Debunking the John F Kennedy Silver Certificate Myth

Canadian Political History of Treason Are you a SLAVE?
by Dallas Hills on September 11, 2014

Canadian Political History of Treason
Are you a SLAVE?
We will look at the most dangerous and corrupt legislation that destroyed the Corporation of Canada in 1974 - the year they decided to STOP USING THE BANK OF CANADA.

This Article is going to exam Each Prime Minister since the Foundation of Canada - and show evidence Canada has been hijacked by ruthless corruption

We need to connect the DOTS as one would say.
One of the biggest questions I encounter when talking about restoring the Bank of Canada, is who changed the policy in 1974? And who is responsible for the Trillion dollar robbery since then?

Richard Bedford Bennett Prime Minister August 7, 1930 - October 23, 1935

He was a vigorous debater, not afraid of challenges, confident, perhaps too confident, of his own knowledge. In the subsequent litigation deriving from this issue that pitted the province against the Royal Bank of Canada [see Arthur Lewis Watkins Sifton*], he acted for the bank and would ultimately be successful in 1913 on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Bennett was that rare being, a successful Alberta Conservative, embracing workmen’s compensation, trade unions, government grain elevators, and government control of freight rates. As he put it in his maiden speech in the commons, 20 Nov. 1911,

“The great struggle of the future will be between human rights and property interests; and it is the duty and the function of government to provide that there shall be no undue regard for the latter that limits or lessens the other.”
” He believed in Borden’s Naval Aid Bill of 1912–13 He thought that the self-governing nations within the empire should be federated, that there must be recognition, “of common interests, common traditions, & above all common responsibilities and obligations.” “I hold out to this House,”

“the vision of a wider hope, the hope that one day this Dominion will be the dominant factor in that great federation.” The Naval Aid Bill nevertheless foundered in the Liberal-dominated Senate.

Bennett was a maverick, his views on Canadian railways, tariffs, and Canada’s position within the empire not always conforming to party policy.

Bennett needed neither position nor money; his object was to put his knowledge and experience at the service of his country. He wrote Borden an aggrieved 20-page letter. There was no reply.

On 1 July 1920 Sir Robert Borden resigned, worn out with the war, Versailles, and politics. To strengthen his government he asked Bennett to be minister of justice. Canada was in disarray socially and politically: a post-war recession, rising unemployment, continued labour unrest

Bennett’s return to Ottawa he was sworn in to a clutch of portfolios: minister of finance, acting minister of mines, acting minister of the interior, and acting superintendent general of Indian affairs.

One of the principal issues in 1927 was old-age pensions, which Bennett strongly favoured.

Bennett was also an advocate of unemployment insurance

Unemployment insurance should be funded by premiums paid by both the person concerned and the government, he argued. The subscription principle would encourage economy and industry. But Heaps’s proposals were voted down. Another major debate in 1927 arose over the administration of war pensions, mainly the narrow way entitlement was being viewed by the Board of Pension Commissioners. Bennett said the Pension Act was being handled too harshly, putting on the applicant the onus of proving his case.

“Shall we be statesmen or politicians?” he asked in one debate.

His acceptance speech was sincerity and sentiment. He admitted being rich, but stressed that he had made his money from hard work. As elected leader, he would resign his company directorships. “No man may serve you as he should if he has over his shoulder always the shadow of pecuniary obligations.” Service to Canada would be his motto; out of Mark 9:35 he would be “servant of all.”

He was not, however, without rueful reflections about his role: “Sometimes I wonder why I ever undertook this work at my time of life, after all my years of toil and effort.”

There were not sufficient women candidates. Liberals were running women in hopeless constituencies simply to attract the female vote. Bennett wanted them in safe seats but was unable to persuade the constituencies.

There were plenty of issues. After some years of steadily increasing prosperity, the stock market crash of 1929 and a collapse in the price of natural products had begun to undermine the Canadian economy.

Unemployment was greatly on the rise, and there was no security net. King’s angry assertion in April 1930 that he would not give any provincial Tory government even a five-cent piece to help with joblessness was exploited by the Conservatives in cartoons and speeches. Bennett promised employment, through tariff protection for Canadian industries and a large program of public works. It was the issue that won him the election.

Bennett himself took on Finance besides the portfolio usual to the prime minister, External Affairs (which he almost single-handedly saved from extinction, his caucus wanting to abolish it).

He knew so much and hated to see questions incompetently handled; he found it difficult to praise those who did not meet his standards.

Bennett took office with action on his mind. Action he had promised and action Canada got. A special session of parliament was called for 8 September. He believed that tariffs were necessary not only to keep Canada independent of the United States but to create markets for Canadian producers, so tariff revision, steeply upward on a range of manufactured goods, was instituted.

The emergency Unemployment Relief Act, providing $20 million for public works at the federal and local levels, was also passed. Parliament prorogued in two weeks. Then it was organization for the Imperial Conference in London, which was to start on 30 September and which Bennett hoped would provide a solution to Canada’s economic difficulties through the establishment of a reciprocal preference in trade. The conference was mostly a Canadian idea but Canadians would be a day late for it.

Bennett came to the point. “I offer to the Mother Country and to all the other parts of the Empire, a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs.” The proposal was bold, blunt, and frank. It left the British government, committed to free trade, in shock. By that weekend the British papers were full of Bennett and Canada. “Empire or not? "

Unemployment and Farm Relief Act was passed to provide funds for further public works as well as direct relief (more than $28 million would be spent and similar acts would be passed in 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935). Bennett also began to try to find ways to help market the wheat crop, efforts that would culminate in the establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board in 1935.

“We no longer live in a political Empire,” Bennett declared after the adoption that year of the Statute of Westminster, which gave Canada and the other dominions autonomy in external relations. But he still hoped to construct “a new economic Empire.”

