RCC Draft Political Platform -- Review #2


Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta, Inactive]


914 – 950 Drake Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada V6Z 2B9

Ph. 604.609.0520


May 24, 2010 

Reform Coalition of Canada  

Re:  Neil Fenske Critique of the Draft RCC Political Platform 



Many thanks to Mr. Fenske, Interim Leader of the Western Independence Party of Saskatchewan, for the extraordinary amount of time and effort he put into his review of the draft platform.  Here are my responses and reflections on his views. 


He begins with the following questions:



What exactly is the RCC right now? Is it a political party or a non-profit organization etc.?



The legal status of the RCC is a non-profit proprietorship.  It has three constituents.  One comprises invitees to the coalition that will strategize and effect the national awareness campaign.  The second are invitees to the coalition that will present to The People at the opportune time an alternate governance solution.  And the third are invitees to the coalition of second tier news media organizations that will strategize the publication of original headlines and subsequent articles to inform the Canadian people and trigger a full discussion and debate about non-transparent government and corporate policies and practices inherent in The Sidewinder Report. 



Is the RCC the same thing as the 'Government' that you mention latter in the policies?  Is the RCC\Government elected by the people or is it a temporary non-elected entity?



The political coalition will, if The People consent, be the interim Government on the federal and provincial levels.  It won’t be elected in the conventional sense.  How it will evolve in Canada can be observed in countries such as Romania where a grass-roots movement in 1989 turned into mass protests.  When the secret police transferred its loyalties from the brutal dictatorship of Nicolae Ceauşescu to the citizenry of the country, the regime collapsed and reform leaders took over governance.  



In April 2010 the same thing happened in Kyrgyzstan. After the riots began President Bakiyev fled the capital and opposition leaders formed a new interim government led by a former foreign minister. 



Canada’s law enforcement has been given an opportunity to transfer its loyalty to the RCC with the grant of full immunity from all Security of Information Act transgressions.   If it doesn’t The People will view federal, provincial and local police as protecting totalitarians and triads and Canada’s political and corporate elite who gave them beneficial treatment in terms of governance and the economy.  They’ll be viewed as procuring, perpetuating and protecting Chinese joint sovereignty, economy monopolization and wealth embezzlement in the hundreds of billions of dollars; and they’ll suffer a public relations nightmare of historic proportions.  They’ll go from being respected to trans-generationally loathed and will operate in a very hostile environment.  They’ll be viewed as despicable and pathetic not only on the job, but also by their families – spouses, children, relatives and friends – who will see them as unworthy of their love, affection and trust.   They can expect immediate and protracted domestic conflict and life-long alienation; even divorce.  



The RCC will only be an interim Government.  It is expected that within two years or so the systemic corruption and criminality that dominated government, the bureaucracy, the administration of justice and security apparatus will be addressed; and elections will be held.  RCC partners will go their own way and vie for the electorate’s vote. 




If it is unelected will it be a dictatorship with coalition members as advisors or will coalition members have a meaningful vote?


While the RCC is unelected, the referendum system will be operational immediately.  The People will be offered direct and exclusive control over the RCC’s policy directions and this leads to a circumstance where there is no “dictatorship”.  RCC members won’t vote on anything or be “advisors” about anything.  The People will have “advisors” in the panels of academics, experts and specialists who will be assembled and comprehensively discuss and debate proposed policies during nationally televised broadcasts.  The RCC will be charged with implementing whatever gains the stipulated percentage of votes.  At that stage the RCC will author budgets for each policy and employ panels to advise on how to use tax dollars most efficiently.




How does a group or individual become an official member and what will be the responsibility and benefits of membership be?



You’re assuming in your question the conventional party system will be in effect where Canadians sign up and then become a party affiliate, executive member or run as a candidate.  The RCC is looking for 250 – 300 Canadians to represent districts in each of the five regions – west, central, Quebec, east and north.  During the transition period to the new paradigm of governance they will appear to their constituents as effecting the roles of MPs and MLAs.  This approach serves to effect the transition to democracy incrementally.  It maintains a familiarity with the existing system – a connection between each district and the Government that The People can relate to.  And it serves as a bridge to the next kind of governance system which is dominated by the referendum system.



