Tag Archives: Brad Butt

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

Canadian House of Commons today

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

 

Taken from Hansard 23rd Septrmber 2014.

 

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[English]

Foreign Affairs

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

(1420)

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

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

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

 

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Papineau.

 

 

 

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

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

 

The fourth act of contempt in just few minutes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jeremy Arney

 

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