His ideal continued to be an imperial preferential trade arrangement in which Canada would “play a part of ever-increasing importance.” Meantime Britain introduced a general tariff of 10 per cent, a development that gave some encouragement to Bennett’s hopes.

Bennett was unerring in his judgement of able financial men.

When the conference opened in the Parliament Buildings on 21 July, Bennett was chosen to chair it. His opening speech suggested that Britain might have free entry into Canada for any products that would “not injuriously affect Canadian enterprise.” and there was intense lobbying by Canadian industrialists on cotton, coal, iron, and steel. Bennett did not want to wreck his own conference, but he and his cabinet colleagues believed that Britain was offering very little.

What emerged from the Ottawa conference was not any great imperial economic principle but hard-fought bilateral treaties. In a few years, Canadian exports to Britain were up 60 per cent; Britain’s to Canada were up 5.

Canada was being inundated with American programs, hence American values. In December 1928 the King government to inquire into radio broadcasting. Its report the following September was a model of concision and decision. . Radio, it maintained, had to be Canadian, English and French, but Canadian. Existing radio offered too much entertainment and not enough education.

To these conclusions the leaders in the commons all subscribed, King, Bennett, and James Shaver Woodsworth, who headed the Labour group. The problem was how to put them into effect. Where lay the constitutional authority to regulate radio? Quebec claimed it fell within provincial jurisdiction. King had shied away from the question; Bennett acted as soon as he returned from London in December 1930. A reference was made to the Supreme Court of Canada and on 30 June 1931 it decided for the federal government. Quebec appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, supported by Ontario. Judgement was given in London on 9 Feb. 1932 in favour of Ottawa.

Radio was of surpassing importance, essential in nation building, and with a high educational value. Only public ownership could ensure to all Canadians the service of radio; no Canadian government was justified in leaving the airwaves to private exploitation. The House of Commons approved overwhelmingly the act setting up the CRBC.

The following year the country was facing even graver difficulties. Unemployment had reached 27 per cent of the workforce, as high as in the United States. On the prairies, drought, crop failures, and soil erosion continued, turning especially southern Saskatchewan into a dust bowl. The government’s budgetary deficit stood at $150 million and more than a million and a half Canadians were dependent on direct relief. The work camps for unemployed single men that had been set up in 1932 under the aegis of the Department of National Defence were becoming hotbeds of discontent. Everywhere established institutions seemed to be under threat. Bennett was doing the best he could to weather the economic storm; the problem was, as he told Sir Robert Borden, “that we are subject to the play of forces which we did not create and which we cannot either regulate or control.” People demanded action, but “any action at this time except to maintain the ship of state on an even keel . . . involves possible consequences about which I hesitate even to think.”

The pervasive feel of the depression was of this very helplessness. watching the freight trains going by with men riding to unknown destinations and for unknown purposes, battered and bruised by economic forces over which they had no control.

By 4 March 1933, the day Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as president of the United States, almost every bank in the United States had locked its doors. The Canadian banking system had stood up well – there had not been a Canadian bank failure since 1923 – but there was urgent need of a central bank to regulate credit. announced there would be a royal commission on banking and currency in Canada.

The legislation passed almost unanimously in 1934 and the Bank of Canada was established the following year with Graham Ford Towers* as its first governor. The chartered banks did not like it; they had to give up their profitable issue of bank notes in favour of a national currency, and they were required to transfer their gold reserves to the Bank of Canada. For the gold, they sought a much higher price than they had paid, a demand Bennett thought iniquitous. R. B. said to James Herbert Stitt, mp for Selkirk, who asked about it, “his eyebrows bristling like quills . . . ‘Jimmie Stitt, you quit worrying. We are going to get that gold and it is just about time for us to find out whether the banks or this government is running this country.’”

There was other legislation in 1934. The Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act was designed to allow families to remain on their farms rather than lose them to foreclosure. The Public Works Construction Act launched a federal building program, worth $40 million, aimed at getting the unemployed back to work. A special committee (which later became a royal commission) headed by H. H. Stevens was set up to investigate mass buying by large businesses and the difference between the prices received by producers and the prices consumers were being charged. But Bennett considered the Bank of Canada his best domestic achievement.

Nevertheless, his government found the going difficult. “It may be too late,” Manion had reflected as early as 9 Dec. 1933, “to save the party from deluge.” In 1934 Conservatives lost provincial elections in both Ontario and Saskatchewan; they also lost four of five federal by-elections in September 1934. There were increasing doubts within the party that they could win a general election. Then in October the popular Stevens, having in the eyes of many in the cabinet overstepped the mark in his criticism of Canadian capitalists, was forced to resign his portfolio.

The Bennett New Deal of 1935, promising federal government intervention to achieve social and economic reform, arose from that political anguish. It was also genuine Bennett, policies he had espoused for many years, with roots in his own political instincts. He had long believed in old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and labour unions. What was new was the strong rhetoric devised by William Herridge and Bennett’s executive assistant Roderick K. Finlayson and delivered by Bennett in incisive radio speeches. “The old order is gone,” Bennett announced. “If you believe things should be left as they are you and I hold irreconcilable views. I am for reform. And, in my mind, reform means Government intervention. . . . It means the end of laissez-faire.” According to Manion, the New Deal speeches had not been discussed in cabinet. The centrepiece of Bennett’s program was the Employment and Social Insurance Act. It was followed by bills introducing a minimum wage, an eight-hour day, and a 48-hour work week. There were doubts about the constitutionality of these measures, but with elections due in a few months that was worth risking.

The strategy was thwarted by two things: King’s clever tactic of saying very little and, more to the point, Bennett’s illness. In February it was just a bad cold, but on 7 March atrial fibrillation of the heart was diagnosed. The doctors said he needed to rest for a month. His health was excuse sufficient that, had he chosen to retire then, it might have been managed. But the party would have had to select a new leader. The temporary house leader was Sir George Halsey Perley*, 77 years old, in voice and physique wasted and feeble; the leadership would probably have then devolved on H. H. Stevens, whom Bennett would not have had at any price.