In the new paradigm of governance RCC members will be responsible for the implementation of policy in their districts.  They will coordinate with the relevant Government department(s) and those in their district who are the mechanism by which the policy is effected – bureaucracy, private sector contributors – and those who gain the benefit of it.  They will also be responsible for managing the on-going empirical analysis to record and evaluate how well the policy is working and oversight; making suggestions how it can be improved and costs savings made through slight alterations of the execution process.  Additionally, they will be the repository for citizen concerns and criticisms, which will inform the evaluation process. 



Since they are acting in the capacity of an MP and MLA, they will be remunerated like they are today; but perhaps with changes that reflect performance and success. 



[Re: (xiv)] Will elected MP's that do not end up in jail be part of the Government and how can they be removed in a lawful way?




The edification campaign demonstrated a multi-institutional abdication of public interest responsibility.  Virtually every Senator and MP was contacted directly between August ‘07 and the spring of ‘08, provided the evidence and asked to participate in reform and accountability.  None did; thus while not having violated The Security of Information Act they did breach the public trust and ought not be offered RCC membership.  Those who weren’t contacted cannot be held to that standard and thus the argument can be made they are entitled to apply for membership.  That said, the reverse onus burden of proof is in effect.  The criteria for a successful application would be proving they have no skeletons in their personal or professional closet, i.e., no affiliations that place them within the orbit of Chinese joint sovereignty, economy monopolization and wealth embezzlement.  They have to prove they have no connection to the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle of power and wealth, i.e., are not a member of any political dynastic family, old money family or have been an owner, executive, high-level employee or shareholder of a large corporation.  And there has to be verifiably accurate proof they were never recruited into the country’s security apparatus.  



And they have to prove their Liberal, Conservative, Bloc or NDP party membership that led to being elected was in no way, shape or form unduly affected by the policies and practices which corrupted our system of government, administration of justice, security apparatus and economy.



Where are the principles [of the policies that will be introduced to the Canadian public]? Would it not be very difficult to hold a coalition together If there are no fundamental principles or mission statement that every one can rally behind? By principle I mean a broad goal as opposed to a specific plan of action.



Agreed.  The basics articulated during the national awareness campaign will include trustworthy governance – participatory democracy, full transparency, adherence to the rule of law – unmitigated accountability, protection of human rights, inexpensive education, a compassionate social safety net, cost effective and efficient health care for all, multiculturalism etc…




[Re: (i) & (ii)] By allowing Commonwealth judges in are we giving up our sovereignty and by doing so are we supporting the United Nations in fact?



In my reply to the McIntosh critique I drew attention to the Pakistan situation.  Scotland Yard was invited in after international pressure because nobody was going to trust any findings of the Musharraf government.   Similarly, when the world discovers the true nature of Canadian governance it will be critical to swiftly establish credibility of all our public sector institutions and the integrity of the economy. 



Because of generations of nepotism and patronage, lengthy Liberal rule in the 20th century and the ubiquity of Chinada complicity and loyalty many judges cannot be trusted; especially the chiefs and associate chiefs.  That said, there are some judges who were appointed to perpetuate the “façade of democracy”.  After a full review of their appointments – background, affiliations, etc. – they will be given adjudicative responsibilities; but not in cases involving malfeasant parties; at least not at the outset.  Over time when they are cleared of all suspicion and the administration of justice is accorded trust and respect their judicial duties will be fully reinstated.



Sovereignty is not infringed by adopting this approach.  Judges from the Commonwealth will only be adjudicating the few thousand who have violated The Security of Information Act.   The rest of the administration of justice will operate as it always has because it was not adversely impacted by the non-transparent policies and practices. 




[Re: (viii)] Could [mass deportations of Chinese] be misconstrued as targeting one group of immigrants? Is this a good idea? Will the public will support it?



