth of Nations.  Based as it was on the English system there were but two parties, neither of which had the ability to be democratic as the very nature of this system falls apart under the dictates of party lines.  Ideally, the purpose of our parliament would be to the betterment of all the people of Canada and Canada itself, however, today that concept is as alien as love thy neighbour.

That being said this just past election was as uninspiring as it was dirty. Fearmongering and smears outnumbered even the wildest promises and unsubstantiated claims were flowing freely. The outcome, a minority government, was predicted amid wild accusations of coalitions and one suggestion by Scheer that the looser of the minority race should immediately resign as party leader. How did that work out for you Andrew?

What we got was three parties showing an increase in seats and two showing losses. The Greens increased to 3 members, the Bloq (a party which puts Quebec first within Canada) regained party status; why did the conservatives describe them as separatists when their base in Alberta and Saskatchewan are openly calling for Wexit and the conservatives completely took over that belligerent western section of the country.  The NDP and Liberals both lost seats, but the saving grace for the liberals was probably the inherent distrust of Andrew Scheer who finally owned up to American citizenship (and all that would entail in dealing with half of himself!)  the threat of austerity and an increase in belligerence and bigotry as seen in both Ontario and Alberta. By the way, how did a party which was so critical of Mulcair having dual citizenship with France manage to have a US citizen as its head?

A split and dissatisfied country. A country which made climate change an issue; a country struggling with dissatisfaction with the way politics is conducted and yet not willing to go backwards; a country with a general population scared of adventurous voting, wanting change but not willing to bring it about; a country divided into haters and bigots and religious extremists, and those who want a better world; a country with an indigenous population still suffering genocidal conditions in spite of many words claiming otherwise; a country of huge potential being held back by red tape and bureaucracy, jealousies and fear of the different.

In other words, a paradise in the making if we do this right, or a hell just around the corner if we do not.

 

Jeremy

Alberta and Saskatchewan unhappy again

“Wexit”  !

 

Alberta and Saskatchewan are talking about leaving confederation because they do not agree with social governments, preferring instead austerity for the people and handouts for the corporations which are destroying our earth. Ok, that is their choice as it was the choice of Canadians outside those two provinces to reject that notion.  They seem to feel a sense of alienation when could it be that what they are mad about is that Canadians as a whole don’t think like them; that is to say Alberta and Saskatchewan are the breadbaskets and lubrication provinces that hold the country together financially and should be bowed down to and given everything they desire. Really? Would that have happened under a Scheer government? Yeah, right!  His American side would be clearly in lockstep with Trumpian non-values.

What on the face of it seems like a spoiled brat or two crying and stamping their feet in order to get mommy’s attention actually shows how little Alberta and Saskatchewan have really thought this through.  Alberta is mad because that province has squandered what it had that was created by Peter Lougheed many years ago which was a model for Norway’s fantastic financial situation; and now after years of terrible conservative manipulation in that province, they are in essence broke and landlocked. Instead of reaping the rewards of careful husbandry of their main resource they are now “sans” the Heritage Fund advantage and stuck with a one market product they call oil, which is in fact bitumen.  As long as they call it oil their heads are stuck in the sand from which the bitumen is taken.  One market you ask? Well yes according to the FTA and then NAFTA we can increase our percentage of production of any petroleum export to the USA to 100% but we cannot reduce it at all. Article 605 of NAFTA.

We hear from media and politicians that there are new markets waiting for the bitumen but never are they described.  Notley, Kenney, Freeland, Trudeau, Carr to mention just a few have not been able to give me the name of even one refinery in any new destination country that is wanting this Alberta goop.  So naturally, the question arises: why the TMX expansion if not just another way to ship to the USA?  Meanwhile, Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington State, is as concerned about the possibility of an accident in Georgie or Juan da Fuca straights and the resulting toxic gases release into the local winds as are we on southern Vancouver Island.

Incidentally in this as yet un-ratified USMCA investment deal there is a segment ( Article 32.10) on other investment (trade deals) entered into by one country without including the other two will make USMCA null and void.   How does the US talking a new trade deal with China fit with this? Yet our weak-kneed corporate government will ratify it anyway.

Is the assumption that BC will automatically leave Canada with an arch-enemy? After all, we are under legislated threat of having Alberta cut us off from oil and gas supply.  They want to destroy our interior with clumps of bitumen and toxic gases when the TMX  pipe ruptures and of course the Stampeders always beat up on the Lions, so are we really expected to roll over and join them in their foolishness.   BC, on the other hand, could leave Canada and be completely self-sustaining.  Actually, though, the problem is more complex when you consider the First Nations treaties with Canada, and BC having signed on to the UNDRIP makes it even more complicated.  For some reason, Alberta and Canada have not so signed, presumably because such a signature would hamper the ability to trample on First Nations’ rights.

