Tag Archives: Peter Van Loan

A stark contrast in styles

14th February 2019

 

I never cease to be amazed at the perfidy of our elected so-called representatives.

I am not going to go into the present controversy concerning Jody Wilson-Raybould, nor am I laying blame as I really do not know what happened.  A reporter for one of our wonderful newspapers quoting unknown sources claimed wrongdoing by the PM, PMO, PRO or others concerning the SC Lavalin case and this has been accepted as gospel by the opposition.

My problem here is the absolute hypocrisy concerning committees.

Does anyone remember how Brad Butt (CPC) lied not once but twice on the same day during the debate on the UNFAIR ELECTIONS ACT? (Hansard: 6th Feb 2014 at 1620, and again at 1720)

He would have got away with it because his word was taken as true by unsuspecting MPs, but I suspect that Elections Canada called on him to explain why he had not reported this to them and he had to make a very insincere apology to the House –(Hansard 1140 29th Feb 2014)   This resulted naturally in a call on the Speaker of the House (Sheer) to make a ruling as to whether Butt should be obliged to appear before the House Committee on Internal Affairs to explain himself.  To give him credit the Speaker ruled that he should which prompted an opposition motion to that effect which the Government House leader of the time (Van Loan) vigorously rejected and indeed the motion was defeated by a Conservative vote.  What appalled me at the time was that Speaker Sheer was not even in the chair to hear the result of the vote but left it one of his minions, and so no committee meeting was called to examine this total breach of House rules, and a Speaker’s ruling was rejected out of hand.

Contrast this to the demand for a committee hearing on the Wilson-Raybould affair, where a committee was called into an emergency meeting over the matter.  The actual performance of the opening meeting was not very conducive to a nonpartisan discussion and indeed was very partisan indeed and many derogatory remarks were made concerning the witnesses called prior to that meeting.  It was clear to me that the list could and would be expanded but, led by that somewhat odious MP Cooper, there were open accusations of a cover-up.

What the outcome will be is anyone’s guess but the contrast in agreeing to a committee meeting right away and completely denying the same on a Speaker’s ruling is very stark. I give the government kudos for calling the meeting and I trust that something will come of it, but at least they responded.

It is also worth noting what the Speaker had to say prior to Oral Questions on 7th February this year:

From Hansard:

The Speaker: 

Before we proceed to oral questions, I want to make a statement on what I have observed in recent days.

As members know, question period is an opportunity to hold the government accountable for its administrative policies and for the conduct of ministers in their official capacities.

[English]

I have listened carefully and patiently, perhaps too patiently, to questions put forward this week, some of which clearly fell outside the scope of permissible questions, since they had little to do with the administrative responsibility of the government. In addition, some of these questions were couched in language that amounted to a personal attack. This is also not permitted. I would caution members now, before we begin, that to maintain the dignity of this House, I will not allow such questions or such personal attacks. I will interrupt any member who asks a question that raises a matter that does not properly deal with public policy.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie will come to order.

[Translation]

There are other ways to ask questions so they fall within the administrative responsibility of the government. I am confident that members know how to formulate legitimate questions. If they cannot, I will give the floor to another member.

[English]

I am sure that all hon. members want to have a question period in which issues are dealt with with seriousness, rigour, and yes, intensity. It also needs to be respectful. I hope this will be the case today in going forward.

Order. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton will also come to order.

[Translation]

Thank you in advance for your co-operation.

 

While I not a fan of the current “sunny ways” – as I sit watching snow fall yet again in the Banana belt of southern Vancouver Island – I cringe at the thought of a cowardly ex-Speaker leading this incredible country called Canada into hateful, two-faced Conservative ways again.

 

Clearly what we need is many small party or independent MPs who will swear allegiance to the people of Canada rather than the Crown, and who will hold any minority government to account, and not be accountable to corporate pressures.

 

I can dream, can’t I?

 

Jeremy

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

Why do the UN let Harper in to talk?

New York City, New York 25 September 2014.

