The last week of CBC’s non-stop promotion of corpocracy in Canada.

Thanksgiving is over, fall is definitely here on Vancouver Island with colourful shrubs and trees, and the temps are falling like the more frequent rains.  In short, winter is around the corner.

More pressing is the action of our national broadcasting corporation – the CBC – when it comes to the current election for our federal parliament.

For some reason, the CBC has been promoting what the pollical parties are constantly selling. Party politics here in Canada is alive, well and ruining democracy at an ever-increasing rate. In spite of their incessant ads to promote their ability to be an impartial informer of events of interest to Canadians, CBC’s entire reporting on this election has been about the party leaders and which one we want which one we should avoid and so on ad nauseum.

Somehow in all of this the basic reason for voting has disappeared.  Elect a member of parliament to represent the needs of we, their constituents, to Ottawa. How simple is that and how stupidly ignorant of that have we become?   It has been changed now to elect a leader whose representative from the people will do just exactly what they are told, not by we the people but indirectly through the party caucus to do the will of the corporate lobbyists. This is modern politics, and it stinks.   It also costs us a lot of money to have 338 people in Ottawa pretending to do the nation’s business.

Do the candidates in the ridings across the country listen to us or are they too busy spouting their party line?  I only attended one town hall this time (my work schedule only allowed one) and though there was only the occasional referral to the party leaders – usually about economic matters – the flat, polite, closely timed remarks were scripted, canned responses handed down from the election war rooms.  There was no time for passion, no time for humour, no time for actual debate, no time for audience participation and questions, indeed I felt cheated of democratic conversation as I left the Hall.  That sums up the whole nonevent which has been directed by the CBC with no reality in democracy, but perfectly in line with the current regard to the truth of corpocracy.

How many times have I been asked in the last week which leader to vote for, and when I say that  I only vote for a leader because she happens to be in my riding I get a barrage of facts about why they hate so and so, can’t stand so and so, etc., and seem genuinely puzzled when I ask if their names are to be on the ballot they will use to vote.  As long as this misconception of democracy is promoted by such as the CBC ignorance will abound.

So my question is the same for the hypocritical CBC:  

Since the party leaders are not on 337 ballots, how can a vote for their puppet on a ballot rather than for a real representative be a democratic election?

Democracy means we the taxpaying people of Canada should have a say in what happens in our country, and yet you are encouraging us to vote for a dictatorship. Is this how you spend the money that we give you to undermine democracy?  The answer is a resounding yes.  

A vote for an independent or small party candidate may not elect the Prime Minister but it might elect someone to keep him/her accountable to the people. Remarkably even the Communist and Marxist Leninists parties want to re-introduce the use of the Bank of Canada, whilst the current crop wants to bury us in further international high-interest debt.  Now, who do you imagine is really for Canada and Canadians?

 

Shame on you CBC, and maybe you will get a party which will slash your subsidies again.

 

Jeremy

Canadian Election party leaders debate 7th October 2019

As a result of the CBC discussions about this debate and their continuous nauseous talks about winners or loosers I felt obliged to communicate this to them:

Leaders’ “Debate” Debacle.

You have been asking viewers what they thought of the event on Monday 7th October 2019 and after watching you devote soo much time to trying to make it much more than it was I decided to give you my thoughts.

The Format was designed to be a failure; after all, do you know any politician or religious guider who can be really succinct? You invited confrontation but did not give enough time for it to develop from either protagonist so why bother? You also had a leader of a party with no elected members in the last parliament and very little chance of even obtaining party status this time around.

I would classify this as a discussion of the climate as it was introduced into every topic and the real problem of pollution was hardly mentioned.  The largest carbon-sequestering agents are either very sick in the case of the oceans, or diminished by massive cutting or burning of forests.   Yet the bigger threat to mankind – and all other species – is the rollout of the 5G networks the damage from which will make environmental problems immaterial and will perhaps give the earth a chance to recover from the most invasive species it has ever known. Not even mentioned either through ignorance or fear of the communication corporations and their monies.

It was also painfully obvious that not one of those so-called leaders was even aware that the trillion-plus national debt was caused by failing to use the bank of Canada to finance our needs.  In 1974 when the Bank of Canada was turned into an inflation watchdog instead of a source of finance our national debt – owed to ourselves by the way – was a mere $22 billion, and today it is very nearly $1.3 trillion owed to international banks and investors.  There was not a leader on the stage who even considered that, in their efforts to explain how they would pay for anything, they would restart the use for which the Bank of Canada was created. When you consider what we created, built and paid for with the Bank of Canada then today’s problems are very small potatoes.   Today’s money-raising is through increased taxes or cuts…very innovative.

