Keeping it Real…

Keeping it Real… header image 1

The “People’s Party of Canada” Will Be the “Bernier Party of Canada”

September 17th, 2018 · 18 Comments

I have always been highly doubtful of politicians … let alone entire countries …. that claim to be “of the people” or “for the people” or “by the people”.

Which people?

Anyone who reads this blog will quickly realize that, as soon as you get more than ONE person involved in the conversation, there is pretty soon disagreement on the sources of  any problems, the best ways to solve them and even how to implement any agreed upon solution …  if that can even miraculously reached after much discussion and compromise.

So the idea of the “people” …  the majority of our 37 million population … all being represented by one party’s policy ideas, one party’s solutions, one philosophy … in other words, a “people’s” party …  is simply impossible, unworkable and seems to me more like a snake-oil salesman’s “fix all” promised magic elixir than a mature new political movemement .

Nevertheless, Maxime Bernier apparently thinks HE can be all things to ALL people … and announced HIS new political party would be called “People’s Party of Canada”.

But which people will be Bernier’s people?

How in the world will Bernier’s “People’s Party” be able to equally represent, reflect and cater to the interests of ALL the “people’s” … individuals, communities and groups we have in our nation: business groups; environmentalists; nationalists; separatists; capitalists; socialists; every cultural and ethnic community; and … the biggest challenge … both Maple Leaf fans and Canadiens fans ???? (Forget the Canucks … being from BC, with its mere 42 seats in the next Parliament, compared to 121 for Ontario and 78 for Quebec, the “people” here still won’t likely count for much in Bernier’s new “people’s” state.)

So which people will Bernier cater to if elected?

Bernier gave his opening remarks FIRST in French … although francophones represent only 25% of Canada’s population; anglophones and others the much larger 75%.  So will francophone “people” have Priority Status over the majority in Bernier’s new “people’s” society?  See the problem? Voyez-vous le problem?

When it comes to, say awarding ship-building contracts, which “people” will get preferential treatment and which “people” will be stonewalled?

And speaking of “People’s” states … run by “People’s” parties … it’s actually kind of scary!

Here’s a list from Wikipedia of “People’s” regimes:

Historically , the world has witnessed …

People’s Republic of Albania (1946–1976) and Socialist People’s Republic of Albania (1976–1992)
People’s Republic of Angola (1975–1992)
People’s Republic of Benin (1975–1990)
People’s Republic of Bulgaria (1946–1990)
People’s Republic of the Congo (1969–1992)
People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1987–1991)
Hungarian People’s Republic (1949–1989)
People’s Republic of Kampuchea (1979–1989)
People’s Republic of Korea (1945–1946)
Mongolian People’s Republic (1924–1992)
People’s Republic of Mozambique (1975–1990)
Polish People’s Republic (1952–1989)
Romanian People’s Republic (1947–1965)
Tuvan People’s Republic (1921–1944)
People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (1967–1990)
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1963)
Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic (1920–1925)
Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (1920–1925)
Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets (191

Still in use …

People’s Republic of China (founded 1949)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic (founded 1975)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (founded 1948).

NONE of those give me much comfort with Bernier’s choice of a party name.

In fact, what all these other “people’s”governments do have in common is that the leaders, their families and their closest friends and supporters lived the high life on the “people’s’ labour, stole much of the public purses and often had retirement plans in Switzerland, Panama and the Cayman Islands … doing much better than the “people”.

Somebody should ask Bernier the tough question  (do the national media still do that?):  WHICH of these other “people’s” parties and/or states gave him the inspiration for his own “people’s” party?

Canadians have a right to know NOW … in case the Bernier “people’s party takes power WHICH group of “people” the Dear Leader and his apparatchiks will be benefitting and rewarding most.

Likely neither I … nor you … though we are “of the people” … will be the ones really cashing in.

Harv Oberfeld

(Reminder: You can get First Alerts to all new postings on this blog by following @harveyoberfeld on Twitter. Feel free to retweet any topic too!)

→ 18 CommentsTags: British Columbia · International · National

Weir and Moore Demonstrate Singh/NDP Stunning Hypocrisy

September 9th, 2018 · 50 Comments

So much for the federal NDP’s pretense of being the party of fairness, equality and even reconciliation.

