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

Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.

Mark Twain

 

 

I came across this quote the other day tattooed upon a young man’s leg at Operation Trackshoes at UVIC, and it struck me as rather pertinent to politics generally and particularly those in the Canadian House of Commons and Senate.

Let’s face it, the constant squabbling, backstabbing and partisan jabs that take place are indeed laughable.   The concept that debate, questions period and most members statements should be taken seriously are indeed laughable.  Debate in the House isn’t debating any more it is reading prepared statements in a restricted time frame and does not represent the opinions, desires or requests of the people of Canada which no longer matter, indeed they have not mattered for aeons.

These petty statements about the previous or current governments, their failings, shortcomings, or absurdity is laughable.  When a member of the previous government complains about something done numerous times by their government now being done against them it is not constructive but laughably petty.   Is this what we pay them for?   When the current government complains that the previous government didn’t do something that is also petty and indeed laughable. Again is that what we pay for and demand?  Do we demand anything from those who we pay so well to represent us?  Is democracy really alive and well in Canada? Again that concept of laughter shows what a mockery the Canadian Parliament has become, and we have lost that ability to laugh long and loud at their pathetic proceedings.  If we can rediscover that ability to laugh at and mock these overpaid caucus puppets just maybe they will feel as stupid as they appear and make some effort to change and actually represent us, but do not hold your breath, laugh instead!.

 

A perfect example of this is the so-called oral questions, or question period, held daily in the House of Commons.  This has become an exercise in open personal slandering under the guise of asking a question and then naturally being given a completely “non-answer” response.  If this sort of behaviour had occurred in the schools I attended as a youth I would have been disciplined immediately.  However, these “children” get away with it every day.  We have been conditioned to accept this as serious not as a joke and so we forget to laugh out loud at this behaviour by these adults.

 

Instead of taking them seriously we must start to laugh at them.   How long will they continue to act this way if they understand they are being treated as jokes?

 

Currently, we have a problem with the President of the USA and we take what he tweets or says seriously. Like any bully or a bad-tempered ignorant man he cannot stand to be laughed at, and yet no one does.  Witness the recent meeting of the G7 prior to which Trump complained that Russia should have been included when he is front and center in creating sanctions against that country and could he really want to face Putin across the table?  I doubt it. Yep, that is truly laughable to think about.  His blustering, lack of courage to say face to face what he thinks, to be stated later in some stupid tweet is indeed the sign of a bully.  Why are we simply not laughing in his face?  What can he do that he is not doing already?  He alone is causing chaos all around the world, not face to face but by caustic tweets and sanctions.  Those are the actions of a real man?  

The way our government reacts is submissive.

NAFTA should be scrapped, we should refuse to export our lumber products there and put tariffs on everything from chewing gum to Boeing aircraft made in the USA.  The way to deal with a bully is not to surrender to his bluffing, but to respond in like manner. Turning the other cheek leads to a second bruised cheek.

 I hear the cry that we cannot survive by doing this and that our economy will collapse.  What nonsense.  Our economy has been recently created to revolve around oil, and now we have put ourselves in a position where we are dependent on the USA buying our oil – especially our bitumen -, refining it and sending it back to us as a finished product at a huge profit to them.  Yes, we have backed ourselves into a hole through FTA and NAFTA but that hole is our own doing as we continue to keep NAFTA on the basis that we need it to survive. 

Really? 

How well did we do prior to FTA?  How well did we do before we gave control of our resources and economy to foreign entities? How well did we do before we succumbed to the siren call of globalization?  How well did we do before we hamstrung our farmers or sold off our shares in CWB, CP or CN or Petro Canada?  We have the ability to trade with the world but we have tied ourselves to the scraps that the USA passes our way. 

That is economically sound?  Laughable indeed!

 We need to be able to laugh at ourselves too and understand that we are soo much more than we currently have become.  I learned early on that if I was not able to laugh at myself and my foibles then I could not expect others to laugh when I made fun of them.

 Laughter is very powerful and as Mark Twain said it conquers all.   We should remember to try it more often, and more importantly, teach our children to laugh too.