In your follow up programming you have asked some people, many pundits etc., to explain who was the winner and if they had changed their minds about which leader they would vote for thereby taking us further away from the concept of democracy.   The purpose of an election may I remind you, as you seem to have forgotten, is to elect a representative to our parliament, not to elect a dictator. How many times did you ask people which leader they would vote for when that name is not even on the ballot in 337 ridings? What are you promoting here?  Clearly you are in favour of the waring party system which has got us into this mess and gives us one dictatorship after another instead of the democracy so often falsely claimed to exist in this country.

As for the winners – there were none, yet the losers were very definitely the people of Canada who were promised a momentous event and got a dud squib.

 

Jeremy

 

Well, screw you Donald.

9th April 2018

Ever since America as a country came into being there has been one thing that has been in their favour and that is superior numbers.   From Custer’s 7th Cavalry famous for slaughtering old men, women and children and then getting their comeuppance from actual warriors in Montana to the huge number of men carrying guns in WW1 and WW2 acting a bit like ants; just keep on swarming until the opposition is smothered. Stubborn resistance from the strategic defence in Korea and Vietnam lead to the equalization of those numbers but oh the number of Americans and civilians who were sacrificed in those defeats!   Volume again now in nonstop battles around the globe all designed to make the USA the all-powerful self-proclaimed determiner of who should “rule” which country.

So I heard that Donald demanded that the new NAFTA deal be on his desk by 1st May 2018 in at least an MOU.   Damn it Donald you told us you were going to scrap it, and I at least fell into the trap of believing a business man of ill repute but extreme wealth who could see the advantages of scrapping NAFTA because of Mexico and their low cost of labour etc.,   I thought he could see too many changes he could make with Canada to his advantage, and indeed he could, but actually Canada if it was, in fact, an independent, democratic, sovereign country would be only too happy to tell Donald now that he is reneging on his threat that WE give you 6 months and WE are out of NAFTA.  

American business can see the financial problems with them not being able to control us and so they too want NAFTA to remain.  It amuses me in a sad way that our negotiators believe that they have turned those businesses in Canada’s governmental favour forgetting that they too, just like our politicians’ own handlers are only interested in profit.   Mind that I said Canada’s government, because it is their opinion that we should be subservient to Washington and bow their every need. 

We the people do not believe that, do we?   We believe that our relationship should be with the American people even with all their warts (not that we don’t have them too), and that we can and will get along people to people and business to business without all this chest banging, tribunal challenges and protectionism, with mutual respect.   Strangely this could well happen if we could just get the money lenders, politicians and manipulators and toy soldiers out of the way and talk to each other as fellow humans. 

The cynics among us will say “not going to happen” and maybe they are right; as long as we have wishy-washy leaders around the world, who change their minds and promises as fast as they change their socks (or at least as often as they are told to)  then we will have to do it ourselves.

The first step in my mind is what the Canadian Action Party has promoted for years and that is that NAFTA must be done away with.

The image of the FTA cartoon of the day showing Reagan on a rearing white stallion with Mulroney following on a hobby horse saying “we won” still rings so true today.   Trump Towers and the White House against a dilapidated cat urine smelling PM residence allowed to sink into a pathetic symbol of Canada’s long gone democracy and sovereignty.

There is no way The USA will change article 605 of NAFTA, and apparently, no way the Government of Canada is willing to stop those absurd lost profit tribunal claims against us and instead insist that the investor-state claims chapter be kept in place.

So, Donald, shut up or put up because we can’t do it ourselves anymore and NAFTA really should go the way of the dodo bird.

Jeremy

 

From NAFTA

Article 605: Other Export Measures

Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Articles XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

 

  1. the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;

 

 

 

OH CANADA, WHERE ART THOU?

 

 Every day in our House of Commons, MPs stand and spout the word “democracy” over and over and occasionally – very rarely actuality – “sovereignty”.

There is no doubt in my mind that none of them have the first idea what either word means, but they are buzz words that seem to imply that they are working for Canadians.

This simply is not the case.

Sovereignty: (Canadian Oxford dictionary)

“the absolute and independent authority of a community, nation etc.,”

If we had sovereignty really, then why would all our political representatives have to swear allegiance to the Queen of England rather than to the people of Canada who elect and pay them?  Why would we have to abide by so-called Trade Agreements and surrender our environmental protection and laws to international corporate profits?

