Canadian House of Commons

Question period is a farce and as such is not really funny.

I plan to do a series on some of the ludicrous questions and answers to highlight where an hour or so of expeniive time our House of Ill Repute excells itself.


From 17th April 2023 taken from Hansard

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should slap a “not as advertised” label on it every single time the Liberals and the NDP talk about their carbon tax scam. They know for a fact, and it is backed up by the PBO, that, on average, Canadians will pay an extra $1,500. The PBO also proved them wrong and emissions have gone up.

    The Liberals claimed they would fix the environment; that was false. They said that Canadians would be better off; that was false. The Liberal minister admitted that they misled Canadians for eight years. One in five Canadians are skipping meals and 1.5 million Canadians are using a food bank in a single month. Let us get real; this is a tax plan. Let us scrap the scam and give Canadians a break.

Hon. Sean Fraser 

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ argument rests upon the premise that the alternative to putting a price on pollution is to do nothing to fight climate change. Every measure that they have put forward would have a greater cost than putting a price on pollution. Look to the court decisions, including those from western Canada, that said putting a price on pollution is the most effective way to make it more affordable for families at the same time.

Perhaps if the price was actually put on pollution instead of gas and diesel it would make more sense and be aimed at the big corporations which pollute whenever they can and with the blessings of this administration. 

The side effect of extra fuel costs should be obvious to all but somehow this administration does not get that, as they are fixated on Carbon instead of figuring out why there are less trees and a sick ocean to capture carbon dioxide and release oxygen back in to the atmosphere as has been the way for millennia.

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, I highlight two recent times that catch-and-release has failed victims of intimate partner violence.

    In one instance, an alleged abuser allegedly beat and repeatedly breached restraining orders against a partner. The result: multiple bail hearings, and likely, a terrified partner.

    In another case, a woman was threatened; firearms were involved. The result: a bail hearing and a terrified partner.

    When will the Liberal government end catch-and-release so that vulnerable women will no longer become terrified partners?


Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) 

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe, and as a government, we are taking action so that they will.

    Bill C-75 already reduced the burden of proof in intimate partner violence cases when it came to bail. We are going beyond that. We have met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to bring reform to the bail system.

    We recognize that this is something we have to work on with the provinces. Obviously we will take action in areas of our jurisdiction. We will move, and we will find a solution together.

Nothing is obvious with this administration except the dictate of the WEF




Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, since this Prime Minister took office eight years ago, our streets have become more and more unsafe. Under the Liberals, violent crime has increased by 32%. In contrast, when the Conservatives were in office, violent crime dropped by 23%.

    Criminals are out on the streets instead of in prison because of this Prime Minister’s soft-on-crime policies. Is it too much to ask that this Prime Minister take care of victims rather than criminals?


Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) 

     Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe. We are working with the provinces and territories to reform the bail system. We will work to inject resources into the system to tackle violent crime in our society. Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Moldaver urged us to do more to address the issue of serious crime.

Why only serious crime?  Does the rest not matter too? Corporate crime is no longer serious as shown by SNC Lavalin?

How can Canadians ever feel safe if they fear the anti-Canadian people actions of this administration?  When a peaceful protest is put down by very violent police/military forces we know we are not safe.

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, last week a 17-year-old boy was stabbed to death on a bus in Surrey, British Columbia. This was the third stabbing on public transit in B.C. over the last month, happening only two weeks after a 16-year-old boy was stabbed to death at a Toronto subway station. Edmonton is reporting a 53% spike in attacks happening on public transit.

    The violent crime surge in this country has reached into every corner. When will the Liberal-NDP coalition finally wake up and end the dangerous catch-and-release policies that are making our streets so unsafe?


Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.) 

    Mr. Speaker, first, I want to remind my colleague that the Minister of Justice and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and we will be moving expeditiously to revisit our bail system.

    More than that, our government has invested close to $1 billion to support law enforcement. What did the Conservatives do on each of those occasions? They voted against it. We put $450 million in to stop the illegal flow of guns into this country by reinforcing the CBSA. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

    If they want to take crime seriously, they should support the policies and the investments of the Liberal government.