But what would leaving Canada actually achieve? Both provinces would still be landlocked, and while they could still export grain, wheat, beef, pork etc., it would be through foreign ports, probably charging more with maybe even import/export duties charged, and what would happen to the people of those two provinces about the OAS and CPP, not to mention healthcare? The rest of Canada being the generous people they are would graciously honour the current recipients, but for the rest of you?  The youth of both provinces would not be happy about that now would they?

So back to the discontent within Alberta and Saskatchewan.  Granny used to say “put all your eggs in one basket and if you fall you most likely will not have any eggs”. Well you two, it seems you have fallen and now have not one representative in the federal government between you.  IF this country was a democracy that would not really matter much as your representatives (MPs) would have a voice, but much to the chagrin of many, many Canadians we are not a democracy and there is virtually no representation on behalf of the people in our House of Commons anyway.

The Alberta in which I lived and worked for many years was a relatively happy, friendly and welcoming place. Now after years of conservative rule both provincially and federally the whole picture has changed to where redneck, bigoted, anti-immigration, and yellow-vested supremacists are well represented by the likes of Kenney whose intended austerity measures (anticipated by me anyway) were held back in a budget not delivered until after the federal election. Anyone really surprised by that?

What Canada sorely lacks is love and compassion for each other no matter who or what.  Yes, there are some who have an abundance of both but ……

 

Jeremy

Electing a minority government is not a bad thing.

Well, the hoopla is well over.

We have a minority parliament, not a coalition as the talking heads keep repeating endlessly as if by them saying it over and over it will come to be.

We have had minority governments before and mostly – that is with the exception of the Stephen Harper years – quite a lot of good was accomplished.  There is no need to be frightened by such an animal, in fact, some small semblance of democracy might just raise its head to smile upon us.  We can but hope.

Meanwhile, those talking heads are guessing what will happen and few seem to acknowledge that the world is not coming to an end. Surely there is real-time news they can report upon until moves are made when parliament eventually meets.

There are some things that stand out for me and I guess the main one is the reaction of one Andrew Scheer.  After claiming that the loser in a minority government must resign as party leader it is clear in his own mind that it only applied to Justin Trudeau, not to him.  He has said he will stay on as leader unless his caucus wants him out, and as there really is nobody to replace him he will stand pat. Wow, what a surprise!

Alberta is, of course, moaning that they will not have a seat at the table, but that was their choice and with Saskatchewan, they will form a solid block of red neck, bigoted, yellow vest supporters who will agree to nothing on principle. It seems that what they wanted was austerity and cutbacks and Alberta got that through Jason Kenny’s budget, conveniently delivered after the election was history.  Typical!  How do you like conservative values now Alberta?  Clearly, any form of democracy is an anathema to you.

But back to CBC and their consummate desire to offer their speculations on what happens next.  No ideas or even suggestions on possible democracy as only a majority government seems to fit with their idea of good governance. The very concept that there will be different opinions on how to do the best thing for Canadians through real debate in committees – even though they have become a time-conscious waste of time since 2006.  Democracy means that what the people need is important and legislation should reflect that rather than pandering to big oil, big pharma and big anything else that wants to make a healthy profit at our expense.   There are people who have no homes, no money and who rely on others for their food.  There are people whose homes are mouldy, who have no drinkable water and whose education and hospital facilities are not even on a par with 3rd world countries; and what land they have is constantly being taken from them for a road, pipeline or mining operation and they do not get a fair share of the proceeds. Their burial grounds, as sacred to them as are the cemeteries in Christian churches, are destroyed by construction crews defended by the rent-a-cop RCMP with no regard to ancient and treaty rights.  What a hypocritical country we are when we preach reconciliation and practice theft and genocide.

Referring to Andrew Scheer again, his new caucus has decided to relieve him of his self-imposed suggestion about the looser resigning as party leader and have agreed to follow his vacuous smile for a while longer.

Yet Elizabeth May, a more parliamentary politician than Scheer will ever be, has stepped down as Green Leader because she promised her daughter she would do so.  Who would you rather trust?

 Jeremy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canadian Election of October 2019

The day before Voting Day

What a boring, nasty election full of innuendos, accusations and falsehoods, and very little in the way of substantive ideas.  This was not about MPs so much as about the leader of the country. CBC, instead of promoting democracy, furthered the concept of a leader being elected in all 338 ridings. Only in Canada eh? pity.