The differences between leader Jagmeet Singh’s and the federal party’s internal handling of two “inappropriate conduct” cases involving two NDP MPs recently are staggering … and horribly hypocritical.

Saskatchewan MP Erin Weir was elected for the NDP in the 2015 election … but, as reported by Global News “was suspended from the caucus in February after fellow New Democrat Christine Moore sent an email to her caucus colleagues saying she had heard numerous complaints about Weir allegedly harassing staffers.”

NO ONE had directly filed a complaint against Weir, but news reports at the time said he made women in the workplace uncomfortable by standing too close, talked too long to some,  and had, according to Singh  “failed to read non-verbal cues in social situations” that his advances were unwelcome.

Weir was IMMEDIATELY suspended from the NDP caucus while a third-party investigation took place: it supported “one claim of harassment and three claims of sexual harassment”.

“The report states that when he realized that his advances were unwanted, he stopped.” Singh admitted.

Weir said he never intended to embarrass or harass anyone and underwent counselling,  but Singh would not budge and last week, the MP was EXPELLED from the NDP caucus.

“Singh’s letter to Weir, however, says he still hasn’t taken “responsibility publicly” for “attacking” former caucus colleagues. It also says the president of the NDP’s staff union warned him that Weir’s reinstatement would violate workers’ right to a harassment-free work environment.,” according to The Toronto Star.

Singh and the NDP being VERY TOUGH on sexual harassment or impropriety in the workplace! Bravo! Very principled!

But remember Christine Moore?   She’s the NDP MP who reportedly had first brought Weir’s actions to the attention of Singh.

Well, she also got into hot water with the NDP   … when two months after the Weir situation,  it was revealed a seriously wounded Canadian Afghan War veteran and witness before a Parliamentary committee in 2013,  accused Moore herself of “inappropriate sexual behaviour”.

Retired Corporal Glen Kirkland alleged the NDP MP had invited him back to her office, served him drinks, visited him in his hotel where they had sex, later sent him explicit messages and even showed up unannounced at his home in Manitoba, where he rebuffed her.

“Moore strongly denied the relationship with Glen Kirkland was anything but fully mutual and consensual” the CBC later reported.

But still ….

An MP getting involved in a sexual relationship with a witness at a Parliamentary committee sure seems WORSE to me … a LOT worse … than standing too close to others at work or “not heeding non-verbal signals”.

But apparently, NOT to Singh and the NDP.

Sure, they again ordered a third-party investigation … but the handling of that one, right from the start, and the outcome was QUITE different from what Weir had faced.

Moore was relieved on her duties, but she was NOT immediately suspended from caucus … as Weir had been … pending the investigation. Why not????

Kirkland later complained he wasn’t even interviewed as part of the investigation; and, in July, the investigation cleared Moore of any harassment and abuse of authority allegations; she was welcomed back to full duties within the NDP caucus.

So it certainly seems that, for the federal NDP, MPs having relationships/sex with witnesses appearing before their Parliamentary committees is quite ok  … or at least forgivable,  but standing close to people while talking and  protesting one’s innocence, even while undergoing behaviour counseling … is not.


Again, from my personal point of view … having spent 38 years covering politicians at local, regional, provincial and even the federal level (including 8 years right there on Parliament Hill) … Moore’s admitted actions are FAR more troubling than Weir’s.

And yet, Singh has rejected Weir’s attempts at rehabilitation and reconciliation … and refused to accept him back in the NDP caucus or let him run for the party in the next federal election.

While Moore is embraced once more , the injured Canadian war vet Cpl. Kirkland ‘s complaint remains unresolved.

Looks to me like a federal NDP double standard: Weir (MP for Regina-Lewvan) is a male, from Saskatchewan (14 seats); Moore (MP for Abitibi-Temiscamingue) is a female, from Quebec   (75 seats).

I think it stinks.

Harv Oberfeld

(Also want to wish a very Happy New Year … l’Shana Tova 5779 … to all my Jewish readers.)

→ 50 CommentsTags: British Columbia · National