When the ministers of this administration say they will it really means perhaps, meanwhile how many more people will be stabbed?  By the way Mendicino guns do not stab.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, the Trudeau Foundation accepted a gift of $200,000 from an agent for Beijing’s dictatorship, and senior PMO officials were made aware of the gift and where it came from. The Prime Minister‘s chief of staff told committee that the Prime Minister is briefed on everything and nothing is withheld from him.

    On what date did the Prime Minister become aware that the Trudeau Foundation accepted a $200,000 gift from the Communist dictatorship in Beijing?


Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) 

    Mr. Speaker, I have already made it clear in this House that the Prime Minister, over the last 10 years, has not had any involvement with that foundation.

    The member opposite is asserting, and let us go with the heart of what he is asserting, that this government would welcome the interference of a foreign country. That is absolutely absurd. The fact that it would be clapped for is disgusting. Every single member of this House is dedicated to ensuring Canadian democracy. The member opposite, myself and every member has firmed themselves to protect and defend Canadian democracy, and every member of this House will continue to do so.

I am puzzled that you still continue to use the word “democracy” in relation to Canada and our House of Ill Repute, or even Canada generally.  We are governed by a couple of alternating partisan parties which have no consideration for anything but their leaders dictates which most likely come from Klaus Schwab who, as every Canadian knows, is not even on a ballot anywhere in the country, even though he claims to own our government and future ones too.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, let us just be clear. The Trudeau Foundation is government-funded, and Liberal governments have in the past, and the Liberal government still has the ability to, appointed members to the foundation. It must be a coincidence that after Beijing’s gift to the Trudeau Foundation, the Prime Minister met with the front men who signed the cheque on behalf of the Communist dictatorship and gave them a meeting where they had direct access to influence the Prime Minister.

    Why are shady deals and influence opportunities for dictators the priority for the Liberal Prime Minister?

Hon. Mark Holland 

    Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House of Commons, members are protected by privilege. They have the opportunity to say anything they wish. However, when they are swinging their bats aimlessly for partisan advantage, they are attacking not-for-profit or non-partisan foundations, they are attacking organizations like the CBC and they are attacking free and independent media. They seem to have no care whatsoever over what or who they attack for their partisan ends. It is not becoming of this place.

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, here are the facts.

     The Communist regime in Beijing feels that it can influence the Prime Minister by using its money and front men. Clearly, it is a master at it. Two directors at the Trudeau Foundation are appointed by a minister in the Prime Minister’s cabinet. The Prime Minister himself is still a member of the foundation, according to its most recent annual report. By accepting a contribution from a front man, the foundation directly contravened the Income Tax Regulations.

    Will the Minister of National Revenue open an investigation into the use of front men at the Trudeau Foundation?


Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) 

    Mr. Speaker, the only interest the other side has is a partisan interest. It is also clear that the goal is to keep playing politics, which certainly does nothing to help our economy or our democracy.

    Obviously, each and every one of us here, including myself and those on the other side, are loyal to Canada. Obviously, this is our primary responsibility as members of Parliament. That is why I am here and that is why the members opposite are here.

The CBC is not a faithful mouth piece for their main sponsor?   I am sure that Rebel News will be happy to hear that you are now going to stop attacking them and deliberately banning them from everything you do and maybe even talk to them as they are free and independent media.

You claim that under parliamentary privilege you can say what you want in the house, but I do not believe that includes lying as you do when you refer to Canada as a democracy.

And finally for that day as I could not take any more:

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC) 

    Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know the government is abundantly committed to censoring what people can see, post or hear online. However, what we just learned is that the Prime Minister actually got a head start. According to government documents that were tabled in the House of Commons, the Liberals actually pressured social media companies a total of 214 times over the period of 24 months. Talk about heavy-handed. Why is the government so committed to censoring speech?


Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) 

    Mr. Speaker, we cannot spell conspiracy without “CPC”. It is another day, another conspiracy theory.

    Once again, the Conservatives choose to abandon our creators. They stand up for big tech companies and turn their backs on our culture, but we choose to stand up for it. We believe foreign tech giants should do more for our creators. Canadians have the best stories to tell, and this is supporting hundreds of thousands of good-paying j

obs. We will always stand up for creators and artists on this side of the House.

So happy for Rebel News.

If we even spent half the money we have given to Ukraine for our proxy war and rampant corruption there on housing, there would be less homelessness and maybe some of our aboriginal people would be in houses with clean running water.