The spectre of a coalition government has not appeared in Canadian political history until now and has been blown out of all proportion.

Yes the Liberals, NDP and Bloq foolishly announced that they would vote together to defeat Harper’s minority government in a non-confidence vote and form an alliance, not a coalition, to run government which resulted in Harper proroguing government to avoid that situation. An alliance is not a coalition. Remember what he said in the house, prior to proroguing, about what any alliance with a separatist party would do for constitutionality? Typically, he raised the idea again that a party interested almost entirely in what was/is good for Quebec had to be separatist, and that is typical of all western blockheads’ thinking.

Now we have his minion Andrew Sheer (another western blockhead) raising the spectre of a Liberal- NDP coalition because the NDP have flatly ruled out any chance of working with a conservative minority and even though the Liberals have not agreed to the Scheer proposed coalition accusation.  The NDP raised the possibility of a coalition with the Liberals and of course, Scheer jumped all over that as fact in another form of smear tactic against Trudeau.   Typical.

What we have here are two young males still in political short pants (so to speak), one of whom has made some serious mistakes in the last 4 years, and the other who was perhaps the worst Speaker in our History.   One tries to tell us what he has done well, and how he wants to do more, and the other ignores the climate and our aboriginal people, but pours scorn and hate on his rival.  Between them there is obviously no love and perhaps no respect.  One warns of the other and the usual conservative tactics of less tax for the wealthy corporations and more for the people along with service cuts, while the other slams, curses and personally attacks the other.   Children! Grow up damn it!

I listened to one speech, how typical I don’t know as I try to avoid most of them lately, in which Scheer raised the spectacle of Diefenbaker and Mulroney as two shining examples of Conservative PMs.  Wow.   Yes, the Deief gave us the Bill of Rights, but he also cancelled the Avro Arrow once the impossible was accomplished and how much money did we spend on that wonderful plane?   Not sure what the symbolism was meant to be here, maybe that our success is not acceptable south of the border and their discontent must be appeased; so, is that a clue about Scheer?  With Mulroney everything is much clearer.  He gave what was left of our sovereignty to the USA through FTA and blew the national debt up from approx. $93 billion to approx. $440 billion before he gave over power to Campbell.  Another shining example of a true Canadian?   Harper raised it again to just nudging under $1 trillion from approx. $515 billion to give himself a balanced operating budget. Hah!  So, the references Scheer was suggesting in relation to himself was?  

Does it appear that I have no time for Scheer? Well, that is correct. His action as Speaker over the Brad Butt affair still rankles with me and act as a guide to the man he really is as opposed to what he projects.

Does that mean that I support Trudeau? Only if that was the only alternative. His election promise being broken may well have come back to haunt him, and his actions re the first peoples are still seriously lacking.

Neither of these men has any clue what democracy might have been and will not practice it given the chance with a majority. So, the best outcome and the one that seems most likely now is a minority government with the balance of power split between three parties – if the Greens reach party status and I hope they do – and that could actually lead to better governance; that is if the lust for power can lower its ugly head for a while and if our elected representatives can actually work for both Canada and us for a change.

Oh, to be free of the corporate chains Canada.

 

Jeremy

Silly Season 2019

What a crazy world we now inhabit, but for how long.

Summer gets hotter, winds get stronger, water falls, pulses, gushes and destroys, and fires rage and burn homes but not trees.  We are being given a message and the leaders are ignoring it.   The children and young adults are not and we still do nothing. The constant need for power combined with political and corporate greed control us and will until its too late as long as we continue to buy useless “stuff” pushed on us by non-stop advertising. Do you really need a 50 cycle washing machine? A cell phone which is going to make you sick and maybe even give you cancer? A car which thinks for you and is controlled by your cell phone? A veggie or vegan burger called plant-based or beyond meat? A drug which has side effects worse than the supposed condition and can include death?  On the other hand, you do need to know which communication companies are in a rush to alter your electrical makeup with 5G, but will you pay attention to the side effects which you cannot avoid whether you have a cell phone or not?

Here in Canada, we are into an election cycle or totally stupid season.  Promises are made that have no real chance of success and costings are well hidden making them more attractive simply to get your gullible votes.