In Bennett’s absence more New Deal legislation was passed, especially the important Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which set in motion a mighty enterprise that would eventually teach 100,000 farmers how to handle and restore the dust bowl in southern Saskatchewan.

The Canadian Wheat Board Act was then passed, as was a supplementary public works bill providing another $18 million for construction projects. Legislation was also approved to implement some of the recommendations of the price spreads commission, including the establishment of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission to regulate business activity.

If Bennett was hard with the bankers of 1934, he was much more so with the trekkers of 1935, who threatened to disrupt law and order. The trek did not need to end the way it did, with a Dominion Day riot in Regina, the killing of a policeman, and many injuries, one case leading to the death of a trekker, Nicholas John Schaack*, three months later; better communications between Ottawa and the Saskatchewan government might have avoided it. Bennett with his back up could be a chalcenterous animal.

Bennett distrusted public disorder. Strikes when legitimate he accepted, as disagreements inevitable over work or wages. But public law and order were to him fundamental. He hated the Communists with their too clever tactics at undermining the state. He himself was fearless and outspoken, able to face down and even convert a hostile crowd. There are many worse things in the world, Bennett would have said, than “Peace, Order, and good Government.” In his mind that was what Canada was all about.

Bennett fought a stirring campaign. But he was not sanguine, believing that Stevens had “crucified” the party. Bennett was indeed defeated on 14 Oct. 1935, but in terms of the popular vote it was not a massive defeat. The Liberals really had no policy; they expected the depression would defeat Bennett and the depression did exactly that.

Seats in the House of Commons were quite another matter: the Liberals took 173, the Conservatives 40, and the other parties 32. The Reconstruction Party won only one, Stevens being elected, but their 8.7 per cent of the popular vote had cut deeply into Conservative seats. Stevens’s defection owed not a little to Bennett himself. Stevens and the wide sympathy that his price spreads commission evoked ought not to have been allowed to get away. The most popular politician nationally that the Conservatives had, Stevens should have been tolerated, even cosseted. Bennett was incapable of it. The Toronto Evening Telegram remarked about Bennett the day after the election, a “great statesman [was] defeated by a poor politician.”

For the next three years Bennett was a model opposition leader; indeed, government legislation was often improved by his interventions. In 1936 he was in the house almost every day, the most faithful of his party in his duty to parliament. Ostensibly he bore no grudges; he seemed to have accepted that the Canadian people who had suffered so much in the depression would want to punish the government. But he had given so greatly of himself, his energy, his health, and his fortune to captain the Canadian ship through that storm, he was hurt that so few Canadians seemed to be cognizant of his sacrifices. His charities, which were private, had become a huge burden. The requests he received in a single week “make life almost unbearable.” He estimated that in the years 1927–37 he had spent $2.3 million. His benevolence was in fact outrunning his income.

When Bennett came to speak he was transformed: his moral force, his booming voice, his sheer bravura triumphed over hecklers, over everybody. Hutchison had never seen anything like it. Bennett did the same with an even noisier Vancouver crowd the next night. Now in the spring of 1937 there seemed to be a newer Bennett, relaxed, his leg thrown casually over the arm of a chair in his office, talking almost continually about politics, Alexander the Great, Ming pottery, and the military geography of the South African War.

After the abdication of Edward VIII in December 1936 (“. . . speak / Of one that lov’d not wisely but too well,” Bennett quoted Othello in the House of Commons) Bennett and Mildred went to London for the coronation of George VI and then to a spa in Germany. He checked in at 228 pounds. Even for a man six feet tall, he was heavy; maple sugar and chocolates had taken their toll. His English doctor told him to lose at least 10 pounds to ease the strain on his heart. That autumn of 1937 Bennett discussed retirement, but the party persuaded him to carry on. By March 1938 he knew he could not continue. King could call an election any time and Bennett was now incapable of taking his party through it. He resigned on 6 March 1938, but stayed on until a new leader was chosen in July.

There came a flood of appreciations for his work, including one from King; Bennett’s replies suggested that the compliments would have meant a great deal more to him had they come three to four years earlier, when the going was really difficult.

Saturday, 28 Jan. 1939. There was a luncheon aboard for 292; there were toasts and tears and Byron: “Fare thee well! and if for ever, / Still for ever, fare thee well.” He resigned his seat as mp for Calgary West that day. The Montclare sailed in the evening.

April 1938 letter from Harold Adams Innis*, professor of economics at the University of Toronto, when Bennett resigned the Conservative leadership: “Your leadership of the party especially during the years when you were Prime Minister was marked by a distinction which has not been surpassed. . . . No one has ever been asked to carry the burdens of unprecedented depression such as you assumed and no one could have shouldered them with such ability. I am confident that we shall look to those years as landmarks in Canadian history because of your energy and direction.”

No Canadian prime minister served Canada at greater personal cost, cost to his health and well-being, his own fortune, and even, be it said, his historical reputation. No Canadian prime minister deserved less the obloquy he received. He took Canada through the hardest years of the depression, and he did it with courage and determination. He put in place institutions and social policies that Canadians still have and still cherish. Despite his failings, perhaps he should be cherished too.

Liberal - William Lyon Mackenzie King was re-elected Prime Minister from October 23, 1935 to November 15, 1948.
Quotes by Former Prime Ministers and Presidents
King was first elected to Parliament as a Liberal in a 1908 by-election, and was re-elected by acclamation in a 1909 by-election following his He lost his seat in the 1911 general election, which saw the Conservatives defeat his Liberals.

The mother of Canadian Senate scandals
The Beauharnois scandal in 1931 embroiled William Lyon Mackenzie King in a crisis over a massive hydroelectric power development on the St. Lawrence River.