No, sorry, I just had to add this tidbit:

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.) 

    Mr. Speaker, it is completely irresponsible to suggest that the government censors Canadians’ questions and comments. What is true is that we will be there to defend families, protect children online and ensure that web giants pay their fair share into the Canada Media Fund. We are there for creators and Canadians, but not for this so-called Conservative mantra of freedom of speech, which is unacceptable.

OOOps that is clearly saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms no longer applies to speech – except hate speech by the PM of course.

RIP Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


To all Canadian Parliamentarians

14th February 2023

First let me say that I acknowledge that you all have sacrificed something by agreeing to stand (or sit) in the Canadian Houses of Parliament. Many of you have come from a long way away from Ottawa and have to rent lodgings of some kind there and be apart from your families. Not an easy thing to do.

Travelling long distances to get home at weekends must become a real drag considering the discomfort of our national airlines, and I admire those young enough to do it.

The urge to serve Canadians must have been strong within you to get you to stand for office to get things done and I wonder how much of that is left.

Under our “well past best by due date” first past the post system each of you won the largest number of votes in your ridings, but was that the majority of votes cast there?  In a few cases yes, but in most cases I think not which means that you and your party represents a minority of your riding!  Be that as it may, how do you serve the people of your riding and the party line at the same time? 

There is no doubt in my mind that almost all of you work hard there in Ottawa and the most important thing you do is to vote on proposed Bills, amendments, motions etc., and this is where I have a problem.  Since almost invariably the votes result in block Party votes and as your party is most likely a minority in your riding how can you say, or even think, that you are representing all (or maybe even some) of those of your riding?

Problem:  ”If I vote for my constituents against my party I will not get endorsed for the next election”.  

So, I come back to my previous statement about the urge to serve Canadians and have to ask was it really there or was this just an opportunity to get a job which, if you lasted long enough, would give you a good pension?

It is not really your fault, except that you play the game, but we have completely lost all vestiges of that democracy you all bleat about constantly. When I worked, and still do for that matter, I work(ed) for the benefit of my employer who pays me for my efforts and I am only doing one job at a time.  Too many of our representatives also belong to competing organizations which have no interest in Canada except control. We have lost control of our country and our future unless we do something about it.

Who is better placed to take control back again than you?

What is needed is for good people to stand up for Canadians over corporations and all unelected organizations having control over us, NATO, WFO, IMF, BIS, WEF, UN etc., when none of their dictates should mean anything anyway.

To the Senators I say this:  You are supposed to be the House of Sober Second Thought and I appreciate that you have done that with Bill C11. Thank you.

We are a large country with a very checkered history including our continuing apartheid system towards our aboriginal peoples, our gullibility when it comes to propaganda, and our growing distrust of each other aided and abetted by deliberate separation and pitting one side against the other.

We have lost the Rule of Law, the rights to worship which ‘god’ when and wherever we chose while international and national Rights and Freedoms have been written out of our laws without actually being either repealed or amended.

I ask you: “Is this the Canada you want to leave for your children?”

For those of you who fear losing your ability to run for a particular party again, what a blessing to get away from that form of coercion. Run as an independent on your record or for a small party which will not dictate how you vote.  You will have the backing of those who appreciated what you did or tried to do for them.  You don’t have to have a huge platform of impossible promises, just ideals.

I did actually stand for election in 2008 for a small party and of course I did not win but I opened eyes, ears and minds to possibilities. The events of the last three years have made me wish I was not such an old man and could give it another shot as my dreams for my Canadian children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are disappearing like the morning mist over a lake in the summer. This is not what I planned to leave them.

We have become a warlike nation, supporting apartheid and genocide by Israel; helping to create chaos in Haiti and for 8 years backing the war between Ukraine and the Donbass region, training their nazi army to kill citizens; now we have plundered our funds to supply equipment, ammunition and money to a war effort our propaganda machine has called an illegal invasion by Russia when we have been there for 9 years now.  We have a much better use for that money here at home to solve our own apartheid situation.

Lastly, today,  there seems to be a complete breakdown in the actions of way too many people who think violence is the way to solve their personal problems.  Though I abhor violence it is not surprising when you consider that our leader not only uses hate speech with complete impunity, but actually invokes violence as happened a year ago in Ottawa. If the Rule of Law does not apply to our leaders, why should anyone else expect it to apply to them?