 

Democracy: (Canadian Oxford dictionary)

“a form of government in which the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives”

The claims are made that we elect politicians to represent us, but actually, most Canadians will tell you that they vote for the party, not the person, and even worse they vote for who they want to be the most powerful person in Canada.  We all hope, in vain it turns out, that that person will actually work for Canada and Canadians.   They do not.  The two parties which have ruled Canada since it began are almost interchangeable today, and the fact remains that party politics require that all MPs vote with their party leader, not on behalf of their constituents, their hearts or their heads. What we have had over the years are two parties which respond to the national and international corporations and banks and we would be better described as a corpocracy, not as a parliamentary democracy

So much for democracy.  

                                                                           *

 

Stephen Harper announced in 2006 that we would not recognize Canada when he was through with it, and proceeded to make parliament completely dysfunctional.   Corporate welfare and investment deals were his things.  He made a point of announcing major decisions overseas, usually on a Friday night; committees of the House of Commons were routinely disrupted by his minions, with the most classic being by John Baird, a Minister and therefore not eligible to sit on any committee, on June 4th 2010

His budget implementation omnibus bill of 2012 gutting or repealing some 70 Acts, simply to make life easier for his corporate friends and donors was an action as contemptuous of the Canadian people as was the behavior that caused his to be the first government in the history of Westminster style parliaments to be defeated on the grounds of contempt of parliament.  To prove the contempt point he promptly accused the opposition of causing an election the Canadian people did not want over an already defeated budget.   There are many of us who thought that any member of that government should be barred from standing in the following election, but the people of Canada bought into his lies and gave him that final right to destroy Canada without opposition interference.

Democracy?   Not on your life.   Dictatorship? Absolutely.

 

Justin Trudeau came in with a fanfare and promise of “sunny days” which most of us thought were for us, but naturally, we were wrong again.  Those sunny days were for the corporations at home and more particularly from abroad, which would reap the benefits of a continued surrender of sovereignty through investment deals disguised as Free Trade Agreements.   Both CETA and TPP (or whatever the new name is) give foreign ‘enterprises’ or ‘entities’ the same rights as Canadians are supposed to have under the Charter of Rights and freedoms, and yes this was confirmed in writing by the current Minister of Trade.

From CETA under definitions:

person means a natural person or an enterprise;

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

This means that Daimler-Benz or Fiat, for example, under CETA have the same rights in Canada as do you and I.  Well, that is, if you know how to obtain those rights which you can be sure they do.

                                                                                 *

Now we have a federal government which has deliberately created a real rift between British Columbia and Alberta over a pipeline which can in fact not be used for exporting bitumen by boat to anywhere except the USA.

You may ask: “What?  How is this possible?”

NAFTA.

Article 605 of that agreement states that we can increase the percentage of production of any natural resource, but particularly petroleum products, to either the USA or Mexico, but we cannot later reduce that percentage to either country.   Since we only have one customer for the bitumen from Alberta as, according to Rachel Notley the Alberta Premiere, the USA takes 100% of our bitumen production so it follows therefore that all those proposed supertankers from Burnaby BC must head for an American port and not as claimed to another country or customer.

What happens if they try and go anywhere else?  Then the USA will take us to a NAFTA tribunal and it will cost Canada billions.  In an attempt then to give Alberta a few extra bucks the Canadian people will have to pay through the nose. That is described as being good for Canada.  I find it hard to agree with that.

As long as we have two interchangeable political parties in Canada which simply switch the colour of the ruling party every now and then we are doomed to sink further into the abyss both financially and morally.

Thus my question:  Oh Canada where art thou?

If we must retain the party system and obtain any form of democracry then we must have a minority government with a large number of small party or independent MPs holding the balance of power who can and will represent their people and will force amendments to bad bills, support good bills and really hold the government of Canada to account on behalf of the Canadian people.   Could we do this?    Yes, if the people want it we can.   Canadian apathy, however, will stop any change.

I left the UK in1967 and came to Canada to have and raise my family.  There are now four generations of Canadian Arneys on Vancouver Island, and I fear for their future, especially if BC remains part of a Canada which is becoming increasingly hostile to this province.

Where do we go from here?  It’s up to us, not those puppets of big money currently bragging that they listen to us when they do not.

