Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Canada’s Fall economic update, or how to follow Alice through the looking glass

Fall economic Update by Minister of Finance for Canada in the Canadian House of Commons 1st November 2016

 At approximately 1524 in the update the Minister of Finance announced this, and I quote from Hansard:

“Our communities need to keep people and goods moving. Our most vulnerable citizens need housing. Our kids need and deserve clean air and clean water. Our country needs long-term economic growth.

To solve these challenges, we need to think even bigger. We need reliable partners. Canada’s pension funds and institutional investors around the world have world-leading expertise and they are eager to make big, long-term investments in Canada.

I am happy to announce that the Government of Canada is establishing a new Canada infrastructure bank, through which at least $35 billion will flow to help us undertake transformative projects that might not otherwise get built. This bank will allow us to create thousands of jobs, get more projects built, and attract $4 to $5 in private capital for every tax dollar invested. That is progress.”

Then at 1525 or so this:

“Decades from now, when my kids tell the story of when their dad was finance minister, I want them to be able to look back and see our government’s first year in office as the year Canada began on the path towards a new, modern economy. We are well on our way”.

Now I am a simple man, not a lawyer, not a financial expert nor an economist; I have worked hard all my life to provide for my families and sometimes even myself. I simply cannot understand how anyone who claims to listen to the Canadian people, who claims to have the best interests of Canadians uppermost in his mind, and is looking to get the approval of his own children, can be so blind to the economic reality facing him.  He is privatising the entire infrastructure of Canada, from the federal, provincial and indeed to the municipal level.  The profits will not come to Canada for the benefit of Canadians but will go instead into off shore bank accounts.

 IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR?

 This bank, as he so blatantly stated, will be a private bank, owned and financed by corporate interests and the pension funds.  These investors will expect a profit in the neighbourhood of 7% – 9% or they will not invest.  Who will be paying this profit?  Why the Canadian people of course, or lets correct that, it will be the middle and lower earning Canadians, as the top earners are the ones who will be investing in this bank for profit and no doubt will find loop holes and write-offs to eliminate their share of taxes which would otherwise help to pay for this gross mismanagement of Canada’s wealth.

There is another aspect to this and that is CETA should it ever actually become a reality, because this bank could in fact stop profits from European banks which might like to invest directly in some of our projects, or make loans to our municipal or provincial governments. Not being able to do so at profit will give them the opportunity to take Canada to a European court of doubtful jurisprudence which will then dictate our laws to us and of course fine us. Wonder how much money the Minister has allowed for that and where he will get it from.

 Canada is in the enviable position of owning its own bank already, a public bank called the Bank of Canada which was responsible for financing the greatest period of growth and prosperity Canada has ever know, from 1935 to 1974.  Look at the history of financing our part in WW2, having the largest merchant navy in the world, the St Lawrence Seaway, CPP, healthcare, what used to be called Unemployment Insurance, Trans Canada highway, railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools – the list is almost endless and after all that and with minimal inflation we had a national debt in 1974  of just $22 billion basically owed to ourselves!

 Today, according to the World National debt clock, our national debt is over $1 trillion and rising fast.  

 What does the Finance Minister have to say about using the Bank of Canada?  I quote from part of a letter sent to me by one of his staff in reply to my letter concerning the refusal of this government to use of the Bank of Canada, and querying how the infrastructure bank mentioned in one of the leaders’ debates in 2015 would be financed:

 “It is sometimes suggested that the Government of Canada should fund part or all of its debt by borrowing from then Bank of Canada, rather than by borrowing in private sector markets. The Government does not support this approach, as it would require the Bank to create new domestic currency, which does not create any additional wealth.

In fact, the experience of many nations has demonstrated that relying on domestic currency creation to finance government expenditures results in excessive inflation.

While some inflation is desirable to ensure price stability, too much inflation can adversely affect economic growth.  Furthermore, excessive spending and domestic currency creation often lead to a misallocation of scarce resources.”