Senate scandals, like the current one involving the trial of Senator Mike Duffy, are not new. In 1931, the Liberals and their leader William Lyon Mackenzie King, who had lost the federal election to R.B. Bennett and the Conservatives a year earlier, became embroiled in the Beauharnois Scandal. At issue was whether or not the King government had been paid off by Robert Sweezy of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, who donated millions of dollars to the Liberal federal campaign in 1930.

In March 1929, the Liberal cabinet through an order-in-council had approved the massive Beauharnois hydroelectric power development on the St. Lawrence River. Three key Liberal senators and friends of Mackenzie King, W.L. McDougald, Andrew Haydon and Donat Raymond were either shareholders of the company or, in the case of Haydon, connected through his Ottawa law firm. McDougald, who had donated to a secret party fund organized by Liberal stalwart Peter Larkin, a Toronto tea merchant, to help King financially (fairly routine in those years), was cast as the scapegoat of this melodrama.

In 1931, Bennett appointed a parliamentary committee to investigate the Beauharnois deal and all of the sordid details of the Liberals’ links to the company. Just as the actions of Prime Minister Stephen Harper surrounding Nigel Wright’s $90,000 repayment of Duffy’s expenses are now front and centre—what he knew, when he knew it and why did everyone around him know—so too were questions raised about King’s knowledge of insider lobbying and alleged payoffs, as told in this adapted excerpt from Allan Levine’s biography, King: William Lyon Mackenzie King: A Life Guided by the Hand of Destiny (2011).

Like a deer caught in headlights, Mackenzie King was stunned by the exposé [of Beauharnois’s financial details]. “I confess I am amazed at some of the things that are being disclosed of which I have known nothing,” he wrote on July 10, 1931. All three Liberal-appointed senators were summoned to testify before the committee. Raymond had little to tell, and Haydon had had a heart attack and was unable to testify. McDougald, after some prodding, did answer the committee’s numerous queries, but not until July 20, which caused King great anxiety.

From the start of the committee’s investigation, King felt that there was an implication fostered by McDougald that he had a special association with King. That may well have been so, but King, growing tenser by the day in the heat of July, was prepared to disavow such a relationship. “It would seem that McDougald had tried to leave the impression that his friendship with me gave him an influence in Ottawa he did not possess,” King wrote angrily in his diary. “I have nothing to hide and have no reason to shield McDougald in any way, beyond his having been a friend of the party in its time of need during 1921.

The extent to which he had misled others in relation to myself, he himself will have to answer for. It would look as though he had deliberately ‘used’ me to further his ends… The truth is Beauharnois meant nothing to me in any way till [Montreal businessman Frank] Jones and his group applied for the approval… I did not know of any connection with McDougald in the matter.”

There was yet more to come. Hidden in the mass of paper the Commons committee scrutinized was a bill from McDougald’s office for the $852.32 incurred on the trips to Bermuda and New York in the spring of 1930 [that King, Haydon and McDougald had taken].

In other words, it appeared as if the Beauharnois company had paid for King’s vacation. When Ian Mackenzie of Vancouver, the Liberal member on the committee, informed King about this he was “amazed” and furious. He explained his recollection of the trip to Mackenzie and others, which he was compelled to do several more times in the course of the investigation. In King’s version, he and Haydon had gone together to Bermuda and McDougald had “joined” them there, and without his knowledge, McDougald had paid the hotel bill.

When the story of the scandal was made public, King decided to adopt a proactive strategy and issued a statement in the House of Commons in which he denied any knowledge of what had transpired and said he knew nothing of McDougald’s submission of the bill to Beauharnois, had not talked about Beauharnois with either McDougald or Haydon and had been surprised that McDougald had settled the Bermuda hotel account. He failed to address the obvious question that if he was so troubled by McDougald’s payment, why had he not given him the money back? The hotel bill was clearly an error, and most journalists interpreted it that way.

As calm as King appeared when he made his remarks in the House, he was in a real panic over McDougald’s impending appearance before the committee. This anxiety was heightened by his tremendous fear that McDougald would reveal the closely guarded secret of the Peter Larkin trust fund.

The committee room was overflowing on July 20. Much to King’s relief, McDougald was “calm and collected” and answered all of the questions posed to him about his Beauharnois stock purchase in a professional manner. Best of all, he declared that he had nothing to do with the election campaign funds given by Robert Sweezy to Haydon, nor did he reveal anything about the Liberal fund set up for King’s use. Furthermore, he explained that the hotel bill was a secretarial error and that Beauharnois never paid for King’s travel expenses.

Unlike the recent sponsorship scandal and corrupt misuse of public money in Quebec, no crimes were committed with Beauharnois and no one was sent to jail. But guilty parties were named and punishment meted out accordingly. The official report was full of condemnation—for the promoters of the project, their financial manipulations and overt attempt to buy Liberal Party support, as well as for Senators McDougald and Haydon for their conduct and blatant conflict of interest. The report was slightly less harsh on Donat Raymond. Nothing was written about King’s actions or that of any other politicians involved in the project.

King failed to address the obvious question that if he was so troubled by McDougald’s payment, why had he not given him the money back?

In an effort to cleanse his and the party’s soul, King responded to the damaging issues raised in the report in a heartrending three-and-a-half-hour speech he delivered in the House of Commons. He was contrite, but to a point. No untoward influence had been brought to bear on him, he told himself, and, in a classic case of wilful blindness, he claimed that he had no knowledge of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds Sweezy and Beauharnois sent to the Liberals.

The Beauharnois ordeal was not quite over. Under substantial pressure, Sweezy was forced to resign as president of the company. McDougald also lost his position as head of the Beauharnois board of directors. The real trouble for McDougald was in the Senate, where the former Conservative prime minister Arthur Meighen had been appointed government leader in February 1932.