 

Jeremy

Voting reform in Canada?

In Canada we have been presented with an opportunity to bring some real democracy to our political scene, and it appears to me that we are going to pass on that opportunity.

We have a three party system here with a Quebec only based party and a fringe party – the Greens – making up the MP mix.

We have 22 registered political parties in Canada so how is it that only 5 parties are sharing the MPs?

The answer is as old as the hills really and that is power and money.

We call our system of government parliamentary democracy, which in essence means that we have a parliament that represents the people, but does it? Oh there are facts, figures and percentages quoted often to support the concept that it does, but how often does your MP manage to get anything done on a national level with which you approve or even give consent. I will not deny that on an individual problem they may be able to get help for you from the government,. But that largely depends on the MP and the party to which they belong. I remember when I approached Dr. Wallace who was for years a progressive conservative MP for Oak Bay about a problem he flatly told me there was nothing he could do because he was not a member of the government. That is a perfect example of lack of willingness by an MP to act democratically on any level simply because he was not a member of the government. Point here is that all our members of Parliament claim democracy for Canada when in fact we have probably never had such a state.

What we have had since our inception is a two or three party system of governance which is entirely partisan and self serving for those parties. From this we have developed a very finely tuned system of preserving that status quo.

Before we take a serious look at the voting itself, lets look at the process leading up to that vote.

The ability to have a candidate in every riding depends on the money available to a party to develop the machinery at every constituency level, and today that is only partly through individual donations from people and corporation. After each election EC refunds to five parties a large portion of their expenses thus giving them a huge bank account to run the next election. Is there some logic behind this? Of course not from the people of Canada’s point of view because they are paying for it, but from the parties who have developed this system of huge expenses and refunds it makes perfect sense that in essence the taxpayers should pay for their election expenses.

To illustrate what I mean, in 2011 there were 17 parties which had candidates in the election. Of these only 5 parties received a refund from Elections Canada to the total tune of $33,262,653.00.  (see table below from  EC website).

This money came from EC and who pays for EC? Yes that’s right you do. The remaining 12 parties received nothing and had all exhausted their finances and had to rebuild for 2015.

Then in the actual campaigns themselves at almost every town hall across the country “all candidates meetings” actually means the Cons,. Libs, NDP and Greens (and of course the Bloq in Quebec). For a smaller party to get on the stage is an extreme rarity. Even in 2015 when the conservative party candidate did not bother or was told not to to appear at town halls in Esquimalt BC a communist candidate who attended the meetings was totally refused entry to the stage or to even make a presentation to the attendees. The “rules” of participation are set by the holder of the town hall (ie a church or Chamber of Commerce) and are not governed by EC. There is only one way to change this and that involves the people of each riding to walk out of a meeting that does no offer every candidate the same opportunity to speak as would happen in a democracy, or in fact would be suggested by the “all candidates” designation. Problem is that these small parties have some very people oriented and good ideas and therefore must be excluded in order to protect those who only speak the party line.

Advertising is very expensive and here again the Broadcast Arbiter has stacked the deck to favour those major parties and give them the lions share of the advertising that CBC must carry free during an election. Small parties get on average 5 minutes each split between radio and TV, whereas those parties which can well afford to pay for their own get 80 – 100 minutes of free time. This is of course upside down and only further hinders democracy here in Canada.

What this all means is that some 17 registered political parties in Canada are largely excluded from the election process by design.

If this exclusion continues what difference does it make how the vote is conducted?

However that process is being looked at by both a special committee which is working hard and has done so to their credit all summer. Following a decade of completely dysfunctional committees this one has an opportunity to show Canadians that MPs can actually work together for Canadians. After much nonsense about a referendum from the Conservative party members of the committee they too have finally realised that this subject is important, and have started to actually take part rather than distract from the mandate at hand. Problem is that the whole subject is being conducted on the basis of there only being 3 parties, along with the Bloq and Greens, to be considered. In other words any proposal will simply remix the mix we presently have which is no longer functional as far a democracy is concerned.

For example STV allows for up to 5 candidates to be chosen for a larger constituency, so here in Canada each constituency would have an Lib, Con, NDP, Green and one other member of parliament- if that figure of 5 stands and that is not likely as it would open the door for a small party outside Quebec.. Now that sounds like stalemate to me, and anyone who knows chess knows that is not a great outcome.