There is so much inherently wrong with these two paragraphs, but I will simply ask how can anyone really understand the logic of turning a publicly owned bank from a mandated money supplier (Bank of Canada Act 1935) and even a dividend payer to the Minister of Finance, into a simple and toothless inflation watchdog?  The logic of this is beyond me and all I can think is that the current politicians, none of whom support the mandated use of the Bank of Canada, have somehow listened to the siren calls of the big international banks and investors, and believe their call over the needs of their constituents and indeed Canada.

 The fight to stop COMER from  taking the Bank of Canada, the Finance Minister and Government of Canada to court to force them to return to using the Bank of Canada continues, with appeal after appeal from the government in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.   How can they be right when we are heading further and further into an abyss since we stopped using the Bank of Canada.

 Now we know for sure that this Liberal Government is actually as bad as or even worse than the previous Harper regime, and although they claim to listen to the people of Canada, they do not.

 At least we knew that Harper wanted to destroy Canada as he said would in 2006, but this government is racing to out Harper Harper.

 Shame on them all, and shame on us for not fighting them tooth and nail. 

 Unlike the Minister’s wealthy children looking back in pride at their daddy’s perfidy, our children, grand children and great grand children will ask us the question: “Where were you when Canada was sold?”

 

Jeremy Arney

 

 

CETA, Bill C-30, smoke and mirrors?

 

Bill C-30 – an act of destruction concerning Canada’s Sovereignty

In the first reading of the first part of this Bill there are so many contradictions, discrepancies or even sections that no longer apply that I have to wonder just who wrote this Bill and if it has been seen by the Attorney General of Canada who is supposed to vet all Bills.  I started this as a serious attempt to present a brief to both the House and Senate committees when they get ready to look at this but:

 Just as a few examples we find:

 Under the Bill Summary:

 (a) the Export and Import Permits Act to, among other things,

(i) authorize the Minister designated for the purposes of that Act to issue export permits for goods added to the Export Control List and subject to origin quotas in a country or territory to which the Agreement applies,

(ii) authorize that Minister, with respect to goods subject to origin quotas in another country that are added to the Export Control List for certain purposes, to determine the quantities of goods subject to such quotas and to issue export allocations for such goods, and

(iii) require that Minister to issue an export permit to any person who has been issued such an export allocation;

 

So if indeed this is a Free Trade agreement why are there quotas, export and import permits, and export control lists. Either it is free trade or it is not and these indicate that this is not a free trade agreement at all.

 

Interpretation consistent with Agreement

3 For greater certainty, this Act and any federal law that implements a provision of the Agreement or fulfils an obligation of the Government of Canada under the Agreement is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Agreement.

Does anyone else see that this means we now have to manufacture our laws (and presumably regulations to those laws) to conform to this “trade” agreement?

Non-application of Act and Agreement to water

4 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except Chapters Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four of the Agreement, applies to natural surface or ground water in liquid, gaseous or solid state.

Well that would be a relief if only we knew what Chapters 22 and 24 are now.  Does this mean that Nestles for instance can no longer draw free water from the Hope Lake in BC and export it?

Construction

5 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act, by specific mention or omission, is to be construed to affect in any manner the right of Parliament to enact legislation to implement any provision of the Agreement or fulfil any of the obligations of the Government of Canada under the Agreement.

Would I be correct in assuming that all the European countries are offering similarly vague construction?  “For greater certainty, by specific mention or omission,” seems to offer nothing about anything, or maybe anything about nothing.   Did this really pass the legal sniff test?

 

 

Purpose

Purpose

7 The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which, as elaborated more specifically through its provisions, are to

(a) establish a free trade area in accordance with the Agreement;

Tariffs, quotas, limitations of quantities, subsidiary payments to compensate for lost home markets (on an annual basis or just a onetime payment?) paid for by taxpayers in all the countries or just in Canada?  This is “free” trade?