Take taxes for instance:  Promises are made that the very wealthy will be taxed more which is overdue and fair, but only if overseas dummy corporation tax havens are outlawed. I have, and even promoted, the concept that all businesses operating in Canada must use a Canadian incorporated and based bank and pay taxes on any profits prior to any money being sent overseas.   Of course, if investments must be made overseas, and why not, then there must be employees operating that business not simply a dummy account somewhere numbered or not.   Then there are so-called tax credits. What a joke that is.   Tax credits are listed under the section which includes personal allowances etc. and are discounted down to 17%.    That is, of course, a sleight of hand by anyone’s measure and if one doesn’t have an income sufficient to have that credit take effect then of what use is the credit anyway, discounted or not?

Taxes, of course, are a huge part of the economy of any country, especially here in Canada, and are used to pay for services which we have been promised.  Naturally, we do not have enough income from taxes to pay for everything so costs are passed off to the provincial and municipal governments, which have even more financial responsibilities.   Classic “pass the buck” down the line instead of up the line.

Another factor to take into consideration here in Canada is the interest on the national debt which must be paid out of taxes and is, in fact, the largest single yearly cost to our federal government.

How many of our current crop of deceitful political parties even understand the economic reasons for using the Bank of Canada instead of international banks and investors?  The answer is all the small parties except the Libertarians, and yes that includes the Communists, Rhinoceros and the Marxist Leninists, which makes them more Canadian people-orientated that the big 4 (5 if you include the Bloq).  Of course, the big 4(5) are corporately funded and lobbied to the extent that their hands are tied, or so they claim.    However, since income to the federal government is so important, they conveniently forget that the Bank of Canada, designed and created to fulfil Canada’s financial needs, charges a minimum interest to cover their operating costs and any money left over is returned to the Minister of Finance to help with government expenses.  You would think that it is a no brainer and indeed it is.  Excuses given by Ministers is that the Basil 1,11 and 111 agreements do not allow us to do this.  But those Basil agreements are between privately owned central banks, to which our publicly-owned bank should not have been signed on without a referendum or plebiscite from the people of Canada.  Did we agree? Were we even asked?  The answers to those questions are no we were not.   It wasn’t even a government agreement.  So why is our publicly-owned bank or government bound by it?

The inhabitants of this land for thousands of years are treated like vermin by the descendants of immigrants in much the same way those early immigrants treated them.  Maybe there is some movement to treat them as humans but it is very slow, grudging and inefficient.  Plots of land to which they have been herded give them little or no access to hunting, clean water or even air.  Mines, drilling and other extraction on their unceded lands are carried out with the full permission of governments which do not have the right to allow it, and most often there is no benefit to the rightful owners of that land, and I do not mean the crown.   Actually, our aboriginal people think of it as land that was given to them by their creator to look after, and we are stopping them for doing so.

Which political  parties today are talking about the Mount Polley damn disaster, or the unholy mess in northern Alberta where Bitumen is being mined, or the erection of Cite C damn in Northern BC, not to mention the Unis’tot’en peoples’ burial grounds and trapping lines being assaulted for corporate profit for which they have been offered no share, and to which they do not agree?  One major party has absolutely no interest in anything to do with First Nation, Inuit or Metis rights and another promises top priority and neither they or the third party have any intention of crossing their extraction buddies and their offshoot corporations.

Where exactly do personal attacks tell the people of Canada anything except that it is OK to be prejudiced against an opponent because that opponent stands in the way of their power? Is that what we want our children to be taught?

The fact is that Canada is rife with hatred, prejudice and discrimination of all sorts. Is this being addressed even obliquely?  Hardly.  In fact, it is being promoted by some parties, the members of which seem to have forgotten that their ancestors, or even immediate parents were/are immigrants seeking a better life here in Canada.  I know that is why I came here, to raise a family of Canadians in a beautiful, welcoming country full of possibilities for those who are willing to work for it.   Boy, am I disillusioned now!

The young people today are interested in having futures for themselves and their children on this planet now being destroyed at a greater rate for a few dollars and are any of the parties really listening to them? or are they making empty promises they have no intention of keeping simply to get their votes?  

Once upon a time Canada meant something in the world, now we are just a pawn to corporate power game. We do not lead by example any more. We do not do something because it is right to do it, but simply do what we are told.  Our sovereignty like our diplomatic value are both at zero, because of political allegiances owed to states such as Israel or The US with their totally terroristic approach to the world.

But:

This time we just might have enough disillusioned people here in Canada to have a widely differing set of politicians and parties in our House of Commons, and a  minority government to be supported on good legislation for the people, and bad legislation either amended or thrown out, again for the benefit of the people of Canada rather than corporations whose bottom line and CEO bonuses far exceed the benefits to humanity.