Confrontational and partisan as ever, Meighen wanted to expel McDougald as well as Haydon and Raymond, which was easier said than done. A Senate inquiry was scheduled for the end of October 1931.

At a tense meeting a bitter McDougald maintained that he had done nothing wrong. King disagreed and thought McDougald was being disingenuous. He pushed him to resign his Senate seat, which “would be best in the end.” Righteous as ever, King did not want his retirement fund tainted with what he regarded as dirty money. He informed McDougald that he intended to return his contribution to the Larkin fund. Understandably hurt by this suggestion, McDougald felt as if King was divorcing him from his life, which was precisely what happened, though King denied it at the time.

Having reflected on his position further, McDougald became more defiant and was determined not to resign. He faced the Senate inquiry committee and once more answered questions without saying anything revealing. The same thing went for Raymond. Andrew Haydon’s health, however, was worse. He had not recovered from his heart attack and was unable to appear. Instead, he wrote out a statement, with input from King and his attorneys, and the committee questioned him twice at his home with a physician present. When it was over, the Senate committee’s report censured both McDougald and Haydon for acting in a manner “unfitting and inconsistent” with their positions as senators.

Raymond was merely criticized for his conduct as a Liberal Party fundraiser and for accepting money from a corporation with which he had financial ties. McDougald had no more room to manoeuvre. Following a negotiated deal, which guaranteed an end to the investigations, he finally resigned his Senate seat.

As explosive and juicy as the details of the Beauharnois Scandal were, its exposure and investigations did not end partisanship, Senate appointments for party hacks, questionable lobbying practices or the incestuous relationship between Canadian big business and the major political parties. Moreover, the Beauharnois hydroelectric project continued, and by the time its third phase was completed in 1961 the scandal was forgotten.
——————————–
The King-Byng crisis of 1926 is still paying it forward nearly a century later

A new look at some of the events that our collective conscious has decreed as disasters, and find the surprising upsides.

Nearly a century on, the King-Byng affair of 1926 is still considered the mother of all constitutional crises in Canada and the example everyone turns to when serious drama breaks out in Parliament.

It all kicked off with a scandal involving customs officials taking bribes to overlook bootlegged U.S. liquor. Faced with censure in the House of Commons, a weakened Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King sought to have Parliament dissolved and a new election called.

At this point, Mackenzie King had been in power for less than a year after the October 1925 election, and had hung onto power in a minority government despite having won fewer seats than his arch-rival, Conservative leader Arthur Meighen.

Governor General Julian Byng was having none of it. He rejected Mackenzie King’s request and asked Meighen to try forming the government instead. Mackenzie King was outraged; he railed against Byng for having the gall to reject the advice of an elected leader

Sir Julian Hedworth George Byng, Field Marshal and Viscount Byng of Vimy, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., M.V.O., who commanded the Canadian Corps during the Battle of Vimy Ridge and was the Governor General of Canada from 1921 to 1926 during the so-called King-Byng affair. Photo courtesy of George Metcalf Archival Collection

At any rate, it didn’t last long. Within weeks, Meighan proved unable to keep the confidence of the House and a new election was called. Mackenzie King framed the campaign around the issue of a governor general (who at this time was still a British citizen) doing the bidding of London and interfering in how Canadian politicians run the country. And it worked: Mackenzie King won a majority government. He would go on to win three more elections afterward (and lost one in 1930).

The whole messy affair was beneficial in the long run, though. It helped clarify the relationship between colonial Canada and the imperial centre in Britain, as there was still a sense in the 1920s that the governor general was there to supervise the dominion. In the years afterward — thanks in no small part to Mackenzie King’s insistence — it became firmly established that the governor general acted on the advice of Canadian ministers, not British ones. The Statute of Westminster, signed in 1931, further made it clear that Canada had legislative independence from the British Parliament.

Though Canadian politics still sees moments of tricky situations around minority governments, few have been as controversial as the 2008 coalition crisis — and that’s when the King-Byng lessons paid off. Just weeks after Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won the election with a minority, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois announced an agreement to jointly defeat them and form a government. The catalyst was a fall fiscal update that included, among other things, a surprise cancelling of the per-vote subsidy that the opposition parties were more reliant on. The deal would make Stéphane Dion prime minister despite having already announced his resignation as Liberal leader.

After much speculation over whether Governor General Michaëlle Jean should allow a new election if requested by Harper, it turned out that question was never put to her. Instead, Harper asked for a prorogation, and Jean agreed to the request.

Parliament reconvened nearly two months later, Harper’s government survived, and went on to win the next election with a majority.

For all the world of differences between 2008 and 1926, the debate over the governor general’s role was on much firmer ground. And the country avoided a coalition government that, in retrospect, was even shakier than it seemed at the time. Thanks, King-Byng affair

King also forged the Letter of Patent , and years later was found to be a fraud

Sir Robert Laird Borden Prime Minister October 10, 1911 - October 12, 1917 October 12, 1917 - July 10, 1920

After his defeat King went on the lecture circuit on behalf of the Liberal Party.
But then In June 1914 John D. Rockefeller, Jr. hired him as a Director [of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City, heading their new Department of Industrial Research. It paid $12,000 per year, compared to the meager $2,500 per year the Liberal Party was paying.

That big money five times his wage increase I wonder what Rockefeller needed.
He worked for the Foundation until 1918, forming a close working association and friendship with Rockefeller, advising him through the turbulent period of the 1914 strike and Ludlow massacre at a family-owned coal company in Colorado, which subsequently set the stage for a new era King became one of the earliest expert practitioners in the emerging field of industrial relations.
Working for the Rockefellers performing valuable service by helping to keep war-related industries running smoothly
King expanded the Department of External Affairs, founded in 1909, to further promote Canadian autonomy from Britain.
Prior to this, Canada had relied on British diplomats who owed their first loyalty to London.
King recruited many high-calibre people for the new venture, including future Prime Minister Lester Pearson. This project was a key element of his overall strategy, setting Canada on a course independent of Britain.
In domestic affairs King strengthened the Liberal policy of increasing the powers of the provincial governments by transferring to the governments of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan the ownership of the crown lands within those provinces, as well as the subsoil rights; these in particular would become increasingly important, as petroleum and other natural resources proved very abundant.
NOTE: King new centralized power is absolute power and absolute power corrupts.