(b) promote, through the expansion of reciprocal trade, the harmonious development of the economic relations between Canada and the European Union in order to create opportunities for economic development;

This is what it is all about, hidden away in a small subsection. Corporate profit disguised as “free” trade.

(c) promote conditions of fair competition affecting trade between Canada and the European Union;

So why all the tariffs and quotas?  Just let trade happen naturally.   Where do all our GMO grain products fit in this as generally Europeans do not like GMO produce?

(d) substantially increase investment opportunities in Canada and the European Union, while preserving the right of each of the parties to the Agreement to regulate to achieve legitimate policy goals;

Yeah, right!

(e) eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services in order to contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world and regional trade;

Here is the number two killer of sovereignty, services.  This is why all the provinces had to agree with CETA because services include provincial and municipal procurements. Any municipality which does not grant their water, sewage or even electrical or recycling services to an applicant private enterprise European company can cause Canada to be attacked by a tribunal.  Except that Walloon has vetoed the tribunal so why is it even mentioned so prominently in this Bill C-30, and even the Minister has promoted the concept of a European court deciding upon our laws. 

(f) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the territory where the Agreement applies;

This will apply to any company purchased by European investors and then moved to Europe?  Under NAFTA we have seen so much of our intellectual property move south, now we can expect it to move east as well? Can we really trust this anymore?

(g) protect, enhance and enforce basic workers’ rights, strengthen cooperation on labour matters, and build on the respective international commitments of Canada and the European Union on labour matters;

Interesting idea as in Europe they have free transfer of workers from one country to another, here in Canada only basic labourers can move from one province to another.  So how will that work under CETA?  Any qualified professional from Europe can move freely among provinces but Canadians cannot?

(h) enhance and enforce environmental laws and regulations and strengthen cooperation between Canada and the European Union on environmental matters; and

(i) promote sustainable development.

So here we then proceed to the Tribunals already rejected by Walloon and therefore Belgium, yet we are still proceeding to add into an investment Bill this whole section about them.    How can we be expected to take this Bill C 30 seriously?

 I did however persevere for a while:

 

Tribunals, Arbitration Panels and Panels of Experts

Powers of Minister

11 (1) The Minister may

(a) propose the names of individuals to serve as members of the tribunals established under Section F of Chapter Eight of the Agreement; and

(b) propose the names of individuals to be included in the sub-lists referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 29.‍8 of the Agreement.

 Can there be any serious comment to make here?

Operation of Chapter Twenty-Nine

12 The Minister is to designate an agency, division or branch of the Government of Canada to facilitate the operation of Chapter Twenty-Nine of the Agreement.

Or here?

 

 

Expenses

Payment of expenses

.

13 The Government of Canada is to pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of

(a) the expenses incurred by tribunals established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to members of those tribunals;

(b) the expenses incurred by arbitration panels and Panels of Experts established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to those arbitrators, panellists on those Panels of Experts and mediators; and

(c) the expenses incurred by the CETA Joint Committee and the specialized committees, bilateral dialogues, working groups and other bodies established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to representatives on the CETA Joint Committee and those specialized committees and to members of those bilateral dialogues, working groups and other bodies.

 

We know that this government is more anxious to spend money abroad than here at home but is it not taking it a bit far to expect us to take on the expenses of tribunals which will not happen?  Will we then be expected to pay the European court costs when they rule against us in disputes which is I suppose fair, or will we have to also pay a share of a dispute between let’s say France and Poland?  Absolutely opaque here.

 

Orders

Orders re Article 29.‍14 of Agreement

14 (1) The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of suspending obligations in accordance with Article 29.‍14 of the Agreement, by order, do any one or more of the following:

(a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to the European Union and its member states or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of the European Union and its member states under the Agreement or any federal law;

(b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the European Union and its member states or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of the European Union and its member states;

(c) extend the application of any federal law to the European Union and its member states or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of the European Union and its member states;

(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

Now this is where we step through Alice’s looking glass.  If we can do all this, including imposing our federal laws on Europe, they can also do the same, so we have all the European countries imposing their individual laws on us and we are imposing our laws on them.  