MMP allows for party list to be chosen from as a secondary feature but that list would perhaps only be presented by a party with a 5-10% of the vote at the last election…so we are back to a list from 3 parties only as even the Greens did not manage 5% of the vote in 2015.

See how this is like a mathematical loop?

All we will get from this as it is playing out so far is a shuffling of the three party deck.

Seventeen small registered parties thought that sunny days and voting reform would help them to finally have some small level of representation in our Canadian House of Commons, to represent their members views and definitely bring new ideas to a stale establishment stuck in the mold of indifference to the people and acquiescence to the corporate lobbyists.

I fear that once again this chance at a new democracy will be sidelined in favour of partisan party politics and in defence of what those parties have.

I am still wondering why the Minister in charge of all this did not appear in Victoria as advertised but instead went to Saturna Island with a total population topping off at 350. Lack of venue? Maybe but we have a magnificent legislature building here in Victoria which is only used for about 7-10 days in any BC Liberals calendar year and I am sure that could have been a very good venue.

 

Jeremy Arney

 

Elections Canada Online | Total Paid Election Expenses and Reimbursements, by Registered Political Party – 2011 General Election

Total Paid Election Expenses and Reimbursements, by Registered Political Party – 2011 General Election

Registered political party Number of candidates Total paid election expenses ($) Authorized limit of election expenses ($) Reimbursement ($)
Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada 7 39,024 467,969 0
Bloc Québécois 75 5,344,678 5,373,818 2,669,961
Canadian Action Party 12 16,954 840,226 0
Christian Heritage Party of Canada 46 41,960 3,202,184 0
Communist Party of Canada 20 8,680 1,358,384 0
Conservative Party of Canada 307 19,457,420 20,955,089 9,728,710
First Peoples National Party of Canada 1 0 62,702 0
Green Party of Canada 304 1,924,478 20,764,345 962,239
Liberal Party of Canada 308 19,483,917 21,025,793 9,741,959
Libertarian Party of Canada 23 154 1,743,667 0
Marijuana Party 5 0 339,676 0
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada 70 3,511 5,162,705 0
New Democratic Party 308 20,319,567 21,025,793 10,159,784
Pirate Party of Canada 10 1,207 757,193 0
Progressive Canadian Party 9 1,424 765,502 0
Rhinoceros Party 14 0 982,437 0
United Party of Canada 3 0 241,407 0
Western Block Party 4 0 333,955 0
TOTAL 1,526 66,642,974 105,402,845 33,262,653

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

A Letter to Canadian MPs.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes that is you.

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

In total disgust at our so called representatives in Ottawa.

Jeremy Arney

Indigenous peoples and this Canadian Government

It occurred to me the other day that the main reason for the long delay in this Canadian government signing the UN Declaration of Rights for Indigenous peoples could very well have been that they would have to recognise that the Palestinian people are indigenous to the area occupied by Israel.
Since this conservative government specifically have stated that no matter what Israel does they will support them, then obviously they cannot support the position of the Palestinians that they have some right to land in the area in which they have lived for thousands of years. Our own First Nations people know what that’s like.
It is also regrettable that this government refuses to recognise a legally and democratically elected government simply because they do not like the elected party and their opposition to Israel’s pugnacious and criminal attacks upon themselves. It shows that the belief in democracy in this Canadian government is dead because of their apparent hatred of Hamas. Why can they not see that Hamas is the choice of the Palestinians, and we should respect that. I certainly do. Lets face it the present government of Canada has a minority not only in the seats, but also in the volume of the votes cast, and actually has less right to rule that do Hamas. Do I like what they are doing? No. However under our system I and all Canadians are stuck with them.
In the debate in the House of Commons last night concerning the problems in Egypt, MP after MP stood to protect the rights of Israel to peace, and I could not but help wonder what they were thinking. This is not about Israel – probably second in terrorism and aggression only to the USA – anymore than the Gaza Strip (heaven help us if anyone mentioned that pathetic little besieged country) or Jordan or Iran; no, this is about Egypt and the Egyptian people and their wish for democracy. Let us hope they choose a much better model than we have here in Canada where democracy is as totally dysfunctional as is our government and so, by their constant devise actions, is our parliament and parliamentary system.
You know maybe the youth of Egypt are showing the youth of Canada something. The established Canadian government is not working for them, it is working for big business, so I say to our Canadian youth, take to the streets and take your country back. It will be yours soon anyway, but my advice would be to take it back now while there is still something Mr Harper hasn’t sold or given away.
Jeremy Arney