A year ago Canada gave the world a lesson in how to protest in a peaceful loving way which was completely distorted by  and the government and their tame media and then very violently dispersed, thus giving those on the edge mentally the sign that violence was absolutely OK.

I grieve for Canada.

I trust you can find the will to mend her.


A letter to all Canadian MPs.

22nd June 2022

Summer recess and hopefully reset.

I heard on the oh so reliable CBC today that MPs will be issued with panic buttons to give them protection from a mad and possibly dangerous Canadian populace.  

Well good for you all to have angered the mild and polite Canadians so much that you feel a need to be protected.

Let me say that I do not believe in the violence which seems to rule your lives, I am not a violent person who wishes harm for harm’s sake as I believe our laws should be able to take care of my worries if they are allowed to.

However, you have over the last few years, and more particularly this year, caused the Canadian people to be really mad at you.

You have allowed the CBC and a financially involved PM to cause panic over a Fauci/Gates/Trudeau flu, indeed you have cooperated with causing that panic.

You have allowed the 1982 Constitution Act with its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Nuremberg Code and our own Criminal Code to be cast aside as if they were leaves left from last fall; 

You have allowed illegal mandates to be issued by federal ministers;

You have allowed Health Canada to issue permission to inject a huge portion of Canadians with an experimental, untested, toxic  mRNA jab with, at that time, no known short or long term effects, and no efficacy at all in protecting from or transmitting a sickness;

soon to come – injections of mRNA for newborn babies!!!!!

You have allowed the shutdown of thousands of small businesses some of which will never reopen;

You have allowed the PM to use hate speech against a portion of Canadians and to wonder if Canada should allow them space in which to live here.

You have allowed and, in some cases, encouraged the division of the country promoted by this PM.

You have allowed children to miss out on being children with school restrictions including learning from home and wearing masks at schools when you did allow them to reopen.  The harm from this will not be known for years. 

You have allowed the PM to invoke a completely unnecessary Emergencies Act so he could violently end a legal and peaceful protest against the loss of Rights and Freedoms to decide in this case what we allow to be injected into our bodies.

You have allowed vast amounts of money and also guns and ammunition to be sent to a Nazi regime simply to please whom?  This has decimated our army to the point where an army member just laughed while shaking her head when I asked if we had any guns and ammo left with which to defend Canada. 

You have allowed these guns to be used by a Nazi comedian against Russian speaking Ukrainians and promoted his bombardments and war crimes as being by Russians when in fact these bombardments have been going on for 8 years, it is genocide is it not?  CBC/Trudeau propaganda machine and you listen.

You have allowed sanctions to be placed against Russia and Russians which has in fact caused the further current collapse of the supply chain started by the reaction to the panic you caused over the flu.

Now when the Canadian people are feeling even more disenfranchised in their own country by MPs who clearly could not give a damn about them, you suddenly feel afraid!

Well, can I also please have a panic button to push when I am next attacked by a PM who does not know me but feels secure in calling me names he is by law not allowed to?  According to him I am a science denier, racist, misogynistic, extremist and terrorist not to be tolerated. Indeed he even questioned if I should be allowed space in Canada simply because I will not put more money in his pocket by getting his toxic mRNA jab.

Can you be surprised that there is getting to be more and more distrust not only in the pathetic excuse for a PM but also in the MPs who support him?

You all swore allegiance to the Crown not to the people of Canada, but are you sure that this is what the Crown wants?  Are you sure that your allegiance is actually to the Crown anyway rather than to the WEF?

Give your heads a shake people and start doing the job for which you were elected.    It was Canadians who elected you and Canadians who are not trusting you at all because you no longer deserve it,

If I had a panic button, I would be pushing it like mad now on behalf of my great grandchildren for whose future or right to exist I fear greatly.

May I suggest that instead of reaching for the panic button you listen to Canadians and see what you can actually do to help “we the Canadian people ” make a better Canada for us all, instead of surrendering to the WEF..

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.


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.


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.


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.


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?



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. 


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?



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”

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:
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’ ) 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.”

Bill Woollam
September 28, 2011