Canada's Central Bank Scam Prime Minister Paul Martin's Badly Kept Secret

The people who knew didn’t stop it - Paul Martin said he knew and he was Prime Minster of Canada, but he never stopped it WHY?

Paul Martin was the Finance Minister during the Chretien government November 4, 1993 December 12, 2003
An intriguing secret overhangs the federal election. Prime Minister Chretien appeared to have everything in the bag, so utterly was his control of information.

He knew exactly what had brought on the financial bust of the late 1980s, and how the Private Banks had been bailed out by enabling them to quadruple their holdings of federal government bonds by being able to acquire them without putting up any of their own money. The statutory reserves - were some 8% to 10% of the deposits the banks received in their chequing accounts that had to be re-deposited on an interest-free basis with the Bank of Canada.
Such reserves had been abolished in a bill sneaked through parliament in 1991 without debate or press release.
Conservative - Martin Brian Mulroney September 17, 1984 - June 25, 1993
When critics dug up the facts of that bailout, the banks cried indignantly: "It was an unjust tax on the banks!" But it was no tax at all. From a "lender of the last resort", the government had simply moved into the position of "the donor of the first resort".
Throughout the 1980s it had bailed out bankrupt banks.
And since the government of Canada is the sole shareholder of the Bank of Canada when it switched its borrowing from its own bank the Bank of Canada to the distressed banks, they lent back to the government some of the money it had bestowed on them as a gift.
That was the secret of secrets, the dead rat beneath our floor boards that poisoned the very air politicians breathe.

Yet Canadians, who pay, ultimately pay the shot in the GST every time they go into a store. They were the ones who really bailed out our banks. The details have been withheld from the public, but the total picture is revealed to them whenever they do a bit of shopping or drive over the potholes in our roads, or suffer from the crumbling of our infrastructure, to poverty and homeless people are the end results.

Mulroney was well rewarded for his years of service and recognized recently with his 75 year birthday efforts and they held a Party For him -

Conservative - Charles Joseph Clark was Prime Minister June 4, 1979 - March 3, 1980 and April 20, 1968 - June 4, 1979
Clark rose quickly in federal politics, entering the House of Commons in the 1972 election and winning the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1976. He came to power in the 1979 election, defeating the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau and ending sixteen years of continuous Liberal rule. Taking office the day before his 40th birthday, Clark is the youngest person to become Prime Minister. His tenure was brief as he only won a minority government, and it was defeated on a motion of non-confidence. Clark's Progressive Conservative Party lost the 1980 election and Clark lost the leadership of the party in 1983.

Liberal John Napier Turner June 30, 1984 - September 17, 1984
"Any country that is willing to surrender economic levers inevitably yields levers politically and surrenders a large chunk of its ability to remain a sovereign nation. I don't believe our future depends on our yielding those economic levers of sovereignty to become a junior partner in Fortress North America to the United States." -- John Turner, October 12, 1988

Not the words one would expect to hear from a former company director on the subject of Free Trade. But despite his many years in business, John Turner's vision of Canada went beyond mere dollars and cents. He understood the risks involved in signing the Free Trade Agreement and he fought valiantly to persuade Canadians to defeat the party supporting it. And he almost won.

Liberal - Pierre Elliott Trudeau March 3, 1980 - June 29, 1984
As further proof of his "fiscal responsibility", he stashed away government revenue to "hide against a rainy day". It was in fact the part cost of keeping the sun shining on our banks' excursions into the US financial Wild West.
Not only were these incompatible with their banking activities, but not particularly successful. They have already cost them a small fortune.
But that was not enough, Mr. Martin got himself into an awful row behind closed doors with the Auditor-General of that day, Denis Desautels, on the government's practice of ignoring double entry bookkeeping.
When it built a bridge, a school, or a penitentiary, it wrote off the spending in a single year while keeping the debt incurred on its books as a liability.
After weeks of wrangling a compromise was reached in which this accrual accountancy (also known as `capital budgeting') would be introduced with respect only to the aboriginal peoples' accounts and the environment.
That resulted in the discovery of an unrecognized surplus that he wore like a Purple Heart Cross.
Yet under the terms of his settlement with the Auditor-General, the final balance sheets of the government would be subject to approval by the Auditor-General. Until that approval is forthcoming, Mr. Martin is as much in the dark about the government's balance-sheets as the general public.

Accordingly it falls to the electorate to decide whether he really has been a prudent administrator, or has just bullied his auditor.
Could it be that in Canada we reward them with 10-year runs as head of state? That was the grand illusion of Mr. Martin's career. The time has come to prove him wrong.
But surely, all these things are far too complicated for the ordinary elector to understand. Hence how did the public pierce the mystery and grasp the essential fact that Mr. Martin has been up to no great good.
Thus Roy MacGregor (The Globe & Mail 7/06/04 ) sums up the situation" With voters putting the boots to Martin so early, it means the public attention span has ample time to wander over to those who might take his place. Two weeks ago the election was Paul Martin's to lose, and it appears he lost it almost instantly; today, it is Stephen Harper's to lose."
This adds up to a crisis of our democratic system. The need for proportional representation, so that minority groups at present unrepresented in parliament will be able to demand vital information that is at present denied the major parties, or who simply fail to fight for it. Being a major party involves a massive dependence on major finances for TV ads, the attaches major parties to our banks with nose-rings.
How then did Mr. Martin's secret get through to them despite its complexity that left Mr. Martin himself confused?
We pay them 160 million dollars a day in interest
The answer is simple. There has been a massive redistribution of the national income, and with the increasing break-down of or our infrastructure and the ongoing voracity of our banks, it continues, day and night.
Heather Scoffield ( The Tories' $90-billion question" Globe and Mail 7/06) sums it up : "Both Tim O'Neill, chief economist of the Bank of Montreal and Dale Orr, managing director at Global Insight (Canada) recognize a scenario such as Conservatives as a viable option, as long as spending is frozen. On the other hand, most economists agree that keeping spending in check will involve cuts to some programs."
That is the great secret that Mr. Martin could only add to, but not hide