 When you stagger out of bed tomorrow look in the mirror and smile, and you will get an instant response from your image and I guarantee it will make you feel better and might even have you laughing out loud with your image if you let it.

 

It is OK to wake up laughing so why not laugh all day long at those who deserve it, including yourself?

 

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

Letter to Canadian MPs by Bill Woollam re Libya

I have been in contact with Bill Woollam for months on this subject and he and I are of the same opinion. With his permission I post this from him.
Thank you Bill,

Attention Members of Parliament:

I wrote to my Member of Parliament regarding the NATO war crimes against Libya. ie: Supporting ‘outright regime change’, ‘privatizing’ the Libyan oil fields, ‘privatizing’ the former Libyan national banking system, along with bombing raids which are hitting Libyan hospitals, schools, civilian targets and most recently the Libyan water supply system and water pipeline factory.

I have done my research on this topic from day one. Thousands have read my published findings on the net.
It is titled “The Battle For Libyan Oil Fields”
http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/the-battle-for-libyan-oil-fields.html

My first question to any ”thinking” member of Parliament is:
“Would not the American Administration use its military force to quell an armed, US domestic revolt?”
“Would not the Canadian military be sent in to quell an armed Canadian domestic revolt within Canada’s borders?”

So why in heaven’s name would NATO forces interfere with Gadhaffi’s decision to quell an armed revolt within his own country?

Why? Could it be that news reports fail to mention the real motives behind NATO’s interference and aggression?

My member of Parliament had the gall to imply that Canada’s role in the obvious ‘war for regime change’ was as follows:

“1) Make clear that the goal of the UN-mandated mission was to protect civilians.

2) Secure an increase to Canada’s support for humanitarian assistance.

3 Strengthen our diplomatic role with the acknowledgment that only a Libyan-led political transition will end this conflict.

4) Ensure improved oversight of Canada’s involvement, including parliamentary committee meetings and better information sharing.”

When one does the research, one quickly discovers that specific British, American and European oil cartel interests have been instigating a takeover of the Libyan national oil fields for over 30 years. Those who pull the strings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have pushed for the replacement of the ‘nationalized Libyan banking system’ with a ‘private-for-IMF-profit” system. And specific weapons manufacturing cartels have also been behind the Libya regime change. See the connections here:
http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/is-the-nato-regime-change-in-libya-a-global-con-job.html
A variety of other excuses have been used to take the West into these
illegal Middle East wars where the ‘power-elite’ who pull the strings of NATO member nations can carry out their agenda of control and domination of Eurasia.

NATO member nations’ military capabilities are being used as a ‘corporate’ police force to enforce the will of specific international corporateers.
I suggest taking two minutes and watching this short video clip narrated by John Perkins (former economic hit-man for the IMF) which explains the entire sinister process.

The salient points of international concern spoken of by Courtenay Barnett (writer for ‘counterpunch’ http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/19/libya-whither-international-law/ ) are:

” 1. Is the world to see the upholding of the principles of the United Nations Charter for the promotion of peace in the world and settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; is Article 2 of the UN Charter to remain the basis on which nations can, under international law, lawfully go to war, or by reference to Article 51 (self-defence) as a legitimate basis to engage in belligerent international action?

2. Does the concept of sovereignty have applicability in the international community, and more particularly has the concept been respected in the case of Libya?

3. Did either UN Resolutions 1970 or 1973 permit the NATO nations lawfully to bomb Libya, and to arm and support a faction in Libya to obtain regime change?

4. Will the actions of the US and the European branch of NATO use Libya as an international precedent for incursions into any resource rich country, or rely on the casus belli of “humanitarianism” as a basis to oppose militarily any nation that deigns to advance any truly independent national polices, not in accordance with NATO’s wishes?

The answers to these types of questions will yield one of two results:-

1. A world that is committed to peace and respect for the rule of international law; or

2. A world of unending and perpetual warfare where covert support for uprisings deemed to be in the interest of the US/NATO will increase with concomitant global instability on a massive scale for most of humankind as covert militarism becomes manifestly more blatant, outrageously illegal and overt.”

Sincerely
Bill Woollam
September 28, 2011