Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievrre

Do not pity poor Andrew Scheer.

What happens to a man whose entire working career has been that of a Canadian politician?

 He has stepped down as leader of the opposition which means he loses his free house, free car and chauffeur, chef and household manager.  He also has now to pay for his childrens’ private schooling and to cap it all off he takes a $100,000.00 pay cut!  Wow.  I guess the question is does he get to keep all those goodies until a new leader is elected?  Probably.

 I guess that is what happens when someone relies on the Canadian people for his livelihood. On the other hand. he can remain as a lifelong member of the House of Commons as he belongs to a party which is so well established in his home province that he is not in jeopardy of losing his conservative seat no matter how irrelevant he may be. By the time he finally retires his tax-free monthly pension will be the equivalent of a working man/woman’s annual wage.  Of course, as a US citizen, he could always go south and run for the senate there!

 There was some sort of joke that he would try again to be Speaker of the House, and that indeed would be a cruel joke as he was perhaps the most partisan and weak Speaker in Canadian History as his actions in the Brad Butt affair clearly showed.   To have him return in that position would indeed be an apt judgment on the value the elected representatives have in the so-called peoples’ House.

 Perhaps if he had been paying attention to the mood of Canadians rather than personally attacking his opponent, he would have been PM but he choose instead to be a fool. That should be a lesson to any would-be PM.  The people do have a say in who governs them, or should I say represents the corporate lobbyists to us all, and should be paid attention to.

 

His resignation has caused some speculation about who will take his place, which leads to:

                                            New Leader for the Conservatives?

 Well sure if they want to get anywhere other than opposition, they do need a leader with charisma and pizzazz and that doesn’t mean a constant anaemic smile. But look who the CBC in their never-ending speculating instead of reporting news is presenting as possible replacements.

 Peter MacKay. The man that betrayed his promise and written agreement to David Orchard who for the good of the party was willing to step aside for MacKay to be the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The deal was that Stephen Harper would not be given the conservative name.  Well, we all know how that worked out, and how no matter what he did wrong – and he did plenty –  MacKay would always have a cabinet seat in any Harper government.

 Stephen Harper himself….Seems he retired only to promote himself as the world’s greatest conservative in case he got the chance to mess up Canada again.  His destruction of the working process of the Canadian Parliament is well documented and here is just one sample. (John Baird claiming the right he would not grant Ms.May as a duly elected Member of Parliament)

 Christy Clark, the ultra-conservative, libertarian who disguised herself as a BC Liberal and couldn’t name a corporate entity in BC which does not love her and gave her oodles of money in her failed bid to remain Dictatress of BC. Now openly supporting any conservative she knows and heaping praise on Brian Mulroney and Harper claiming they were saviours of Canada. Listening to her talk on the Power and Politics Premiers Panel on CBC is, to one from BC, sickening

 John Baird.  Perhaps single-handedly managed to get the CIA anti- Libyan mercenaries to keep fighting so he could arrange to bomb civilians, hospitals, universities, schools and water supply pipelines (and the factories to make more pipes) without any threat of air interference.  Perhaps his greatest asset was that he could escort Loraine Harper to functions when Stephen was out gadding around feathering his private nest al la Mulroney.

 Pierre Poilievre.  The architect of the unfair elections act, designed to stop First Nations and the homeless from voting, and pulling the teeth of Elections Canada to enforce a democratic election system in Canada.  Since being part of the opposition, he has attacked the PM personally too many times to count which is against parliamentary rules but he simply doesn’t care.  No thanks, Pierre.

 Surely there must be some real person of integrity and personality somewhere in the conservative ranks who can appeal to all Canadians of conservative ilk and they don’t need to exhume these people, except Pierre of course.

 But all in all, a very good day for Canada and a very bad day for Andrew Scheer.

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 House of Commons farce call Oral Question Period

 

 

 

Anyone paying any attention to the last couple of weeks of QP would be painfully aware that this section of the House of Commons proceedings is becoming increasingly farcical every day.

 

The opposition, led by their attack poodle Poilievre, are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Even to me, a layman with no economic or real monetary training or expert knowledge in this field, it is clear that Poilievre really wants to accuse the Minister of Finance of insider trading.   I am not a fan of this Minister in any way as he clearly does not have the interests of Canadian uppermost in his mind. His concept of having private investors own our infrastructure through his Infrastructure Bank of Canada whilst refusing to borrow from our own bank at low straight interest rates instead of compounding interest being paid to privately owned international banks and investors cannot have the best interests of Canadians in mind.  In that, he is not alone as every Canadian politician seems to be afraid of those same bankers and investors.

 

However, it seems clear to me that when the Liberals took control they made no bones about increasing the tax rate on the wealthy at the end of December 2015.

I do not own shares or stocks in any company and so I did not have to make any decisions but anyone who was smart enough to have money invested would realise that in January of 2016 their tax rate would increase therefore to sell shares prior to then and pay a lesser tax rate would seem very logical.  There was never any doubt in my mind that this would happen on January 1st 2016, and not as Poilievre assumed on 1st April 2016.

 

However the Conservative attack poodle made the same sort of misheaded assumption that he made when his government increased the number of members by 30 while he set about decreasing the ability of thousands if not millions of Canadian to be able to vote would assure the re-election of the Conservative Party of Canada to power – were he and they ever wrong.   Very bad assumption Pierre.   Incidentally, the claim and assumption that more MPs would increase Canadian’s representation in the House was a blatant lie.   Firstly those 305 members already there were not able to have their say on behalf of their constituents on two counts, 1) they simply did not have the opportunity to express their constituents views due to the sheer number of them; and 2),  every bill introduced by the Harper government was closed to “debate” almost before it was introduced and no amendments were allowed either in committee or at report stage.  

 

To waste soo much time trying to trap a Minister over something so asinine and in fact so typically conservative in thinking takes away time away from real questions they should be asking about, for instance, the desertion of our moral and fiduciary duty to our wounded veterans and our aboriginal peoples’ abject living conditions.   Why the money is not flowing for infrastructure at the rate promised, and the waste of money on the celebration of 150 years since our mythical confederation could well be the subject of sincere questions.

 

It is all window dressings to hide their complicity in the myth of a sovereign and democratic Canada and frankly, I am tired of it.

 

Perhaps one of them could explain to me just how we are a constitutional monarchy when the last Queen we actually had was Queen Victoria.

 

Event: The year, 1901. With Queen Victoria’s death, the repeal of Section 2 of the BNA Act came into force, deliberately leaving the Dominion of Canada without a Monarch. To this day the BNA Act repeal of Section 2 has never been re-enacted.

 

http://www.nephalemfilms.com/themyth.html

 

Don’t hold your breath on that one.

 

Jeremy