This is supposed to be a serious bill and a serious agreement?

 

Then there is this curious introduction of another entity:

 

(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

 

EU country or other CETA beneficiary has the same meaning as in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff; (pays de l’Union européenne ou autre bénéficiaire de l’AÉCG)

 

There is no explanation I could find of a CETA beneficiary, so I imagine this means the lawyers who will simply move from the tribunal positions to the proposed European court that will “try” the cases among us all.  I mean who or what else could it be?

This is far as I could go into Bill C-30 without simply bursting out into laughter:

 

To those who wrote this Bill C-30 and those who are actively supporting it, you can certainly do much better, and we are paying you way too much money for you to allow or support such sloppy work.  The speed with which this was introduced to parliament after the October 30th signing  indicates that it was an out of date bill and certainly it appears to be that way.

 Finally, openness and transparency mean just that; so we should have the complete text of the signed agreement readily available with Bill C-30 so that references made to the agreement can be checked.   We should have the full text of the agreement available anyway, or now that the investor dispute part (the most important part of the agreement) has changed does it have to go through a multilateral legal re scrubbing?   If it does what on earth is Bill C30 doing in front of our parliament at this time anyway?

 

A second finally, can someone, anyone show me where our MPs of any stripe have been given the mandate to subject our laws and regulations to overseas courts, or tribunals controlled by foreign governments or corporations?  Or for that matter to impose our laws on foreign countries.   A majority in the House of Commons is just that; it is not a mandate to surrender our sovereignty.

 Jeremy Arney

 

 Ps. I suppose I should have read more, but this Bill is soo bad that it has to be re- written and I will go further then.  As Canadians we deserve a great deal more from our elected employees.

TPP, CETA, TiSA yet again

26th September 2016

To the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,

Prime Minister of Canada.

Concerning: CETA, TPP and TiSA.

I have written now nine times to your Minster of Trade concerning one or all of these investment agreements and have received no response from her at all, and am therefore writing directly to you. As a Canadian I am somewhat miffed by this lack of response and as the interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party I am disgusted by the discourtesy of a highly paid member of your Cabinet.

Over the years Canada has been an exporter of a huge variety of items, from wheat to beef and pork, all manner of natural resources and innovation. We did not need special agreements – we simply did it. Mulroney’s FTA and the offshoot NAFTA changed all that with respect to Mexico and the USA and made trade more about corporate profits and their protection. During Jean Chretien’s time trade boomed because it was done on a personal and direct basis, with him going overseas with Canadian business men/women in tow talking directly to overseas counterparts. Did it work? Oh yes it did, we had a healthy surplus in trade in 2006.

Then came the era of destruction when everything from parliament to sovereignty and the rule of law was under severe attack, and the dark era of investment agreements disguised as and called trade agreements took place. Every one of them had within it an investor state dispute mechanism which had nothing to do with trade at all, but everything to do with protecting the perceived profits of corporations from those other countries.

Has this process worked? Well, we now have a huge trade deficit and have been taken before a corporate dispute tribunal more than any other country in the world. The reality or legality of the claims is immaterial as shown in the case of Abitibi Bowater. They had water and timber rights granted in the early 1900s by Newfoundland and Labrador for as long as they had an operating mill there employing Canadians. When they closed their last mill in 2008 those timber and water rights were taken back by the province as the conditions for those rights were no longer being fulfilled. The Harper Government of the time did not let the NAFTA claim go to arbitration but instead simply and quietly paid Abitibi Bowater $130 million rather than fight such a ridiculous claim and by this action deliberately opened the floodgates.

Worse yet is the fact that Canadian based companies such as Lone Pine Power of Calgary saw the advantage of incorporation in Delaware USA and when their intention to frack and drill in the St Lawrence River was rejected by Quebec because, among other things, a proper environmental study had not been done, Lone Pine Power lodged a tribunal claim against Canada for $250 million for perceived lost profits

Where exactly does trade fit into this picture?