 

Words uttered by Stephen Harper, the leader of the Harper Government in Canada to the UN:

 

 

“And we feel strongly that no effort is ever in vain if it offers people an alternative to conflict and an opportunity to better their lives and those of their families.

“Canadians, therefore, seek a world where freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected.“We hold these things to be intrinsically right and good.“

And we also believe that they are the necessary foundation for a better world for more people, necessary for prosperity, and with prosperity comes hope, and with hope, the greater inclination of free peoples everywhere to find peaceful solutions to the things that divide them.“Indeed, we believe that freedom, prosperity and peace form a virtuous circle. –

 

See more at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/25/pm-addresses-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-city#sthash.0qOzEDeV.dpuf

 

 

Well Stevie baby that doesn’t even apply in Canada does it?

 

Freedom:

From what? Lies, distortion and “misspeaks” in our very own House of Commons?  To protest without harassment from the militarised police? To live in harmony with our neighbours without regulations separating us? Freedom from spying without justification and without judicial warrants? Freedom of choice to ask our employees (MPs) to do something and expect that request to even be listened to?

 

Democracy?

Just how much democracy do we have in Canada where even our MPs cannot vote the way their constituents want them to? In the name of democracy, we exported just what to Libya apart from death to civilians and the bombing of their homes, schools, hospitals and even their water supply from air attacks? The word “democracy’ should choke in your throat.

 

Human Rights?

Tell that to our original people here in Canada and listen to them laugh !

 

Rule of Law?

Every Act you pass has removed the right of offenders to hearings in a court of law, because the “laws” are now controlled by regulations. These regulations when broken either deliberately or through the opaqueness of the regulations results in Ministerial review board hearings not visits to a court of law. So we have the ever expanding “rule by regulation” replacing “rule of law”.

 

And yet you claim to hold these things to be “intrinsically right and good”

 

 

.“Indeed, we believe that freedom, prosperity and peace form a virtuous circle. “

 

Where is that exactly? and for whom? Not here in our Canada which you have handed to the corporate interest of the world who, for the most part, are now free to challenge us at their corporate review panels every time they don’t make the profit they expected; thus the law courts are again bypassed. See your FIPA with China, Pacific Rim Partnership, CETA etc., etc., the list goes on and on.

 

It is bad enough when you lie to us your employers, but when you lie to the UN in our name you have shown us that you are just in way over your head.

 

Your idea, as a so called economist, is to hand the Canadian purse to international corporations and expect them to look after us !

 

I do not agree with or condone what you are doing to Canada Harper, and I am a long way from being alone in that sentiment. You claim to speak for the majority of Canadians, but you do not listen to anyone but your own base which at best now is 25% of Canadians. That’s a majority?   Your inability to be open and honest and clear to Canadians is the direct opposite to your ability and willingness to announce international and internal policies to overseas audiences prior to Canadians and only highlights your feeling of inferiority and yet contempt for Canadians here at home.

 

 

I will close with these words:

 

“Where human misery abounds, where grinding poverty is the rule, where justice is systematically denied, there is no real peace, only the seeds of future conflict. – See more at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/25/pm-addresses-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-city#sthash.0qOzEDeV.dpuf

 

Has it occurred to you that you were perfectly describing almost all of our reservations and downtown slums in every city in Canada? Where treaty rights no longer mean anything to you but are a nuisance; where promises made many years ago by our forefathers are broken systematically today with little thought to the results. Where the “rule of law” only applies in your administration’s verbal abuse of Canadians?

 

You may speak to the UN for yourself, but rest assured you do not speak for Canada or Canadians when you talk of freedom, democracy and peace and yet send war machines and military to attack civilians in other countries from the safety of the air not for the benefit of Canadians but for others. When did Canada start to need to hide beneath the skirts of our allies? Answer: since you became PM and replaced the Government of Canada with the Harper Government.

 

In absolute disgust at what you have done and are doing to Canada

 

 

Jeremy Arney

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.