It will be important to inform the public during the national awareness campaign and underscore repeatedly that they are not legitimate immigrants.  They were invited here beginning in the early 1970s because they were high level members of the Chinese Communist party – hardcore totalitarian ideologues and members of Chinese triads – and entered the country under false pretences.  The public will support mass deportation because they will agree with the evidence viz. The Sidewinder Report and Fiefdom research findings they are military and intelligence personnel and criminals who came here to procure, perpetuate and protect Chinese joint sovereignty, economy monopolization, wealth embezzlement and turn Canada into a base of operations for Beijing’s global expansion foreign policy. 



[Re: (xiii)] Is this necessary to free up prison space for others? Is this institutional racism?



The facts, figures and statistics on aboriginal incarceration are both staggering and reflective of how these non-transparent and unconstitutional and unlawful policies and practices have impacted the aboriginal population more adversely than all other Canadian groups.




·        While Aboriginal peoples comprise 2.7 percent of the adult Canadian population, approximately 18.5 percent of offenders now serving federal sentences are of First Nations, Métis and Inuit ancestry (Correctional Service Canada, 2006.) Approximately 68 percent of federal Aboriginal offenders are First Nations, 28 percent are Métis and 4 percent Inuit.


  • This overrepresentation is particularly acute in the West, but it exists across Canada. In the Prairies, where Aboriginal peoples comprise a larger proportion of the general population, they account for a staggering 60 percent of offenders.

  • Aboriginal women are even more overrepresented than Aboriginal men in the criminal justice system, representing 30 percent of women in federal prisons.

  • While the federally incarcerated population in Canada declined by 12.5 percent from 1996 to 2004, the number of First Nations people in federal institutions increased by 21.7 percent. The number of incarcerated First Nations women also increased - by 74.2 percent over the same period.

  • Aboriginal youth are also overrepresented among criminalized young people. Research shows that Aboriginal young people are criminalized and jailed at earlier ages and for longer periods of time than non-Aboriginal young people.

  • In 2000, 41.3 percent of all federally incarcerated Aboriginal offenders were 25 years of age or younger. First Nations youth are the fastest growing demographic group in Canada, and it is expected that this will have a significant impact on the criminal justice system.

  • Should the current trend continue unchecked, the Aboriginal population in Canada's correctional institutions could reach the 25 percent mark in less than 10 years.  




This report identifies one of the reasons for these circumstances as “economic and social deprivation”.  When considering the Fiefdom treatise findings as stated in Parliamentary Hypocrisy That Proves Economic Genocide in Canada then it is just, appropriate and reasonable aboriginals who don’t pose a danger to society be given amnesty; because but for the conditions they were intentionally and maliciously forced into they would not have committed crimes.  



No other group in Canadian society was trans-generationally targeted for this kind of political and economic marginalization, and thus being a special circumstance requires a special solution.


[Re: (xv)] Who will decide who the 'experts and specialists' are?



They will be chosen by the Government based not on nepotism and patronage, but rather solid and verifiable credentials.  The appointment process will be fully transparent and open to public critique.


            [Re: (xvii)] How long is the interim period to be?



This is a matter up for discussion amongst all invitees.  The answer should in part depend upon an estimation how long it will take to address all of Canada’s systemic dysfunctionalities.




[Re: (xvii)] Why do you need to collapse and transpose [political constituencies] if this is just for an interim period?



The total number of federal and provincial constituencies combined is enormous.  It serves no useful purpose during interim governance to mirror exactly the layout that currently exists.  Part of reform of government will be to consult with academics, experts and specialists as to the ideal structure of the constituency system.  And then the matter will be put to a referendum vote. 




Would it not would be wise to focus policy on only those things which are essential to correcting the corruption in the system and to whatever is necessary to restart a democratically elected legitimate Government (perhaps some guiding principles would be helpful)? The more policy you have the more difficulty you will have maintaining unity. Would it not be wise to have most of the last part of this policy which could probably be left for the people to vote on directly or through their representatives. I take a libertarian view on peoples opinions.




Agreed.  The original political platform articulated during the national awareness campaign ought to have the fewest number of items, focusing on the essential elements of reform and accountability; and leaving the rest for when the referendum system is functioning. 



Make a Free Website with Yola.