Your Minister is so excited that CETA – which she erroneously called “a gold plated trade deal” – is not dead as it should be but has been resuscitated by the creation of a new court to deal with perceived profit loss disputes. I have asked for details of this new court such as where it will be based, who will provide the judges and lawyers and under what jurisprudence and at what cost to Canada, because we always seem to end up paying for these things , and how it will affect our court system and will that new court overrule our Supreme Court. I have, as usual, received not one word in answer, nor can I find answers on the Ministry of Trade website.

Perhaps you can tell me.

My understanding is that the Germans are not too happy about this new CETA court and rightly ask the same questions as to how it will affect their court system. The American equivalent of CETA (TTIP) is apparently dead so why is your Trade Minster and indeed the Government of Canada pursuing CETA instead of a real “trade” agreement?

Both CETA, the TPP and TiSA are extensions of Stephen Harper’s desire to subjugate Canada to the profits of international corporations. The Harper government was mercifully rejected and an ungrateful nation will now reward him for his treasonous behaviour with millions of dollars instead of a gold watch as he has quit his MP job to become a lobbyist; not of the Federal government I trust, as that would be contrary to the Lobbying Act.

The question, Prime Minister, is why are you and your Trade Minister continuing with these Harper government perfidious investment agreements, and where exactly is your mandate to turn our ability to make laws and regulations to protect both Canada and Canadians from corporate greed into an inability to do so, thereby destroying any sovereignty left after Harper? I actually think you were granted a mandate to scrap them along with Bill C51.

I have to tell you also Prime Minister that sunny ways and sunny days have turned to very dark and turbulent skies on this file and I am very fearful for my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I did not come to Canada in 1967 to raise a Canadian branch of the family here in BC only to have them subjected to the greedy whims of some CEO somewhere in the world while their country, Canada, has its sovereignty given over to international corporate interests.

Canada is soo much better than that.

Jeremy Arney

Interim leader of the Canadian Action Party

 

cc by mail to:

Minister of Trade, Minister of Justice and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

 

There must be something in the water in Ottawa

1st September 2016

Here we go into Alice’s looking glass again with Justin and Bill to my complete amazement, disgust and lack of approval. Seeking their god(s) approval I suppose and talking us further into the rabbit hole of debt.

The Infrastructure Bank of Asia?

We are going to invest in this?

Apart from the currency of choice how is this different from the IMF and their rapacious interest rates?

Canadian Infrastructure Bank?

We are going to create one of our own?

I saw no money set aside in the 2016 Budget for these two banks so by what sleight of hand will the money be created?

I have no problem with investing in Canada.

I have no problem with using the Bank of Canada to create money for that investment; but I do have an enormous problem with borrowing money from international banks and investors to create an unnecessary bank for our infrastructure, and borrowing money to invest in a foreign infrastructure bank, on which we will be paying compounding interest rates.

We knew that Harper’s Government, acting as if it was the Government of Canada, did not have a single economist among their ranks, and they only managed to come vaguely close to balancing the budget by selling Canada’s assets at bargain basement prices, and really had no clue how to finance anything. The fact that the Liberals promised to invest in Canada instead of selling it off originally indicated to me that they had some plan and at least one economist in their midst.

Oh boy was I wrong!

At the Canadian Action Party we believe this:

“What is physically possible, desirable and morally right, we can make it financially possible through the Bank of Canada.”

With the exception of the Libertarians every other registered but unrepresented Canadian Political party also believes this, but those parties which have representation in the House of Commons believe that we should be increasing debt instead to international banks and investors, paying them compounding interest rates to boot. The payment of the interest on our national debt is the single largest payment Canada has to make year after year and still this government of ours wants to increase that debt and the increasing interest payments. There is no way to realistically leave our children any sort of future in this country if we continue with this height of absurdity.