The last bailout of the Private Banks was no one-shot affair, but an ongoing entitlement. When two of our major banks have had fines imposed on them by the regulatory authorities in the US $80 million - quite apart from likely class actions for which they are setting aside reserves - that comes out of the hides of Canadian taxpayers.
Vital information about Mr. Martin's fiscal prudence comes to voters whenever they go into a store and pay the GST that Mr. Martin as Liberal Finance Minister was supposed to do away with.
You can fool the public three times with tales of self-aggrandizement, but the fourth time is a toughie these days.

― William Lyon Mackenzie King
How Ironic King is now on the 50 dollar Canadian Bill when he was so against Private Banks. It’s not a Canadian bill; it’s a private bank bill with wording that says Canadian.
Andrew Jackson - As a military officer he virtually acquired Florida by force of arms from Spain and defended New Orleans against the British. As President he fought the rewarding of government positions to party loyalists, paid of the US Debt and he abolished the Private Banking system from the US and established the position that an individual state could not nullify the laws of the land. He was a strong and competent President, but his treatment of the Native Americans was shameful.

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison
President Jackson- ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATED
Rothschild’s had lost a fierce battle with President Jackson with regard to keeping their Central Bank. For in 1834, Jackson removed all government deposits from the Rothschild’s “Second Bank in the United States.”
President William McKinley ASSASSINATED

A new System of National Banks was established in 1862 eliminating the Central Bank up through 1901. It was on September 6 1901 that President William McKinley was assassinated through the intrigues of the Rothschild’s and their hit-men.
With McKinley out of the way, the path to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was easily paved through of the House of Rothschild.
President William McKinley was known as a “hard money” man. This was because he advocated a gold standard. McKinley was against “easy money” with no backing — printed by lenders at interest to the borrower - namely the US government.
This was the essence of McKinley’s 1896 & 1900 successful campaign
Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt had been groomed by the powerful Rothschild’s political machine to be the Governor of NY and future President of the United States. In 1900, McKinley was forced by Republican partisans to appoint “Teddy” Roosevelt as Vice President to get the “Jewish vote.” McKinley’s appointment of Roosevelt soon turned out to be his demise.

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln.
Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provision [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. – Theodore Roosevelt
Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson.
Years later, reflecting on the major banks’ control in Washington, President Franklin Roosevelt paid this indirect praise to his distant predecessor President Andrew Jackson, who had “killed” the 2nd Bank of the US (an earlier type of the Federal Reserve System). After Jackson’s administration the bankers’ influence was gradually restored and increased, culminating in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Roosevelt knew this history.
(In a letter to Colonel House, dated November 21, 1933)
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson… -Franklin D. Roosevelt

(In a letter to Colonel House, dated November 21, 1933)
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815
“The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilization.” Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln faked assassination - Research this on our channel

Mayer Amschel Rothschild
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with creating "revenue" or raising money to build roads and schools. That is a total delusion played off by both Republicans and Democrats to prevent people from realizing the far more powerful truth that federal income taxes aren't necessary at all.

John F Kennedy and The Federal Reserve
Debunking the JFK Silver Certificate Myth - There are many people who will tell you that JFK was assassinated and this is also been researched and proven to also been all a deliberate movie of deception.

The so called disinformation he was trying to end the Federal Reserve and replace the Federal Reserve note with silver certificates. Not only is this not true, it’s the exact opposite of the truth.

June 4, 1963. The text of the Executive Order can be found online:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended --

(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and

(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

There is nothing to strip the Federal reserve of any power to loan money. Specifically, it only delegated existing Presidential power to the Treasury Department.

Further, Kennedy was vocal in his desire to stop using silver as a monetary metal, with a plan to replace silver certificates with Federal Reserve notes. That would seem to be at odds with the claim that he was trying to put the Fed out of business.

One thing is for certain: Fiat money cannot compete with real money.
Just some History for those who attempt to stop the Private banking Cartel what happens
Back to Canada
Prime Minister R.B. Bennett called for a Royal Commission in 1933, and it reported in favor of a Central Bank. The Bank began operations on March 11, 1935, after the passage of the Bank of Canada Act.
Initially the Bank was founded as a privately owned corporation in order to ensure it was free from political influence.
In 1938, under Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, it became a Crown Corporation, fully owned by the government with the Governor appointed by Cabinet.
The responsibility for creating small bills was transferred from the Finance Department to the Bank of Canada and the private banks were ordered to remove their currency from circulation by 1945.
The Bank of Canada played an important role in financing Canada's war effort during World War II. After the war, the Bank's role was expanded as it was mandated to encourage economic growth in Canada.
The subsidiary Industrial Development Bank was formed to stimulate investment in Canadian businesses.
The monetary policy of the Bank was geared towards low interest rates and full employment with little concern about inflation. When inflation began to raise in the early 1960s, the Governor, James Coyne ordered a reduction in the money supply.
Now we see the change to our Bank of Canada coming slowly being re –rooted in stealth.
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker disagreed with this move, and ordered a return to full employment policies.
This caused a brief crisis because the Bank was supposed to be an arm’s length organization, not under political control.

