Finally Mike Kelloway has replied….. We think the posting about how to file a complaint against your MP was the tipping point for Mike Kelloway and he has answered Charles Sampson. The NSEF finds it reprehensible that the only time a politician will answer is when the public must take their actions further and file a complaint. It should not have to work that way! We ask you, the public, to follow this posting and we will post the next reply from MP Kelloway. A simple email will not make us go away and it does not constitute a reply that is satisfactory on the legal issues surrounding government manipulation of an important federal program for rural Nova Scotia. The Provincial government simply cannot claim surpluses while the residents of the CBRM are severely overtaxed all while Nova Scotia receives federal funding so we are NOT overtaxed and can live to a Canadian standard. We are not!!!!! Here is MP Mike Kelloway’s response to Charles Sampson and Mr. Sampson’s reply below Kelloway, Mike - M.P. Jan 27, 2022, 1:41 PM to Charles Hello Mr. Sampson, You asked for a meeting with officials from Justice and Finance and I arranged the meetings (the only MP to do this). At the last moment, your group refused to meet, as you made a new policy, since I was elected about two years ago, that all meetings must be recorded. Only one member of your group agreed to join the meeting. Following the meeting we submitted your questions as requested to the Ministries. In my opinion, your fight is not with the Federal government, but in fact with the provincial government. For years, there is no disputing the facts, in my mind, Cape Breton-Canso has not received its fair share for many years and it’s just recently we see tremendous investments being made in our region by the provincial government. The residents of Cape Breton-Canso have allow me the privilege of continuing to represent them after the election and I continue to work tirelessly to bring every job and dollar of investment I can into Cape Breton-Canso. I appreciate your organization has some tireless advocates, but on the point of who we need to push for investment it is not the federal government. The federal government is providing the unconditional transfers to all the qualifying provinces and I do not believe that “unconditionality” will change. I am trying to be honest with you even if we disagree. Sincerely, Mike Charles Reply: Dear Mike Kelloway, M.P., Thank you for your prompt response, but your House of Commons representative responsibility must be fulfilled. In response to your email comments, the meeting you arranged was ended before it could have started when you conveniently introduced your private policy to not be recorded. Our policy was not new but a few years in existence because of politicians who are able to speak with a forked tongue after a meeting, which was not recorded. I would think this refusal to be recorded would not meet with the responsibilities under the House of Commons rules for a federal representative, especially, when your Facebook is filled with video recordings of political messaging you find acceptable. Your claim to be honest requires this accountability and transparency on such a serious government constitutional matter! And it must be restated for all to remember what the NSEF is requesting from the government: the NSEF is requesting the government to be honest and transparent with Canadians about its own program and to prove when asked for its data/evidence that it is complying with the constitution - to provide it. As a member of parliament, it is your legal obligation under the law to ensure the government is complying with the supreme law in the constitution. As for your claim of having met with “Only one member of your group” because if that person was trying to represent the NSEF, he/she was not able to represent the NSEF. If that member you met with was a member of the NSEF, that person would have known about this rule. Our rules require at least four members of the NSEF committee to meet with politicians, and the meeting MUST be recorded. It is a commitment the NSEF has made to our supporters and the general public to provide full transparency from all politicians we meet with regarding the federal Equalization Transfers. The NSEF has nothing to hide. It is because of what you are alleging when you are claiming to have held a meeting with a member of the NSEF that this rule of four NSEF members must be present to avoid a member playing his/her own political partisanship games - which apparently is the case with the meeting you are mentioning . So, Mike no meeting could have been held with only one member which you have not identified for obvious reasons, and your claim is without any credibility of having held a meeting with the NSEF. And furthermore, you have not disclosed any of the issue(s) you may have discussed from this meeting you held with a single resident you have refused to identify. Why the secrecy? Mike, we are not seeking your opinion on this matter but the official policy of the federal government regarding a program it is constitutionally responsible for in terms of its design and implementation and funded entirely from federal taxes. That design includes “UNCONDITIONAL TRANSFERs.” Why? Where is this even mentioned in the constitutional commitment enshrined in section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982? It is one thing to acknowledge ”there is no disputing the facts, in my mind, Cape Breton-Canso has not received its fair share for many years” but when you are not representing constituents who are identifying the federal and provincial governments’ “unconstitutional manipulation of unconditional transfers” which you appear to have accepted as unchangeable before seeking the legal reference which authorizes it. Why? When you state, “I do not believe that “unconditionality” will change,” why do you believe this when you have not questioned the government on its legitimacy? Given the federal government’s unanswered legal questions about this unconditionality of these federal Equalization Transfers, have you already been told by the government not to pursue this matter? And by whom, and when? Mike, you have avoided any reference to the questions you were provided with so that you can seek the responses from the government regarding this government’s unexplained unconstitutional policy. That NSEF request of you as a federal member of parliament still stands. Mike, at what point are you going to step outside your support for a political party and seriously assess/evaluate - as the federal representative - this federal Equalization program what all governments have and continue to do here in Nova Scotia that cannot stand up legally, logically, and morally? The fact the justice system turned justice “upside down” because, in my opinion, the government instructed the justices to not allow this issue to proceed to a trial judge setting. In fact, the 2009 Nova Scotia Appeal Court’s conclusion overruled a 1950 constitutional ruling, which ruled the constitution does not belong to Parliament or to any of the Legislatures, IT BELONGS TO THE COUNTRY. This constitutes years of government abuse with this program and you cannot deny the obvious. The government cannot defend before a trial judge its own data. The government will not defend its own data in a less formal setting before members of the NSEF. You have not appeared before the NSEF members on camera to defend the government’s own data. Being honest requires an honest assessment of the government’s behaviour. Mike, I trust you are going to comply with the NSEF’s request of you. I trust, too, your comment about “trying to be honest” includes seriously trying to have government act according to the law, instead of only giving lip service to this responsibility required of a parliamentarian. Your Constituent, Charles W. Sampson on behalf of the Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness Group.