Our grand fathers created and left us with the Bank of Canada, something some 70 cities and counties and 8 or so States in the USA want to replicate by having proposals for creating public banking on their November Ballots this year; and yet there is no political party represented in our House of Commons which can see the value of what we have and is actually still mandated to do what it did so well from 1935 – 1974 when out national debt was $22 billion owed to ourselves through the Bank of Canada. Today our national debt stands at over $1, trillion with compounding interest owed on that to international banks and investors.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada

Tell me this makes sense.

Tell me that the MPs of Canada have not been subdued, threatened or bribed in some way to accept this on behalf of their children.

Tell me that you agree with this increasing and absolutely unnecessary debt.

Tell me that you agree with these infrastructure banks when we already have our own Bank of Canada which can do all these things here at home much more efficiently and cheaply .

Tell me that you want these problems of national indebtedness to be passed on to your children.

But better than that tell me that you want the stooges in Ottawa to start using their heads instead of their fears and act on behalf of their employers…you…and engage the Bank of Canada again to exercise it’s mandate to finance Canada’s needs.

Whatever hopes I entertained that we would see change with Justin Trudeau and his Liberals and their sunny days and ways has evaporated like the dew on a summer morning.

Jeremy Arney

Canadian Parliamentary hatred boils over.

Parliamentary Games.

28th May 2016

Written first on 18th May 2016.

This will be done over two days because I want to check Hansard tomorrow, but the fiasco we witnessed, or at least I did as it happened and again ad nauseoum on CPAC, of hysterical behavour by MPs who are paid far too much money to behave this way.

Let me say that in no way do I condone violence in our House of Commons, though there have been times when I wished I was there to cross the floor to smack some idiot, liar or cheat down but have had to satisfy myself with just shouting at the poor innocent TV.

Ok so today:

A very necessary vote was scheduled – which was why I was getting ready to watch anyway – on C14 a bill demanded by the Supreme Court by 6th June this year and there is almost no time left.

The bells had stopped ringing which means that the House should proceed with the vote.  The whips are needed to enter to advise the Speaker that their members are in place.   Here is where it went into stupid…the NDP, led prominently and plain to see on the broadcast, by Mulcair blocked the passage of the conservative whip down his side of the chamber and it was also plain to see they had no intention of allowing him through.  

OK this is where things went wrong. Young Trudeau appears to have lost it and instead of motioning his whip to take his seat – a clear notice to the Speaker to proceed with the vote, he rises from his seat and strides down the chamber floor to rescue the opposition whip.   So far no real problem, and IF he had proceeded to the back of the scrum barring the whips passage and then escorted him down the government side of the chamber all would have been well, but…he did not.  He approached the gaggle of NDP idiots, who parted to let him through and he took the whip by the arm and turned with him to escort him to his place through the gap now created in the DNP mess. In the turning he brushed against Ruth Ellen Brosseau…who it appeared to me fell dramatically back against the desk against which she was already leaning, and it seemed to me that she did not respond until something was said to her, whereupon she seemed to grab her chest as if she had broken ribs.

The PM retook his seat and apparently  was informed he had bumped into  Ms. Brosseau who was still there on the floor showing no signs of distress  in the NDP gaggle.  The PM left his seat again to make his way back to apologise to her and she seeing him coming or on the advise of others  fled out of the chamber, thus avoiding receiving his personal apology.  Now Mulcair started shouting and waving his fist at Trudeau and the benches cleared as they say in baseball.

Here is where it gets interesting, Ms. Brosseau, did not return to her seat in time to make her vote on the motion against the C14 vote….but did shortly thereafter, showing no signs of wear or tear but ready to do mischief again.  What a well orchestrated chain of events quickly organized by the opposition, mostly I imagine the NDP who are still smarting from their loss of official opposition status.

So the vote on a motion is done and then Peter Julian stands to start the circus by saying he has never witnessed  anything like this in all his 12 years in the House, a member laying hands on another member is unheard of….oh really?  Where has he been as Speakers were elected and then dragged into the House?   Maybe that is theater but to me that is what happened today.  Theater.  Ms. Brosseau  to put it into a sporting phrase dove, and dove very late but allowing the opposition to get rid of any pent up frustration they were harbouring over this entire assisted dying bill, and indeed over the whole weeks shenanigans.

This is where I have to stop and check Hansard tomorrow because I think things were said that were to say the very least hypocritical, but also very much in the way of personal attacks.

19th May 2016.

I had been meaning to write a blog on the nonstop personal attacks being levied against the front benches of the government by the opposition during Oral Questions, a circus at best and a horror show often, don’t take my word for it, watch the videos or read Hansard and see for yourself.  

I have not watched what happened earlier in the week but it seems there has been escalation on both sides of the House in the contempt and hatred shown towards each other.  I can describe it no other way and it bothers me that we are paying them all $167,000.00 minimum per year to treat each other this way. This is democracy? No it is not but it is what Harper deliberately cultivated over his tenure.

OK back to yesterday and the ex-government house leader covered himself with slime.

From Hansard:

Hon. Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, he strode across the floor toward a group of individuals here, and I think the film will show it, but certainly there are many other witnesses here who can speak to what they saw take place. What took place was the Prime Minister physically grabbing people, elbowing people, hauling them down the way; and I am sure his defence will be that he was in some way, on their behalf, asserting their privileges.

(The man was right there and could not see that the PM only “grabbed” one man not people, accidentally brushed against one woman (one woman too many I agree) , and no elbowing of people happened as Van Loan clearly suggested)

That is not his job. It is the job of individual members to assert their own privileges. It is his job to respect the privileges of every member in this House. From a man who had for 4 years quite deliberately and with the malice of forethought shown absolutely no respect even to the speaker this was a bit rich.

O’Brien and Bosc is entirely clear on this matter that, in a case such as this, the Speaker will normally find that the privileges of the members have been offended, that the conduct is unacceptable, and will make that finding of privilege.

I will point out that the individual member—and I witnessed it all right in front of me here, and I do not know if she has returned to the House—was so shaken up by the episode that she left the House.  (she did not leave the House, just the Chamber, and was back right after the vote) Her ability to participate in the vote was affected and denied. Her privileges were interfered with in a most direct and physical fashion that is unacceptable in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think you should make the appropriate finding in the circumstances, and I will invite any of my other colleagues who witnessed this to provide further evidence to the House.

 

Can anyone else remember Van Loan ‘s actions re Brad Butt’s deliberate lies in the House during debate on the Unfair Elections Act?  Twice in one day Butt lied about voter information cards.  Only 20 days later after Elections Canada came calling to ask him why he had not reported this at the time did he stand in the House and make a very weak and half-hearted non apology to the House.  When the speaker eventually agreed that he should be asked to appear in front of a committee to explain himself, Van Loan led the defeat of the speaker’s ruling and Butt was off scot free to continue to mislead the house.   Now here is Van Loan getting ready to support the hanging of a  liberal member with as much fervour as he defended a liar among his own members.

 

Do not get me wrong, I am not condoning Trudeau’s actions, I consider them to be most misguided and wrong, but the hypocrisy and hysteria shown among those who are demanding his head does  not I believe serve them well nor does it serve our parliament well.  To say that it does nothing for our democracy is silly because democracy has left Canada a long time ago and we are now under a kind of  Westminster style of corporate dictatorship.

Way to go peoples’ employees, you are serving another master well.

Jeremy

Canadian House of Commons today

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

 

Taken from Hansard 23rd Septrmber 2014.

 

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[English]

Foreign Affairs

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

(1420)

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

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

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

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

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Expand]

[Table of Contents]

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

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

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

 

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Papineau.

 

 

 

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

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

 

The fourth act of contempt in just few minutes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jeremy Arney

 

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