A new bigger cabinet for Canada or is it?

 

 

I watched the swearing of the 2019 Liberal Cabinet with some interest and some great disappointment.

First and most important the same old oaths of allegiance were made to the Queen of the Commonwealth rather than to the people of Canada. Two things on this. First, she doesn’t pay one single solitary penny (or now obsolete cent) towards those who are swearing allegiance to her or to her representative here in Canada who is also paid and a home is provided for by the people of Canada to whom she owes absolutely no allegiance. She is simply a figurehead.   Second, if these MPs are elected and paid for by the people of Canada why do they not consider us allegiance worthy?

As to the cabinet itself it was a huge relief to se that Freeland was removed from the Foreign Office which might indicate that Canada will once again have relationships with all countries, Clearly, Freeland has some very strong views about which countries were and are acceptable to Canadians and I would venture to say that she was wrong in asserting her own prejudices upon us all.  It was and is and should be very important to have some relationship with all countries, especially those with whom we have disagreements.  How will differences be solved if we have to use countries such as Italy for example to communicate our views?   Perhaps if Ms. Freeland had spent more time on diplomatic relationships with those countries instead of taking over trade agreements (really disguised investment agreements) when we had a Trade Minister perfectly capable of doing that job then we would have more friends and fewer enemy states. Our relationships to Russia, Iran, China and Venezuela to mention just a few depended entirely on her whims and prejudices and not necessarily the desires of the Canadian people.  Since we are trying for a seat on the Security Council again then we should have been making friends not exacerbating her enemies.  Her position as deputy PM fills me with concern.

Searching for ministers who had any ties to the west – Alberta and Saskatchewan really – is I suppose a political future reality, but in my view, those two provinces clearly banked on Scheer being elected and lost.  Too bad.  They will be looked after as they are still part of Canada but to pander to their needs when they are so clearly out of step with reality is nonsense.   Oil is different from bitumen, and bitumen is what is extracted from the tar sands not oil. CBC pundits such as Alison Redford and the ultra-conservative Christy Clark seemed to think that oil and gas is still the number one priority for Canada rather than developing clean alternatives asap.  I still have no word from any bitumen export promoters as to where these “new” markets are located.

When CN and CP were sold to private interests any clout with them disappears into corporate profit which is separate from the needs of the Canadian people.   Has everyone forgotten what happened after the Wheat Board was closed (against the grain farmers wishes) and then sold to the Saudis and so no-one ordered rail cars for the grain?  Now there is a strike based on personnel safety – which could end up with another Lac Megantic disaster if not taken care of – and those provinces are screaming for back to work legislation. Oh boy.

Another disappointment is that there will be no return to the use of our own public  bank – the Bank of Canada – to finance what we need as both the Minister of Finance and the PM are both puppets to the big banks, both domestic and international and their profits must be assured no matter how much it costs the people of Canada.

Then there is O’Regan who mishandled how many portfolios (3) s in the last parliament being given even more powers as Minister of Natural Resources of all things.  Must be nice to be a buddy to the PM what?   How he will deal with the likes of Kenny whose redneck, bigoted,white supremacist roots are plain to see will be interesting to watch. I expect him to retreat in tears very quickly.

Overall not a particularly impressing cabinet but I will wait to see what happens.

 

Jeremy

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