It’s up to us, so let’s get out and vote for the real candidates who will represent you to Ottawa not Ottawa to you, who will swear an oath of allegiance to the people of Canada, not a foreign Queen…. And that excludes Liberal, Conservative and NDP….maybe even the Greens…if only they could adopt the Bank of Canada instead of international banks and investors and become real Canada supporters…Ah well.

We live in a world of internet information false or not; cell phone computers rule our lives and control our thoughts and actions and we allow consumer products designed to spy on us and to shorten our lives (smart meters, 5G networks etc.,) to change our electrical bodies and weaken our ability to think for ourselves, even to communicate with our fellow humans, and this is progress?

Rock on Greta Thunberg, Autumn Peltier, Malala Yousafzai and all you young people, take control please because you are showing more sense and courage than all our politicians combined.

 

A stark contrast in styles

14th February 2019

 

I never cease to be amazed at the perfidy of our elected so-called representatives.

I am not going to go into the present controversy concerning Jody Wilson-Raybould, nor am I laying blame as I really do not know what happened.  A reporter for one of our wonderful newspapers quoting unknown sources claimed wrongdoing by the PM, PMO, PRO or others concerning the SC Lavalin case and this has been accepted as gospel by the opposition.

My problem here is the absolute hypocrisy concerning committees.

Does anyone remember how Brad Butt (CPC) lied not once but twice on the same day during the debate on the UNFAIR ELECTIONS ACT? (Hansard: 6th Feb 2014 at 1620, and again at 1720)

He would have got away with it because his word was taken as true by unsuspecting MPs, but I suspect that Elections Canada called on him to explain why he had not reported this to them and he had to make a very insincere apology to the House –(Hansard 1140 29th Feb 2014)   This resulted naturally in a call on the Speaker of the House (Sheer) to make a ruling as to whether Butt should be obliged to appear before the House Committee on Internal Affairs to explain himself.  To give him credit the Speaker ruled that he should which prompted an opposition motion to that effect which the Government House leader of the time (Van Loan) vigorously rejected and indeed the motion was defeated by a Conservative vote.  What appalled me at the time was that Speaker Sheer was not even in the chair to hear the result of the vote but left it one of his minions, and so no committee meeting was called to examine this total breach of House rules, and a Speaker’s ruling was rejected out of hand.

Contrast this to the demand for a committee hearing on the Wilson-Raybould affair, where a committee was called into an emergency meeting over the matter.  The actual performance of the opening meeting was not very conducive to a nonpartisan discussion and indeed was very partisan indeed and many derogatory remarks were made concerning the witnesses called prior to that meeting.  It was clear to me that the list could and would be expanded but, led by that somewhat odious MP Cooper, there were open accusations of a cover-up.

What the outcome will be is anyone’s guess but the contrast in agreeing to a committee meeting right away and completely denying the same on a Speaker’s ruling is very stark. I give the government kudos for calling the meeting and I trust that something will come of it, but at least they responded.

It is also worth noting what the Speaker had to say prior to Oral Questions on 7th February this year:

From Hansard:

The Speaker: 

Before we proceed to oral questions, I want to make a statement on what I have observed in recent days.

As members know, question period is an opportunity to hold the government accountable for its administrative policies and for the conduct of ministers in their official capacities.

[English]

I have listened carefully and patiently, perhaps too patiently, to questions put forward this week, some of which clearly fell outside the scope of permissible questions, since they had little to do with the administrative responsibility of the government. In addition, some of these questions were couched in language that amounted to a personal attack. This is also not permitted. I would caution members now, before we begin, that to maintain the dignity of this House, I will not allow such questions or such personal attacks. I will interrupt any member who asks a question that raises a matter that does not properly deal with public policy.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie will come to order.

[Translation]

There are other ways to ask questions so they fall within the administrative responsibility of the government. I am confident that members know how to formulate legitimate questions. If they cannot, I will give the floor to another member.

[English]

I am sure that all hon. members want to have a question period in which issues are dealt with with seriousness, rigour, and yes, intensity. It also needs to be respectful. I hope this will be the case today in going forward.

Order. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton will also come to order.

[Translation]

Thank you in advance for your co-operation.

 

While I not a fan of the current “sunny ways” – as I sit watching snow fall yet again in the Banana belt of southern Vancouver Island – I cringe at the thought of a cowardly ex-Speaker leading this incredible country called Canada into hateful, two-faced Conservative ways again.

 

Clearly what we need is many small party or independent MPs who will swear allegiance to the people of Canada rather than the Crown, and who will hold any minority government to account, and not be accountable to corporate pressures.

 

I can dream, can’t I?

 

Jeremy

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