Coyne resigned, and was replaced by Louis Rasminsky.
Louis Rasminsky, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1961 to 1973, succeeding James Coyne He was succeeded by Gerald Bouey.
NOTE: 1974 Bank of Canada stopped its Primary Role changed during Gerald Bouey was Governor of Bank of Canada.
Prime Minister: Pierre Trudeau
Minister of Finance: John Turner
Governor of the Bank of Canada: Gerald Bouey
Gerald Keith Bouey, was the fourth Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1973 to 1987
In 1948 Bouey joined the Bank of Canada Research Department and became Assistant Chief in 1953, Deputy Chief in 1956 and Chief of Research in 1962. Bouey became Advisor to the Governor in 1965, Deputy Governor in 1969 and Governor in 1973.
In 1981, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada and promoted to Companion in 1987.
During his role as Prime Minister Trudeau and former Governor of the Bank of Canada Gerald Bouey removed control of Canada's currency by allowing private banks to secretly control and print the public's money into existence rather than borrowing it at Zero percent interest.

Conservative - Prime Minister Martin Brian Mulroney September 17, 1984 - June 25, 1993 removed that restriction, so money “created” by any bank is imaginary.
There was a small administrative fee, interest on bonds, but for purposes of this illustration, there was virtually zero interest. We were borrowing money from ourselves. $100 borrowed @ 0 interest is $100.
All these Prime Ministers, Finance Minister, and every political party are the same. They may use different names or be a liberal, of Conservative but all on the same agenda. They removed our Bank of Canada deliberately and creating mass debt. Is this a crime YES?
LIBERALS – CONSERVATIVES ARE TO CLOSE TO THE BANKS
These are slow steps year after year to enslave the Canadian people.
Canada’s deficit isn’t a problem of over-spending or having too many programs, it is a problem of paying compound interest to this Private Corporation. (Private Banks)
Private Banks create money by putting an amount in the ledger (out of thin air). So far, public/private banks do the same. Private Banks, however, charge compound interest.
For those who need a math refresher, compound interest means that interest is charged on the principal plus the interest so far accrued, ad infinitum. So, $100 borrowed @ 3% interest becomes $103, $103 becomes $107, $107 becomes $110.21, $110.21 becomes $113.50. And so on and son and so on. (Some numbers rounded.)
You get the idea – a runaway train taking taxpayers’ money and transferring it via interest to the banksters.
This is wealth re-distribution on a monumental, unfathomable scale. And people get upset at governments for paying $610 a month to the disabled, sick, or injured Canadian citizens! Who is actually Hah! Chump change!
I’ve read and watched a few versions of who did what but whether it was pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, or the bankster cabal, the upshot is, in 1973/74, then Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey, seems to have made the decision by himself to start borrowing on behalf of Canada from private banks.
NOTE: Impossible for one man to do this. This was well orchestrated in stealth,
According to the Honourable Paul Hellyer, who asked Pierre Trudeau’s biographer, there is no record of Trudeau himself, or the government of the day making this monumentally damaging decision! One un-elected man did this!!
Now I find this hard to believe myself. We can’t ask Gerald Bouey as he died February 6, 2004.
The conclusion is they were all involved and this was done in stealth and has succeeded to remove Canadian Sovereignty

How has this damaged Canada? Let me count the ways.
When we pay interest on interest on interest, we grow the amount of debt, which for governments is called deficit. Unlike a mortgage, where the interest portion of the monthly payment decreases as the principal is paid down, the deficit rises because of the increase, not just in borrowing, but in compound interest on the total.

Without continually raising taxes, there becomes less and less money for governments to do anything in terms of programs, infrastructure, MP’s salaries and pensions, foreign aid, etc.
So governments keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. Giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest citizens just takes more money out of government revenue, so more borrowing must be done.
Canada’s deficit isn’t a problem of over-spending or having too many programs, it is a problem of paying compound interest to Private banksters.
You can easily understand now, why we don’t have a healthcare crisis, we have an interest-paying crisis, affecting our healthcare and all program funding.
If this sounds too simple, it isn’t. It seems hard to get one’s head around because unnecessarily borrowing at interest is so obviously stupid and against a country’s best interests.

NOTE: Yet as recently as the 2001 Ontario budget, James Flaherty, as Minister of Finance for Ontario “sold” the 91 year old Province of Ontario Savings Office to a private bank.
It actually made a profit, and the Province could get loans at better rates than from private banks. Reason given? To end “wasteful activities that could be eliminated”. Baloney! It made a profit of $10 Million!
These people are committing fraud and need to be arrested.
This is the stated “reason” for all the cuts. It’s called “starving the beast”: drive up the deficit to show the need for cuts later. It’s akin to ripping up your clothes to justify getting new ones, only backwards.
The deficit could be stopped in its tracks right now, if Canada would start borrowing from the Bank of Canada instead of private banks. Yes.
Unfortunately we, and almost all, if not all nations, have a Goldman Sachs man in place. Ours is Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney. He was on the guest list of the Bilderberg meeting in June 2012.
There were a few other Canadians on the list, including Alberta’s Alison Redford. I’ll put a link to Bilderberg info for those who don’t know about this annual secret meeting of CEOS, Governments, banking, media moguls, industry leaders and US Presidential hopefuls!
It is thought to be working towards a One World Government. Think Globalized industry & finance making global laws. The Trans Pacific Partnership gets us well on the way there, according to leaked documents.
All Major Canadian Parties are owned and bought and paid for, with the possible exception of the Green party, since Elizabeth May understands this theft, perpetuate this bank theft from our citizens.
This turned out to another Globalist Puppet as we all see now in 2018

Every Premier has been so far assimilated into the corporatist corrupt system!
Not one knows how to create jobs, but they sure can sell us all out for their piece of the pie.
We know where PM Harper and Minister Flaherty stand.
There is a link below to a conversation about it with the NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair.