Comments

- "Get tough on Con's" - give Harper and his gang the boot.

Comment On:

Tories' law-and-order price tag at $10B: watchdog, CTV News, The Canadian Press
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100427/prison-costs-100427/20100427?hub=QPeriod

"The Parliamentary Budget Officer forecasts the cost of implementing just one of the Tories' many tough-on-crime bills is between $7 billion and $10 billion over the next five years. "

That makes the initial costs of the Gun Registry look like Chicken feed.

The main thread running through this article is that the Harper government were refusing to release information on the costs and were, and still are, mis-representing the real costs, despite having reports on it

' . . . Liberal MPs voted in favour of the bill without knowing how the prison population would be affected. They also had no idea what the cost would be. Nor did they thoroughly examine the effects of the federal bill on provincial institutions.
When Liberal Senators asked questions about the costs, they were told that the government analysis was confidential because it was before cabinet. '

This is a similar complaint about the private member's bill on the Gun Registry. Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan response, we had the Report "for several days".

If this is what Harper and the Con's are hiding respecting their "get tough on crime" legislation, it boggles the mind to think what they might be hiding in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal - but we should know soon enough, perhaps.

You can be sure that Harper and the Con's will launch a vicious personal attack on Kevin Page when this report is released, assuming it is in line with this article.

Even now, the Con's are apparently denying the true costs.

'In an interview Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews "We're not exactly sure how much it will cost us. There are some low estimates, and some that would see more spent -- not more than $90 million."

The provinces should not see any increase in costs . . .'

And this is only one of the 'tough on crime' legislation.

Harper is shifting the expense of his agenda onto the Provinces. Harper gets propaganda benefits without having to pay. If I were living in Ontario or Quebec I would be very upset about this.

We saw this same thing with the reduction of the GST and implementation of the HST in Ontario and BC. Harper, again got the propaganda benefits of touting his reduction of tax's agenda, but now the people in Ontario and BC will have to pay.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Way Ahead Poll - Am I Reading That Right

Submitted: 9:04am, 1 May'01 CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/30/politics-voter-preference-leger-poll.html#socialcomments-submit

As Winston Churchill once said 'polls are for dogs' and it looks like this one should be thrown to the dogs all right.

Internet polling is interesting and it is a bit surprising the Leger did not do a control survey with the same questions but by normal means (telephone) to compare. It seems one big difference is that Internet is, presumably, by text, reading, reflecting then responding while phone surveys are by voice, interactive, spontaneous. I'm not sure which method gives better results, if either.

It seems whenever a party takes an increase these days it is at the expense of the Green Party. By the way, had anyone heard anything of Ms. May lately.

If Harper and the Con's are doing so well despite the kicking they are taking with respect to the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up as well as Jaffer-Gate (I said it first)

I can't imagine what would happen if Harper were to turn over a new leaf, start acting in the best interests of Canada and all Canadians instead of a small minority living at the extreme, right-wing of our society; stop basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs; stopped hiding everything he and the Con's do; stop he and the Con's vicious personal attacks on anybody who dares to stand up to him; oh, and of course, stopped attacking our Democratic institutions and acting as if he had not checks and balances (there's lots more, of course).

But I don't have to worry about that happening, now do I.

If Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Hawn are refusing to release the documents to save their own skins, then Harper will have little choice but to call an election and very soon. This poll would suggest that it might be good timing, as opposed to waiting until some real evidence comes to light that might jeopardize their positions.

If Harper truly has national security, the safety of our troops and the good of Canada at heart, and the statement by Gen Natynczyk on Thursday that the military has no such fears of people poring over them, throws this into considerable doubt, then he will acknowledge the Paramountcy of Parliament and do everything in his powers to allow their inspection of these documents.

We will know soon enough which one it is.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, me thinks thow dost protest too much

Posted: 7:51am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10 CBC News
Top general OK with releasing Afghan papers, April 29, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/29/afghan-documents-speakers-ruling-liberals.html

CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"

Natynczyk responded: "Not at all, not at all."

There's something that doesn't add up here.

Does this mean that nobody has asked Natynczyk this question before now???

Natynczyk has not told Harper this before???

If Harper has never asked him this before or Natynczyk has not informed of Harper of this then, on what factual basis is Harper insisting that releasing the documents would threaten our troops.

What about the Parliamentary Committee. Surely if no-one asked him this, Natynczyk ought to have volunteered such important and cogent evidence. I can't remember off-hand, but my impression was that 'The Three Generals' pretty much stone walled and avoided directly answering questions at the Committee.

When Natynczyk held the news conference the next day to clarify his testimony, wouldn't that be a good time for correcting such an omission.

This is another very good reason a full and open Judicial Inquiry is required.

Another, of course, is that even if representatives of Opposition parties in Parliament are allowed to view un-redacted documents, how can they be sure that nothing has been withheld, nothing has been misplaced or 'lost'. The only way is through the power to call witnesses, examine these witnesses and cross-examine these witnesses conducted by people trained, experienced and skilled in such matters.

For example, we might infer that because none of the 'Three Generals' mentioned when they testified on, or about, 8 Dec.'09, that they had no fears of people poring over these documents that they, at that time, must have had such concerns. The fact that they don't now, suggests that whatever it was they had concerns over, no longer gives concerns. The International laws have not changed, domestic laws have not changed, the underlying facts have not changed (based on the belief in the immutability of truth and reality). So, what has changed to cause these concerns to 'disappear', we are left with 'the evidence'.

***
Submitted: 7:55am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10

Also, if Canada's military has no objections, and as many other boggers have suggested, one would think he above anybody else is in a position to know whether it might jeopardize our troops, then from what source is all the resistance coming from and what is the motivation.

It only leaves Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn. We will see what happens in the next week or so.

Harper appears to be clinging to the idea that existing Legislation somehow allows him to hold back documents from Parliament. The Speaker was clear that they don't. Further, they can't. Even if there were a provision that purported to allow this interpretation, the Motion of Parliament that was passed over-rides it and takes precedence.

Harper may try to take it to the Supreme Court. But, it would be very surprising if the Supreme Court were to take jurisdiction - that would run contrary to paramountcy of Parliament. Also, I can't see the Supreme Court wanting to get mixed up in this matter, let alone thrust into the middle.

On the other hand, I found it very surprising that Frank Iacobucci was willing to get mixed up in this. Some astute Parliamentarians have pointed out that Iacobucci is not a judge, is not adjudication on anything. They also point out that he is a lawyer whose client is not Parliament. They suggest that the government is his client.

In reality, Iacobucci is Stephen Harper's lawyer, he takes instructions from Harper and reports to Harper. If there is any question, then answer me this. If Harper and the Con's were to be booted out of power, and they will, hopefully sooner rather than later, what do you think Harper's position would be, if it were to announce that they were releasing this report, assuming it has not been 're-dacted'.

If Parliament has the power to compel production of documents form the government, why not simply pass a motion requiring that the report be handed over, in toto.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper, news flash: Walsh is 'gravely' mistaken

4/29/2010 11:03:00 AM The Globe and Mail

CBC hits back at Tories as latest poll shows 'stasis', Jane Taber, April 29, 2010 8:39 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cbc-hits-back-at-tories-as-latest-poll-shows-stasis/article1550741/ tab 36, 33

In reality this is another vicious personal attack by the Con's on anyone that dares say anything that they don't like.

The attack by John Walsh, the president of the Con Party, that the CBC network has a decidedly Grit bias is pure emotional rhetoric, without a logical underpinning, designed to incite the core of die-hard Con's, who Graves seems to have pinpointed - "the cranky old men in Alberta".

One good indicator is that the Con's are using it to raise funds. If Graves is mistaken on who the die-hard supporters of the Con's are, or what region of Canada they are located, perhaps, the Con party could release info on contributions of $200 and under - no names necessary, simply say postal codes and amounts.

Also, the polls, and not simply Ekos, strongly indicate that Canada is being run by a small minority of voters who are Con supporters, centred in Alberta who are uncompromising, extremist in their views and well in a word, 'die-hard'.

And, one need only look at the extremist, right wing, religious based policies being foistered on Canadians by Harper to see that the Con's are not representing the majority but a small, extremist, religious based, segment of the population.

It is not hard to believe that a national poster would have a handle on such a well defined group of voters and where they are situated.

On the other hand, that the Con support is centred in Alberta is not news and if Graves is telling Ignatieff something new, then the Liberals have far greater problems that what Grave's 'advise' might address.

Whether they are "cranky" I don't know, but perhaps it's based on their response to telephone polling, especially at dinner time - but then I would be classified as cranky too.

It is clear that Graves was merely offering some very obvious and gratuitous advise. If it were pursuant to a professional relationship then Graves may be in serious breach of client confidentiality, I mean really, telling a national newspaper reporter (and G&M at that) your advise to a client. In that case it is the Liberals that should be 'up-in-arms'.

Surely, John Walsh, the president of the Con Party (which is not the 'tory' party - anyone who thinks Stephen Harper and the Con's are the same old tory party that right from Confederation helped build this great nation of our to what it is today, I stand corrected, what it was prior to Jan.'06, is gravely mistaken - pardon the pun) surely can't be saying that a news media favouring one party over another is a bad thing. If I recall, in the '05 - '06 election the Globe and Mail came out and explicitly stated it was supporting the Con's (or was it '04, there's been so many). I don't recall the Con's initiating an vicious personal attacks on the G&M then.

Also, to suggest that with Harper and the Con's it is "Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy" is simply re-iterating a manifest truism.

I point this out just about every day in my Blog and have made many, many posts to the CBC News website illustrating this point. I am a die hard Liberal who has on numerous occasions offered Ignatieff and the Liberals gratuitous, but well founded and serious, advise. I'm a bit offended that none of the Con's has suggested that the CBC is bias because of it. Perhaps if they paid me . . . CBC, I'm willing to find out, if you are, lets talk.

Also, Graves' 'advise' that the Liberals "should invoke a culture war" is simply wrong. Nobody in their right (morally, as opposed to politically, that is) would subscribe to that, now would they Mr. John Walsh, the president of the Con Party.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- 'Ding-Dong the wicked witch is dead' . . . oh, sorry, must have been dreaming.

Submitted: 7:40am, PDT, 28 Apr.'10, CBC News
Afghan records denial is privilege breach: Speaker
Milliken gives government 2 weeks to find compromise over document release
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/27/afghan-detainee-documents-speaker-milliken-privilege-ruling.html#socialcomments-submit

Now all we have to do is get Harper to stop Proroguing Parliament . . . and dissolving Parliament to save his political skin (which may happen sooner rather than later) and generally doing everything for political purposes and Canada as a nation and Canadians be damned, and answering questions with vicious personal attacks instead of serious and informative response, and obscuring and obstructing the access to information, and inflicting Harper's personal religious beliefs on all of Canadians, and dismantling Federalism, and abdicating responsibilities creating a void of national coordinated action requiring the Provinces to fill (e.g. global warming and environment), and introducing superficial ad hoc and disjointed 'micro' provisions touting them as important general policies (e.g. 'getting tough on crime') and depleting the Federal coffers by bogus tax reduction policies designed for their appeal as opposed to what is fiscally sound (e.g. reducing the GST), disenfranchising a whole segment of the Canadian population (e.g Quebec) and governing for the benefit of a small segment of the population (extreme right wingers, esp. Alberta), insidiously insinuation of Harper's extreme right wing ideology in Canadian society through countless and widely disbursed political appointments, shunning Canadians duty to its youth, its poor, its elderly, . . .

***
Submitted: 7:53am, 28 Apr.'10, CBC News

Nicholson: "The government will not knowingly break the laws that were written and passed by Parliament"

Wrong Nicholson,

Parliament is supreme and the government must oblige its request. As Milliken pointed out, Parliament power is not impinged upon by general provisions of legislation of the nature Harper, MacKay, Nicholson, Day are referring to to shield them from the possible political liability of letting the truth be known.

If Harper, MacKay, Hawn, O'Connor, are not using national security to save their skins then they will easily be able to come to some arrangement for obeying Parliament request and preserving national security. If they are using it to save their skins then we all better get ready for an election. The only things that could save their skins in that case is a majority.

Of course, one big problem is knowing whether documents are being withheld from any Parliament representative. Anyone who thinks this is not a real possibility may be in for a rude awakening.

***
Submitted: 7:56am, 28 Apr.'10 CBC News

The 'dark side' of the Milliken ruling is the possibility of Parliament restricting its authority through legislation. Harper only needs a majority to pass such legislation, transfer powers to the PM and plunge Canada into a 'dictatorial democracy'.

I disagree with this aspect of his ruling. In Canadian Democracy there is legislation, Constitution (and Charter) and tradition. Parliament's supremacy is derived from tradition, that is what Milliken means by
"Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded."

"Earned" of course refers to hundreds of years of struggle and civil war until our current parliamentary system was established with Parliament supreme. Legislation can not impinge on this nor can an amendment to the Constitution. The only thing that can alter this is the complete re-alignment of our political and social system the likes of which one sees from civil war.

This is one reason why tradition is not 'encapsulated', the process used to encapsulating it can also be used to change it. It is the common threat that runs from generation to generation which we as temporary inhabitants may not alter. Harper may rack up crippling debt, refuse to act on global warming, infuse extreme right wing ideology into our society that will adversely affect our children and our children's children for generations, but he can not make us a dictatorship without civil war.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, Canada's Religious Leader???

Posted: 7:23am, 27 Apr.'10 CBC News
Oda opens G8 meeting in Halifax, April 27, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/27/g8-oda-introduction.html Tab 10

Bob Rae is right (morally right that is).

Stephen Harper and the Con's are basing their policies on very narrow non-secular agenda. We have seen this blurring of the State and religion numerous times from Harper.

Of course that is what extremism, intolerance is all about. What's insidious is that it is religious based.

Policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few. Canada is not Iran.

Surely abortion is a question of personal conscience. Why is that Harper knows what is good and bad for me and everyone else in the world. Why is it he has the right to dictate to me what is good and bad. He's a politician, for God's sake. He hasn't been anointed as the religious leader of Canada. If we are going to be a non-secular State I would rather Canada be run by the Pope, at least I can trust him.

By blurring religion and the State and implementing such religiously based policies Harper and the Con's are in fact imposing their religious beliefs on me and all Canadians, and thus restricting my freedom to practice my religion.

Clearly this is a violation of the Charter and which is not demonstrably justified in a free and democracy society (2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion)

If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalization of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".
And we all know where the US stands on this issue.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper : 'Jaffer-Gate' ('Jaffer-Gate'??? - hey, you hear it first here, folks, I think)

Posted: 4/26/2010 10:23:22 AM The Globe and Mail
After apparent contradictions, MPs want to grill Rahim Jaffer again, Gloria Galloway, Apr. 25, 2010 6:32PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-apparent-contradictions-mps-want-to-grill-rahim-jaffer-again/article1546263/ tab: 13

The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.

What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.

Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.

Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.

When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.

Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer and insinuations of influence peddling. To say he took a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.

There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.

When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council. What is the likelihood that this letter didn't get back to the higher echelons of the Con party and thus Harper.

Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be

Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.

17 Apr.'10 Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: 'Let Them Eat Cake', I mean, Keep them Distracted on Guergis-Jaffer Affair

Excerpts submitted: 7:28am, & 10:08am, PDT, 24 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Travers: Scandal noise hides political silence, April 24, 2010, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/799904--travers-scandal-noise-hides-political-silence#article

The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.

However, The Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and the Speaker of the House' upcoming ruling is probably the most important issue for Canadians as a country since the Charter of Rights. Ignatieff should be going coast to coast meeting Canadians and discussion this one issue and its importance, explaining how the Canadian Parliamentary system works, why it is very different from the US Presidential system with its built in check and balances, and why parliamentary paramountcy is vital preventing the PM from becoming 'king'.

It seems that Canadian troops may 'leave' active combat to work with and support the Afghan police (a rose by any other name . . .). Given the degree to which the Taliban target police in Afghanistan, I'm not sure there would be much of a change in practical terms. Then there's the Congo déjà vu.

***
Excerpts submitted: 7:38am, PDT, 24 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star

Canada should be discussing what will happen to Canada's Health Care system after the agreement made by Paul Martin that expires in 2014. More important is the trend in Alberta to oppose any equalization payments flowing out of the province.

vis.: "Medicare and the Canada Health Act will be kept on life support until 2014 thanks to former Prime Minister Paul Martin's 2004, 10-year health accord. It gave the provinces an additional $41 billion cash to reduce wait times.

But four years from now, all bets will be off. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged not to touch the accord while it exists. But he is a constitutional strict constructionist. If he is still in power in 2014, he will likely move swiftly to terminate Ottawa's role in health care, which he considers an exclusive provincial jurisdiction."
(Ignatieff blows best opportunity, Frances Russell, 14/04/2010, Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/ignatieff-blows-best-opportunity-90816469.html)

The Equalization payments is another issue that ought to be debated right now, before its too late. There is no doubt that Harper and the Con's are in favour of eliminating it. Not only does it fall in libne with harper's life-long goal of tearing Canada asunder. It is a big 'pay-off' for his core of die-hard supporters in Alberta. Consider how fast the deficit would be reduced if transfers were eliminated. Consider how much Harper could reduce taxes.

Stelmach: "Alberta pays a lot more money in federal taxes than it receives, yet the province is criticized for its vast energy wealth, which helps many other Canadians, said the premier on Thursday."
(Alberta to chase feds on equalization
Last Updated: Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 9:26 PM ET .CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/14/alberta-equalization-cabinet-stelmach-morton-liepert-oil.html )

One need only look at how hard it is to increase taxes after it has been reduced, even wrongfully like the 2 points off the GST.

What do you think Albertans reactions would be if a government tried to re-instate the equalization payments, once they had been eliminated and the taxes reduced.

"You want fairness? Great. Here's some fairness: Alberta has decided that if it's going to get crapped on by other provinces, maybe it shouldn't be handing over billions of dollars a year to those same . . ."
(
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/15/alberta-s-answer-to-emissions-problem-stop-flying-equalization-money-to-ontario-and-quebec.aspx
Alberta's answer to emissions problem: Stop flying equalization money to Ontario and Quebec, January 15, 2010)

***
Submitted: 10:04 am PDT, 24 Apr.'10

landscape wrote 11:59 AM " Lloyd 10:38: Ontario has never recieved equalisation payments since the 40's. Alot of Canada has recieved a lot of money from Ontarian tax payers."

Landscape.

I can remember not too long ago Premier McGuinty pointing out that 23 billion was flowing out of Ontario due to transfer payments.

Vis.: In 2005: "McGuinty also launched a campaign to narrow the so-called '$23 billion gap' between what Ontario contributes to the federal government and what is returned to Ontario in services."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_McGuinty)

Now Ontario meets the definition of a 'have not' province.

If anyone in Ontario thinks that Harper will somehow defend Ontario's interest in this, they are in a for a rude awakening. For Harper and the Con's it's Alberta all the way. They are the reason he is in power and that's the reason they put him in power. Oh, yah, to get rid of the Gun Registry, which Harper doesn't even have the nerve to make part of his legislative agenda.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: 'The people of Canada have a different philosophy than us' -continued

Posted: 4/22/2010 12:57:37 PM The Globe and Mail - see below

I don't recall Harper, Van Loan, Day, Toews, Baird or any other of the inner circle suggesting that this is not a whipped vote.

The reason is obvious.

To suggest that it is not, would be the height of hypocrisy and another example of Harper and the Con's deception at its worst.

Every knows that the Con MP's don't turn around to go p... without Harper's permission and one of Harper's peóns (excuse the pun) watching and taking note (although they seemed to have fallen down on the job with Jaffer and Guergis). What Con MP would dare vote against Harper on anything.

In fact when you take a look at the vicious personal attacks on those than might stand up to oppose, Harper and the Con's have taken 'whipped vote' to new heights - not just the Con MP's, but he is trying to whip the die-hard Con supporters into a frenzy and trying to 'whip' (figuratively) his opponents in the media for being bad boys and girls.

"smothering democracy" is the hallmark of the Harper administration.

So, don't suggest to me that it is not a "whipped" vote for Harper or that Harper is not smothering democracy, I've simply been around too long to be taken in by that one.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

***

4/23/2010 10:45:10 AM PM The Globe and Mail - see below

[redacted] writes 4/22/2010 8:07:59 PM:
"Loyd writes . . .

I don't recall Harper . . . suggesting that this is not a whipped vote.

well of COURSE you don't. All votes are free votes, unless specifically made to be whipped votes by declaration."

Apparently that's not your real name.

If you have such a strong conviction in the morality of your opinion then why an alias.

Also, it's "Lloyd"

All Con MP's are whipped by Harper. This 'whipping' must be overtly removed before Con MP's would dare vote their conscience.

This is very well know and undisputed. Just today there is are article discussing this very point:

"The same plums-and-pain management technique has turned the prime minister's caucus into craven courtiers, vigorously bowing and scraping in hopes of entry to the bloated cabinet -- whose members vigorously bow and scrape to avoid removal. But even if they had some pride, it would not matter. The caucus cannot change the party's leadership, and so, like beaten dogs, they have no choice but to lick"

(
"The man who would be king", Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/would+king/2941101/story.html
)

[redacted] suggests: "cpc is far more democratic"

When it started the Reform Party was a grass roots party.

But, Harper and the Con's are no longer a grass roots party.

It is very much a top-down tyranny, where Harper has deliberately abandoned core conservative values in order to cling onto power. If he tried to openly promote these right wing, extremist, intolerant values, Canadians would boot him out of office. Harper is very much aware of this.

This Bill is a prime example. Harper would not introduce it as part of the Con policies, so, in his deceptive fashion, had it released as a private member's bill. Another recent example is the International family health policy re family planning and abortion.

True conservatives know this and are starting to do something about it. How about you, you seem like a true conservative.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: 'The people of Canada have a different philosophy than us'

Posted: 4/22/2010 10:17:09 AM The Globe and Mail
A gun to the heads of the Liberal caucus, The Globe and Mail, 22 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-gun-to-the-heads-of-the-liberal-caucus/article1542451/ Tab 2

The last vote on this Bill where 8 Liberals supported it, represents Harper and the Con's deception at its worst (well one, of many, of its worst's).

Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan response, we had the Report "for several days".

Some of the Liberals and NDP voted in favour of the Bill so that it would go to Committee where it could be reviewed. Sounds reasonable, especially when it was done in the absence of the RCMP Report.

Being logical and basing your vote on rational considerations, taking the good of all Canadians into consideration should be encouraged in our leaders. This is the exact opposite of the extremist, narrow, ideologically based, my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-right-you're-wrong, what benefits the few and Canadian be damned approach that is the hallmark of Harper, Van Loan (of, "The professor has a different philosophy than us,” fame), the Con Party and their die-hard supporters. If ever there were a wedge issue this is it.

Perhaps the Gun Registry should be re-visited but lets be rational about it. Lets demand Harper and the Con's release all the relevant information, stop their vicious attacks on those that dare oppose them, cease and desist their propaganda machine. Harper and the Con's are taking their position to satisfy their Western and rural die-hard base. Lets find out what is best, not for these few but for all Canadians as a whole. Since when did Alberta rule . . . oh, yah, sorry, since Harper and the Con's came into power.

Also, how can the Harper government claim victory when it was a private member's bill. Surely the Harper Government could have introduced the Bill and part of their official agenda. Everyone, especially true conservatives, should take note of this. It clearly represents a backing away of true conservative values by Harper for the sole purpose of maintaining power.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper to MPC Commission 'Never mind the Facts, Just Make A Decision'

Submitted: 9:46am, PDT, 21 Apr.'10 CBC News
Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/20/afghanistan-detainees-commission.htmlTab 48

***
Transcript excerpts from the April 13, 2010, hearings on detainees at the Military Police Complaints Commission follow:

Diplomat Richard Colvin: "If we had access to the un-redacted version then there would be some crucial information, additional information which we obviously don’t have because of the redactions."

Justice Department lawyer Alain Préfontaine: "I have had access to the un-redacted document. I don’t see there anything that is missing or crucial or important."

Colvin: "Well I am afraid you are acknowledging that you are new to this issue because if you were someone who was involved in this file, involved in Afghanistan, involved in this issue, what has been redacted is extremely important and it is critical to understanding that there is nothing particularly subtle about this message. I don’t agree that it’s a subtle signal."

...

Préfontaine: "The commission will decide whether it was too subtle for the reader to pick up your meaning."

Colvin: "I think the commissioner is only given the redacted version so he may have some difficulty fully assessing the subtlety or lack thereof of this report."

Préfontaine: "I realize it’s difficult for the commission to have to contend without ability of independent verification of what you say, or for that matter, what I say."

Colvin: "I am fully prepared for the commissioner to see the un-redacted version and to form his own opinion."

Préfontaine: "So would I. But it’s not my call to make, Mr. Colvin."

Military Police Complaints Commission chairmain Glenn Stannard: "Did you say the information contained in the un-redacted [version] really isn’t critical – or did I misread that?"

Préfontaine: "No, you didn’t Mr. Stannard."

Stannard: "Just a real silly question then: any reason why we don’t have it? "

Préfontaine: "Because disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."

Stannard: "Even though it’s not critical information?"

Préfontaine: "Well it might be that the information has nothing to do with what Mr. Colvin makes it out to be."

...

Colvin: “Obviously critical information has been removed by the censor. And I’m not allowed to speak to what’s behind the blacked-out portions. So I am not sure what good it is to read simply read the little bits which the censor decided is available to the Canadian public.”

Préfontaine: “Because at the end of the day, Mr. Colvin, this commission is going to be asked to pass judgment on the actions of some on the basis of this material. That’s why.”

Colvin: "I can give you my assessment of the significance of this section if you like."

Préfontaine: "No. I just am looking at what information you relayed to the reader, who will eventually end up being the commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, who is tasked to make the decision of whether to transfer or not."

Colvin: “But your redactions ... have made my content somewhat incoherent because big chunks of it have been sliced out. So I am not sure what good it does to read all these little bits.”

Préfontaine: “I have heard your opinion, Mr. Colvin.”

( Ottawa Notebook, Richard Colvin's catch-22, April 14, 2010, Steven Chase)

Oh, yah, I almost forgot, on Tuesday (20 Apr.'10):

"Prefontaine told the commission that the 'documents will be given to the counsel when they are good and ready.'

Glenn Stannard, the acting chair of the commission, responded that he found Prefontaine's remarks 'close to offensive, not only to the panel but also to the public.'

Following a break, Prefontaine apologized for his remarks but still would not commit to a date as to when the documents can be expected.

(Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
)

***

Am I reading this right (Prefontaine and Colvin transcript):

- Colvin's communication despite not being critical, important or adding anything to the unredacted parts, "disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
-This non-disclosure " it’s not my call to make".
- The Commission will get the disclosures (redacted) when they are Good and ready
-Prefontaine's has access to the un-redacted version of the documents
-The Commission is required to make its decision not having seen the unredacted documents

Also

-Prefontaine cross-examined Colvin, apparently despite stating at earlier Colvin was his client.

- Didn't Harper, Mackay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's state just a few weeks ago that a full public Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal was unnecessary since there is already a review going on - the above Military Police Complaints Commission.

And,

Didn't Harper, MacKay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's explain to Canadians that it was not them who re-dacted the documents but the Department of Justice lawyers.

Well it appears that not only are the Department of Justice lawyers not basing the decisions to redact and withhold on any legal principles other than taking instructions from his client - Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's

It would also appear that Alain Prefontaine might have a personal interest in this case.

And,

Isn't it that the Canadian Government is his client and not Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's, oh yah, I forgot, Harper and the Con's own the Canadian government.

Also,

Why is it that Prefontaine has access to the un-redacted and unobstructed documents. And, Harper, Mackay and the Con's have access to the un-redacted documents but there is no one else in Canada, including all the Opposition MP's and the Head of the MPCC that are capable of protecting Canada's national security. Certainly their oaths of office, their integrity, dedication and loyalty to Canada are every bit as strong as Prefontaine's as a simple lawyer, apparently unanswerable to anyone but Harper.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper has Found His True Calling In Life???

submitted: 7:02am, PDT, 20 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Harper weighs a Congo role, Apr 20 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/797891--harper-weighs-a-congo-role#article

It seems to me that Harper would be well advised to resolve Afghanistan first, before looking at some other region to get Canada and its good men and women in uniform mixed up in.

The vary statement "Kabila's government is weak and corrupt, the war is far from over, and the army has been accused of war crimes." ought to be enough to make any prudent Canadian leader back away, far away. But given Harper involvement in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up, it is hard to imagine that his belligerent, right-wing extremist hawkish attitudes would cloud his better judgment to such a degree.

Also, if Harper's nature is so war-like, let him go over and take the position himself. Then all Canadians would be happy. We would get rid of Harper and Harper could play soldier.

While he's at it, he should take Peter MacKay with his as his 'batman', and how about taking Laurie Hawn and Gordon O'Connor as well, hay also, John Baird and Vic Toews, Stockwell Day. Wow, Canada's military 'Dream Team'. Now there's a mission I'm sure Canadians could support.

Hell! they could take over running the country for the Congolese - right-wing extremist dictatorship of a third world country, now talk about finding your true lot in life.

GW Bush went into Iran for the oil. Canada went into Afghanistan and remained there because of the Taliban threat and to help curtail global terrorism. This, and 9-11, gives meaning to the 146 Canadian men and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.

What possible meaning would it have for Canada to get involved with the Congo, even if it is simply lending a general to run the UN forces.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

***
Submitted: 7:46 am, PDT, 20 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star

Could that be the answer, Harper wants a seat on the UN Security counsel so badly he is will to drag Canada and its reputation into the quagmire that is Congo.

It is unlikely that Canada would get on the Security Counsel without the support of the US and Britain.

Could this explain Hillary Clinton's and the British Foreign Secretary's highly unusual remarks about Canada not withdrawing from Afghanistan recently while in Canada and putting pressure on the Harper. If they will do that publicly, what are they doing behind closed doors

Yah, like, as if we will ever know the truth from Harper.

Let's wait and see if Harper really does pull our troops out of Afghanistan in 2011. I think Harper himself will be up to his eye balls in Afghan detainee transfer scandal and cover-up for quite some time though.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for enshrining in the Charter the Free, Unobstructed Access to Information

Submitted 7:40am, PDT, 9 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Geist: Open government moving in parallel but opposite directions, April 19, 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/796682--open-government-moving-in-parallel-but-opposite-directions#comments

These private sector efforts to consolidate information already released to the public, are commendable and every bit helps to "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).

However, if the information is being hidden, obstructed, obscured, distorted and spun before it is released to the pubic, does simply making a such more easily accessible really shine the light into the dark corners.

It is suggested that it is the analysis of this 'information', the extrapolation, the inferring the necessary meaning, the drilling down through the hype, that is important. This is analogous to what the US intelligence used to do during the Cold War with Soviet Union Statements. There was no doubt that it was unmitigated propaganda, but like tea leaves it could be 'read'.

For example,

Guy Giorno, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government expects full compliance with the Access Act.

He also told a Parliamentary committee piously that "access to information is the oxygen of democracy ... which makes our democracy function and which allows citizens to hold people in public office accountable."

The media has pointed out the irony (and the Harper administration's hypocrisy) of Suzanne Legault, Canada's interim information commissioner, reported the same day that Canadians' right to government information "is at risk of being totally obliterated" and that "delays are eroding Canadians' right to know."

Of course, Harper's jewel regarding the media in Democracies that: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.

The real issue here, and the Press is starting to hit on this, is:
Compliance with the Act does not eliminate the systemic problems and in fact can be used to obstruct the free and open flow of information. It is compliance with the spirit and intention of the Act. It doesn't matter what the actual wording of the legislation, shrewd and motivated individuals can always find a way to avoid conforming to the spirit and intent while insisting they are in keeping within a sharp interpretation of the Legislation.

The really useful Internet development of recent years is 'Blogging'. It is useful since it affords opinions from everyone, whether good, bad, subjective, objective. To understand the importance of this, just keep in mind that probabilities ensure that out of 33 million opinions and observations, someone will hit the nail on the head.

It is suggested that these site should allow people to post comments or to point to Comments posted to various Blogs on the matters set out on their sites.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

My Post: 16 October, 2009
- Canadians need a White Knight to slay this evil of Obstructing and Obscuring Access to Information by Harper and the Con's.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.

When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they?

Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).

Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.

I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.

- Natynczyk: The Military can't release any records - How Harperesque!

Posted: 4/18/2010 12:26:17 PM The Globe and Mail
Soldiers did not unlawfully shoot unarmed Afghan: Natynczyk, Steven Chase, Apr. 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-did-not-unlawfully-shoot-unarmed-afghan-natynczyk/article1537734/ Tab 62

With all due respect to Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, it seems to me that the interpreter was very clear that he was relating the contents of what he had translated in questioning of those 9 or 10 detained after the said incident.

If Gen Natynczyk wants to investigate then, instead of reading the "after action review" made by the Canadian forces at the incident, which one would expect state that it was within the rule of engagement since otherwise this would have hit the news-waves a long time ago,

he should look to the transcripts of the questioning or question others who were present at the questioning to confirm or deny that that is what the Interpreter translated and the witnesses said. If it was then was it investigated. The Interpreter named names and presumably this could be done quite quickly, if one were so disposed.

Natynczyk's letter actually substantiates what the Interpreter testified to.

The only difference, is whether the Afghan killed was holding a gun or not. This is a question of fact, to which two eye witnesses attested too. From what Natynczyk wrote, there is no evidence that this was investigated any further than observing that one witness recanted at a later time. The point here is that one did not recant. Given the allegations of torture by the NDS, under what circumstances did the one recant, while he was being tortured by the NDS - I'd recant being born, under torture.

Gen. Natynczyk also points to the 9 detainees having tested positive for explosive residue, presumably as substantiating the claims set out in the "after action review" and refuting the interpreters testimony.

However, the Interpreter testified that at one time he stuck his hand in the dirt and was tested positive. This is very important and casts doubt on the residue testing generally and the basis for the 9 being detained. Also, he testified that some were old men and teenagers.

Gen. Natynczyk's letter fails to address either of these issues and given their importance and his reliance on the testing to support the official version of the incident, one can only wonder.

Posted: 4/18/2010 12:40:00 PM
Continued . . .

If I didn't have more respect for Gen. Natynczyk I might think that this is the kind of crazy logic one would expect to hear from Peter MacKay, the Harper government's legal advisor on 'admissibility of evidence'.

Gen Natynczyk's letter avoids the real issue here. "Canadian troops handing over Afghan Detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured"

The only question is whether it is a deliberate attempt to confuse and mis-lead, or he really missed the boat.

Perhaps Natynczyk is operating under tunnel vision. He might be so determined to find fault with the testimony of the interpreter and do so quickly to mitigate the damage, that he simply is unable to see any evidence that supports his testimony, after all: 'the allegation itself, is obviously not true, not from my men (and women), so the interpreter's testimony can't be credible'.

Of course, it may be strategic also.

And, of course, "The military is nevertheless refusing to release records of the matter, saying they contain 'sensitive information about tactics, techniques and procedures.'"

How Harperesque!

Although this testimony is collateral to the real issue - Canadian troops transferring Afghan detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured, it is extreme and easily doubted. So, throwing doubt on it is much easier. Once Canadians have doubt about this collateral testimony, it is a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump to serious doubt about the real, central issue.

Would a military general, trained from youth in strategy and tactics, and so successfully as to be Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, think of such a thing, employ such a thing.

You tell me.

Better, lets ask Gen. Natynczyk, himself, in an open Public Judicial Inquiry, with proper questioning by professionals equally trained and skilled, in cross-examination and investigation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper - Darth Vader, Mike Harris - Emperor Palpatine - Then Who Is Ignatieff???

Posted: 4/17/2010 11:12:18 AM The Globe and Mail

.Jeffrey Simpson
The Guergis and Afghan message: Loose lips still sink ships, 17 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-guergis-and-afghan-
message-loose-lips-still-sink-ships/article1537611/ Tab 2

Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor Laurie Hawn are not wrapping themselves in the flag.

They are hiding behind it and using our good and true men and women in uniform as shields to deflect attention to their own responsibility for this whole sordid Afghan Detainee Transfer Affair and ensuing cover-up.

This is the standard approach of Harper and the Con's - to blame others no matter what and viciously attack anyone who dares to stand up and let the truth be know, or demand that the truth be know.

There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution. However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.

Gen. Natynczyk seems now to be taking at least one of the allegation seriously (the Afghan interpreter's testimony at the Committee alleging a Canadian solder killed an unarmed Afghan).

So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't.

Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. And then, perhaps, they'd be skewered.

One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.

For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.

Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.

How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . . 4/17/2010 11:31:57 AM

Just as an illustration regarding how really futile it is for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn, to refuse an open, full Judicial Inquiry in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up and how justice has a way of catching up with political leaders who try to obstruct its running its true course while in power, in open and free Western Democracies, anyway:

Mike Harris refused an Inquiry into the Dudley affair, but had to 'face the music' after the PC's were booted out.

"On Nov. 12, 2003, just days after the Liberals swept to power in a general election, Dalton McGuinty announced his government would launch a public inquiry into the [Dudley] matter." (CBC, 31 May '07)

Mike Harris was also called as a witness in the Walkerton Inquiry: "On Friday, Ontario Premier Mike Harris became the 107th person to appear before the inquiry, and the first premier to testify before a judicial inquiry [Walkerton Inquiry] in Ontario in more than half a century. "(CBC, 29 June, 2001)

What got Harris into trouble was his right-wing extremist, my-way-or-the-highway, in-your-face, I'm right you're wrong, I'm big - you're small, bullying, mean approach to government. Sound familiar. There are more than just parallels with the Harper administration - vis.: John Baird, Jim Flaherty, Tony Clament and a raft of advisors and inner circle. Mike Harris would never get elected Federally, not as long as Ontarians have memories. However, they did the next best thing, assimilated the Harris machine in to the Harper administration. This was no accident.

Canadians have a right to know now and it is outrageous that we would have to wait until Harper gets the boot to find out the truth in this matter. But with the Harper regime, we have little choice.

However, we can hasten the process by getting rid of Harper and his kind sooner rather than later.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, here's a tip: Machiavellianism is Most Passé

Posted: 4/17/2010 9:58:19 AM
Another week of Guergis questions fails to get PM talking, Jane Taber, Friday, April 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/another-week-of-guergis-questions-fails-to-get-pm-talking/article1537415/ Tab 38

What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.

Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.

Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.

When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.

Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer when to say he too a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.

There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.

When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council.

Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be

Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper Call Off Your Attack Dogs

Submitted: 6:25am, 16 Apr.'10
Afghan shooting claims 'drive-by smears': MacKay, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/15/afghan-translator-allegations-detainees.html

Peter MacKay:
"insisted Thursday the Canadian Forces investigates all substantiated allegations of abuse.
. . .
'Our troops certainly deserve better than drive-by smears and unsubstantiated allegations,' the minister told the House during question period."

. . .

"When specific allegations are brought forward, we have forums, we have investigations, and we have the ability to look into them, but in yesterday's testimony there was no specific evidence offered, by his own admission," MacKay said.

And this from the guy who claims that if it is not in Hansard it didn't happen.

Peter MacKay, these are specific allegations and we do have a forum and investigations to look into them.

It's called 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry'.

Given that Mr. Malgarai's response to the MacKay attack is:
"If he wants me to prove it, give me access to the information and I'll lead them to it . . . Or issue a visa, I'll bring the witness."

Clearly 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry' is the only answer.

To suggest that these are simply rumours and nothing but hearsay is, and from MacKay i'd suggest deliberate, mis-framing the evidence.

Being a lawyer I am surprised that he seems to miss the distinction. This is not a simple rumour, like what you might hear while at your local Pub. This is what, according to Mr. Malgarai, was what he translated to Canadian officials from eye witnesses.

Keep in mind that any Court of Law, in free and open Democracies, of which Canada still is, anyway, accepts what a translator relays as what a witness says in another language as evidence. There is no accusation of hearsay.

The key is that the interpreter is suitably qualified, and given the letter of reference and the length of time the Canadian authorities employed Mr. Malgarai I infer this is a given. The second, is that the interpreter is oath bound to translate accurately and completely to the best of his/her ability. I would be very surprised if this were not part of Mr. Malgarai duties and responsibilities as interpreter for the Canadian authorities - it would be bizarre to suggest it would have been otherwise. It is also bizarre to think that it was in fact anything else.

Also, Gen. Natynczyk seems to take this allegation seriously. So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't. Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. and then they'd be scr[XX]d, perhaps.

One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.

For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.

Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.

How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- 'Heart of Darkness', Stephen Harper Produced and Director

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:08:47 AM The Globe and Mail

Military vows to probe ‘grave’ detainee accusations, Steven Chase, The Globe and Mail, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-vows-to-probe-grave-detainee-accusations/article1534345/ Tab 102

“I can assure all Canadians that we take all allegations seriously and will investigate new allegations appropriately,” Gen. Natynczyk said.

I can assure Gen Natynczyk that Canadians take these allegations seriously and demand that they are appropriately investigated.

The difference is that the appropriate method of investigation is an full, open Public Inquiry and not some internal thing behind an iron curtain conducted by people or organizations who may have a strong self-interest.

Once again it appears that the Harper administration is taking the position that this is not 'proof' of abuse of Afghan Detainees transferred by Canadians. If I recall Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the Defence Minister Peter MacKay, suggested yesterday that the incident related by the interpreter of a Canadian solder killing an unarmed Afghan was not credible since he had only heard about it. However, it is not a question of just having heard about it, he learned of it through his duties as a translator when they were interrogating the Afghan 'rounded-up' after the incident. Not only does this make it more than simply a rumour but it also means that Canadian authorities must have 'heard the rumour as well', after all he was translating it to some Canadian.

If it is such a serious allegation, and it is, then why wasn't it investigated at the time. Also, why are these other people not appearing at the Parliamentary Committee to either confirm or refute this testimony.

If Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Leaurie Hawn, Gordon O'Connon or any other Con are really so concerned about the reliability of all these witnesses, who, by the way, are building a very strong, consistent case, then surely they would be screaming for a full, open Public Inquiry, wouldn't they.

Oh, yah, I forgot, because if the truth be know, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and/or other Con's in the government may be put into a very embarrassing position and required to answer some very tough questions the answers to which may very well put their actions into question, their hold on power into jeopardy or worse, cause investigations by the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Excerpt Submitted: 7:26am, PDT, 15 Apr.'10 CBCV News
Afghan translator alleges shooting coverup, Man acknowledges there is 'no direct evidence' incident occurred, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10 Tab 99

- Harper: 'I'm Transparent, Honest - You'll Just have to Trust Me On That"

No Posts allowed: CTV News
Feds get a 'D' grade on handling information requests, The Canadian Press, 13 Apr.'10
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100413/info_requests_100413/20100413?hub=QPeriod

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.

It appears that there are a number of problems.

- Understaffed being one of them.

Understaffing can be a well thought out and well executed, deliberate 'tool' applied to slow down and obstruct process.

This type of thing is happened in other areas as well, for example the Refugee Board. It is well known that Harper simply did not appoint new Board members for the first 2 - 3 years of his administration, apparently there wasn't anyone qualified for the job. Huge backlogs built up until now Harper and the Con's are running around proclaiming how Canada Refugee system is broken and professing the solution.

The real problem is that Canada's Refugee System is simply too into Human Rights and is reflective of a tolerant compassionate society, certainly not in line with what the die-hard core of right wing extremist supporters of Harper and the Con's envision their Canada.

Immigration at the Visa Posts is another example where 'understaffing' can cause delays of up to 5 years or more and reduce the flow of immigrants to a trickle in any particular area of the world in which the government wants reduced number immigrating to Canada. Anyone involved with Immigration knows what I am talking about and knows what regions of the World to which this applies.

Don't get me wrong, it may be that the Refugee Board needs improving and it may be that Canada ought to reduce the flow of Immigrants.

It is the underhanded, sneaky, secretive, manipulative, obscurist and obstructionist, ideologueic manner in which Harper and the Con's are going about it - suppressing Access to Information and otherwise refusing to release information being one of their primary tools.

The reason is that they are hiding their right wing extremist, no-tolerant, anti human and civil rights objectives from all but that 33% die-hard core of extreme right wing supporters that demand it.

If you think this is not a serious matter with the Harper government . . .

what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...
at:
http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat"

"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...

- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.

- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.

- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."

(shocking . . . I wonder if it's true, did Day really say those things? In that case, how could Harper make him one of his inner circle Ministers? Certainly Harper would know about it, wouldn't he?)

When Stockwell Day says "We want to improve our process" champions of civil rights ought not hold their breath.

Since when was Stockwell Day a champion of civil rights, transparency, openness. And if you think "We want to improve our process" means more funding, faster processing and greater degree of disclosure, you better think again. The Harper government modus operandi is secrecy, hiding, non-disclosure, obscuration, obstruction, that's "their process".

- No legislative clout for delays and interference by Harper and his Ministers is another.

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

- Also, the existing Legislation has too many 'loop-holes':

Everyone can understand that some information should be withheld. However, this must be minimalized, justified and particularized on an incident-by-incident basis.

The legislation now is very broad and general about what may be withheld.

But, even worse is that no reason need be given for any particular instance, but simply a copy of the general provisions of the Act that allows withholding information attached to the cover letter for the disclosure. It can be impossible to determine if there was even something withheld and if so what the nature of it is and the grounds for being withheld (or the actual section of the Act that is being relied upon). This is not even 'redacting'.

When you have part of a page or a whole page blacked out (or trickier to detect, blanked out), it at least tells you that something has been withheld, and perhaps the context. However, if a whole page of number of pages is withheld, how do you know (sometimes they number the pages, but a lot of times they don't). This can totally undermine the Access request and in a fashion that is insidious. It can also make it virtually impossible to bring a meaningful complaint.

As the article points out "The Conservative government broke 2006 election promises to bring in wide-ranging reforms to the law."

Guy Giorno, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government expects full compliance with the Access Act.
However, full compliance with the Act does not eliminate the systemic problems as discussed above.

Further, what Canadian ought to demand from their Prime Minister and government of the day is compliance with the spirit and intention of the Act. It doesn't matter what the actual wording of the legislation, shrewd and motivated individuals can always find a way to avoid conforming to the spirit and intent while insisting they are in keeping within a sharp interpretation of the Legislation.

For example, Giorno goes on to say that ministers' offices get advance notice -- an average of four days -- when sensitive requests are about to be released. Such briefings are considered acceptable as long as they don't delay disclosure.

We have all heard how this is applied by the Harper administration - for example, then-minister of Public Works, Christian Paradis's Office has been accused of meddling and at least delaying release of the access request.

Canada's information watchdog, Interim information commissioner Suzanne Legault released her special report to parliament urging the government to take immediate steps to curb persistent foot-dragging.

She then went on to comment, in very diplomatic fashion:

"Do we have a government right now that is instilling a culture of transparency, that is taking a leadership role like the American president is taking in matters of promoting transparency, which is broader than Access to Information?" she asked. "I haven't seen evidence of that yet."

(keep in mind this is Harper and the Con's she is talking about, you know the guys who ruthlessly attack, and on a very personal level, anyone who dares to stand up and oppose them - so I invite you to read between the lines).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Excerpt Posted: 4/14/2010 2:13:01 PM to The Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson discusses Ottawa's trouble with disclosure, John Ibbitson, 14 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/discussions/john-ibbitson-discusses-ottawas-trouble-with-disclosure/article1533093/

- Harper Open - Au contraire mon frere

See below: "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"
Posted: 4/13/2010 10:05:10 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories mum on Guergis allegations, Gloria Galloway, April 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-mum-on-guergis-allegations/article1531894/Tab 50

Cascadian Ten wrote: 4/13/2010 10:20:36 AM

"Actually, requesting that the RCMP investigate one of your own in the face of corruption is the definition of holding yourself and your party answerable to the Canadian people. Frankly, it's showing greater accountability to Canadians then the Liberal party has shown in decades."
***

My Reply, posted: 4/13/2010 11:05:36 AM, Tab 51:

Au contraire mon frere, . . .

and don't call me 'Frankly'.

Paul Martin stood tall, took responsibility and call for a full and open judicial inquiry regarding the sponsorship scandal. This was despite the obvious political backlash against the Liberal party and himself as Leader. Many people suggested that he might call in the RCMP to investigate, thereby putting a lid of secrecy over the whole affair and by the time the RCMP had finished investigating it would be 'ancient history'. Martin took the high ground and did what was best for Canada as a nation and not himself and his party.

Harper with the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up has been doing everything he can to prevent it being brought out into the open. And for good reason, he's screXXX'd if he does.

Now Harper is calling in the RCMP to investigate the Jaffer-Guergis scandal and refusing to disclose anything about why. Again Harper is employing the utmost secrecy. And again, if he were to discuss the truth, you can bet'ya someone high up in the Con's echelons of power will be screXXX'd. Otherwise, what's the point of his secrecy.

One of the most noticeable traits of the Harper administration is that neither he, nor any of the other Con's stands up and takes responsibility for anything. No matter what, it is always someone else's fault, even to the extent of trying to pin the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal on our good men and women in uniform - shame on you Stephen Harper.

Even Harper's die-hard supporters operate in secrecy - now don't they Mr. 'Ten

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's Serious Lapse In Judgment, Again

No Posts allowed: The Toronto Sun

Taxpayers foot bill for high-flying Guergis, Elizabeth Thompson, 12 Apr.'10,
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/12/13560231-qmi.html

"According to proactive disclosure reports, Guergis charged taxpayers for $273,158 for the period from May 2006 to mid-February 2010. In 2008, as Canada was heading into a recession, Guergis spent $113,429 with trips to destinations that included Beijing, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Belize, Guatemala, Peru, Columbia, El Salvador, New Delhi, Miami, Jamaica, Barbados and Mexico City. "

Am I reading this right??? Is this possible???

No wonder Guergis blew up at the Charlottetown Airport.

She has spent so much time at airports, the laws of probabilities dictated it.

Also, it highlights her considering Charlottetown as "this shithole". I mean, after all, she is a jet setter accustomed to much more exotic and cosmopolitan places. What arrogance and from someone leading this great and proud nation of ours.

How many other of Harper's Ministers really think this way but are able, so far, to keep it under raps. How could Harper choose someone of such questionable character to be a Minister. We saw a similar serious lapse in judgment with Maxime Bernier.

Clearly Harper chooses his cabinet not because of ability, character, maturity, but solely for political reasons.

Jean Chrétien didn't do that. Chrétien's claim to fame and secret behind his success for so long was exactly being able to pick the best qualified person for each Ministerial Post and Canada reaped the benefits.

Chrétien's objective was to do what was right (morally) for Canada.

Stephen Harper objective is to do what is extreme right (ideologically) to Canada and Canadians be damned.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"

Posted: 4/13/2010 10:05:10 AM The Globe and Mail

Tories mum on Guergis allegations, Gloria Galloway, April 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-mum-on-guergis-allegations/article1531894/Tab 50

Stephen Harper and the Con's run the Canadian government as if it were theirs, as if they were not answerable to Parliament, as if they were not answerable to the people of Canada.

When you think of it, it is outrageous that Harper would keep these 'third party' allegations secret. Even if Guergis is cleared by the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner, still it was serious enough for him to remove her from the Con Caucus and call in these investigative bodies.

In fact, if anyone is taking notice of the symbolism, clearly Harper has gone to extremes (perhaps expected from an extremist) to disassociate Guergis to the extent of having her "banished to a corner of the House that is furthest from Mr. Harper". I can not recall any Prime Minister going to such lengths. This is not normal.

If Harper called the RCMP simply to have an excuse to not disclose what was going on, then that could amount to a serious abuse of power by Harper. If these allegations are serious then, again, there could have been a serious abuse of power and given Harper reaction it may very well go right to the heart of his administration, the PMO office.

Or, given John Baird's track record, I can place little confidence in Baird's denial of having anything to do with it. Anita Neville has made the very astute connection between Baird and Jaffer, in two ways. Jaffer was allegedly touting in the infamous 10 Sep.'10 meeting his ability to get Green Fund loans, which apparently Baird has Ministership over and they met on 3 September. Circumstantial, yes. Compelling, again, yes.

After all, how likely would it be for Jaffer to tell these men of questionable repute he could produce without being quite sure he could.

Baird is a vital part of Harper regime, if he falls it would have serious repercussions, especially in Ontario. This could explain Harper's extreme measures.

When are Canadians going to stand up and say "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, 'Mover and Shaker'? How about 'Hodger and Podger'

Posted: 4/12/2010 3:10:26 PM The Globe and Mail
Douglas Bell critiques the movers and shakers in Canadian politics, Globe and Mail, 12 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/douglas-bell/coalition-redux/article1531226/tab 3

Stephen Harper and his Con's have a core of die-hard supporter - approx 33% in the polls - centred in Alberta, that will vote Con pretty much no matter what, they are also the source of finances and manpower in elections. To get a majority they need merely attract one or more well identified groups to vote Con. These do not have to be core-supporters, but merely vote for them. Hence the very narrowly defined, high profile, emotionally based policies like 'tough on crime'. If one were to look at the Harper 'tough on Crime policy' rationally and logically, which people have, it simply doesn't work. It didn't work for G.W. Bush's America and it won't work for Canada, the reason it's simply is not the right (morally right that is) way to go about it.

If one looks at the 'though on Crime' legislation Harper has introduced it is a miss-mash of one-off's of a very narrow, to say the least, applicability, so as to represent a superficial revision, but are high profile, very emotionally charged and easy to expound in a short 'sound-bit' - something like reducing the GST- pretty much useless as to its effect, and in fact harmful to Canada's finances, but very 'sound-bitable'.

As a result with Harper and the Con's we have a hodge-podge of policies, right wing and to the extreme that are designed to satisfy small groups of people on the far right wing of Canadian society. There is no underlying principle that unifies this country, in fact it tends to polarize and cause factional differences that fracture Canada's social fabric. This is in line with Harper's long-time goal of tearing Canada, as a nation, asunder.

So the Liberals with a set of unifying underlying principles designed with the benefit of all Canadians at it's heart, is the way to go. Ideology, especially if it is right wing or left wing leads to the type of government we see with Harper and the Con's, perhaps some other small sector(s) benefiting.

Jack Layton's dream is to supplant the Liberals and so is not likely to support them.

That leaves three possibilities if the 2/3 rds of Canadians opposed to Harper and the Con's are going to join forces and defeat him. Either Ignatieff and the Liberals adopt centre to left policies (similar to Pearson) and attract the vote, the Liberals and the NDP for a formal co-alition or Layton steps down and a more pragmatic person steps into the position of NDP leader.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is Rare Indeed, Thank God !

Posted: 4/11/2010 1:07:33 PM The Globe and Mail
Criminal allegations hang over Ottawa as Guergis turfed from Tory caucus, Daniel Leblanc and Bill Curry
Apr. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/criminal-allegations-
hang-over-ottawa-as-guergis-turfed-from-tory-caucus/article1529910/ Tab 67

The Stephen Harper and the Con's spent countless millions (countless only because of the secrecy surrounding everything Harper does) tax payers money, in a huge publicity campaign that tried to assocaite the Stimulus spending with the Con Party. They even used those prop cheques. And, there were insinuations that those that supported the Con's might benefit more than those that didn't, not the least of which were reports by Kennedy of the Liberals that the Stimulus Finds were being 'spread' around with a significant and distinct bias to Con ridings.

It is easy to see that this might create an atmosphere in which someone, who has connections to the Con Party, especially strong ones to the highest echelons of power, intimate that they had an open door to the PM's office and it be believed by the person on the other end.

It is easy to see that the actions of Harper and the Con's make it easier to believe, especially by someone who deals in such fashion and is eager to believe such things.

This is not to suggest that they actually have any such connections and only time will tell on that score - Harper's extreme and swift actions against Guergis raise serious concerns.

"And it is a rare occasion in which a Prime Minister refuses to reveal why a cabinet member is leaving."

Traditionally this statement has been true. However, Harper and his Con's have employed a very deliberate and concerted effort right from the start to hide everything that goes on. Everyone knows that with Harper there has bee a total lack of transparency.

Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.

Also, why is that no matter what happens Harper gives some excuse for not letting the people of Canada know what is really going on. Despite that all Canadians, to a man, women and child, are surely outraged, totally lacking in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.

As I said last time:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures

Submitted: 7:58am, PDT, 10 Apr.'10 CBC News

Guergis faces RCMP probe, Minister resigns from cabinet, saying past 9 months a 'very difficult time', April 9, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/09/guergis-leaving-cabinet.html Tab 319

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark', sorry I meant 'Canada'.

Anyone think it a bit strange that Helena Guergis 'resigns' from her position as Minister but is booted out of Caucus. If she in fact resigned, as opposed to being fired, you would expect that she would offer to sit outside the Con Caucus while she is investigated. She didn't, apparently, Harper booted her out. There is a deliberate symbolism here.

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' Sorry I meant to say, it is obvious, given Stephen Harper's extreme actions and his style of rule, that there is much more going on than what has been reported in the newspapers.

Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.

Also, why is that no matter what happens Harper gives some excuse for not letting the people of Canada know what is really going on. Despite that all Canadians, to a man, women and child, are surely outraged, totally lacking in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.

Perhaps Harper learned of actual problems in the PMO. Either Harper called in the RCMP in order to give himself an excuse to not reveal any details of the factors he considered in giving Guergis the boot. Or, there is some real issues at play here that warrant police investigation. Given Guergis's position as a Minister and Jaffer's long time and very strong connection to top level Con's, and given Harper's extreme actions and secrecy, is it that far fetched to suggest it goes right up to the top.

***Submitted: 8:19am, 10 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Helena Guergis resigns, now faces RCMP, Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau, Apr 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/793275--helena-guergis-resigns-now-faces-rcmp-probe?bn=1#article

- There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures

Sorry, I meant to say, it is obvious, given Stephen Harper's extreme actions and his style of rule, that there is much more going on than what has been reported in the newspapers.

Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.

Why is Harper always has an excuse for not letting Canadians know what is really going on. Despite all Canadians' outrage, total lack in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.

Is it that far fetched to suggest the rot goes right up to the top.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- in Reality, Harper and the Con's want to break up Confederation

Posted: 4/9/2010 10:33:52 AM Globe and Mail
Norman Spector, Duceppe may find a changed Canada, 9 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/duceppe-may-find-a-changed-canada/article1528358/ Tab 8

"With the party’s avowed objective of preventing the formation of a majority government of whatever stripe – thereby demonstrating to Canadians that their country is ungovernable"

Norman, if I recall Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc were quite willing to support the co-alition between the Liberal and the NDP. It was Harper who vowed not to allow the Bloc from so doing.

In actuality, Stephen Harper has spent much of his pubic life dedicated to tearing our great nation asunder and has been working towards that end since coming into power. Harper and the Con's have gone to extremes (not surprising for extremists) to make Parliament dysfunctional and then using it as an excuse for marginalizing it and as you so eloquently have put it " thereby demonstrating to Canadians that their country is ungovernable".

It is not surprising that a quarter of Albertans would be happy to see Quebec leave Canada. I am sure there is a quarter that would like to see Alberta leave, including dismantling federalism to achieve this end. Equalization certainly has a lot to do with it. They are enraged that royalties and taxes flow to the Federal government to be paid out in national programs (like health care) and equalization payment not just to Quebec but all the Provinces that may receive them. It would be interesting to see what part of these are amongst the die-hard supporters of Harper and the Con's.

I agree that probably "Most Canadians would agree with Lucien Bouchard that sovereignty will not happen during their lifetimes". Duceppe knows this. Duceppe has made it clear that he and the Bloc are there to get the best deal for Quebec. This, of course, can only happen if Quebec is part of Canada.

In reality, Duceppe and the Bloc want to stay in Confederation and are open up front and transparent about it.

And, in Reality, Harper and the Con's want to break up Confederation and are secretive, closed, obstructive about it.

Who do Canadians have more respect for.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper wanted to play soldier right from the start

Submitted in two parts: 9:26am & 9:42am, PDT, 8 Apr.'10, The Toronto Star

Travers: Tories pay price for silence on detaineesComment on this story, Apr 8 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/791827--travers-tories-pay-price-for-silence-on-detainees?bn=1 tab 4

Travers is right (morally that is) of course.

However, there are a few things that he has missed the mark by a bit.

"Conservatives were told last summer that Afghanistan’s notorious NDS security directorate was too secretive and abusive to be trusted with prisoners."

It is highly unlikely that this memo came into existence at the same time that the problem with the NDS arose. This secrecy with the NDS was there all the time. By its very nature it had to be known to anyone having any dealings with them. Further, given the extent that this issue was being pursued by the Opposition in Parliament in 2006 and onwards, it is highly unlikely that the NDS secrecy was unknown to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor and other Con's.

One question that arises is to what extent, if any, Harper and the Con's were complicit in this. After all, extreme secrecy is a hallmark of Harper and his Con's and it would be a fascinating twist on the 'turning a blind eye' scenario. In International law 'turning a blind eye' is no excuse. If the actions are covert, the government may need not have to 'turn a blind eye'. A neat trick would be to let it be known the NDS do things secretly thereby giving an 'out'. Given the very close dealings of Harper and his Con's with the Afghan authorities, including the NDS, is this really that far fetched a concept.

"An open administration, one willing to admit mistakes were made under a flawed system inherited from Liberals, would now be safely in the clear."

This gives the impression that Harper and the Con's merely continued what the Liberal started.

If I recall, one of the first things Harper did when he got in office was to change the roll of Canadians in Afghanistan from peace keepers and society reconstruction was all out active combat. This is obviously a very important distinction, especially when looking at the issue of prisoner transfers.

It appears Harper wanted to play soldier (it's his nature) in Afghanistan and if these things had come to light in 2006 and onwards, it would have seriously jeopardized his ability to do so in Afghanistan - imagine the reaction if Harper had let it be known. So instead he and the other Con's engaged in a course of action whereby instead of given, honest and full answer, they simply responded to every serious inquiry with abuse.

There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.

However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- There Is A Party More Extremist, Ideological than Harper and the Con's? Where?

Submitted: 8:01am, PDT CTV News
Canadians not thrilled with Tories or Liberals: poll, The Canadian Press, Apr. 7, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100407/tories_liberals_100407/20100407?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection

Actually there is something interesting in this Poll.

32% support the Cons (to refer to them as the 'Tories' somehow identifies them with the PC party. These parties are as different as black and white, well, black and blue anyway). This, of course, is no surprise and is statistically in line with my long touted 33% rule - i.e 33% are die-hard Con supporters who will support Stephen Harper and the Con's financially, man-power-wise and voting, just about no matter what.

What is interesting is that 25% picked Harper and the Con's as the party which holds values closest to their own. Could it be that there is a rift appearing in the ranks of the Con supporters. Presumably the extreme-extreme-right-wing is dissatisfied with the direction the extreme-right-wing Harper gang is going. This Poll would suggest that this faction represents about 8 % points of the 33 % points. When you consider the rise of the Wildrose Party in Alberta, perhaps we will be seeing a new ultra-extreme right wing emerging nationally.

Or, perhaps Stephen Harper and his gang will return to his extremist, ideologically based roots. This may explain to very extreme right wing and regressive international policy on health of women excluding family planning reversing Canada's 25 year old position and flying in the face of reason and other G8 members.

By the way the Wildrose Party merged with the Alberta Alliance Party to form the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta.

Apparently, some of their basic tenets are:

"Reducing by constitutional means the enormous net outflow of wealth from Albertans to the federal government"
"Ensuring that provincial decisions better reflect the mainstream values and priorities of most Albertans"
"Ensuring that the party's Leader and MLAs honour their election promises and commitments"

(see Wikipedia)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the NDS Kindred Spirits, What's This World Coming to !

Submitted: 7:24am, PDT, 7 Apr.'10 CBC News
Tories alerted to Afghan secret police legal 'risk', Document warned government about directorate's scope for 'improper methods', Gil Shochat, CBC News, April 6, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/06/afghan-detainee-transfers.html Tab 77

"The document warns that the directorate, or NDS, is so secretive, even Canada and its allies are in the dark about much of what it does."

Wow, if you replace 'NDS' with 'Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the Con's' and ' Canada and its allies' with just 'Canadians' what do you get - the Harper administration to a 'T'.

Seems that the NDS and Harper and the Con's are kindred spirits. This memo makes it clear that Harper, MacKay and the Con's had to be aware of this problem and for quite some time since it is not likely the memo materialized the same day a problem arose. Not only did they not do any thing about it, but they covered it up, touted the new agreement as the solution to the abuse of the Afghan Detainee transferees and kept the problem secret from Parliament and the Canadian people. One can only wonder why Harper and MacKay would take such a course. Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye, at least yet anyway.

Wouldn't it be funny if after putting the highly touted new agreement on detainee transfers in place Harper, MacKay or whomever, sent out the signal that the NDS simply not follow it and keep everyone in the dark. That way Harper wouldn't have to turn a blind eye and if the proverbial [censored] hit the fan, Harper would simply blame them. No, that couldn't be possible, could it. After all, what evidence might there be.

Well for one thing, this memo makes it clear that Harper, MacKay and the Con's had to have been aware of this problem and they must have been aware of it for quite some time since it is not likely the memo materialized the same day a problem arose. Further, not only did they not do any thing about it, which given all the circumstances they certainly were in a position to so do, but they covered it up, touted the new agreement as the solution to the abuse of the Afghan Detainee transferees and kept the problem secret from Parliament and the Canadian people.

So doing, they put our true men and women in uniform in harm's way by exposing them to possible allegations of war crimes and other violations of not only International laws but Canadian laws as well which attract criminal prosecution at the International Criminal Courts at the Hague.

There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of such prosecution. However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.

And that is what the demand of the Afghan Detainee documents, in toto and un-redacted, is really all about - removing the secrecy, shining the light of truth into this dark corner of the Harper administration and holding those truly responsible accountable.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The Iacobucci Report Redacted for Security Reasons - Harper's Security

Posted: 7:00am, PDT, 6 Apr.'10 The Ottawa Citizen
Iacobucci appointment another document delay tactic
By Gar Pardy, Citizen Special April 6, 2010 7:55 AM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Iacobucci+appointment+another+document+delay+tactic/2767195/story.html Tab 1

Unless it is a full public Judicial Inquiry, I can't see Mr. Iacobucci coming up with any result that won't put him squarely in the middle of a power struggle between Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and Parliament.

If Mr. Iacobucci recommends releasing documents that are incriminating to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn, and/or other Con's, would Harper release them - not likely. Then what does Mr. Iacobucci do, presumably he would be bound by, in the least, solicitor-client confidentiality. How would the public view this, assuming we ever found out.

Would Mr.Iacobucci thus become complicit in a cover-up and equally important, would the Canadian people feel that he is complicit. Would he have a duty to the Canadian people to make his finding known anyway because of their public importance. Given Harper and the Con's vicious attacks on anyone that dares to oppose them, how would Harper, MacKay and the other Con's react.

In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)

If such documents exist, would Harper let Mr. Iacobucci see them. If so, would he let him report on them. If so, would Harper release this part of the report to the public. If the answer is 'no' to any of these questions, and I think the likelihood of this is very high given it's Harper, all we would get is Mr. Iacobucci making not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran and a redacted report (assuming it is released at all).

Does that mean Attaran is lying? the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them? And, how does Parliament, and ultimately the Canadian people, find out.

All these possibilities are, to me, quite plausible and quite foreseeable.

I have the greatest respect for justice Frank Iacobucci and anyone who has or is sitting on the bench of the SCC.

However, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Mr. Iacobucci would agree to getting dragged into this sordid affair in this fashion.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, Cannon, Day, Toews, and all you Con ideologues, here's a heads up

No Posting to article allowed by CTV: 5 Apr.'10 CTV News
Clinton criticism 'tempest in a teapot,' Cannon says, CTV.ca News Staff, Apr. 4 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100404/cannon_QP_100404/20100404?hub=QPeriod

"Mrs. Clinton expressed not her government's position; she expressed her personal point of view … her personal opinion," Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told CTV's Question Period.

Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon, Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, and all you Con ideologues, here's a heads up. George W Bush's extreme right wing, ideology based Republicans lost the last election. Rationality and tolerance have been restored to the American government. The middle of the road, tolerant, rationally based Democrats won. That's right Obama is actually tolerant and basis their policies on the realities and actual needs.

To suggest that Hillary Clinton, a seasoned politician, who has spent that last year traveling around the world talking to and negotiating with all forms of governments regarding undoing the damage caused by the Bush administration and promoting co-operation, peace, friendly relations and an America that contributes to the well being of other countries as opposed to the in-your-face, belligerent, self interest, of neo-Con's, in a formal visit to Canada and a planned public interview aimed at addressing the Canadian public directly, would voice her own opinion on such an important issue is an obviously deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct the real motivation behind the Harper polices on International maternal health.

"This is a discussion that is ongoing. There are other options that are out there [and] they'll be looked at." Cannon.

You-betcha other options will be looked at.

And Cannon, if you want to get some idea of what these other options are, how about reviewing Canada's polices for the last 25 years. Ignatieff and the other opposition parties' statements is must reading. And, if you intent to persist in disenfranchising 2/3rds of the Canadian people on this issue and impose the views of a small group of right wing extremists, try reading some of the policy position of the other G8 countries.

Or, to keep in short and simple for you, Harper and all the Con's, Hillary pretty much has summed them up in her formal statement to the Canadian people.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, MacKay and the Con's playing soldier - Continued

Submitted: 9:15am, 4 Apr.'10 CBC News
Afghan security blocked Canadian detainee access, CBC News, 1 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/01/afghanistan-nds-detainees-.html#socialcomments-submitTab 53

fcatherine wrote:Posted 2010/04/03:

"wlloydm: My fellow poster , if you have to ask why the Prime Minister of Canada will not , cannot, release Canada's National Top State Secrets, you obviously have no clue that the Constitution of Canada of 1867, amendments of 1982, Constitutional Convention, stipulates the Prime Minister of Canada Head of Government, Chairman of the Executive (Cabinet), has the full responsibility for the Security of Canada . . ."

Perhaps fcatherine you could give an actual citation for what you allege.

In fact a search on the word "security" in the Constitution Act, 1867" gives no results. A search of the Constitution Act, 1982, gives one result, s.7, Charter, of course.

The fact of the matter is that Harper and the other Con's are in the position of PM, Cabinet and running this country because they were elected as MP's, the same as all the other PM's. And therefor, inherently no more trustworthy, no to suggest Harper is trustworthy at all, than any other Parliamentarian. If you are referring to the "Oath of Office" clearly any other MP could take a solemn oath to uphold the security of Canada as say has the leader of the Official Opposition.

There is not doubt whatsoever that Parliament is Paramount.

Clearly, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and/or other Con's in the government are refusing to disclose the documents on the Afghan Detainee transfers to save their own skins, political and otherwise.

What is worse, Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, put our good men and women in uniform in potential harms way so they could, in a word, 'play soldier'. These are the results of Harper's deliberate policy of vicious personal attacks on all those that tried to get at the truth. Now 'the chickens are coming home to roost'.

Again, Harper and the Con's are doing everything to try to prevent the light of openness and truth from being shone on these dark areas. The worst, is Harper trying to shirk responsibility by suggesting that it is our troops that will have to answer. In reality there is little doubt that it is Harper and the Con's that will be help accountable.

That fellow posters is what this is really all about.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- With Harper 'the devil is in the details'

submitted: 8:32am, PDT, 2 Apr.'10 CBC NEWS
More MPs proposed for B.C., Alta., Ont., April 1, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/01/seat-distribution-house-commons.html#socialcomments

It may make sense to increase the number of seats in BC, Alberta and Ontario and it may be that these numbers also make sense.

However, as they say 'the devil is in the details'.

Everyone knows that Stephen Harper and the Con's do everything for political reasons, I challenge anyone to point out any non-trivial action taken by the Harper government that was intended for the benefit of all Canadians as a whole. Why would this be any different, and likely it's not any different.

Leaving out Quebec is something that must be given very careful consideration and Harper ought to have opened the issue up for public comment and perhaps an ad hoc Committee, before presenting the Bill. The fact that he didn't is, in itself, cause to be suspicious on his motives. You can be sure that the Con's have done internal polls to see how it impacts on various segments of the population, especially their die-hard supporters centred in Alberta and what they feel is their increasing support ion Ontario and BC. As pointed out the Con's may very well feel Quebec is pretty much a write-off as far as increasing seats.

The reason for leaving Quebec out "the Quebeque, if they did what they, achieved their goal which is to separate, Quebec would have zero seats in the House of Commons", Steven Fletcher, Minister of State for Democratic Reform, (CBC, Power & Politics, 1 Apr.'10).

You can be sure that this was not a miss-speaking, but a very carefully crafted sound bite designed to appeal for support on an emotions basis, as opposed to a rational, logical one, especially to the Con core supporters, for who there is a growing resentment towards what they perceive as Quebec's special treatment. In fact, the Harper strategy is to dis-enfranchise the people in Quebec that don't support them. We saw this when Harper prorogued Parliament in Dec.'08 to avoid losing power.

In fact, if we look at it the other way around.

Perhaps someone might identify those regions of Canada where the Con's have the greatest potential of increasing the number of seats towards a majority, relatively speaking - i.e. obtain a high % of new seats compared to other parties. If it weren't Alberta, BC and Ontario I would be very surprised. So, the question is just how would these additional seats be distributed, not just in a general fashion but actual boundary lines.

For example, it is obvious that the GTA would get several additional seats. But, the 905 region supported the Harris government and were the main reason he was elected (Harris was the conservative government in Ontario during the mid '90's to early 2000's which devastated Ontario with there extreme right wing ideologically based across the board spending cuts - oh, and did I mention, Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clament were Ministers in this government, as well as many top Con advisors, assistants, etc., etc., etc.).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- 'Harper releases Documents' - Ha Ha, Ha, April Fools!

Submitted: 7:05am, PDT, 2 Apr.'10 CBC News

More Afghan detainee documents released, April 1, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/01/afghan-documents.html Tab 45

Stephen Harper releasing these papers these is again 'too-clever-by-half'.

As it turns out, apparently these documents, as redacted, like last time, have already been released.

Anyone wonder about irrationality of Harper saying that all the documents, un-redacted, can not be released to Parliament because of security considerations. Vis.: the only reason Harper, MacKay and other Con's have access to the un-redacted papers, and in toto, is because they are Members of Parliament. Why is it that Harper and the Con's are the only people elected to Parliament that can be trusted to keep Canada's security sensitive information secret and no one else in Parliament can.

Oh, yah, I forgot, because if the truth be know, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and/or other Con's in the government may be put into a very embarrassing position and required to answer some very tough questions the answers to which may very well put their actions into question, their hold on power into jeopardy or worse, cause investigations by the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

And, if the truth be know, I think that every Canadian to a man, woman and child would join ranks and stand strongly behind our troops and demand those that are really to blame take responsibility. It is shameful and outrageous for Harper to suggest that revealing the documents is somehow against our troops. This is simply trying to use our men and women in uniform as a shield to duck taking responsibility. Anybody notice how with Harper and the Con's it is always someone else that is to blame, Harper never takes the high road and take responsibility.

"'The practice of this House, and in other jurisdictions, has always been to acknowledge that some information ought not to be disclosed for considerations of public policy or national security,' Nicholson said in the House of Commons."
(CBC 1 Apr.'10)

Wrong answer, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

The practice in free, open and democratic societies is to bring wrong doing to light and hold those responsible accountable.

This is one of the fundamental duties the people entrust to their Parliament (or, other body elected by the people to represent them in governing the country).

To oppose Parliament is to oppose the Will of the people, to favour a small group to the exclusion of the majority, to declare yourself as the paramount power with no accountability to the people, in other words a de facto dictatorship.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, MacKay and the Con's playing soldier

Submitted: 9:36am & 9:53am, PDT, 1 Apr.'10 CBC News
Re-submitted: 12:51pm & 3:33pm, PDT, 1 Apr.'10
Afghan security blocked Canadian detainee access, CBC News, 1 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/01/afghanistan-nds-detainees-.html#socialcomments-submitTab 17

If I recall, and perhaps the media can throw a light on this, apparently, forgotten aspect of the early Harper days.

One of the first things Stephen Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Hawn and the rest of the Cons did when they took over in Jan.'06 was to crank up Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to that of active combat. This, of course, corresponds to the belligerent, 'Hawkish' nature of Harper and the Con's and was in line with GW Bush and the extreme conservative movement in the US to whose tune Harper marches, in fact, if the truth be know, it may very well have been Harper's 'marching orders'. But more than this, they wanted to 'associate themselves' with the military (MacKay) and play soldier (MacKay's little buck private soldiering video, shown on CBC I think it was, is quite revealing).

When the Opposition brought up the issue of possible torture of Afghan Detainee in Parliament, instead of serious answers to serious questions they were viciously attacked and on a very personal level. There was no serious reply by Harper, O'Connor, MacKay, don't forget John Baird.

The reasons Harper is fighting release of these documents and un-redacted , is becoming manifestly clear. As Cory Anderson testified "detainee issue was a potential 'mission-killer' for Canada's efforts in Afghanistan". Harper and the Con's covered this issue up at the time in the manner discussed above.

It has always been clear that Harper, MacKay, O'Connon had to of know about abuse of Afghan detainees transferred. The problem is, their covering it up allowed for the possible violations of International Laws involving war crimes during active combat. To maintain their policy of active combat in Afghanistan they put our brave men and women in uniform in potential harms way, not from the Taliban, but potential legal repercussions.

However, if the truth be know, I think that every Canadian to a man, woman and child would join ranks and stand strongly behind our troops and demand those that are really to blame take responsibility. It is shameful and outrageous for Harper to suggest that revealing the documents is somehow against our troops. This is simply trying to duck taking responsibility.

Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn you wanted to play soldier, so act like one. Abide by the soldier's Code of Honour, stand up take responsibility and accept the necessary consequences of your actions. Don't try to use our good men and women in uniform, or civil servants, as a shield.

***
Submitted: 9:53am, PDT, 1 Apr.'10
continued . . .

"'The practice of this House, and in other jurisdictions, has always been to acknowledge that some information ought not to be disclosed for considerations of public policy or national security,' Nicholson said in the House of Commons."

Wrong, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

The practice in free, open and democratic societies is to bring wrong doing to light and hold those responsible accountable.

This is one of the fundamental duties the people entrust to their Parliament (or, other body elected by the people to represent them in governing the country).

To oppose Parliament is to oppose the Will of the people, to favour a small group to the exclusion of the majority, to declare yourself as the paramount power with no accountability to the people, in other words a de facto dictatorship.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is No Democrat

Submitted: 11:18, PDT, 31 Mar.'10 CBC News
Clinton backs contraception for maternal health, March 31, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/30/clinton-contraception.html

Wow, someone who is making a statement about family planning based on experience and rationality. As opposed to Stephen Harper and the Con's ideological 'we are going to impose our narrow, extreme right wing principles not just on Canada but the world'. But then, Hillary Clinton is not a extreme right wing Republican hanging desperately onto the regressive policies of GW Bush.

There are two things that should be noted about Clinton;'s statements:
"I have worked in this area for many years".

This is indicative of pragmatically based policies, designed to address a very series problem as opposed to inflict an ideology on people who desperately need help and so are vulnerable to such ideological assaults. The Harper approach is reminiscent of Soviet Union era approach to International affairs. It also is a very well developed strategy (Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine") of right wing conservative extremism being able to capitalize on disasters.

"I do not think government should be involved in these decisions . . . it is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion or any other basis."

Right on (morally, that is) Hillary.

This, of course, is the position of many of the G8 governments and corresponds to my Blog "Mr. Harper - Canada is No Iran", 21 February, 2010:

"Canada is a secular society. When I ran as the Liberal candidate in '04 I made it clear that for me abortion is a matter of personal conscience. This is, of course, based, in part, on my strong belief in the necessity of separation of State and Church, basing Government polices on the realities and not ideology, and probably most important, acknowledging that there may be many, many people in Canada, and around the world, that simply don't subscribe to one particular system of religious beliefs - i.e. Canada is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about)."

We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.

If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. It is my understanding that that is the point that Ignatieff was making; that is the point that the G8 countries are making; and, this is the point that the UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalization of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".

(see: Old Comments: from Dec.'07 to Feb.'10 - link at Top-Right margin)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper - I want my Canada back

Posted: 3/30/2010 10:34:18 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories swat away foreign-policy flak, The Canadian Press, Mar. 29, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-swat-away-foreign-policy-flak/article1516045/

Jason Kenny statement 'Canada's foreign policy is on the right track' would be more accurately described as 'extreme right wing ideological' track.

When Kenny says "I think we should have a principled approach everywhere" he is referring to the extreme right wing ideologically based conservative principles, the same ones that the conservative movement champion by the Republican in the US.

Fowler is right (morally) when he says that Stephen Harper and the Con's are "selling out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice.” Canada's foreign policies since Harper and the Con's took power have and are taking a extreme right turn.

In fact it applies to domestic policies as well and is not just restricted to trying to get the ethnic vote. As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” ('professor here be just about any rationally and honestly motivated person).

Canada is a middle of the road, tolerant, democratic society focused on helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Africa needs help. The Middle East need tolerance. Canada was there and Fowler was at the vanguard. In the Harper Regime those are by-gone days.

It is understandable that Fowler might lament the once greatness that was Canada's. So do a lot of Canadians, myself included.

In the immortalized words of Ken Dryden in his closing remark in the Liberal Leadership race "I want my Canada back"!

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's Policies May Unit Canadians - to give the Con's the Boot

posted: 6:40am,PDT, 30 Mar.'10 Metro News Edmonton
Tories seeking Grit knockout blow, Lawrence Martin, 30 March 2010
http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/comment/article/490721--tories-seeking-grit-knockout-blow

There is no secret to Stephen Harper and the Con's raising money. Their supporters contribute. There is also no secret to Harper and the Con's die-hard support of approx 33%. Their supporters are united behind their party.

Eliminating the 'the per-vote subsidy' may hurt and the Liberal Party may have to dig in and bite the bullet, there is little doubt about that.

However, it may just be the wake-up call for the 67% that don't want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours and motivate them to action, both through funding and support.

It may very well be the catalyst that causes the middle and left to set aside their polarizing differences and rally under one banner, which would in all likelihood be the Liberals. Last time the co-alition agreement between the Liberals and NDP pre-empted this effect and it may very well have been that the middle and left would have joined together in a common cause despite what their Parties and leaders were doing.

Although the general 'wisdom' on this is that the Governor General would agree to call an election. It is not automatic that she would not go to Parliament to ask it to form another government first, especially if this coalescing has progressed sufficiently. On the other hand, even if she (or he, depending) did call an election. Harper and the Con's may learn first hand that their extremism has gone too far.

The path to saving this great nation of our from the extreme right wing ideologies and nation dismantling of Harper and the Con's may very well be painful and may very well require a fight. It may very well take an 'Archangel'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Give Harper the Boot - What Better Way to Promote Canada's Future - I Wonder If Anyone Suggested that At the Thinkers Conference

Posted in 2 parts: 3/29/2010 1:12:42 PM & 3/29/2010 1:52:44 PM
The Globe and Mail
What political courage is for, Brian Topp, March 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/what-political-courage-is-for/article1515257/ Tab 2

Slamming the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives then Stephen Harper and his Con's while at the same time suggesting that Tommy Douglas was responsible for everything that is good on our society today - how do you know Brian Topp is an NDP 'poobah' albiet not the grand, yet anyway.

The fact of the matter is that Tommy Douglas did not bring in Health Care. The Liberals did. It may has been supported by Douglas and his party at the time. But that is the point, they supported it they did not bring it in. This is a very important distinction, one that every NDPer today must consider. The NDP is an ideologically based party. As such they cater to approximately 15% of the population. As an Ideological Party they will never run this country. Jack Layton has this grandiose pipe-dream that he will lead the NDP to supplanting the Liberals as the opposition and presumably the government. That's his problem.

However, Layton will never lead the NDP to side with the Liberals in the fashion that Tommy Douglas did. And this is no matter if it allows Harper and the Con's into government and run this country into ruin cutting these "sinews of Canada" and hamstringing our nation. The only alternative is for the Liberals to firmly take hold of the middle-left and offer those who would otherwise vote NDP a real opportunity to rid Canada of Harper and his Con's.

The first two thirds of what Topp has to say is pretty much incoherent, NDP rhetoric. However, at the end he makes a good point. To oust Harper and the Con's from power will only likely be done by a direct toe-to-toe, knock-em-down-drag-em-out confrontation. Not the least of which will be sustaining the viscous attacks emanating from the greatest propaganda machines put together by any Western Democracy in recent history. It will be that hard since Harper and the Con's have about 33% of die-hard supporters, sourced in Alberta with apparently limitless funds and total disregard for the good and future of Canada as a nation. This by itself in the current political polarization almost ensures Harper a minority government and if he can convert a few isolated groups her and there, possible majority.

That will take political courage. However, Topp is absolutely correct, the secret is "you have to want it", so badly you are willing to fight for it and not simply expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter - just ask Jean Chrétien.

[. . . Continued]

'Former prime minister Jean Chrétien was asked Saturday what he remembers as the best idea to emerge from that event.

"I had to make sure we won the election," he quipped.'

(Retirement a top concern at 'thinkers' conference, CBC News, March 27, 2010)

After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level, changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.

It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.

Telltales signs of this process are things like 'they are out-of-touch'; what they propose "does not resonate" with the people; they do not have a plan, strategy, policies; he/she is "not a leader".

If the Liberal Party is experiencing this phenomenon Michael Ignatieff has a huge advantage of not being part of this calcification, but representing new and fresh approach with a open slate, willing to learn.

Ignatieff's background is also ideal for this type of developmental process.

The question is, does he want it so bad he is willing to fight and do what it takes to win, as did Chretien, Trudeau and so may others before him.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, Too-Clever-By-Half

Submitted: 7:55am, PST, 26 Mar.'10 CBC News
Canadian soldier interviewed Afghan forces detainee, James Cudmore, CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/26/afghan-detainee-documents.html Tab 22

Stephen Harper releasing these papers these is 'too-few-by-half'.

As it turns out, apparently these documents, as redacted, had been submitted to the Military Complaints Commission and are set to become public in the next month or two.

Anyone wonder about irrationality of Harper saying that all the documents, un-redacted, can not be released to Parliament because of security considerations. Vis.: the only reason Harper, MacKay and other Con's have access to the un-redacted papers, and in toto, is because they are Members of Parliament. Why is it that Harper and the Con's are the only people elected to Parliament that can be trusted to keep Canada's security sensitive information secret and no one else in Parliament can.

Oh, yah, I forgot, because if the truth be know, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and/or other Con's in the government may be put into a very embarrassing position and required to answer some very tough questions the answers to which may very well put their actions into question, their hold on power into jeopardy or worse, cause investigations by the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

With these documents coming to light, and there will be more (as I mentioned before it is something like a big hunk of [censored] thrown against a wall, first a little flick hits, then another then a little bigger and in more rapid success until 'whap'), anyone wonder why a full and open Judicial Inquiry is not being called.

Oh yah, I forgot, . . . (please see above)

Stephen Harper and the Con's, it time to withdraw to previously determined position. Retreat back to whence you came. Haven't you done enough damage to Canada and our reputation in the world. Why does Canada have to suffer this simply for putting you into power.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: One-out-of-Three, What More Do You Want

Posted 8:08am,PST, 25 Mar.'10 CBC News

Tories remain favourites in new poll, CBC News 25 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/24/ekos-poll-mar25.html#socialcomments Tab 81

This Poll is not surprising since it just illustrates Canada is being lead by a small segment if the population, approximately 33% die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper and the Con's. They are based in Alberta and represent the extreme right wing of our society. These core supporters also fund the Con party not just in ridings local to Calgary or Edmonton but all over Canada.

The surprising thing is that the other 67% let them.

The longer Harper and the Con' are in power the more they will be able to drag use, evidently un-screaming, more and more to the right with their right wing, hyper-partizan appointments and implementation of policies. The recent one on International assistance to women and family planning is a prime example of how they making an extreme right turn from Canada's policies of 25 years.

Ignatieff's Thinkers Conference may very well develop important new directions for Canada, and the possibilities are exciting. But, that is for the long term (relatively speaking). By the time a clear condensed policy is finalized it will be two years. In two years the political landscape of Canada will have be pulled so far to the right that these policies will be much harder to bring to the people than now.

Ignatieff and the Liberals should be looking to bring in policies now that will allow the centre and left to unite under one banner to defeat the Con's.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog

- Harper Carries The Torch of Extreme-Conservatism Handed-Off From George W. Bush

Posted: 9:37am, PST, 24 Mar.'10 CBC News
Liberals defeat own family planning motion, CBC News, 24 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/23/politics-liberals-contraception-g8-motion.html Tab 234

Bob Rae is absolutely right (morally) when he states that Canadian policies must be based on "scientific evidence" and not "failed right-wing ideologies".

The purpose of our government is to help those that need help and to protect those that need protecting. It is not the government's purpose to promote an ideology, 'spread the faith' that was so prevent centuries ago before the age of enlightenment.

Stephen Harper and the Con's ignore sound rationality, they use no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” ('professor here be just about any rationally and honestly motivated person). Harper and the Con's are dragging Canada back into a dark age of irrationality and fear. In a complex modern, diverse, tolerant Western democracy with a first world economy like Canada we cannot afford to revert to a medieval mindset. This is something I feel strongly about an have been shouting out for quite a while now. If ever there were a wedge issue and one that separates Harper, The Con's and their die-hard supporters from the vast majority of Canadians it is this one.

Bob Rae is also right (morally) to draw our attention, and in as dramatic a fashion as it takes, to the very strong ideological connection between Harper and the Con's and the extreme, right wing ideology of George W. Bush and the Republicans. Harper's mentors lie in the US. It is as if he and the Con's have picked up the torch of ultra-conservatism from Bush's hand-off. Everyone in Canada ought to be keenly aware of this.

Michael Ignatieff is right (morally) in pointing out that Harper policy is a sharp right turn in Canada's position for the last 25 years. Given that Harper's government is a minority and its position on this issue is supporter by a small minority of people Harper has no moral right to take such a position. Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Harper's position is opposed to other G8 members (which really shouldn't be a surprise).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- ' Stimulus Had Little Impact' - Thanks, Harper and all You Con's

Posted: 3/23/2010 2:14:18 PM The Globe and Mail

Stimulus had little impact: Fraser Institute, The Canadian Press, Mar. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/stimulus-had-little-impact-fraser-institute/article1509041/ Tab 15

So, we have this huge deficit that our children and our children's children will be saddled with for years to come and precious little to show for it. Thanks, Stephen Harper. Thanks, all you Con's.

All those billion should have had an effect by now. After all that was the purpose. Ignatieff and the Liberals spent considerable time criticizing Harper and the Con's for taking so long and for the types of spending, this simply shows why. The real problem is how Harper and the Con's have been implementing the stimulus package. Clearly their only concern has been to favouring Con supporters at the expense of everyone else in Canada and taking credit for it as if it were their own funds.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Time for Canada to Clean Up Our Act - Boot Harper Out

Posted: 3/21/2010 12:14:10 PM The Globe and Mail

How the Conservatives dodged the climate bullet, Gloria Galloway, 21 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-the-conservatives-dodged-the-climate-bullet/article1506329/ Tab 27

It is interesting that Stephen Harper and the Con's would tout that science would somehow find a solution (vis. Carbon sequestration) to global warming and cut funding to research and development. Of course, this 'deus ex machina' devise was a favourite of G.W. Bush and the US conservative movement to slough off criticism for not doing anything about Global Warming.

If there is more a a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.

The stimulus package was a prime opportunity to do this but Harper and the Con's have pretty much a write-off on this. They have been too busy trying to use our tax dollars to benefit their supporters and to identify the stimulus spending with the Con party, as opposed to being a seriously needed program funded by all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians.

It is very interesting that Manning would so openly suggest the need for cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. Perhaps the reporter should have asked him what he though of Dion's proposal, now that he is being so open.

Harper and the Con, of course, when cornered always try to deflect criticism. The standard is, as mentioned, that the Liberals failed to do much. This was, of course, before the Canadian people become so aware and conscious of the issue and urgency of Global Warming.

The Liberals of Jean Chrétien were the vanguards and were pushing against the great inertia that existed, in very large part due to all the Con's and those that have a vested interest in oil, especially the Tar Sands in Canada. (It is, when you think about it, outrageous that Harper and his Con supporters were the ones being obstructionist and causing Canada to drag its feet, then Harper turns around and blames the Liberals for not getting things done). This push to awareness was greatly helped by Al Gore. But even more so by the UN Conference. This was after Harper took over. Perhaps Chrétien and Martin might speak out about this.

The Con movement around the world are attacking the Conference, but not matter what it gave this issue the exposure it needed and made people understand its importance. Looking at microscopically and pointing to alleged short comings to suggest that in toto it was wrong is of course fallacious logic to the point of dishonestly.

The fact of the matter is we know that with Harper nothing is going to get done.

The Liberal are prepared to act and with the will of the vast majority of Canadians on side they will act.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper - Right to the Bitter End

submitted: 8:26am, PST, 20 Mar.'10 The Toronto Star
Travers: PM, rivals gamble in high stakes game, 20 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/782661--travers-pm-rivals-gamble-in-high-stakes-game#comments Tab 2

It seems Stephen Harper and the Con's are becoming un-nerved over the contempt of Parliament for not abiding by the House of Commons Order to release the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up - and rightfully so.

However, I don't think it is a question of a high stakes "game".

Harper and the Con's have no choice but to fight releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents to the bitter end. If the truth be know, it is likely, at the very least, Harper and the Con's regime is over.

Parliament has no choice but to assert its paramountcy to the bitter end. If it doesn't Harper's powers will be unfettered and Parliament marginalized.

Harper will use the 'populism' card as he did in Dec.'08 - he is Prime Minister at the will of the people and not the will of Parliament, comparing our elections to those of Presidential elections in the US. There is no comparison, of course, we vote our representatives and they in turn choose the PM. This makes our representatives paramount, otherwise we loose our representation and become disenfranchised - something like what happens in a dictatorship.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Un-nerved and Rightfully So

Submitted: 7:25am, PST, 19 Mar.'10 National Post

John Ivison: Stephen Harper's mojo is missing
Posted: March 18, 2010, 11:00 PM by NP Editor
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/18/john-ivison-stephen-harper-s-mojo-is-missing.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

It seems Stephen Harper and the Con's are becoming un-nerved over the contempt of Parliament for not abiding by the House of Commons Order to release the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up - and rightfully so.

After seeing the Budget it has become clear to all Canadians that Harper Proroguing Parliament was a blatant and outrageous abuse of the powers residing in the office of Prime Minister and done only to try to avoid having to take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up. Now Harper is trying to shirk blame off onto our men and women in uniform.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else. It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question.

Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.

Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper and the Con's in Denial - Again

Not posted - Comments were closed The Toronto Star

Travers: Harper uses troops as political shield,
Mar 18 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/781495--travers-harper-uses-troops-as-political-shield#comments

"Harper answered by again using soldiers as a shield. There's no evidence, he said for the umpteenth time, that Canadians did anything wrong."

The question is "Is there evidence that Harper, MacKay and the other Cons did anything wrong". That's why we need the Inquiry.

Travers is pointing out that Harper is trying to shift the focus of the blame from himself and his government to our men and women in uniform in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal. Not accepting responsibility when things go wrong is a very well used strategy of Harper and the Con's. Also, it is bizarre that Harper would make such great efforts to suppress the Afghan Detainee documents and information then say there is no evidence - Harper, Release the Documents then there will be evidence.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.

It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.

It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. (One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.)

Let have a full and open public Judicial Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up and see if there is any evidence if Stephen Harper and the Con government did anything wrong.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, Try Representing All Canadians for a Change

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:51:48 The Globe and Mail
Birth control won't be in G8 plan to protect mothers, Tories say, Campbell Clark, Mar. 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/birth-control-wont-be-in-g8-plan-to-protect-mothers-tories-say/article1502796/ Tab 24

It seems to me that Stephen Harper, Lawrence Campbell and the Con's position of removing any kind of family planning from Canada's initiatives at the G8 summit is not held by all the other 7 countries.

DFID (UK Department for International Development)

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/

DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.

Also,

Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "

Does maternal health=abortion debate?
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/does-maternal-healthabortion-debate.html

It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized.

The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Fight Harper with Truth Obtained through Rationality

Submitted: 9:28am, PST, CBC Nwes
Ignatieff defends cross-country tour, CBC News, 16 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/16/ignatieff-meeting-tour-316.html Tab 3

A new national poll

"Michael Ignatieff is seen by substantially more Canadians as smarter than Stephen Harper, but the Prime Minister's macho emotional image plays better with the electorate, says a new national poll exploring the role of emotion in politics.
. . .

But, paradoxically, they want a more chauvinistic – which is an emotional attribute – political culture, with courage heading the list of emotions they prefer most in their politicians, a view of politics dramatically supported by men over the age of 45, who Mr. Graves describes as having a stranglehold on the political agenda."
(G&M,"Exploring the politics of emotion" (I know, but it is important)

Perhaps Michael Ignatieff might want to rethink going on tour rather than fighting toe-to-toe in the House with Harper; 'opposing the budget but not forcing an election'; and, approaching policy formulation as an academic endeavour. These highlight his intellectual abilities but they don't 'take the bull by the horns'.

I think this poll shows that Ignatieff might rather consider using his abilities to rational though to take on Harper and his distortions, cover-ups, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination. The way to fight Harper and the Con's is with truth. The way to the truth is rationality. Ignatieff has the rationality but what people want in their political leader is the 'fight' using the truth, obtained through rationality.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper- Con'd Again

Submitted: 7:33am PST & 8:25am,PST, 13 Mar.'10 The Star
Travers: In Ottawa, even deciding what's secret is secret, Sat Mar 13 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/779406--travers-in-ottawa-even-deciding-what-s-secret-is-secret#article Tab1

I have the greatest respect for justice Frank Iacobucci and anyone who has or is sitting on the bench of the SCC.

However, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Mr. Iacobucci would agree to getting dragged into this sordid affair in this fashion.

Unless it is a full public Judicial Inquiry, I can't see him coming up with any result that won't put him squarely in the middle of a power struggle between Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and Parliament. Also, I don't recall hearing anything from him regarding this, not even a reporter saying they phoned his office but got not reply.

In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)

If such documents exist, would Harper let Mr. Iacobucci see them. If so, would he let him report on them. If so, would Harper release this part of the report to the public. If the answer is no to any of these questions, and I think the likelihood of this is very high given it's Harper, all we would get is Mr. Iacobucci making not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying? the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them? And, how does Parliament, and ultimately the Canadian people, find out.

First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.

We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.

In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.

If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is Dithering on Canada

Submitted: 8:10am, PST, 12 Mar.'10 CBC News
Dithering on deficits not an option: Harper, Fred Chartrand, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/11/throne-speech.html Tab 82

A recent Ekos poll found that those who felt the Budget left them better off tended to be Conservative supporters. Those who felt they would be worse off NDP supporters, people in BC and Ontario between the ages of 45 and 64 and University educated. The vast majority didn't think it would affect them. (CBC "Public indifferent on budget impact: poll")

Die-hard Con supporters would support anything that Harper and the Cons did and so that it is not surprising that they would say they felt they would be better off. The surprising thing is that is that it was only 12% of those aware of the budget. Die-hard supporters make up about 33% and this is normally reflected in any Polls and in fact explain the numbers in favour of Harper and the Cons. That only 12% like the Budget to me indicates it was one very bad, do nothing budget. Considering Harper's excuse for Proroguing Parliament was to re-calibrate and prepare the Budget one can only wonder what's going on. (oh, yah, duhhh, Afghan Detaineee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up).

Do nothing that is pro-active and positive, and reduce spending - sounds like when the president and board of directors of a company are unwinding the company.

Do you suppose that Harper is taking steps to dismantle Federalism? Just because Harper has dedicated his public life to tearing Canada asunder doesn't mean this budget goes towards actually carrying this out - well actually it very likely does.

Ignatieff is right (morally that is) the last few years have been a unique and important opportunity for the Canadian government to take action, be pro-active, on many fronts both inside Canada and Internationally. Harper has been and is dithering Federalism away, as planned.

Oh, sorry, Harper did crank up Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to active combat - and gave us the Detainee Transfer Scandal, and cover-up. He did reduce the GST by 2 %'s and gave us a systemic deficit of at least 12 billion. He did give us Canada's Action Plan - oh, my mistake, he gave the Con's and the Con supporters Canada's Action Plan. Harper did take credit for Canada's banking system, despite having nothing to do with it. Harper did suggest that he single handedly saved Haiti. Harper did suggest that he single handedly was responsible for all the medals Canada won at the Olympics. And, Harper will take credit for Canada getting out of recession, despite his do-nothing approach.

These things, of course, occurred without Harper. The Canadian economy will pick up without Harper. The world will get out of recession without Harper. But, Canada as a nation with degenerate with Harper and Canada as a nation will not reach our potential with Harper.

We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: Parliament Has Confidence in Me . . . Honest

Posted: 3/11/2010 11:17:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Get down to basics, Liberals, Gordon Gibson, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/get-down-to-basics-liberals/article1496668/ Tab 3

Whether a vote is a "confidence" vote should be determined by Parliament. Logically this makes sense. It is Parliament that is deciding whether they have Confidence, certainly it is up to Parliament to say when. With a majority government there is no difference. However, as we have seen, with Harper and the Con's using it to hamstring Parliament it is possible to be abused when there is a minority government. It is not simply that there is a minority government but one lead by someone, Harper, who has spent their public life dedicated to tearing federation asunder and Canada, as a nation, be damned. This is compounded by Harper and the Con's in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, everyone else is an enemy, no tolerance to compromise, extremist approach.

If the government brings a vote that is defeated. What the result be. Deadlock and everything grind to a halt? Perhaps, but then Parliament may put forward ways to resolve this impasse or recommend an election.

More likely, the government would approach the Opposition Parties for compromise. They may even decide to get consensus before bring the vote. With a minority this is exactly what should be happening, but with Harper and the Con's it is not. Parliament deciding which of their votes is a Confidence vote would certainly be a vast improvement on what we have now.

Similarly for Prorogation and dissolving Parliament. It is Parliament that is being suspended or dissolved. Why is it that it is the Prime Minister, who holds office at the Will of Parliament that decides this. With a majority government or with a minority that has the best interest of Canada as a nation at heart, this issue doesn't surface. But with the likes of Harper and the Con's it does.

Perhaps someone could explain how it is that these power lie in the hands of the Prime Minster anyway.

For my suggestions on Senate refer see my Blog, 22 Feb.'10,
cicblog.com/comments.html

Lloyd MacILquham

***
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.

. . .

This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.

This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.

***

- Harper and the Con's Hypocrites, You Say

No Posts Allowed: Toronto Star
Former Harper aide says Jaffer should apologize, Andrew Wallace, 10 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777889--former-
harper-aide-says-jaffer-should-apologize?bn=1

"Judges rarely overrule sentence recommendations in plea bargains, and certainly cannot reverse decisions made on charges that are never brought before them, Toews notes"
It seems to me that the charges were in front of the Judge in this case, in which case he would have to agree to having them 'dropped', wouldn't he - Law Professor Stuart seems to think so.

"Queen’s law professor Donald Stuart said when serious criminal charges like these were withdrawn then a detailed explanation should have been given in the courtroom . . ."
That's what I though, perhaps Toews could enlighten us why it is otherwise.

Vic Toews, hyper-partizan whose M.O. consists, apparently, of mud slinging with little concern for what is actually true compared to a law professor, you decide.

"[Toews] goes on to launch a bitter, personal attack on a Winnipeg Free Press reporter." - case in point. And, how about the Cotler 10%-er.

“I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the federal government,” Stuart said.
Looks that way to me, what does the rest of Canada think.

"Since Jaffer is a public figure, a better explanation of what happened is probably a good idea, Bentley admitted."
You got that right. Given the public status of Jaffer one might think they would do it just to cover their backsides.

"'I don’t think that it’s any of my business,' said Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy."
Wrong, it's everyone's business. Also, Duffy's reporter instincts seem to have waned somewhat.

One would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, How Much More - Call An Inquiry

Submitted: 8:40am, PST, 10 Mar.'10 CBC News
Afghan detainee torture risk raised in 2005: diplomat, March 10, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detainee-afghan-diplomat.html Tab 50

Oh, yah, but did Eillen Olexiuk give any 'credible examples of actual torture' (thanks Harper, Mackay, Hawn)

It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.

It is statements like that of Eillen Olexiuk that make a public Judicial Inquiry with full powers, including that of subpoena, that much more important.

Her statements raise a lot of questions. For example, why is she making them now. Why was she not call to testify at the Parliamentary Committee hearings. Surely it was not because she was shy to reveal what she has to say.

The timing of her statement to me should be investigated. It is occurring just as things start to really heat up for Harper and the Con - how convenient for Harper and the Con's that it is actually not Harper but the Liberals that are at fault.

Apparently, Harper is spending all this energy and political risk covering up, not to protect himself and his Con government, but to protect the previous Liberal government - wow, how altruistic, I may have to re-assess my impression of Harper and the Cons.

How many other people are poised to make revelations in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.

One would think that if Harper thought (and keep in mind that he and his inner circle are the only ones right now that have all the information) that the Liberal Party were in any way at fault that he would be eager to call a full Public Inquiry. After all it was Paul Martin calling one for the Sponsorship Scandal that allowed Harper into power in the first place.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, 'Tough on Con's' Agenda ???

Posted: 3/10/2010 10:37:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories bristle when asked to explain Rahim Jaffer's 'slap on the wrist', Jane Taber , 9 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-bristle-when-asked-to-explain-rahim-jaffers-slap-on-the-wrist/article1495270/ Tab 86

Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews, Stockwell Day, John Baird and Jim Flaherty, and all the Con's may have a 'Tough on Crime" policy.

But, apparently it is not a "Tough on Con's" policy.

Judges in Canada are appointed for life. The reason is to detach themselves politically and establish and maintain independence. The Canadian judicial system differs from the US in this respect (Senators are appointed for life on the same theory). Our Judiciary has a long tradition of independence.

This should be distinguished from the appointment of people to the bench that have a conservative value system. Everyone has a particular value system which may be conservative, liberal or otherwise. Judges are expected to rely on their experience and value system in making their judgments - hence 'judgment'. However, the value system ought to be in line with the general values of our society. This is most likely to occur when it is a majority government of a moderate nature, that has been in power for a number of years and has the good of all Canadians at heart, as opposed to promoting a particular ideology. The more extreme the ideology of the government, the smaller and more distinct the sector of the population they represent and the more partizan the appointments the less likely these value systems correspond with the general values of the society but that of a small sector. This of course, is the danger of someone like Harper and the Con's wielding executive powers.

I find it very difficult to believe that the judge in this case would accept a plea bargain (a judge does not have to accept a plea bargain) and hand down a sentence in this case based on political considerations - in this case it appear that once the plea bargain is accepted the sentence is automatic, perhaps someone could clarify this.

On the other hand, Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville makes an important and valid point.

Harper, Nicholson and the Con's appear very hypocritical about this. How many times in the past few years have we all heard the Con's accusing our judges of not being tough enough. One would expect that they should be up and arms about the treatment of Jaffer and demand that Jaffer allow the details released. The optics are, of course, because of his political connections to the Con party.

Perhaps someone could go over all "Tough on crime" rhetoric, talking points, policy statements and proposed legislation that Harper and the Con's have espoused up till now and apply it to the Jaffer case. Let me know what the result is.

Also, I believe strongly in the privacy of individual citizens and I am a strong believer in plea-bargains.
But one would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, It Time To Duck

Submitted: 8:56am, PST, 9 Mar.'10 The Star

Travers: Expect PM to spark an election, James Travers, The Toronto Star, 9 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/776970--travers-as-the-heat-builds-expect-pm-to-spark-an-election#comments Tab 9

Stephen Harper only needs a reason to call an election and the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up is more than good enough.

The pattern with scandals and cover-ups appears to be similar to a a lump of [censored] hitting the wall.

At first there is a single 'fleck' that hits the target, by itself not of any real consequence. But it can be viewed as a harbinger. Then another, then a few more but more closely grouped in time, until finally the whole thing 'splats'. One could, similarly, likely put an actual time frame on this phenomenon as well, if one were so disposed.

If Harper is going to 'dodge this one' he will have to force an election and soon.

(If Harper would like some advice on calculating the time frames of such phenomenon, tell him to give me a call, not that I have personal experience, of course).

Also,
(excerpt: cicblog.com/comments.html, 8 Jan.'10, on whether Harper will force an election once Parliament resumes.)

But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.

Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.

So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.

Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: If It Looks Like a Cover-Up and Smells Like a Cover-Up

Posted: 7:13am, PST, 9 Mar.'10
Ottawa anticipated Afghan torture allegations: memo, March 8, 2010, Gil Shochat, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/detainees-afghan-government.html Tab 104

David Mulroney testimony at the Parliamentary Committee:

"We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment of Canadian-transferred detainees but because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced. We needed to be far more engaged in terms of monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment."
(CBC, 9 Mar.'10)

There appears to be a disconnect in the testimony of David Mulroney. From what I heard on CBC, the Memo, in actuality, had nothing to do with "monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment." but everything to do with how to handle the Media in response to inquiries about the treatment of Afghan Detainees being transferred (and as I recall this was the Harper government's response until they were forced to abandon this position).

Of course, " because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced" begs the question: if there were no " confirmed instances of real and substantial risk" why should it need be further reinforced.

Also, " We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment" does not actually deny any such confirmed instances but its wording suggests that non existed.

This is not the only instance of testimony at the Committee that required clarification.

This illustrates another reason why we need a thorough investigation and public Judicial Inquiry with subpoena powers and experienced lawyers.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: Trust Me . . . No Really

Submitted: 7:46am, PST, 9 Mar.'10 CBC
PM defends spy agency's Afghan role, March 8, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/politics-question-period.html Tab 83

All those Canadians that trust Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con government raise your hand.

Harper: "I hope if the honourable member does not trust the government, if he doesn't trust the Canadian Forces, doesn't trust the foreign service or anybody else, maybe he can trust Justice Iacobucci to review the documents," the prime minister told the Commons.

Unfortunately, and it is a sad day for Canada. It is those that hold the reigns of power that are in question and the source of all the mistrust.

It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.

It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.

Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.

Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.

Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.

I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.

However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level and especially the International Criminal Courts in the Hague, to learn the truth.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con's.
Mr. Harper, why do Canadians deserve this? because they let you into power?

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper - Do the Right (morally, that is) Thing - Call a Full Public Inquiry

Submitted: 8:26am PST, 8 Mar.'10 CTV

Full public inquiry needed on detainees: Ignatieff, The Canadian Press, Mar. 8, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100308/detainees_letter_100308/20100308?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection

In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)

Parliament must demand and obtain all the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up in full and pristine order and immediately. This shocking development shows the importance of this.

Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the original documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is something that really only a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers (and other) of a Judicial Inquiry can get to the bottom of.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.

But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.

Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this???

Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them?

We should all demand the truth to this matter and nothing short of a full public Judicial Inquiry can do this.

Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.

Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.

Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics. Canadians do not deserve this simply because they let you into power.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canada - Let No Con (Harper) Tear Asunder

Excerpt Posted: 3/7/2010 12:19:20 PM The Globe and Mail
Retired judge asked to review documents in detainee affair, Gloria Galloway, Mar. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/retired-judge-asked-to-review-documents-in-detainee-affair/article1490854/

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

[University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran]
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)

In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that "If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "

Parliament must demand and obtain these documents in full and pristine order and immediately.

This is a shocking development in the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up shows the importance of this.

Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is only something that could be investigated at a formal Judicial Inquiry and it would certainly explain why Harper and the Con's are doing everything they can to prevent this.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.

But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.

First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.

We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.

In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.

If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.

___
It seems to me that the Executive has these power by tradition as opposed to law - i.e. there not being any explicit provisions in our Constitution or Legislation regarding these powers. Tradition refers both to the ability to use the power and the manor in which it is used. Harper hides behind Tradition to wield these powers but scoffs at Parliament when he breaks with Tradition in how he wields them. A prime example of this, aside from refusing to disclose the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents was, of course, Prorogation No.1, where Harper used Prorogation to avoid a non-Confidence vote. Also, to illustrate even further he spend over 2 hours discussing this with the Governor General. Given the amount of time spent, and given the importance to Canada and it Democratic Institutions to the very fact of who runs this country, and given its precedent setting nature (based on Tradition) it is vitally important that we Canadian know exactly what was said during this meeting. Harper's response 'it is traditional that the contents of the meeting not be made public' [sic].

The Supremacy of Parliament means precisely that all powers flows from Parliament and is exercised at the Will of Parliament, including those exercised through tradition. This has nothing to do with the Judiciary. Security measures set out in legislation do not apply to Parliament. The Prime Minister is subjacent to Parliament, if Parliament is restricted in access to these documents, how can it possibly be that the Prime Minister or his government is not. Or another way of saying it is if the Prime Minister and his government have unrestricted access how is it possible that Parliament does not.

With a majority government there is no issue.

And with a minority government this is normally not an issue for a number of reasons.

First, and this is very important, normally, and in fact always in our History as far as I am aware, except with Harper and his Con's, the Prime Minister has the best interest of Canada at heart. Whereas Harper has dedicated much his public life to tearing Canada as a nation asunder.

Also, the Prime Minister governs with the Confidence of Parliament, not simply de jure (no non-confidence vote) but also de facto. Since, de facto non-confidence normally very soon becomes de jure non-confidence normally this distinction does not arise.

In the current situation the only reason there is no non-confidence vote is that Canadians do not want an election. This has nothing to do with confidence but everything to do with the current political constellation consisting of extreme polarization in 4 directions, with Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, whether Harper and the Con's are right (morally that is) or wrong, whether it's for the good of Canada as a nation or not, amounting to approx 33%. In other words, the best that could happen is another minority Harper government and the worst, for Canada that is, Harper somehow manages to get a majority (say a backlash by Canadians for the Opposition voting non-confidence and forcing another election).

Simply put Harper does not have the de facto confidence of Parliament.

This bifurcation is especially coming through after this last Throne speech and Budget (to the point even of Ignatieff in essence saying exactly this - vis.: he does not support the Budget or Throne Speech but he will not force non-confidence through a vote of Confidence because the Canadian people sent him the message in no uncertain terms last Fall that they do not want an election), and, of course, with the refusal by Harper to produce the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents.

One can simply not say that, in fact, Harper and the Con's have the confidence of Parliament, whether there is a Non-Confidence Vote or not.

In the context of power struggle. Parliament is in a moment of weakness due to this polarization. Harper knows this and is taking advantage of it to concentrate unimpeded power in his hands. For Parliament not to assert its authority would mean that Parliament would become impotent, marginalized. Harper's power would become supreme and uncontrolled.

This is not a theoretic consideration. These types of polarizations have occurred in many societies and sometimes simply cannot be resolved, except perhaps revolution or civil war, in which case Harper will have achieved his goal of tearing Canada asunder.
___

Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this.

Also, whether evidence has been tampered with is something that really a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers of a Judical Inquiry can get to the bottom of.

Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed, Harper is justified in hiding them?

We should all demand the truth to this matter.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper- For Whom The Hague Calls

Submitted: 10:44am PST, 6 Mar.'10, CBC
Canada wanted Afghan prisoners tortured: lawyer, CBC Nwes, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html Tab 219

CBC News:
Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran,
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "

***

On 27 Dec.'09 I posted:

It will be an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

Harper can't Prorogue the Hague. Harper - 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - will have to answer.

I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.

However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada ,on the International level, to learn the truth.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con's.

How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, "Moral Authority, What Moral Authority"

Posted: 3/6/2010 12:16:44 PM - The Globe and Mail
Rights fracas draws international rebuke, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press , Mar. 05, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rights-fracas-draws-international-rebuke/article1491566/ Tab 26

Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon and the Con's choice “does not have the moral authority to lead an organization like Rights & Democracy”

Don't be so naïve, International Federation for Human Rights, that just shows what you know about Canadian politics.

Harper, Cannon and all the Con's don't have the moral authority to do most of the things they are doing.

The appointment you are referring to is the least of our worries.

Let me explain.

When you read "Harper and the Con's are right wing party, 'right' does not refer to 'morally right', but to the fact that Harper and the Con's base their polices and things they do on a extremist, intolerant ideology as handed down to them by his American overlords.

Harper has indicated that his strategy is to re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything in dictatorial fashion through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.

Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the Dank Ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Canadian Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper - the Pied Piper our children must pay

Posted: 7:45am 5 Mar.'10 CBC

Budget 2010: A closer look at the numbers, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3
Posted: 7:55am, 5 Mar.'10 CBC
What this budget means for you, John McHutchion, CBC News, 4 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3

Yesterday, commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I wrote:
"How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.

I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal."

Today, my comment on the 'budget' is:

How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and all the Conservatives.

The basic approach here is 'steady as she goes' and we will grow ourselves out of deficit by "restraint in the growth of spending" (to the public service, national defence, foreign aid envelope - to clarify things Peter MacKay has come out and re-assured us that spending for national defence will still be increasing but just not as fast - thanks Peter, you're a saint).

The basic Con doctrine, so adeptly expressed by Tom Flanagan, 'it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible' [sic].

"Steady as she goes", sounds great as if it means everyone will do ok. However, in reality, it means the trend of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer will flourish and in fact this budget promotes it.

"Restraint in the growth of spending" assists in the reduction and 'unwinding' of Canada as a Federalism and is likely meant to be a code phrase to all those die-hard Con's especially those in the West.

Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Cons say no tax hikes but they are raising the Federal payroll taxes 13billion (which will likley kill 200,000 jobs and hurt small business).

And lets face it. If Harper and the Cons remain in power over the next 4 - 5 years, especially if they get a majority, you can be certain transfer payments will be reduced and drastically.

Harper may be playing a 'magic lute' but it is all Canadians, our children and our children's children that must 'Pay the Piper'.

Our government's raison d'être is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. The Harper strategy appears to be to reduces the help and the protection, then federal government will have no justification and so can be 'dissolved'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's Recalibration - Con'd Again!

Posted 2010/03/04 at 10:58 CBC
Throne speech blasted as disappointing 'old stuff' Government's agenda silent on many key points, opposition leaders say, March 3, 2010, CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/03/throne-speech-reaction-politics.html tab 105

How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.

I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal.

Harper, show some moral fiber and backbone. Stand up and take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal. Call a Judicial Inquiry. Paul Martin did with the sponsorship scandal. Why should Canadian have to suffer this hurt and indignity simply because Harper wants to clutch onto power.

On the other hand, perhaps the logic is by simply re-introducing all this old stuff, it is hard for the Opposition to vote against it - shrewd!

It appears this Throne Speech reveals a serious problem amongst the Conservative movement.

Harper want to stay in power and is doing anything and everything to grasp and maintain it. The Conservative movement wants a consolidated coherent and comprehensive policy and agenda that reflects and promotes their extreme right wing ideology.

However, Harper knows that if he were to do this his days in office would be numbered (to approx. 35). This leaves Harper with only one course and we are seeing it.

But, there's more and it's insidious. Harper, in fact, is using Parliament as a smoke screen (in military parlance, 'diversion'), while he implements his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight. Another of course is through the budget as we will see.

It is not the lyrics "in all thy sons command" in Canada's national anthem that requires urgent and serious consideration at this time in our nation's development.

It's "we stand on guard for thee"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Harper - It's Re-Cycling Time

3/3/2010 11:05:44 AM The Globe and Mail
Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show, The Canadian Press, 3 Mar.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-minister-pulled-gay-rights-from-citizenship-guide-documents-show/article1486935/ Tab 145

Should anyone really be surprised given that Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Peter Van Loan and all the Con's running this great nation of ours are extremist, right wing, ideologies based on intolerance.

As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,”

Likely the reason Kenny had:

"noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005. "

taken out is so when Harper and the Con's reverse these rights and freedoms they would only have to re-do the study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship. They have to look like they are doing something to reduce this record setting deficit.

In this era of environmental consciousness and human rights it simply would not be right (morally, that is) to suggest its 'book burning time' (besides that's such a extremist, right wing, intolerant ideologue, thing to do anyway) - so . . . it book 're-cycling time'.

In fact, it's government re-cycling time, don't you think.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper No Class Act

Submitted: 7:14am, PST, 2 Mar.'10 CBC
Best Olympics world has ever seen: Harper, March 2, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2010/03/01/sp-olympics-folo.html#socialcomments

- Harper A Class Con Act

Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives ought to take a lesson from the class act of not only all our athletes who competed at the Olympics, but all the athletes around the world. At least there is something about Canada that we can point on the world stage to dispel the dark shadow cast by Harper and be proud.

If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.

. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.

Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?

Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada's great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.

(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper should get a Game Misconduct from Parliament

3/1/2010 1:21:16 PM The Globe and Mail, Tab 20
(see Article below)

Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?

If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.

. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.

*** I couldn't resist the Irony in the following Post by 'Blind Vision'

Tab 11: 'If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".'

Like the rest of your post, you've got it wrong.

It's the Liberals that would get a good laugh and in fact the 2/3rds Canadians that voted against Harper and the Con's that would get a good laugh;

and,

anyone whose 'Vision Is Not Blinded' by self-interest but has the good of all Canadians clearly in sight would be offended.

Blind Vision, if you have such confidence of conviction and truly believed what you are writing, why hide behind a fake name.

Also,

DJay, Tab 13, wrote: "Why of course Harper's slide in the polls was going to stop; as soon as it collided with the collective, thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace that has always represented its base; - roughly around 30% to 35%."

It is a mistake to think that all the die-hard Harper and the Con Party supporters are " thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace", besides they are just as entitled to their say as any other. I don't agree that our politics should be based on self-interested, short-sightedness, emotions, irrationality, extreme right wing ideology. But they do have a right to their opinions. It is not their fault Harper is in Power. It the fault of the other 2/3rds of Canadians that stand by and let Harper run things.

Also, I have been posting the die-hard support for Harper and the Con's runs around 33 - 35%, with 33% more recently.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's ' Own the Parliament ' Strategy

Posted: 3/1/2010 10:45:56 AM The Globe and Mail

Prorogation 'lit the fuse,' but is furor fizzling? Campbell Clark, Mar. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prorogation-lit-the-fuse-but-is-furor-fizzling/article1485006/ Tab 11

Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?

Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Stephen Harper and his Con's, the Canadian people be Damned.

Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse. (After seeing the huge upswell against him and his government because of Prorogation, Harper is now trying to say that he was talked into it and really did want to do it - the 'Devil Made Me Do It' defence)

And, of course, perhaps in the meantime he could convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master, Yoda step aside. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.

Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.

(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).

It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.

We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.

It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.

It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.

The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.

Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper v. Ignatieff = Bad v. Good

Submitted 8:50am PST, 28 Feb.'10 The Toronto Star
Siddiqui: Michael Ignatieff same as Stephen Harper on key issues, Haroon Siddiqui, Feb 28 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/772319--siddiqui-michael-ignatieff-same-as-stephen-harper-on-key-issues#article p.4

Ignatieff and the Liberals the Same As Harper and the Con's - Surely, Sorry I mean, Haroon, You Jest.

In archetypes, that's like saying Micheal the Archangel is the Same as Lucifer because they Fought each Other

Stephen Harper and the Cons are extremist, right wing ideologues.

Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals are moderates

Harper's polices are based on their own agenda and the good of Canada be damned.

Liberals when in power, simply, have shown themselves as moderates whose polices are rationally based, given the circumstances and the good of all Canadians.

Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme.

Ignatieff and the Liberals are set to lead us in this new Golden Age of Human Rights.

Harper has spent a greater part of his public life with the agenda of tearing asunder Canada than Ignatieff has spent being outside Canada.

Ignatieff has the education and experience required to lead this great and culturally, socially, ideologically, religiously, economically diverse and tolerant society which makes up Canada.

Simply put, Harper does not.

(Haroon Siddiqui if you want to compare Harper and Ignatieff you should set out their Resumes for everyone to see.)

Harper and the Con's bases their policies on right wing extremist ideas as handed down to him by his American overlords. Ignatieff and the Liberals are going to the people, all the people.

Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.

Harper makes all efforts to hide what he an his government is doing. Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid having to stand up and 'face the music' regarding the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing Harper cover-up.

The Liberals under Paul Martin, stood up and took responsibility for the Sponsorship Scandal and called a public Inquiry. They did this because it was the right (morally right that is) and despite the negative political repercussions, including creating the circumstances for Harper attaining government.

Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using to the above ends no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper bases everything his does on politics and what he thinks will help him to clutch and grab onto power and nothing on what is best for Canada and our nation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Appointments - You Aint Seen Nothin Yet

Michael Ignatieff objects to Tory choice
for rights-agency chief, Campbell Clark, Feb. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieff-objects-to-tory-choice-for-rights-agency-chief/article1481604/Tab 22

Harper and the Con's are right wing extremist ideologues. Their predecessor Reform and Alliance were,
of course, right wing extremist ideologues. We all know this.

The longer Harper and the Con's are in power the more Canada is transformed into an right wing extremist society, where intolerance reigns supreme.

It's as simple as that, Harper shutting down all the rocket scientists won't prevent Canadians from seeing this for themselves.

Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.

This strategy is insidious since it is taking several year to come to fruition. It is far too blunt to fire everybody and make new, partizan appointments - it would wake Canadians up to what he is doing. So, Harper must combine a shrewdly chosen combination of firings and waiting for opportunities including thru attrition.

The next few years will be vital. The Senate has of course reached that critical point. Another major Canadian Institution that protects our democracy and civil right is the Supreme Court of Canada. The pattern appears to be multiple retirements in relatively short periods of time and we may be coming up to one of these periods in the next year or two. If Iggy is complaining about the Harper and the Con government's appointment to the arms-length agency Rights and Democracy, just wait.

The only solution is to get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible, unless you like an intolerant, extremist, right wing ideologically based society run by the Executive, where Democracy is merely for show.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Harper + Bernier = Con'd Again !

Posted: 2/25/2010 10:59:29 AM The Globe and Mail
Maxime Bernier challenges climate science, Norman Spector, February 24, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/maxime-bernier-challenges-climate-science/article1479289/ Tab 16

Taking Action Against Global Warming is the Right (morally, that is) Thing to Do.

"What is certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about." (Norman Spector translation)

Maxime Bernier is approaching the global Warming problem on an emotional not rational basis, designed to incite the Con core-supporters concentrated West of Manitoba.

No Body or Organization that has responsibility would base their policies on such an extreme, absolutist perspective.

The only time we will be certain about Global Warming and its catastrophic impact around the world is when it happens, which will be far too late. Even then there will be Con deniers.

If there is more than a mere possibility that even a fraction of the damage predicted will occur because of our activities now in and in the past, we must do something about it. We must do it now since later it will be too late.

Of course, this is simply looking at the problem in a rational, logical 'risk management' approach.

There is no doubt that Bernier's approach is deliberate and is espousing the true attitudes of Stephen Harper, the Con Party and all the die-hard supporters of the Conservative Party. There is no doubt that the only reason Harper appeared to have 'abandoned' this position a few years ago is he wants to hold onto power and try not to look too politically motivated and self-serving in the International Community. There is no doubt that it is timed to be released just before a mayor report on the inefficiencies of the tar-sands due to royalties etc. It is easy to see where this is all headed.

Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits. It will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted February 25th 2010, 12:27pm Toronto Sun
Mad Max makes sense on climate change
By LORRIE GOLSTEIN, QMI Agency
Last Updated: February 25, 2010 2:00am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/
lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/24/13013311.html
Tab 3

Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:16 AM
Harper's Mad Max headache
Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-mad-max-headache/article1480814/
tab 4

- Get Rid of Harper and Stop This Extreme Abuse

The Tornoto Star (no posted were allowed)

Tories sniped at firearm data Challenges held up RCMP report backing long-gun registry until after key Commons vote, Kevin Frayer, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/769298--tories-sniped-at-firearm-data

My reading of the article:

Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan's office sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan tells us he had the Report "for several days".

***

This obscuration, obstruction, manipulation, suppression and distortion by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party, this time then - Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, just goes on and on and on. When will it stop.

This abuse of power, like so many others, has been uncovered by the paper trail, especially E-mails, obtained thru Access To Information.

No wonder Harper and his PMO are so dead set against Access To Information.

Unfortunately, as has been suggested (see my posting below "Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi", 22 Feb.'10) the PMO and government staffers will simply stop using E-mails and start doing everything by word of mouth.

There is only one way to stop this extreme abuse - get rid of Harper and his Con's and sooner rather than later.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and His Con's Are Not the PC's of Old

Last best hope for democracy in Canada: An appointed Senate Upper chamber selected by blue-ribbon panel would be valuable check on excessive PM power, Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/768518--last-best-hope-for-democracy-in-canada-an-appointed-senate

Here, Here!

Anyone who tries to suggest that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party are somehow identified with the Progressive Conservative Party of old, will have a very difficult time explaining away this article.

(Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Senator's proposal is very similar to mine - see below.)

Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010:

. . .

"So let's start again. Let's take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy.

We'd still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.

It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we've accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?

The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what's best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"

As Senator John Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that's our job. "Let us take care," he said, "that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it ..."

Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.

What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard. "

***
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.

. . .

This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.

This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.

- Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi

Submitted: 8:50am, PST, 22 Feb.'10 The Hill Times

Cabinet ministers' offices regularly interfere in ATI requests, says Tory staffer, Jeff Davis, 22 Feb.'10
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/ati-02-22-2010 Tab 1

Stephen Harper and the Con's 'P.M.O.' (Prime Modus Operandi) for damage control is never to take the moral high ground - i.e., stand up and take responsibility, but to blame someone else when one of their strategies gives bad results. If they feel that is not working they then run around claiming that the Liberals did the same thing when they were in office. This time it must be a serious issue since they seem to be doing both, at the same time.

Harper and the Con's abuse of Access To Information is on a level never experienced in Canada, not even close, and is part of their general policies of suppression, distortion, obscuration and obstruction. In fact, Harper has implemented this strategy to a level not seen in Western Democracies in recent history. Access to Information is, by necessity, one the first casualties of an extremist, right wing ideologically driven government.

"Ms. Legault said her investigation will be examining whether or not Sec. 67.1 of the Access to Information Act was breached which is an indictable or summary offence. "

Ms. Legualt might look into possible sanctions against counseling, procuring, as well, while she's at it.

"Meanwhile, after seeing Mr. Togneri hung out to dry, the Conservative source told The Hill Times extra caution will be taken not to leave a paper trail.

'I'm a lot more careful now with any conversations I have with my ATIP officer,' the staffer said. "They're all in person now, whereas before I would sometimes send emails.' "

Therein lies the rub.

There is zero chance Harper and the Con's will change their interference with the release of information - they are simply too good at it and it is simply too effective. They will simply become more sophisticated about it.

Perhaps the Civil Service can whistle blow each time the PMO or government staffers interfere in the ATI process, whether verbally or otherwise. After all, isn't that at the heart of the Harper Whistler Blower policies. Not!

The viscous personal attack on Richard Colvin for doing his job by Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con's, was no accident. It was designed precisely to discourage proper minded Civil Servants from stepping forward - just another part of their general strategy to suppress, distort, obscure, obstruct.

There is only one solution. Give Harper and his gang of Con's the Boot and sooner, rather than later.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper - Canada is No Iran

Submitted: 8:56am, 21 Feb.'10 - cbc.ca
Catholic Register takes on Ignatieff, Neil Morrison, February 18, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/catholic-register-takes-on-ignatieff.html, Tab 21

It seems to me that what Michael Ignatieff asked was whether Stephen Harper intends to withdraw support for family planning. If so, it appears to be an abandonment of Canada's current position, as well as opposed to that of Britain and the G-8 generally.

I have been unable to confirm for myself (see below) that "It is astonishing and sad that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is advocating that Canada fund overseas abortions . . . 'sad to see Ignatieff making such a negative proposal.'" (as attributed to Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins by the Catholic Register)

Canada is a secular society. When I ran as the Liberal candidate in '04 I made it clear that for me abortion is a matter of personal conscience. This is, of course, based, in part, on my strong belief in the necessity of separation of State and Church, basing Government polices on the realities and not ideology, and probably most important, acknowledging that there may be many, many people in Canada, and around the world, that simply don't subscribe to one particular system of religious beliefs - i.e. Canada is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about).

We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.

If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. It is my understanding that that is the point that Ignatieff was making; that is the point that the G8 countries are making; and, this is the point that the UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".

Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. . . ."

Ignatieff
(http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/women+health+initiative+must+include+abortion+Ignatieff/2514470/story.html)

"If you're going to invest in women, you've got to invest in the full gamut of reproductive health services," he said, winning applause from an audience of Liberal MPs and representatives of about 50 non-government aid, rights and humanitarian organizations.

"This is the last place to start playing politics here and ideology here. Women are entitled to the full gamut of reproductive health services and that includes termination of pregnancy and contraception."

At a news conference later in the day, Ignatieff cited former U.S. government policy under the Bush administration which withheld federal funds from international agencies that supported abortion.

"We don't want us to go that way," he said. "We want to make sure that women have access to all the contraceptive methods available to control their fertility because we don't want to have women dying because of botched procedures, we don't want to have women dying in misery. We want women to care for themselves better and then look after their kids better . . . let's keep the ideology out of this and move forward."

"We've had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it."

***
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "

***
DFID (UK Department for International Development)

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/

14 October 2009
International Development Minister, Mike Foster, said:
"Every year a devastating number of women die because of unsafe abortion. If we ignore this issue, the stark reality is that millions more women will suffer, and back street practices will continue to increase the pressure for treatment on already overburdened health services.
"Better access to family planning information and contraception is of vital importance in eliminating unsafe abortion but the truth is that it is not always enough. That is why the Department for International Development will continue to support the prevention of unsafe abortion as part of broader efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health."

DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.
In countries where it is legal, DFID will support programmes that make safe abortion more accessible. In countries where it is illegal and mortality and morbidity is high, DFID will make the consequences of unsafe abortion more widely understood, and will consider supporting processes of legal and policy reform.

- 'Harper' = 'Hypocrite' - in the Canadian vernacular

Posted: 2/20/2010 1:52:47 PM The Globe and Mail
'An attack on Israel would be considered, an attack on Canada', Steven Chase, February 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/an-attack-on-israel-would-be-considered-an-attack-on-canada/article1470211/

Doesn't Israel normally have a co-alition government. And, in fact, they have one now.

How can Harper have such unconditional support for Israel, when he is so ideologically opposed to co-alitions and considers them such a violation of the Democratic process.

I would use the 'H' word - hypocrite, not 'Harper' (although they are fast becoming synonymous in Canadian the vernacular).

Oh, sorry, Harper doesn't have to be consistent or even be rational and he certainly wasn't 'elected' Prime Minister for his statesman qualities or by placing the good of Canada ahead of sheer partizan politicking.

Don't tell me we're being Con'd again and Harper is just doing it to pick up some votes, that wouldn't be very statesmanlike.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: Prorogation - 'the devil made me do it' !

Comment on: National Post
Judging Giorno, Some call the chief of staff a disaster, but others call him disciplined, John Ivison, February 20, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=979a0ab8-79e6-4a3f-8476-cb95da3e957b&p=3

Harper always blames someone else when one of his strategies gives bad results. The latest is the Prorogation. Apparently, the new Harper excuse for Prorogation is that 'Oh, and by the way, did I mention, the devil made me do it . . . no, really . . . it's true . . . it was the devil . . . honest . . . no really . . . trust me . . . it was the D-E-V-I-L, DEVIL, Da-Da-Da-Da DEVIL . . . he'smaking me smile right now too' - he did not want to Prorogue Parliament but merely take a ten day break; Prorogation was someone else's fault and Harper was talked into it.

Harper, show some moral fiber, some back bone, stand up at take responsibility. For an action that is as serious as Prorogation, disbanding Parliament for so long, and such a gross display of contempt for Canadian Democracy, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility, sole and absolute.

Harper should be too embarrassed to even suggest that he was talked into it.

Also, what are we doing with a Prime Minister that can't understand that Canadian would get very upset about such a politically self-serving assault on our Democracy and Democratic Institutions.

Harper's vigorous defense of his action since Prorogation belies this new excuse.

Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Harper, the Canadian people be Damned. It is totally incredulous that he would now suggest that he didn't want to do it.

Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse.

And, perhaps in the meantime he can convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.

This, of course, is crass politicizing of a terrible tragedy to which all Canadians and people in many other countries rose to provide assistance according to their abilities. Perhaps, Harper is doing this because he is looking to run Haiti, after he and the Con's get the boot from Canada. I wouldn't wish that on even Canada's worst enemy (of course, before Harper, Canada didn't have any worst enemies and we actually quite well respected in the World, but now . . .)

Harper and the Con's have tried to convince Canadians that the reason for Proroguing Parliament and for so long, is to allow Harper and the Con's to do the serious work of Government, without the disruptions of Parliament. They need the time to 're-calibrate' and especially to seek the input from Canadians on their Throne speech and Budget.

Harper says Ottawa is doing "important work to prepare the economic agenda," without the distraction of non-confidence votes and election speculation. - http://www.bnn.ca/news/14958.html)

Harper also has suggested that non-confidence motions cause disruption in the stock market. The Prime Minster is not to give advise on the stock markets. One can only wonder why Harper is taking such an active interest in the market. Isn't he the one that feesl trunoil makes for "good buying opportunities". See my previous discussion on this issues: 10 January, 2010, - Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World (Opposite) Twin of "Open Democracy"

'On CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon yesterday, [Flanagan, Harper’s former chief of staff and mentor] said that everyone knows the only reason Mr. Harper prorogued was to “shut down the Afghan inquiry."'
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-disinclined-to-let-games-begin-in-the-house/article1428075/?service=mobile

Apparently, Harper has sent out E-mails to all the Con PM's asking for suggestions for the Throne speech.

Harper, the Opposition Parties, which represent 2/3 of Canadians, I am sure have some suggestions. Also, Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives appear to have some serious suggestions as well. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't like them, they have legitimate positions that don't agree with yours (different views in a tolerant, multi-faceted, complex society - now there's a reason not to consult with them) and the moral fiber and backbone to stand up and be counted - I can see how Harper would be turned off by that (character foil, and all that).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Is No J.A. MacDonald

Posted: 2/19/2010 11:08:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Harper may be iron-fisted. And so what if he is?, Bob Plamondon, 19 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harper-may-be-iron-fisted-and-so-what-if-he-is/article1473243/ Tab 6

Bob Plamondon: "Stephen Harper is an autocrat who keeps a Vise-Grip on power, bullies his opponents and runs roughshod over democratic traditions. And how different is this from his predecessors? Not much."

There is a very big and very important difference between Harper and the Con's and Canada's previous Prime Ministers

All the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. They were intent on nation building

Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation

The only similarity in ideology and agenda between MacDonald, Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark and Mulrouney and Harper is that they all had the word "Conservative" in the name of their Party. The similarities end there. The Con Party is not the PC Party. The PC were a moderate right of centre Party. Harper and the Con's are extremist right wing ideologues

A very good illustration of this is that J.A. MacDonald joined forces with the Clear Grits (for runners of the Liberal Party) to unit the colonies and form Confederation. That's, of course, why Canadian today are proud of MacDonald. It is inconceivable that Harper might join with the Liberals, or anyone else, to solve Canada's current problems, strengthen the union and make this great nation of our even greater

This is despite that the 'Mandate' given by the people of Canada is do to precisely that - join with the Opposition and work together. Harper has, in fact, betrayed the trust given to him for the sake of obtaining and wielding bald power to achieve goals that are opposed to the good of Canada and all Canadians

We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of out forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm

But then, Plamondon, you must know all this

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship

Excerpt Posted 2/18/2010 10:56:47 AM - The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff uses the pause , Globe and Mail, 17 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/ignatieff-uses-the-pause/article1470659/ Tab 9

Harper at all times has chosen what furthers his own and the Con's agenda, Canada be damned. Whether it is good for Canada is not a consideration.

There are many, many examples of this but one is Harper's declaring everything as non-confidence votes to force the Opposition parties to accept his policies, there is no consideration by Harper of whether it is for the good of all Canadians and no consideration by Harper for the 2/3 rds Canadians that voted against him.

Harper and the Con's being extreme right wing ideologues makes this insidious. Canada is gradually, bit-by-bit, being morphed into a right wing extremist country. Further is that it is coming to light that Harper also bases his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state (e.g. Iran) despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized. The irony is that despite the religious nature, Harper is being very dishonest about it.

The problem is that Harper and the Con's base everything on their ideology. It is right wing and extreme compared to the Canadian tradition of being an open, tolerant, multicultural, diverse, secular, Rule of Law based, Charter enshrined rights, moderate Democratic society. Rather, Harper and the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship.

Given the complexity of any developed, commerce based, diverse modern society, like Canada, making policies decisions based on ideology can never be in the best interest of Canadians and will always favour one group and marginalize another group, not because it is necessary or in the best interest of all Canadians as a whole, but because they subscribe, or don't subscribe, to the ideology. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that are favoured and the larger the group that are marginalized. Currently, it would appear that it is approx 1/3 favoured and 2/3 marginalized, with regional variations.

Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.

For example, Harper reduced the GST by two points based on ideology and crass grab at power by appealing to voters on an emotional bases. He did this without considering the opinions of Economists. Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. Harper is now ignoring the opinions of the Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done" (referring to increasing the GST back to what it was) in preparing the budget.

In fact, as everyone knows, Harper and the Con's have attacked Clark on a personal basis for daring to stand up and state his opinion. This is not right (morally, that is).

This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.

This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.

Harper and his Con's, of course, periodically call for the Supreme Court to be subject to Parliament and given the the Supreme Court is a product of legislation, perhaps they could, if Harper had a majority (that's something to think about).

Again, one can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

Iggy would be well advised to take this into consideration when he is deciding "what 21st-century Liberalism stands for" and be very wary of becoming another ideology based Party. On the other hand, at least it wouldn't be so extreme and much more inclusive.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Harper-avelli, what a "Prince"

Submitted: 2/17/2010 11:02:17 The Globe and Mail

Top adviser leaves Bev Oda's office, Steven Chase
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/political-adviser-leaves-bev-odas-office/article1470147/ Tab 8

Harper and the Con's using threats of withdrawing government funding to otherwise legitimate and qualifying organizations against anyone that they think might dare to stand up for something that they don't like or might be perceived as being against them.

That's easy to believe, especially given Harper track record.

This goes hand in hand, of course, with the viscous personal attacks we have seen, even just lately against Richard Colvin and most recently Ed Clark.

The only thing that is hard to understand is why Harper and his gang of Con's are running this, otherwise, great nation of ours.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention that, there is absolutely no question that Canadians have the right (moral right that is) to know why Keith Fountain has "moved on", especially given the surrounding circumstances.

2/17/2010 12:47:47 PM
Harper-avelli, what a "Prince"

These tactics of Harper and the Con's are, of course, typical of right wing extremist groups. I have done many Refugee Claims involving third world governments and Harper's actions fit the scenario to a 'T'.

Given the incredible deficits and Harper's refusal to do anything about it, except (God help us) to wait 6 years while the Canadian economy grows out of it; and, given Harper's do nothing approach to global warming and other matters of global proportions and urgency; and, given Harper's utter disdain for Canadian Democracy; and, given Harper's expressed life goal to tear Canada asunder,

it seems Harper plan is to turn Canada into a third world country -

perhaps so he will feel more at home, politically speaking, with his Harper-avellian methods.

It would be a lot better for Canada if we simply helped find an existing third world country with which Harper can realize his potential.

PS: does this mean Harper won't be appointing me to the Senate.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the Cons - Problem Isolated !

Submitted: 9:40am, PST, 16 Feb.'10 - The Ottawa Citizen
Code of conduct sought for ‘amoral’ political aides, Ministerial staffers should not be allowed to give orders to public servants: experts, Kathryn May, February 16, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Code+conduct+sought+amoral+political+aides/2568225/story.html#Comments

Harper and his Con Ministers always blame someone else when something happens.

Harper never stands up and takes responsibility. A great example is, of course, the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and Ensuing Cover-Up.

Paul Martin, at least stood tall, accepted responsibility for the Sponsorship Scandal and called a Public Inquiry. He did it because it was the proper and right (morally right) thing to do. Everybody knew it wasn't the politically expedient.

And, the political repercussions for Canada have been severe - it allowed Harper and the Con's to gain power, the damage Harper has caused and is causing will take many years for Canada to recover.

This issue of Harper and his Con Ministers' political staffers interfering with civil servants carrying out their legal duties is only one problem, albeit very serious.

It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.

We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.

It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.

It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.

The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.

Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Leadership Index ??? - It's Time For Nanos to Recalibrate

2/15/2010 12:52:50 PM The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff wades into PMO versus banker fight. It's no way to run a country, Liberal Leader says, when politicians can't seek advice from experts, Jane Taber, 15 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-wades-into-pmo-versus-banker-fight/article1468522/Tab 24

The Nanos 'Leadership Index' is Very Misleading to say the least.

Harper's numbers are entirely explained by assuming a core of die-hard supporters of around 33%. How about some Demographics Nanos - that would be interesting.

And, these days with Harper's true extreme right wing 'colours' starting to bulge out over the Hype, they have to be die-hard, indeed, to still support him, despite the damage to Canadian Democracy.

The actual results of the Poll results Nanos is basing his 'Leadeship Index' (see:
nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T411E.pdf
are as follows:

The Best PM
Stephen Harper: 32.0% (-2.8)
- within the 33% point - considering margin of error (3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20) - 1/3 of Canadians like him as PM??? what's he doing running this country

The most trustworthy leader
Stephen Harper: 25.0% (-4.3)
- definitely down from the 33% point -even considering margin of error- and rightfully so, give Harper's abuse of his Office and attack on Canadian Democracy

The most competent leader
Stephen Harper: 33.6% (-1.7)
- within the 33% point - considering margin of error - there's that die-hard 33% manifesting itself!

The leader with the best vision for Canada#s future
Stephen Harper: 26.8% (-3.2)
- definitely down from the 33% point - even considering margin of error- and rightfully so - yeh, Harper's vision for most of his public life is to tear Canada asunder, apparently some people like that, or don't understand what Harper is really all about

A break down by Province would be very interesting (although I suspect that the result can be easily predicted) and perhaps Nanos would be courteous enough to provide that for us.

These number are actually down from the last time (and Harper index is down 10%) as one would expect (at least there are some die-hards that are taking a serious second thought at what Harper is doing).

To have any meaning whatsoever, any "Leadership Index' for Harper ought to be how many points away from the 33% point.

All you non-Haperites that don't take the 33% core of die-hard support for Harper seriously do so at your own peril.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Also Posted to: Nanos On The Numbers
Mon Feb 15 13:13:29 EST 2010
Nanos Leadership Index: Harper still strong (Nanos Poll Completed February 8th, 2010)

- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Wall !

2/15/2010 10:55:59 AM
Ignatieff wades into PMO versus banker fight. It's no way to run a country, Liberal Leader says, when politicians can't seek advice from experts, Jane Taber, 15 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-wades-into-pmo-versus-banker-fight/article1468522/Tab 12

TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, discussing a recent meeting with Harper who was obviously working under the under the guise of listening to what Canadian have to say in preparing their budget.
"He doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him"

Ed Clark also stated that at a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done,". He was apparently referring to the GST - that's right, the one that Harper and his Con's went around saying how great that was and how it single handedly saved us from the ravages of the recession. Oh, it's also the one that Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. I guess Harper wasn't listening to Ed Clark or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives then either.

When it comes to the Budget, Harper and the Con;'s are obviously not listening to anyone, unless they already agree with Harper, of course.
Ignatieff is right (morally right that is), "Honest to goodness we can't run a country like this", especially if only 1/3 of Canadians voted for you.

It is a black mark on Canadian Democracy when Parliament has such little trust in the sitting Prime Minister and his party that legislation to limit the PM's powers would have to be brought in. We as a Nation have been able to get by without such legislative restriction on the sitting Prime Minister up till now. What is so different now from say Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien who had large majorities and could easily have abused their power but didn't.

The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

It would appear that the suitable remedy, everything considered, would be (along with the mea culpa and carrying out the Will of Parliament) Parliament requiring clear and concise promise from Harper that he will seek the approval of Parliament in future to any such major decisions, that are currently under the 'rule of custom of the office of PM' , as Prorogation of Parliament.

Given Harper's track record of doing everything in the extreme and for political, partizan considerations only, the good of Canada be Damned, the appointment and discharge of Parliamentary Officials and heads of bodies that are the 'prerogative' of the PM be approved by Parliament, along with their proper operation, should be covered by this requirement as well.

So too Harper ought to seek the approval of Parliament when it comes to cutting funding for various groups and those required to testify in an effort to shed light on Harper and the Con's dark corners - I should say carryings on

One need only consider the following to conclude that the above restrictions on harper and teh Con's actions is just and fair: Canada's parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper - uncontrolled and unfettered abuse of power of a dictatorial nature

Submitted: 9:56am PST, 13 Feb.'10 - CBC
Ahoy, procedural geeks! Reading between the lines of the Liberal response to Gordon O'Connor, Kady O'Malley, February 12, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/ahoy-procedural-geeks-reading-between-the-lines-of-the-liberal-response-to-gordon-oconnor.html 30 Posts

"Then again, can anyone really imagine the Liberals, at least, demonstrating sufficient collective spine to actually force the government to recognize the supremacy of Parliament before allowing the finance minister to deliver his speech?"

Come now Katty.

Can anyone really imagine that you have any basis for making such a accusation.

You're not trying to be manipulative are you.

Why not come right out and demand that Parliament make Harper and the Con's subject themselves to the Will of Parliament, formally stand up in the Commons and admit guilt and accept whatever punishment Parliament may, in its wisdom, determine just and fair.

Parliament could also (Rule of Law, Supremacy of Parliament, etc) introduce a Bill placing restrictions on the PM regarding Prorogation.

However, it is a black mark on Canadian Democracy when Parliament has such little trust in the sitting Prime Minister and his party that such legislation would have to be brought in. We as a Nation have been able to get by without such legislative restriction on the sitting Prime Minister up till now. What is so different now from say Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien who had large majorities and could easily have abused their power but didn't.

The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Much of the actions by the Prime Minister are based on 'Customary law' as opposed to legislative law. I have had numerous arguments with people who suggest that Customary law is just as binding as Legislative Law. It's not and this is a prime example of the problems with Customary Law. It works well as long as the people in office ultimately have the good of the Nation before them. The basic assumption is anyone who has spent much of their public life trying to tear asunder Confederation will not become Prime Minister. This, of course, is not the present case.

Similar reasoning applies to Harper request to the Governor General last year as well. The GG ought to have allowed the non-Confidence vote last year and then entertained all sides' arguments for what to do next. The Office of GG is subject to the Will of Parliament and not the Whim of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's power to select the GG does not mean that it answers simply to the Prime Minister. The GG's Office was not designed to be a figure head. The Governor General's function is to be a last resort to such abuse of power by the Prime Minister. When this fails we end up in the position we have today - uncontrolled and unfettered abuse of power by the PM of a dictatorial nature.

It would appear that the suitable remedy, everything considered, would be (along with the mea culpa and carrying out the Will of Parliament) Parliament requiring clear and concise promise from Harper that he will seek the approval of Parliament in future to any such major decisions, that are currently under the 'rule of custom of the office of PM' , as Prorogation of Parliament.

Given Harper's track record of doing everything in the extreme and for political, partizan considerations only, the good of Canada be Damned, the appointment and discharge of Parliamentary Officials and heads of bodies that are the 'prerogative' of the PM be approved by Parliament, along with their proper operation, should be covered by this requirement as well.

So too Harper ought to seek the approval of Parliament when it comes to cutting funding for various groups and those required to testify in an effort to shed light on Harper and the Con's dark corners - I should say carryings on

One need only consiered the following to conclude that the above restrictions on harper and teh Con's actions is just and fair: Canada's parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Gang - Escaped Con Alert !!!

Submitted: 8:55am, PST, 13 Feb.'10 - CBC

From the desk of a clearly very, very busy John Baird …, Kady O'Malley , 12 Feb.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/from-the-desk-of-a-clearly-very-very-busy-john-baird.html 36 comments

Baird, if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

Sounds like we're being Con'd again.

Baird's excuse something like an escaped con saying to the judge, "but I spent the time under self imposed house arrest, so that's ok."

If you are unable to do the normal constituency work and conform to the Will of Parliament, then get out of politics. Do Canada a favour and, along with the rest of the Harper gang, get out anyway. You and your Con buddies destroyed Ontario and now you are doing it to Canada.

Baird explains that he has been busy "public events and announcements". Don't tell me, Baird's excuse for suppressing Canadian Democracy and overt contempt for the Will of Parliament is that he can, what, take personal credit for the Billions being spent on the economic stimulus, take credit for the Olympics, design a Budget based on the input from Canadians (Baird didn't even bother trying that excuse), suggest that he single handedly made the Canadian banks what they are today - oh, sorry, that' Harper and Flaherty, mea culpa, mea culpa!

I know, its the over-time designing defamatory E-mails attacking anyone who dares to stand up to him, Harper and the Con's. That would certainly explain the extra-ordinarily busy schedule.

The Con's are certainly not spending anytime making changes to their Budget based on input from Canadians. Just ask TD CEO Ed Clark or all the opposition members.

Baird, if you want to try to rectify matters try:

Calling an Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up; and, obeying the Parliamentary Order-to-Produce, are necessary; as well as, a mea culpa and conforming to any disciplinary measures as determined just by Parliament.

Harper, Baird and all the Con's government is subject to the Will of Parliament.

Harper prorogued parliament in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. One of the intended effects was to dissolve the Committee investigating this issue. And, Harper is refusing to obey the Parliament Order-to-Produce demanding that the Administration hand over confidential records on the Afghan Detainee Transfers.
Harper, Baird and the Con government has attacked and shown amazing contempt for our Democratic Way of Government, the Rule of Law, and have ruthlessly abused the office of PM.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Panned by Canadian Banks - Is that Ironic or What

Posted: 2/12/2010 1:00:12 PM - The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff demands Harper apologize for criticism of CEO's take on raising taxes, Bill Curry and Tara Perkins, 12 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/td-chief-caught-in-deficit-crossfire/article1465325/ Tab 35

Hypocrite thy name is Harper

TD Bank CEO Ed Clark:
Apparently at the conference last week in Florida, Clark pointed out
"The Canadian population is extremely unhappy to see these deficits".

Also that at a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives,
". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done,"

Discussing a recent meeting with Harper under the guise of listening to what Canadian have to say in preparing their budget.
"He doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him"

So much for the highly touted consultations with Canadian.

Harper is not seeking any input from Opposition Parties, either.

So, just what is Harper basing the budget on - that just leaves Harper's right wing extremist ideology.

Harper may feel, and he is correct, that Canada's banks are the best in the world. But, obviously Canada's Banks do not feel Harper is the best PM or the Con's are the best government.

Harper has been going around saying how great the Canadian Banks are and trying to take credit for it on the International stage.

Is that Ironic or what!

Rather than taking what the Banks have to say seriously, i.e. the 'rational approach', Harper is viciously attacking 'the messenger' on a personal level, a-la-Colvin, et al.

These types of attacks are indicative of someone who knows they have no rational basis but refuses to admit it. We have seen this many times before with Harper and the Con's, of course. This attack was not intended to be for the benefit of all Canadians, but to rouse his core of die-hard supporters. The next level of 'alert' is mobilizing them with accusations of a 'coalition with socialists and separatists'.

Even the Conservative Party in England takes note of what Martin and the Liberals achieved in balancing the budget in the mid '90's that the Progressive Con's had straddled us with.

If anyone wants to know the difference between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Con Party now, just compare deficits - 30b to 60b and counting. When you get that big, it has to be ideological.

The PC wanted power but had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation and so doesn't care as long as he can maintain power and achieve his ends.

We should all take that seriously.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Hypocrite thy name is Harper

Submitted: 10:31am PST, 11 Feb'10 - The Toronto Star
Not Posted - you tell me
PM's office attacks top banker in deficit spat, `Bay St. banker' lashed after urging Ottawa cut deficit with higher taxes, Les Whittington & Susan Delacourt, 11 Feb.'10
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/763673--pm-s-office-attacks-top-banker-in-deficit-spat?bn=1#article Tab 15

(Even Shakespeare had something to say about the likes of Harper.)

"[ Harper ] doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him,"
So much for the highly touted consultations with Canadian. Harper is not seeking any input from Opposition Parties, either. So, just what is Harper basing the budget on - that just leaves Harper's right wing extremist ideology. God save Canada.

"lectured Canadians from sunny Florida on our need to pay higher taxes," - Wasn't it Harper that released the Financial Update from China - Hypocrite thy name is Harper

"This government will not entertain raising taxes on hard-working Canadians or cutting transfers to provinces."
Oh, yah ! just watch them. To reduce the deficit Harper and the Con's will severely slash funding to various programs. They will also increase charges to various services, etc., which in reality amount to 'hidden' tax increases. If anyone wants to get more details on right wing ideology behind Harper's economic strategy check out the following coven of extreme right wing ideologues:
Fraser Institute - Mike Harris and Preston Manning, A Canada Strong and Free, Date Published: April 1, 2005. Reductions in payments to the Provinces of one form or another will be implemented. Whether you call it a transfer payment or not, the result is the same. "That which we call a Con by any other name would smell as much".

'Fear of reprisals from the Harper government has made some people reluctant to take part in Liberal hearings on Parliament Hill these past few weeks, Ignatieff said Wednesday.
. . .
The Liberal leader hinted, however, that some people were afraid of possible damage to their business or livelihood.'

Yah gotta love that Harper (if you're a right wing extremist, anyway).

It is outrageous that there would be people in Canada that are afraid to speak their opinion due to reprisals from the Harper and the Con's government.

What an incredible abuse of power.

This isn't some totalitarian dictatorship, . . . is it? This isn't some totalitarian dictatorship, . . . is it? Am I missing something?

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is Outed !!!

Posted, 2/10/2010 10:50:30 AM to The Globe and Mail
Tories' hard line on criticism of Israel
could spark backlash, MP says, Campbell Clark, 9 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hard-line-on-criticism-of-israel-could-spark-backlash-mp-says/article1460865/ Tab 28

Harper basing Canada's policies on his religious beliefs but doesn't have the honesty, or integrity, to come out and say it,

is that Ironical or What!

Am I reading this right (morally that is) - see Thomas Darcy McGee (Tab 20).

Can it possibly be true that Harper, and the Con's, run our country based on his personal, narrow, restrictive religious beliefs as opposed to what is in the best interest of all Canadians.

What about Separation of the State and Church.

We are a secular society and not a religious based totalitarianism like Iran.

This, of course, explains a lot about Harper the Con's and their policies. Harper has his personal agenda and Canada be damned (literally - at least for those that oppose him).

For example, and this is certainly not the only example, now I understand when Van Loan said that “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” in reply to report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass", reagdingHarper and teh Con's Tough on Crime agenda.

The authors of the Report, Graham Stewart and Prof Michael Jackson (Van Loans's 'Profesor'), were basing their Report on rational scientific methods, empirical data and pragmatic anaysis - i.e. rational thought. Van Loan's 'philosophy' is manifestly opposite, deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy. The revelation that Harper is basing Canada's policies on his personal, narrow, restrictive religious beliefs certainly goes a long way to explain this.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Propaganda Machine

Posted to The Globe and Mail - 2/9/2010 12:48:07 PM
Tories' hard line on criticism of Israel
could spark backlash, MP says, Campbell Clark, 9 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hard-line-on-criticism-of-israel-could-spark-backlash-mp-says/article1460865/ Tab 19

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Jason Kenny saying that Canada had '“defunded organizations, most recently like Kairos, who are taking a leadership role” in boycott campaigns against Israel' is just one example.

The fact that they backtracked does not mean that what Kenny said was a 'slip-up'.

Allegations made by Harper and the Con's to a particular group then later spinning it away to Canadians as a whole are no accident. What's the point of have the greatest propaganda machine in recent history if you don't use it.

They are a deliberate and well thought out strategies to hide their true nature to Canadians but to show particular groups that they haven't lost their true right wing extremism.

For another example, look at the speech by Jim Prentice in Calgary recently where he slammed Quebec for its action on the Global Warming front. Also, there is the well know speech by Harper a while ago to the Party faithful, that was 'leaked'. These are no accidents.

The anti-semitism insinuations of the 10%'er against one of Canada most long standing and respected Parliamentarians, Irwin Cotler, resulting in Parliament's Speaker of the House of Commons ruling that it "constitutes interference with his ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and credibility" is, of course, another example.

After being chastised by the Speaker, did Harper and the Con's do the decent thing and apologies. No, they tried to say that what they said was true and the other Parties do it. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'.

Instead of bald accusations and defamations perhaps the Con's could approach the Canadian people with some honesty, openness and integrity for a change.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper - to Con or not to Con - Us Into an Election

Submitted: 02/08/10 at 12:02 pm - The Hill Times
Liberals not ready to defeat Tories in spring , Harris MacLeod, 8 Feb.'10
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/spring-02-08-2010

. . . seems to have left out the euphoric love-in effect for Harper and the Con's coming off the Winter Olympics. This factor should not be overlooked and by that time the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up may very well refer to 'bygone days'.

Another factor, which may work against an election is the current downward trend in Harper and the Con's in the Polls. However, it may very well be that the fading into the pages of history of the Afghan Scandal and the Olympics will cause an upturn, and it probably will.

But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.

Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.

So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.

Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.

7 Jan.'10
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, How about Some Honesty

Submitted : 8:14am, PST, 7 Feb.'10, CBC
G7 Iqaluit meeting ends, CBC, 6 Feb.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/06/g7-iqaluit-finance-banks.htmlTab 42

How about some honesty from Flaherty, Harper and the Con's. Everyone knows that Harper and the Con's do everything for the political optics only and without regard to the best interest of Canada. This is no different.

"Flaherty has said that the robust Canadian banking system does not need the fixes proposed by other countries."

Thanks to the previous Liberal government and Jean Chrétien - funny that Flaherty didn't give credit where credit was due.

Another factor, as "A Child of the Canadian Shield" pointed out, Harper, Flaherty and the Con's simply did not have enough time to dismantle Federal Regulations of Banking and abdicate to the Provinces - so when they do this for things like taxes, transfer payments, child care, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and the environment, keep this in mind. But, just give them some more time!

Why no discussion on the real problems facing Western countries right now like potential defaulting on debt payments by Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and the risk these financial problems will cause runs on the markets like last year and a new one, increases interest rates due to increased cost of borrowing on the International markets.

There is a significant chance of a second wave to the recession, one that Canada will simply not be able to avoid. And, like the first one, Harper, Flaherty and the Con's will deny any problem and tout "steady as she goes" until forced to action by the Opposition.

The problem is that Harper and the Con's polices have stripped Canada of its defenses and left us totally exposed to this. A prime indicator is their current Con that "Canada will grow out of deficit" - i.e. Harper do nothing, wrap everything in hype, when it all collapses go back to Alberta.

The only things that is holding us together is our banking system, which fortunately they haven't yet destroyed.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper was allowed into China. Wow! That's great news

Posted: 2/7/2010 10:04:07 AM Globe and Mail
Prorogation a curve bender, not a game changer,
Bruce Anderson, 7 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bruce-anderson/prorogation-a-curve-bender-not-a-game-changer/article1458829/Tab 7

Harper's Prorogation is a serious assault on Canadian Democracy and demonstrates a deep seated contempt of Canadian Federalism. No amount of spin will render it into a harmless 'curve ball'.

In Proroguing Parliament Harper has also sent a deliberate messages to the Con core supporters that although Harper and the Con's pay lip service to moderation and the greater good of Canada "we are still the same old right wing extremist ideologues capable of ruthlessly attacking our 'enemy', building the Alberta 'firewall', dismantling Canada bit by bit, we just need a majority, so be patient".

"In recent months he's pursued our economic interests with successful visits to India, and China, and some dogged diplomacy with the United States resulted in a notable win on the Buy American policy file."

Harper was allowed into China. Wow! That's great news.

Anderson, you fail to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in Jan.'05 and it was Harper himself with his in-your-face, 'Insult Diplomacy' that caused the Chinese to drop it.(see: David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government" (ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)

Any Liberal PM would have achieved ten times as much as Harper in India and China, and in the past have.

One need only look at Harper's 'in-your-face' 'Insult Diplomacy' that delayed implementation of the Approved Destination Status by China for 4 years and compelled its President to publicly, while in the International spotlight, rebuke Harper.

As far as the Agreement just made with the US. Anderson you seem to be the only person, except the Con-Core that support Harper not matter what, that suggests it is a good deal for Canada. The general consensus is that Canada is by far the loser on that one, just like the softwood lumber Agreement.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Harper and the Con's True Colours - Right Wing Extremists

Comments were closed:
Tory déjà vu: It's Quebec vs. Alberta, Hébert, 5 Feb.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/760875--hebert-tory-d-eacute-j-agrave-vu-it-s-quebec-vs-alberta#article

Jim Prentice in his Calgary speech was simply catering to the Con Core supporters. It has nothing to do with the truth or in the best interest of the country. It is simply Quebec bashing.

This is not the first time that Harper and the Con's have had one message to give to their core supporters in Alberta and another to everyone else in other regions.

In fact such things as introducing legislation last year to strip Political Parties of Federal subsidies is a prime example. Proroguing Parliament this time is another.

Everyone says what a great tactician Harper is. Yet they are quick to suggest that he made mistakes by taking these actions. On the contrary these actions are deliberate messages to the Con core supporters that although Harper and the Con's pay lip service to moderation and the greater good of Canada "we are still the same old right wing extremist ideologues capable of ruthlessly attacking our 'enemy', building the Alberta 'firewall', dismantling Canada bit by bit, we just need a majority, so be patient".

Some suggest that whenever Harper gets ahead of the Opposition in the Polls and closing in on majority territory he does something to shoot himself in the foot. This is no character flaw. It is a cold calculating step to demonstrate to the Con Core they are still the same old gang, knowing they will drop in the Polls, but also knowing that their support will not drop below around 33%, because of the Con Core, and knowing they are not going to loss power because the Opposition is divided.

Keep in mind that one of Harper and the Con's chief objectives is to tear Federalism asunder and abandon the legislative fields to the Provinces. This is especially true for the Environment where Harper is so afraid to take an real action he is paralyzed into doing nothing. In actuality Harper and the Con's are very happy to have Quebec do its own thing. It lets them off the hook.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Con'd again by Harper

CBC
submitted: 5:32pm, PST, 5 Feb.'10
'Buy American' deal exempts Canadian firms, 'Too little, too late,' say Liberals,February 5, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/05/ott-buy-american-deal.html#socialcomments

"Because Mr. Obama cannot rely on Congress to pass legislation exempting Canada from Buy American provisions, the complicated deal will rely on the President using his executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American, by claiming supply chains are so integrated they cannot be separated." ( National Post, 28 Jan.'10)

This sounds a lot like GW Bush's treating oil as part of the American reserves.

Anyone get the idea that Harper has 'negotiated away' a significant part of Canadian sovereignty.

Also, the 'Agreement' seems on a par with the 'Agreement' Harper so loudly touted regarding the softwood lumber issue - exceedingly in favour of the Americans.

Everyone knows that Harper does everything for the political optics only and without regard to the best interest of Canada. These 'agreements' are no exception. Anyone can 'negotiate' a deal if they make it so one sided in favour of the other side. Harper is literally selling out Canadian sovereignty for his own self-serving interests.

Van Loan today went out of his way to avoid the question about whether this Agreement is too little too late for Canadians to benefit from the US Stimulus Package ending on 17 Feb.'10, and instead went into some vague and nebulous 'future benefits'.

One need only look at Harper's connections with the US, especially the Conservative elements, to see what he is doing - selling off Canada to the US, to the benefit of his US friends. Perhaps he wants to be Governor of Alberta when Canada falls apart and Alberta joins the US.

Everyone agrees that any benefit to Canadians out of work is something that must be considered.

But, for God's sake lets get someone in office that has not spent the major part of his public life dedicated to tearing asunder Canadian Federalism. We will then at least have a chance at a better deal.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

The Globe and Mail
posted: 2/6/2010 11:52:15 AM
Ottawa hails Buy American deal, Jane Taber, Friday, February 5
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/ottawa-hails-buy-american-deal/article1457313/

The Globe and Mail
posted: 2/5/2010 8:48:02 PM
'Too little, too late' on trade: Ignatieff,
Jane Taber, Friday, February 5, 2010 1:28 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/too-little-too-late-on-trade-ignatieff/article1457714/

CTV
Submitted: 11:33am,PST, 5 Feb.'10, but not posted???
U.S., Canada make it official on Buy American, CTV.ca News Staff, Feb. 5 2010 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100204/buy_american_100205/20100205?hub=Canada#commentSection

Toronto Star
We have secured access to U.S. market, PM says,Les Whittington, Friday, February 6
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/761540--we-have-secured-access-to-u-s-market-pm-says

- Harper Is Not Above the Rule of Law

Posted: 2/4/2010 10:57:38 AM
Harper sets a trap for the opposition, Steven Chase, 4 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/harper-sets-a-trap-for-the-opposition/article1455530/ Tab 57

The damage to our Democracy has been done.

For Harper to suggest that all that need be done is tack on a couple extra weeks of sitting of Parliament is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians.

There is no guarantee that Harper will not do this, or some other such act of contempt, again next time he is being made accountable.

Harper and the Con's must clearly demonstrate that they are Accountable to the Will of Parliament.

Harper prorogued parliament in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. One of the intended effects was to dissolve the Committee investigating this issue. And, Harper is refusing to obey the Parliament Order-to-Produce demanding that the Administration hand over confidential records on the Afghan Detainee Transfers.

Harper has attacked and shown amazing contempt for our Democratic Way of Government, the Rule of Law, and he has ruthlessly abused the office of PM.

Harper has made it very clear that he feels he is above the Will of Parliament.

Calling an Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up; and, obeying the Parliamentary Order-to-Produce, are necessary; as well as, a mea culpa and conforming to any disciplinary measures as determined just by Parliament.

It is outrageous and an insult to all Canadians, even those core supporters of Harper that are the reason he is in a position to do this, that Parliament would have to pass legislation curtailing the Prime Minister and the government of the day from exercising its power arbitrarily.

Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien had large majorities, yet this contempt for Parliament was not an issue. We all must take a serious look and ask ourselves why. The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- the Harper Policies - It's Time For Review

Posted: 1/29/2010 12:26:30 PM
Liberal MP calls for debate on increasing GST, Bill Curry,Jan. 29, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-mp-calls-for-debate-on-increasing-gst/article1448582/ Tab 11

It is high time we took a long hard look the impact of all, not just GST, the Harper Policies on our Nation now and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper and his Con's from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of out forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Canada has dropped to 43rd in the 2010 Environmental Performance Index from the Liberal legacy high point. This is outrageous, an embarrassment and a blight on Canada's International Reputation.

Reducing the GST 2 points was bad economically and was done by Harper and the Con's for political reasons.

Then, there's the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal, ensuing cover-up and shutting down our democratic Institutions by Harper and his Con's.

All Canadians should demand a review.

It seems that Carl Sonnen did not consult with Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, who has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise - “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”

Also, it should be pointed out that when England reduced their VAT (equivalent to out GST), they did it on a temporary basis, for one year, and not permanently contributing to a gross systemic reduction in revenue contributing to our stellar deficits.

Carl Sonnen seems to have a history of being supportive of Harper's policies on other issues as well as can be seen in the C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, Oct 2002, 'The Kyoto Protocol: Canada’s Risky Rush to Judgment'. This publication, surprise, surprise, suggests that implementing the Kyoto Protocol by the Chrétien government "could lead to serious economic damage".

I turned this up in a two minute search on Google. You try it and see what else there may be.

In 20 years when our children and our children's children are asking just how is that our nation is collapsing from debt and in 50 years, when world civilization is being destroyed by Global Warming, the 'Web Archaeologists" will be able to "drill down" (to borough a military phrase) and shine a light on the dark corners of the Harper government and all those that promote it, Harper and the Con agenda.

When are the next round of Senate appointments by Harper - oh, it was today, is Sonnen's name on the list . . . I guess Harper, in his infinite strategic wisdom, thinks he is more useful as is, but perhaps next time.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- We're Being Con'd Again - Flanagan is offering faulty logic

Submitted 9:57am, PST, 27 Jan.'10
Cash, votes and the rise of toxic politics, Hébert, 27 Jan.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/756378--h-eacute-bert-cash-votes-and-the-rise-of-toxic-politics

Everyone knows that the source of "la guerre" is Harper and the Con's. The only Party that has and can afford a full time war room, is Harper and the Con's. In fact, Harper and the Con's have built a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.

The Con's have a large war chest because they have a diehard core of supporters of around 33% that, if the Parties were required to report the source of contributions under $200, I am confident would show centred in Alberta. Now there's an election financing reform that might be considered.

Every one knows that the Liberal Party is struggling with finances even with receiving the vote-allowance - yes even the media reporters know this. Also, they received considerably less votes than Harper and the Con's and so receive considerably less of the vote-allowance than the Con's.

One can only wonder why Flanagan is publishing such a paper at this time. Is it to demonstrate academic excellence - I suspect not. Is it to start to pave the way for Harper to re-introduce his malicious attack on the Opposition through election financing, I suspect so.

Perhaps Flanagan is publishing an extremely partizan paper in the guise of academia. Ask him.

I also suggest that Iggy and the Lib's take note.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Strikes Another Blow for Freedom - from Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, that is

Submitted: 6:22pm PST, 25 Jan.'10
Colvin fears retaliation for torture testimony, January 25, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/25/afghan-detainees-colvin-legal-fees.html#socialcomments

This last in a long series of steps taken by Harper and the Con's to stifle the truth is outrageous.

It should not only offend the integrity and sense of justice of every person in Canadian but an embarrassment in front of all other countries that live by the Rule of Law - that's right including even that core of Harper supporters that seems to be the only reason Harper and the Cons are running this fair nation of ours.

Given the importance to getting at the truth and the likely cogency of the evidence, based Mr. Colvin's testimony so far, it seems this would be a candidate for Pro Bono work by a lawyer or a team of lawyers. I would be surprised if there weren't some qualified lawyer(s) out there that would be willing to so do.

Oh, by the way, did I mention, I'm a lawyer.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- What Heroes These Harper Con's Be - excerpt

Posted January 24, 1:15 PM
Hundreds protest at no-prorogue rally in Waterloo, Babar Tahirkheli, 24 Jan.'10
http://wwww.examiner.com/x-35391-Waterloo-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m1d24-Hundreds-protest-at-noprorogue-rally-in-Waterloo?#comments

Harper in his defence of Prorogation stated "We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,”

First, this is a clear attempt by Harper to make Canada's response to the Haiti disaster political. Soon he will be putting massages on the sides of the Go trains in and out of Toronto (sounds familiar) saying "What Heroes These Harper Con's Be".

The fact is that Harper and the Con's are doing no more, if that, than any government of the day would do for Haiti, even with Parliament sitting. It is outrageous that Harper and the Con's would deliberately cut off 2/3 of Canadians having a say in how and to what extent our country helps Haiti. This is especially for Quebec, where Harper has explicitly disenfranchised 38% of the people - all those voting Block. This is even more outrageous since the ties between the people of Quebec and Haiti are so very close.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

also:

Submitted: 1/24/2010 1:49:41 PM & continued 1/24/2010 1:55:57 PM
Thousands protest prorogued Parliament , Ciara Byrne, 24 Jan. '10http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/protesters-denounce-prorogued-parliament/article1441809/ Tab 222

- What heroes these Harper Con's Be!

In response to the following article:
Across Canada, protests urge reopening Parliament, Susan Delacourt and Bruce Campion-Smith, 23 Jan. '10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/754967--across-canada-protests-urge-reopening-parliament?bn=1

Harper in his defence of Prorogation stated "We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,”

First, this is a clear attempt by Harper to make Canada's response to the Haiti disaster political. Soon he will be putting massages on the sides of the Go trains in and out of Toronto (like he's never done anything like that before) saying "What Heroes are These Harper Con's".

The fact is that Harper and the Con's are doing no more, if that, than any government of the day would do for Haiti, even with Parliament sitting. In fact Ignatieff, rightly so, pointed out that the Haiti disaster is one reason for Parliament sitting. It is outrageous that Harper and the Con's would deliberately cut off 2/3 of Canadians having a say in how and to what extent our country helps Haiti. This is especially for Quebec, where Harper has explicitly disenfranchised 38% of the people - all those voting Block. This is even more outrageous since the ties between the people of Quebec and Haiti are so very close.

Also, there is a serious issue of rationality here. Harper Prorogued Parliament on 30 December, a full 13 days before the earthquake struck Haiti. I know Harper and the Con's do not believe in the laws of physics, cause-and-effect, or science generally, as manifested by appointing people like Stockwell Day, Vic Toews and Gary Goodyear to run this country as well as an overall lack of support for education and research (except Harper's contribution to solving Global Warm - research into sequestering the Oil Sands) and do not want to encourage or promote rational thought amongst the population, but come on.

'What fools we Canadians be' ??? - Who is that stupid to as to accept this as an explanation.

Perhaps, Harper knew in advance through divine inspiration (ok, sorry , I know that is being sarcastic, I stand corrected - I should have said perhaps Stockwell Day . . ., who then promptly reported back to Harper). Then he ought to have warned everyone.

This is the same logic Harper and the Con's used with the GST reduction and the recession. A year before the recession they reduced the GST, against the advise of just about every reasonable economist in Canada, by two points, then spent the next year saying how much that stimulated the economy and denying any kind of economic downturn or problems until he was forced to in the last stages of the '08 election. Since then he and his Con's have been going around saying just how great they were for preparing our economy for the recession by reducing the GST two points. They, of course, totally ignore the fact that they have brought Canada into systemic deficits, not the least of which cause was the reduction in GST.

“We now have to turn our mind to the broader agenda, to some of the economic challenges, including deficit reduction, ahead of us,” he said. Here's a suggestion, if trying to reduce the deficit is so difficult and time consuming, then get some help. Include those Canadians that didn't vote for you and whose money you have spent on the ones that did - i.e. consult with the Opposition Parties, Un-Prorogue Parliament (if that's a word), that is what democracy is all about.

Harper said 'opposition party members – who took part in the Saturday rallies – should be focused on making “constructive proposals.'

Unbelievable, Harper Progogues Parliament exactly to prevent the Opposition Parties from having a say, not just with regard to the Afghan Detainee transfer, but also to the Budget. Perhaps Harper might explain to what extent he has approached the Opposition for "constructive proposals".

We are unfortunately at the same time dealing with life-and-death issues as we here in this terrible Haiti tragedy,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa to announce more federal funding for the earthquake relief effort.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 1/24/2010 1:49:41 PM & continued 1/24/2010 1:55:57 PM
Thousands protest prorogued Parliament , Ciara Byrne, 24 Jan. '10http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/protesters-denounce-prorogued-parliament/article1441809/ Tab 222

submitted: Submitted: CTV - 11:28PST, 24 Jan.'10 & continued Submitted: 11:25am, PST, 24 Jan.'10
Opposition keeps heat on during parliamentary freeze, CTV.ca News Staff, 24 Jan. 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100124/Ottawa_Monday_100124/20100124?hub=TopStoriesV2

-Second Coming of Stockwell Day ??? God Save Canada

The second coming of Stockwell Day, Jane Taber, 22 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-second-coming-of-stockwell-day/article1441516/

If you want to know why Stockwell day lost the election in 2000, other than simply being an extremist right wing ideologue, who was leading a right wing extremist Party representing a small fraction of this country. Here are some comments to consider . . .

Maybe Parliament could introduce a motion to change "Stockwell Day's" name to "Doris Day".
What, already been suggested? by Rick Mercer? Brilliant!
Ahhh ... yes, I see, through the miracle of Internet I can go back in history and get:

"Rick Mercer gets minimum signatures for referendum to have Stockwell Day change name to Doris!"
http://web.ncf.ca/pat/pdqlib/humor.html

. . .

what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...

"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...

- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.

- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.

- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."
(http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat")

Am I ready this right! Did Day actually say these things?

Perhaps the media could through some light in this dark place.

And Day is running this country as International Trade Minister - sorry, Treasury Board president ???What would aliens say if they came and hovered over Ottawa.

All I can say is, God save Canada! Wait, God helps those that help themselves. We can not rely on divine intervention.

We must take the bull - graven image for all you traditionalists - by the horns, give Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan, Nicholson, Toews, . . . oh, and did I mention Day, the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's Extreme Right Wing Agenda

posted 8:00am, PST, 22 Jan.'10
Ottawa warns provinces will be cutting back, too, 22 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-warns-provinces-will-be-cutting-back-too/article1439826/ Tab 26

"Mr. Harper said yesterday Ottawa doesn't plan significant cuts to transfers "

How many times has Harper promised one thing to gain and clutch onto power only to do the exact opposite once he has the opportunity to us it. The very fact that he would mention it means its on the radar.

"The squeeze at both levels of government will come to a head in 2013 when Ottawa must renegotiate a new health transfer accord with the provinces, which face soaring medical care costs."

Reducing health care payments is a reduction in transfer payments. It also falls in line with the basic objective of Harper and all the extreme right wing to eliminate Canada's health care system and abandon the field to the Provinces to implement privatized health care.

Harper's agenda is to dismantle Canada as a coherent nation abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. Hand-in-hand with this is deserting the tax field and leaving it to the Provinces.

Anyone who is not convinced that this is a very deliberate and well thought out agenda might look back over Harper's public life and what he has professed, not the least of which is the Firewall Letter.

Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

****

If anyone wants to get more details on right wing ideology behind Harper's economic strategy check out the following coven of extreme right wing ideologues:

Fraser Institute - Mike Harris and Preston Manning

A Canada Strong and Free, Date Published: April 1, 2005

If these names sound familiar but you can't quite place them.

Mike Harris, extreme right wing conservative who as Primeir, along with Flaherty, Baird, Clement, Van Loan, as Ministers destroyed Ontario both on a social and on an economic level in the '90's and early 2000's

Preston Manning that is the right wing extremist that started, and was leader of, the Reform Party, mentor to Stephen Harper, co-author of numerous right wing papers

" Harris and Manning propose eliminating the federal role in health care management and financing ..."

Sounds like elimination of Canada's health care system and replacing it by private providers could he.

"smaller governments . . . the size of government itself is constrained and the functions of government are decentralized and localized as much as possible. "

Sounds like dismantling the Federal Government, abdicating Federal responsibility, abandoning its presence in governing our great nation in favour of separate Provinces.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper has dragged us into a Post-Modern Dark Age!

Submitted: 1/19/2010 1:22:17 PM
Poll finds strong support for boosting heath, medical research funding, André Picard, 18 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/poll-finds-strong-support-for-boosting-heath-medical-research-funding/article1434464/#comments Tab 2

This country is being run be right wing conservative extremists, where Harper, our Prime Minister, feels that the best person to run the Ministry of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is someone who, it has come to light, has trouble separating religion from science and the state.

It is no accident by Harper that Goodyear is the Ministry of Science and Technology. And, it is no accident that Harper has such close ties with extreme right wing Conservatives in the US and has such a close connection to Bush and Bush's policies.

“trailing most industrialized nations” - Harper and his Con's have dragged us into a into a Post-Modern Dark Age!

It is easy to see why Harper and the Con's are anti-Science. Science deals with bringing to light, truth and reality - two principles that are manifestly abhorrent to Harper and the Con's. The Harper method is to approach people emotionally, to hide the truth, cover-up, obscure and obstruct. To this end Harper and the Con's have built, and employ, a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.

These methods are diametrically opposed to the Scientific method and can not survive the light of rationalism. The last thing Harper wants is to have people who approach politics on a rational basis. Science, mathematics and other such disciplines have spent 500 years pulling us out of the Dark Ages into a Golden Era of Rationality. One of the last endeavors of Western society to remain in the Dark Ages is politics. Harper and the Con's know this.

Will Harper increase funding to Medical, and Scientific generally, research - You do the Math.

Oh, my apologies, I forgot, Harper and the Con's are promoting sequestration as the Con's solution to Global Warming. And here I am suggestion that Harper spews nothing but emotional, non-rationally based, political propaganda designed only to grab, hold onto and monger power.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper dares not face the Opposition.

Rope a Dope? Harper Slipping in Polls as Canadians React to Proroguing – Ignatieff on the War Path – January 16, 2010,
http://cornwallfreenews.com/2010/01/rope-a-dope-harper-slipping-in-polls-as-canadians-react-to-proroguing-ignatieff-on-the-war-path-january-16-2010

Harper is only concerned with power, grabbing it, holding on to it and mongering it, Canada be damned. His contempt for Canada and its Democratic Institutions is well established and of a nature and degree that all Canadians ought to take serious note.

Harper’s aim is to minimalize Canada, dismantle our great nation to the great detriment of all Canadians and to favour a few.

Soon Harper will claim 'Canada is dysfunctional', prorogue Canada and defer entirely to the Provinces.

This dedication to power is why he hasn't got the 'right stuff' (morally right that is) to stand up to the Opposition.

Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

Harper knows that as long as he has this core of support, the Con's will be able to hold onto power. Further, he need only Con a relatively small segment of the regular population to get a majority - in that case, all I can say is, 'God save Canada'.

As long as he has this significant core-support and the regular population is divided amongst the other Parties, Harper knows he can display this contempt for Canada, our Democratic Institutions and, frankly, anyone who dares to stand up to him.

Harper's Prorogation is, of course outrageous, and there is no doubt it was done to try to quell the backlash of the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.

Paul Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge, whereas you can't say that about Harper.

There are other examples of Harper avoiding to face the Opposition for example - his economic update announce he made while in China so that he could avoid facing the Opposition. Also, while in Trinidad, Harper viciously lashed out at Ignatieff, the Liberals and all the Opposition, with slanderous allegations of a deceitful nature.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Transfer Payments - Ha, Next Harper Prorogue Canada and Defer to the Provinces

Ghiz raises issue of equalization cuts in meeting with Shea, Wayne Thibodeau, 15/01/10
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=318615&sc=98
Posted 15/01/2010 at 2:42 PM

I suggest that Harper's true agenda is to eliminate equalization payments.

Why, you ask.

Equalization payments are one of the biggest 'glue's' that keep all the Provinces together as one nation. It represents all Canadians getting together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection.

Harper's agenda is to dismantle Canada as a coherent nation abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. Hand-in-hand with this is deserting the tax field and leaving it to the Provinces.

We have seen this agenda in 'action' a number of areas already Global Warming not the least. It is no accident that Harper's approach to Global Warming abdicates responsibility and leaves it to the Provinces to take the necessary action.

Anyone who is not convinced that this is a very deliberate and well thought out agenda might look back over Harper's public life and what he has professed, not the least of which is the Firewall Letter.

It's funny how Harper attacks Ignatieff for having spent so much of his public life outside Canada, where Harper,himself, has dedicated much more of his to dissolving Canada. I might laugh, if it weren't so important, not only to us but also to our children and our children's children.

They are the ones that will be required shoulder a withering economic burden in a hollowed-out shell of a nation whose social fabric has been torn asunder. Who amongst us will be able to take a step back, look the next generation in the eye, so to speak, be proud to say "This is Canada, this our nation, it's your turn now".

Who amongst us can say, "We have stood on guard for this great nation of ours and what it stands for. We have maintained and preserved what our forefathers achieved in the past, and perhaps improved on it."

Who can feel confident that we are leaving our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Whereas, for Harper, it's 'Canada be Damned' ['Damned' was censored by the newspaper - 'public be damned' is a very famous quote and has come to refer to outrageous arrogance of public figures who have their own self interest at heart to the detriment of the people generally. In this context the appropriateness ought to outweigh any offense to people's sensibilities, I am sure people are much more concerned about what Harper is doing to our nation]. In fact he has deeply ingrained contempt for Canada as a nation and our Parliamentary institutions.

Soon Harper will claim 'Canada is dysfunctional', prorogue Canada and defer entirely to the Provinces.

Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be [censored - see above] - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is Constitutionally Challenged - Part 2

Submitted: 11:28am, 11 Jan.'10
PM creates 'dictatorial environment' by shutting down Parliament, Tim Naumetz, 11 Jan.'10
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/dictatorial-01-11-2010

Mr. Tinsley. "For one, like myself, who believes that fundamental to our legal structure is the supremacy of Parliament"

"Supremacy of Parliament", the Constitution (which includes the Charter) and independence of the Supreme Court of Canada, is equivalent to "rule of law". Rule by the unfettered discretion of one person is "dictatorship".

In our Democratic System, these Institutions, by requiring that the Administrative branch operate by the rule of law, rein in the unfettered discretion of the PM.

One might suggest that a minority Parliament combined with a weak opposition, not willing to go to the m at, so to speak, effects an imbalance and the PM becomes less fettered.
However, this is faulty analysis since, with a majority government the opposition is even 'weaker' and there is no chance of an election, unless the PM so chooses.

The power to do what Harper is doing (attacking our Democratic Institutions) has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't.

One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.

Whereas, Harper, in word, doesn't. In fact he has deeply ingrained contempt for Canada as a nation and our Parliamentary institutions.

Certainly Harper's agenda to dismantle Canada as a nation is one reason. Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces. Harper's very deep roots with the extreme right conservative movement in the US is another - for one, unless it is a republic, structured in the same fashion as the good ol' U.S.of A., then he has contempt for it. But, more important is the Oil, both for the USA and Alberta.

Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is Constitutionally Challenged

Posted 10:29am, 11 Jan.'10
Tories to start legislative agenda, again, Former clerk says the Prime Minister didn't have to shut down Parliament for two months to get a majority on Senate committees, Harris MacLeod, January 11, 2010
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/legislation-01-11-2010 Tab 1

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought.

Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship.

Harper himself told us that before he got elected.

How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life.

No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 Jun.'09

Senator Colin Kenny,

Could you make public the basis of a SCC challenge to the two Bills that are to be proposes (according to, Alberta Conservative Senator Bert Brown), one on limiting Senators' terms to eight years, and the other to put in place a process for electing Senators.

I can see that limiting the Senate terms to 8 years might very well be a violation of our Constitution, since, it violates the indefinite term, put in place to eliminate partisanship. It may even be argued that the two together do the same. However, if the PM has absolute discretion to choose Senators, why can't he choose ones that have been elected.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World (Opposite) Twin of "Open Democracy"

You wrote:

the further question posed: How did a Party so politically and media sophisticated devolve into the current Liberal Party and what, if any, relationship is there between the concurrent Conservative rise and Liberal decline?

I won't mention any names but . . . . . . ah ah aaaa "Dion" chooo, sorry sneezed.

Probably one of the worst repercussions of the sponsorship scandal was allowing Harper to get a foot hold. It is hard to imagine that Canadians would vote for such a right wing extremist ideologue, morphed dictator, as Harper except for something as catastrophic (politically) as that. The way Martin handled it, although was the morally right thing to do, had Canada's best interests at heart and despite being predictably bad for the Liberals, it was politically a disaster (Harper has, obviously, learned from this political mistake, i.e. - don't convoke an Inquiry).

Of course, once Harper and the Con's obtained power, every 'red neck' and their right wing extremist brother (figuratively, that is) jumped on the band wagon. For the next 6 months there were all these so called experts coming out and saying how great Harper was (barf me out!).

The Chicago School has a very well developed strategy (Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine"*) of right wing conservative extremism being able to capitalize on disasters - basically, people are more willing to accept them since they give the appearance of "action" - sound familiar, for a year or two Baird, et al, ran around saying how they were party of action.

Although Harper would never admit it, and Flanagan seems to enjoy taking the credit, it is strongly indicated that this all comes out of the South i.e. the good ol' U.S.of A.

Consider Harper's actions as well. It is no mistake that last year he went on a PR circuit to the talk shows in the US. Of course, the real question is what was he doing all the other time he was there. I don't recall ever seeing an accounting of his time. Perhaps these TV, et al, appearances were just a cover for meeting with people of the extreme right conservative persuasion he would rather the Canadian people not know about. There are other 'gaps' in his times with other meeting. For example, apparently there was about 10 -15 minutes where he and Obama were alone without any one else, including aides. Also, the infamous meeting with the Governor General last December where he met with her for a couple hours without his ever accounting for what he said.

I am not suggesting, of course, that Obama or our Governor General are right wing extremists, however one can only wonder if Harper were somehow pressing his extreme right wing agenda, in a fashion that he would rather Canadians not know about for fear of backlash.

This type of covert activity is outrageous when you consider that the only reason he has these opportunities is because he is representing all of Canadians as our Prime Minister. It is very difficult given the circumstances to imagine any circumstances that would warrant such obfuscation and lack of transparency.

It is also no accident that he is 'tying his, sorry I mean our, horse in the US stable, with respect not only to Global Warming but also just about everything. Of course, not the least important factor is the Oil and the US dominance in the Oil industry in Alberta, as well as their having a claim on it after extraction to the extent that Bush including it in the US reserves (if I recall) - thanks to Mulroney and the Free Trade Agreement, of course.

Never mind what Flanagan does when "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" is sung. We should seek Flanagan's advise on the proper Etiquette and nuances how to sing the "Star Spangled Banner".

Read the following and tell me to what extent Stphen Harper and the Con's have adopted it.

The neo-conservative core

The three chief tenets of neo-conservative ideology are:

- the human condition is a choice between good and evil, and the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter

- the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it

- the Middle East and global Islam is the prime theatre for American overseas interests.

In making these tenets active, neo-conservatives:

- see international issues in morally absolutist categories; they are convinced that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement effectively offers comfort to the enemy

- emphasise the unipolar nature of American power and are prepared to exercise the military option as the first rather than last policy choice; they repudiate the received “lessons of Vietnam”, believing they undermine American willingness to use force - and rather embrace the “lessons of Munich”, believing they establish the virtues of pre-emptive military action

- disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the state department and country-specific, pragmatic analysis because they dilute and confuse the ideological clarity of their policies

- eschew multilateral institutions and treaties while drawing comfort from international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/article_1998.jsp
Neo-conservatism and the American future, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, 6 July 2004

"Stefan Halper " " Stephen Harper" is it possible, . . . no, not possible, . . . yes . . . wait . . . it's confirmed . . . Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World twin.

*****
* In "The Shock Doctrine" Naomi Klein talks about a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes. (Ms. Magazine Review: The Shock Doctrine** Ronnie Steinberg, Ms Magazine, Fall 2007)

When you read this Harper's statement during the last election makes sense, and it becomes clear that it was no slip but an expression of his core neo-con beliefs and code for a re-assurance to all the neo-con's out there that he has not lost his way vis.: "I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up with some of the panic we've seen in the Stock market in last few days". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgfjpZkAPQ - 23 seconds)

** Reviews of The Shock Doctrine,
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews

President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, but even he would be horrified by the Faustian bargain we see in today's neoliberal model of globalization. Not to be confused with the political liberalism of John Stuart Mill, neoliberalism is characterized by investigative reporter Naomi Klein as a "holy trinity" -- privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending -- in which governments dismantle trade barriers, abandon public ownership, reduce taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, cut health and welfare spending, and privatize education. She calls the means of achieving this goal "disaster capitalism" and describes how it has resulted in a worldwide redistribution of income and wealth to the already rich at the expense of economic solvency for the middle and lower classes.

The New Road to Serfdom
Christopher Hayes, In These Times, November 9, 2007

In the early ’80s, as Margaret Thatcher attempted to hack away at England’s substantial public sector, she found a frustrating degree of public resistance. The closer she got to the bone, the more the patient wriggled and withdrew. Thatcher doggedly persisted, yet her pace wasn’t fast enough for right-wing Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, her idol and ideological mentor. You see, in 1981, Hayek had traveled to Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, where, under the barbed restraints of dictatorship and with the guidance of University of Chicago-trained economists, Pinochet had gouged out nearly every vestige of the public sector, privatizing everything from utilities to the Chilean state pension program. Hayek returned gushing, and wrote Thatcher, urging her to follow Chile’s aggressive model more faithfully.

War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From 'Disaster Capitalism'
Paul B. Farrell, Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007

Hot tip: Invest in "Disaster Capitalism." This new investment sector is the core of the emerging "new economy" that generates profits by feeding off other peoples' misery: Wars, terror attacks, natural catastrophes, poverty, trade sanctions, market crashes and all kinds of economic, financial and political disasters.

In this Orwellian future, everything must be seen with new eyes: "Disasters" are "IPOs," opportunities to buy into a new "company." Corporations like Lockheed-Martin are the real "emerging nations" of the world, not some dinky countries. They generate huge profits, grow earnings. And seen through the new rose-colored glasses of "Disaster Capitalism" they are hot investment opportunities.

To more fully grasp this new economy, you must read what may be the most important book on economics in the 21st century, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, whose roots trace back the ideas of three 20th century giants:

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Just 'Boot' Stephen Harper and the Con's - never mind 'rebooting' Michael Ignatieff

Rebooting Michael IgnatieffHandlers hope Liberal leader's back-to-school tour will help revitalize their party's sagging fortunes, Susan Delacourt, Jan 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/748676--rebooting-michael-ignatieff?bn=1#comments
Submitted: 10:38am, PST,10 Jan.'10

Last week Ignatieff described the purpose of his University circuit as "listen and learn".

Whereas, these are admirable intellectual pursuits which I am sure student will appreciate. There are a number of reasons (some important ones set out below) I am not so sure this is going to achieve much.

Also, UofVic newspaper noted that the Liberal leader would do well to talk about the environment", which suggest another issue. To what extent have the Liberals researched exactly what are the needs and concerns of students at our various Universities.

If this UofVic 'media advisory' were news to Ignatieff, then it's going to be a long trek. 'Looking before you leap' is important as we saw last Fall when Ignatieff seemed to have missed the overwhelming feeling of Canadian about an election before he jumped into his "giving notice" campaign, to the extent that one wonders how that could be so. On the other hand, Harper seemed to have no trouble in guessing the sentiments of the vast majority on that issue.

What is more that might be gleaned from this is that the students don't want some esoteric, intellectual discussion about an Utopia in the murky future.

I suggest that they are like all Canadians, if not more so. That is, students are concerned about their futures, jobs, the withering debt they are being left with. They are also concerned about Global Warming for which they are the ones who will be left to pay.

Further, like all of us, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave them with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

I suggest that students, like all of us, are concerned that they will not only will they have to suffer the extreme climate changes precipitated by Global Warming. But, when the Third World Countries come 'knocking' for retribution, and they will come 'knocking', law suits, based on the tobacco law suit precedents, with awards in the trillions (that's 10 to the power of 12) will be the least of their worries. It's the looking at all Canada's (assuming there is a Canada then, another acute issue) resources and how 'we did nothing to stop it' justification that is much scarier, by far. Does anyone really think they, with no water, engulfed in systemic famine, floods, catastrophic weather, will say, "Oh, but Canada's inaction was justified because it only accounts for only 2% of global warming gases". Not likely.

Then, of course, there is Harper and the Con's extreme contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and Harper's systematic dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void.

Also, the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up, with its potential for the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague - there's the basis of intellectual and stimulating discussion. All I want to know is: how do you get a seat as an onlooker at the ICC, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? I asked MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, to check that out for me, but I haven't heard back, yet. Any of your reading know. Thanks.

Our campuses are a centre for intellectual activity, but also, there is also the traditional centre and very visible and passionate protesting corrupt governments.

We can count on our students not to allow Harper, Baird, Prentice and all the Con's to define "urgency" as "panic","passionate advocacy" as 'irrational'.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper in Conext, For all the non-Canadian Readers

Harper goes prorogue, Jan 7th 2010
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212

For all the non-Canadian readers, here is some context:

Proroguing Parliament is outrageous and a very dangerous precedent. As pointed out. Now anytime the PM gets his government into trouble they simply has to prorogue. This will have a neutering effect on Parliament and marginalize it to the point of being irrelevant. Without Parliament, who will be in a position to keep Harper and the Con's in check. There is no other Institution that has the right to obtain the information, present it to Canadians and actually do something about it.

It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.

Harper caused serious disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to the spirit of his legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.

Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.

The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.

Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

Note that: "where much is decided at the provincial level" is 'Con[servative] code' for the above.

As far as Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, Harper may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, he can't Prorogue the the International Criminal Courts at the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer.

How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? I asked MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, to check that out for me, but I haven't heard back, yet. Any of your reading know. Thanks.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- On 25 Jan.'10 Ignatieff and the Liberals will be there fighting for Canadians, Harper will be off somewhere fighting for more power and Canada be damned.

Submitted: 9:43am, PST, 9 Jan.'10

Look Who's (Just?) Visiting the Foyer!, January 8, 2010 ,|Kady O'Malley
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/look-whos-just-visiting-the-foyer.html

It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.

Harper caused serious disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to the spirit of his legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.

Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.

The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.

Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

Canadians don't want an election, but, I suggest to you, they want a Canada, one that is strong, united, prosperous and Democratic.

And, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

On 25 Jan.'10 Ignatieff and the Liberals will be there fighting for Canadians, Harper will be off somewhere fighting for more power and Canada be damned.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Soon Harper Will Claim Canada is Dysfunctional and Prorogue Our Nation

submitted in 4 parts, starting 9:27 am, PST, 8 Jan.'10:
Harper prorogues, No election plans? Just watch him, Don Newman, January 7, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/07/f-vp-newman.html#socialcomments-submit

Don Newman's analysis of the current situation is very good. He seems to have left out the euphoric love-in effect for Harper and the Con's coming off the Winter Olympics. This factor should not be overlooked and by that time the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up may very well refer to 'bygone days'.

Another factor, which may work against an election is the current downward trend in Harper and the Con's in the Polls. However, it may very well be that the fading into the pages of history of the Afghan Scandal and the Olympics will cause an upturn, and it probably will.

But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.

Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.

So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.

Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.

Ignatieff and the Liberals seem to be oblivious to this real threat of an early Spring election with Ignatieff going on the University circuit to 'listen and learn'.

Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.

It seems to me that Canadians want a clear alternative to Harper, not some esoteric world view. They are looking for someone that can stand toe-to-toe with Harper, not in the hazy future, but now. They are not looking for some future Utopia. They want to know that they won't lose their jobs, they won't lose their homes, they won't go bankrupt and they will leave a heritage for their children and their children's children that we all can take a step back, look at and be proud to say "This is Canada, this our nation, it's your turn now", and not leave a future for which our children's children that will be required shoulder a withering economic burden in a hollowed-out shell of a nation whose social fabric has been torn asunder.

Someone has observed that the political environment is that of a constant campaign. Anyone who is waiting to fight sometime in the future when they are 'ready' has already lost, if Dion taught us anything it's that.

Proroguing Parliament is outrageous and a very dangerous precedent. As pointed out. Now anytime the PM gets his government into trouble they simply has to prorogue. This will have a neutering effect on Parliament and marginalize it to the point of being irrelevant. Without Parliament, who will be in a position to keep Harper and the Con's in check. There is no other Institution that has the right to obtain the information, present it to Canadians and actually do something about it.

As far as Afghanistan Detainee Transfer Scandal, Harper may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, he can't Prorogue the the International Criminal Courts at the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer.

It is common knowledge that Harper has the greatest contempt for all Canada's Democratic institutions and is systematically dismantling this nation and abandoning its responsibilities leaving the Provinces to fill the void. To see just exactly what he has planned we simply have to look at what he has done.

Harper caused serious and intentional disruption to Parliament and its Committees, obstructing and responding only with insults instead of any serious discussion. He then called an election contrary to, in at least, the spirit of his fixed term legislation, claiming that Parliament is dysfunctional - neat trick, make it dysfunctional and then use that to justify his anti-democratic actions.

Soon Harper will claim Canada is dysfunctional and defer entirely to the Provinces.

The power to do these things has always been there, especially for PM's that have a majority, or even a large majority. So, why is Harper doing this, whereas Mulroney and Chrétien didn't. One need only consider that the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart (you may no have agreed with them, but I can't recall anyone suggesting that they did not have Canada and our nation at heart).

Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.

The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).

This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.

Canadians don't want an election, but, I suggest to you, they want a Canada, one that is strong, united, prosperous and Democratic.

And, they want a leader that will fight for them, these things, what this great nation stands for, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Harper Proroguing Parliament. Then I can only say.

God save Canada.

Who else is left to 'Stand On Guard for Thee'.

We must bite the bullet, so to speak, have an election and give Harper and his Con's the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper "The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record"

Excerpt submitted: 10:02am PST, 7 Jan.'10
Harper's new tune strikes sour note, PM trying to avoid facing Parliament, Dan Lett, 7/01/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/harpers-new-tune-strikes-sour-note-80885187.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

"The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record"
(Harper, as leader of the Official Opposition, lambasting the Chrétien government's plans to prorogue Parliament back in 2003)

Wow . . . I wish I had said that - about Harper and the Afghan transferee scandal and ensuing cover-up that is - as well as many other things.

Harper and the Con's priority far outweighs any legislative agenda.

In fact, it does not include our Democratic Institutions at all. What does Harper need laws for when he exercises unbridled power through the Executive and Administration.

As far as the 'tough on crime' agenda, as Van Loan explained it, they have "a different philosophy" - yes guess what it is. If your answer is heavy on extreme right wing ideology and light on Democracy, transparency, rationality, factual underpinning, your not far off.

The 'tough on crime' agenda is no more than power mongering, like Harper's other agenda's, and Canada be damned .

We saw the same kind of propaganda politiking with the 2% GST reduction. Even Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, came out and admitted as much (“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”)

Harper and the Con's use a catchy phrase that is short, resonates with no demands on in depth analysis and sticks, to describe ad hoc and superficial policies - designed for their propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times.

God Save Canada.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

From previous posts . . .

One big difference between Paul Martin and Harper, aside from Harper's slanderous attacks on Martin and anyone that dares to stand up to him. Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.

It would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level, to learn the truth; and, an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

He may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, Harper can't Prorogue the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer

How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.

With a 33 - 35% die-hard core of supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of these Blocks and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise.

The counter to this is to thoroughly and vigorously, with all out efforts and at all times, expose Harper and the Con's for what they are and the damage they have already done and will do, especially if they get a majority.

It is not good enough to say, what are the Liberals doing. I would vote Liberals but their leader is weak.

This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.

This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.

We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.

We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming,

Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his turn to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election". He may even poison the budget - yah, like he's ever done that before.

It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.

The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).

This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.

- Harper morphing to 'extreme right wing dictator'

Posted: 1/6/2010 10:54:58 AM
Harper to revive Senate reform plan, Campbell Clark, Jan. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-to-revive-senate-reform-plan/article1420300/Tab 30

'As for the detainee issue, the Prime Minister said “polls have been very clear … that that's not on the top of the radar of most Canadians.”'

Am I reading this right.

Wasn't it Harper who, on his 'Right Wing Extremist' high horse, stated:

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion"

Is this Harper reversing his approach on how to run Canada from 'extreme right wing ideologue' to 'extreme right wing dictator'.

Or, is it simply Harper Con'ing Canadians.

Harper, how about doing the right (morally right that is) thing, stand tall, take responsibility, show leadership, put the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of our country, and call for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal.

Paul Martin and the Liberals did it. I know, I know, . . . one might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Arma virumque cano

posted: 1/5/2010 12:56:58 PM
Prorogation versus coalition:Which causes more outrage? Gloria Galloway, January 4, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-vs-coalition-which-causes-more-outrage/article1418211/
Tab 34

It is an error in analysis to put the call-to-arms by Harper and the Con's last December on the same plane with the 'opponents of prorogation' protests on the Internet.

The former was a show of strength not a show of (anti-) support. It represented a 'mobilization of troops' in a fashion that has been repeated countless times since mankind first organized into groups and not an Internet-arm-chair exercise in Democracy.

'Arma virumque cano' (in case Flanagan might read this. I just learned that Tom, mastermind behind Harper and the Con's acquisition and maintaining power, was actually born in Ottawa. Oh, a Canadian - Not! That's Ottawa, Illinois - but then Harper probably prefers Ottawa to be in the US anyway - i.e. in the right wing, conservative heartland, USA - I wonder what Flanagan and the other right wing extremist Harper political advisers from the US do when we sing "Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee" - anybody notice)

It is no co-incidence that Harper and the Con's employed such tactics when they were in the process of suppressing our Democratically elected Institutions last December in order to keep a grip on power.

The problem is that Harper and the Con's have 33% diehard supporters that are, for one, a source of unending funds (legally contributed, of course) and unquestioning support that Harper seems to be able to radicalize at the drop of a hat.

During the holidays someone posed the question:

How did a Party so politically and media inept that the considered calling themselves "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party" (C-CRAP) evolve into the tight, well oiled Political entity with a propaganda machine the likes of which has not been seen in Western Democracies in recent times that is on the verge of eliminating our Democratic Institutions and establishing dictatorial rule by the Executive Branch of government. I would love to hear suggested explanations.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Giving Harper a majority will only bring on more of the same damage, but to a much greater extreme and much quicker

submitted: 8:07am PST, 4 Jan.'10
2010: The year of the Harper majority, By Dan Leger, Jan 4, '10,
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1160594.html Tab 4

All those who have grave concerns about Harper, MacKay, Flaherty, Baird, O'Connor and the Con government, and that is about 2/3rd's of us, should take what Dan Leger has to say very seriously.

Personally I think there is a good chance Harper will put a poison pill or two in the budget in order to force a non-confidence vote.

This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.

This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.

Harper has already done an exception amount of damage not only to the country's finances but also to its International reputation, the social, economic and political fabric that holds Canada together, and the future of our children and our children's children.

Giving Harper a majority will only bring on more of the same damage, but to a much greater extreme and much quicker and everyone who dares to stand up to him will be well advised to take cover - if you think the viscous character attacks now are bad, just wait.

We must all keep in mind when reflecting on this, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.

We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming, but also includes their "tough on Crime"; their "2 points off the GST"; their dismantling Federalism and shirking responsibility in many areas, leaving a vacuum that the Provinces must fill; their abandonment of national childcare; their abandonment of the Arts, Sciences and education; their policies on Immigration with their roots in "old ways" of Manning, Day, Harper and the right wing extremists of the Reform Party; their 'in-your-face" international diplomacy; their contempt for our democratic institutions; their putting our men and women in uniform in harms way by their handling of the Afghan prisoner transfers in the first instance and their pursuant cover-up, etc.

There are many people who are in a position to know, who are predicting a second wave of recession, globally, much worse than the first in the next year.

The Bank of Canada has already come out and warned people that interest rates will increase in June and that our finances are not in order. Harper last time called the election on the precipice of the recession and for the first 2 - 3 weeks of the election even denied that there was an kind of financial difficulties.

Job losses from the current recession will start having a negative and domino effect on our economy in 2010 and people will start to see just to what extent Harper and the Con's have mis-managed the stimulus spending, Canada's finances and there will be the mega-deficit.

Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Turning Over a New Leaf??? - Yeh, Right!

Excerpt submitted: 2:17 PST, 3 Jan.10
PM shuts down Parliament until March Tories trying to 'shut down democracy,' Liberal MP Goodale says, December 30, 2009,
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/30/parliament-prorogation-harper.html#socialcomments tab 821

Harper Proroguing Parliament

Harper turning over a new leaf???

Increasing Transparency? - evidently, Everyone can plainly see why Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's are doing everything they can to bury the Afghan detainee transfer scandal and cover-up.

Fortunately, it's not likely to stop the call for a Judicial Inquiry. I think Louise Arbour would be an excellent choice as Commissioner for an Inquiry into the Afghan detainee transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up. What do you think.

Harper's Viscous Character Attacks? - it appears that Harper is intending to responding to criticism as well without his normal modus operandi of in-your-face, insult and vicious character attack.

Harper's only use of Parliament and its Committees is to viciously attack everyone who gets in his way, with gratuitous insults and character assassinations. By Proroguing Parliament he must be intending to give up his tried and true ways.

Harper's In-Your-Face diplomacy? - Ever since Harper took office he has been seriously criticized for his incredibly inept handling of foreign affairs.

Evidently, by Proroguing Parliament Harper seems to be trying to avoid further International diplomatic disasters for Canada. How would Canada look on the International scene when all the foreign leaders are here for the Winter Olympics and Parliament is exposing Harper and his Ministers for their participation in the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. That would certainly be more black marks to Canada's previous sparkling International reputation. Also, how could Harper look these other leaders in the eye in any discussions and be taken seriously with a background of such revelations.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

One big difference between Paul Martin and Harper, aside from Harper's slanderous attacks on Martin and anyone that dares to stand up to him. Martin stood tall, took responsibility, showed leadership, putting the grasping onto, maintaining and grubbing of power, second to the good of the country, and called for an Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. One might say that, yes, but, Martin knew that he, personally, had nothing to worry about when the truth started to emerge.

It would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level, to learn the truth; and, an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

He may be able to Prorogue Parliament. But, Harper can't Prorogue the Hague - those 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - must answer

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie; and, I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.

Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's have risked putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way by potential exposure to possible war crimes allegations and prosecution at the International Criminal Court in the Hague and even with respect to domestic Canadian law, in regards to the transfer of Afghan detainees to the Afghan authorities; and, the ensuing cover-up and viscous character assassination of anyone who dares to stand up to them is outrageous.

How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Our Society is based on Rationality, It's Time We Insisted that Our Politics is as Well

Revolution implies a very rapid, radical change in polarity of a state's political structure. Since it is a radical change in polarity, the group must, by necessity, be extremist. To support its rapidity and success, force is employed, and perhaps required. Sometimes it is violent and others the mere display of violence through social disobedience and protesting seems to do the trick. 10 - 15% of the population so dedicated to the cause is sufficient, and perhaps necessary, support to sustain such revolution.

On the other hand, even in a democracy, if you double the % of people dedicated to 1/3 rd of the people, 30 - 35%, say, such change may be effected without out-and-out revolution but through patience. The end result is the same, of course, that is, the radical change in polarity of the state's political, and social, structure.

Of course, if a comparable number are equally dedicated to maintaining the old political structure then you have a civil war, in the former case; and, serious political instability as society undergoes the radical social and political upheaval, in the latter case. Who wins out is really a question of survival of the strongest.

This has, of course, been going on since humankind started organizing into groups. Our instincts have developed to equate politically strong with what is right and good. How often have we heard people say "my gut instinct is to vote for this person", or, more usually, "against that person". This begs the question, exactly what instinct they are relying upon to formulate this judgement. Of course, mud slinging and in its extreme form, attack ads, are designed precisely to play upon this. Some may say that this approach - equate politically strong with what is right and good - has served us well, and is the way it ought to be. But, one must keep in mind that this whole approach was developed and is effective in the situation where the law of the jungle dominates, where power flows from the barrel of a gun, so to speak. Where power flows from commerce, information and understanding our surrounding, all derived from knowledge based on rational thought through scientific methods, this 'physical might is right' approach not only has no place but is, obviously, counter-productive, and in fact downright destructive.

However, we, modern, scientifically advanced and dependent, developed, complex, multi-faceted, tolerant, economy based and democratic societies are in a circumstance that has never in the history of mankind been seen, or even close. Our whole way of life depends on rational thought. Our science is based on rational thought. Our economics is based on rational thought. Our educational system is based on rational thought. However, politics is still based on approaching the voter on an emotional level and irrational level - employing the socially dead-end evolutionarily principles of: our camp against your camp; we're right - you're wrong; we're good - you're bad; we're big - you're small, all relying on the basic premise: we're strong - you're week.

It is suggested that the doctrine of laïcité, or secularism (separation of church, or religion, and state) went hand in hand with the modern development of the application of scientific thought with the accompanying of mathematics to our circumstances. It freed politics from basing its decisions and policies on religious considerations and so allowed them to be based on the developing rationalism. Somewhere, somehow, this process has been thwarted and has has not yet taken effect.

Because our life style, standard of living and society as a whole, are based on rationality and diametrically opposite to the emotional, irrationality of the way we select our political leaders and those that govern us, we can only be destined for a radical change in polarity of our social and political structure. The only question is will it be rapid thus leading to revolution or civil war, or, through political instability and reversal of social attitudes. Of course, if we, the people, required that our politics be based on rationality, then our social structure will not only fall in sync but re-enforce each other, rather than, vibrate at odds and shake each other apart.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- This is not Harper's Canada, This is our Canada - we are the ones that must stand up to Harper and his Con's

Winning voters' hearts and minds: it's all about managing the message, John Ibbitson, 2 Jan.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/winning-voters-hearts-and-minds-its-all-about-managing-the-message/article1416775/ posted 1/2/2010 1:14:19 PM , Tab 26

"The question is whether voters are finally ready to overcome their suspicion that Mr. Harper might push the federal agenda far to the right if they entrust him with a majority government."

This statement suggests that the voters somehow get together and, en masse, make a deliberate, conscious decision to "give Harper a majority" or minority.

Obviously, this doesn't happen. At best voting goes in blocks, normally based on demographics and issues. The underlying dynamic is that there are many issues, each precipitating its own group for which it is important, which effects, not a spectrum, or unity, of voter opinion but a discrete and disconnected collection. However, there is only perhaps 5 Parties from which to choose. This, of course, explains vote splitting, and why it is that almost 2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper and the Con's, but they are now running this country. There have been examples of where the vote may be have overwhelmingly for one party or another - e.g. Mulroney's and Chrétien's first win, but in those cases the voters hardly needed to get together to decide who to vote for.

One can muse that the media is the medium for the voters to get together to decide for whom to vote. Although the media (traditional) can, and does, manipulate voting and can make a difference, specially with the undecided who don't know who to listen to - a prime example, in my opinion, of this was in the last few days of the last election when Dion made his 'radio interview re-takes' and Duffy, and CTV, plaid it for what it was worth - it is hard to determine the extent to which it affects the outcome (would Dion and the Liberals have come out ahead if not for Duffy).

The Web offers a better medium for getting together in the fashion envisioned. However, I suggest it illustrates, and supports, the precipitation of opinion into many small blocks, on many and diverse issues,which is my point.

It is rather the other way around.

If the media, including the media both traditional and Web, can "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper), then the voters can go to the voting polls, informed and enlightened. You can be sure, if Harper and the Con's were not afraid of this kind of exposure they would be carrying out their affairs in a totally different fashion.

One thing you can be sure of, Harper and the Con's are fully aware of 'block' voting and have been working on this from the very start. It takes time to woo and turn such blocks, but once you do, you reap the electoral rewards and they can be quite loyal - one need only look at Harper and the Con's support in Alberta, the Block support in Quebec, the Green support, etc.. And, it is a very difficult process to reverse, especially during an election where people are skeptical of politicians who talk to them only once every 4 years and their senses are numb from being blasted from all sides. Ideologically based Parties such as the Con's, NDP, Block and Greens, can survive only because they have a diehard core of supporters, based on their ideology.

I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.

With a 33 - 35% die-hard core of supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of these Blocks and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise.

The counter to this is to thoroughly and vigorously, with all out efforts and at all times, expose Harper and the Con's for what they are and the damage they have already done and will do, especially if they get a majority.

It is not good enough to say, what are the Liberals doing. I would vote Liberals but their leader is weak.

This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.

This is our Canada, each and every one of us. It is up to us to stand up and be counted. If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.

We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group.

We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything, not the least of which is Global Warming, but also includes their "tough on Crime"; their "2 points off the GST"; their dismantling Federalism and shirking responsibility in many areas, leaving a vacuum that the Provinces must fill; their abandonment of national childcare; their abandonment of the Arts, Sciences and education; their policies on Immigration with their roots in "old ways" of Manning, Day, Harper and the right wing extremists of the Reform Party; their 'in-your-face" international diplomacy; their contempt for our democratic institutions; their putting our men and women in uniform in harms way by their handling of the Afghan prisoner transfers in the first instance and their pursuant cover-up, etc.

There are many people who are in a position to know, who are predicting a second wave of recession, globally, much worse than the first in the next year. The Bank of Canada has already come out and warned people that interest rates will increase in June and that our finances are not in order. Harper last time called the election on the precipice of the recession and for the first 2 - 3 weeks of the election even denied that there was an kind of financial difficulties. Job losses from the current recession will start having a negative and domino effect on our economy in 2010 and people will start to see just to what extent Harper and the Con's have mis-managed the stimulus spending, Canada's finances and there will be the mega-deficit.

Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his turn to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election". He may even poison the budget - yah, like he's ever done that before.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Norman Spector - When You're Right, You're Right

Spector Vision, Harper plays the prorogation card, Norman Spector, Thursday, December 31, 2009,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harper-plays-the-prorogation-card/article1415744/ 12/31/2009 12:50:04 PM, Tab 6

I concur.

Norman, when you're right, your right (I am referring to morally or course, since you're are always 'Right').

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The Harper Dictatorship

Stephen Harper's not-so-benign dictatorship, Michael Behiels, Citizen Special, December 31, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Stephen+Harper+benign+dictatorship/2394185/story.html
submitted 9:37am PST, 31 Dec.'09 - not posted
re-submitted 3:36pm PST, 31 Dec.'09

"If the Supreme Court fails to defend the rights of Parliament and Canadians . . ."

I am not sure what you are referring to. Please explain. Is there, or will there, or could there, be such a challenge. Also, keep in mind that the Con's actually campaigned (in at least '04) on putting the Supreme Court under the direct review of Parliament. You connect the dots.

". . . , then every Canadian has the responsibility to exercise his/her full sovereignty via the ballot box."

Your article is interesting and important. However, your final conclusion seems politically naive.

We cannot wait for the next election to display our displeasure at the ballot box. If for no other reason than:
- Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians solely on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.

One can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

- Harper and the Cons have approx 33 - 35% core supporters, people who will support Harper no matter what. They are not interested in logic, rationality, preservation of Canada's Democratic system (they appear to have as much contempt for Canada's democratic system, and Canada as a nation, as Harper and his Con's). Further, Harper, through his propaganda machine and grass roots connections is able to incite them to an irrational pitch. One need only observe what happened last December. I have studied many political systems throughout the world, especially the establishment, and overthrow, of oppressive, totalitarian and dictatorially regimes. One thing I have observed is that it only takes 10 - 15% of the population who are so motivated to overthrough the existing political system and replace it (if you have any contrary info please let me know). Never in Canada you say - I pray to God not.

It seems to me that Canadian's must be made aware of the overall damaging effect that Harper and the Con's policies will have in the long run to Canada not only our economy, but to the country as a nation and our social fabric. It is our children and our children's children that will be required shoulder this withering burdened.

The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).

This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

I think that the way to do this is by having everyone, to a person, in Canada who feels strongly enough to stand up and be counted (I am sure I don't need a reference) do so, be encouraged to do it and be provided with the necessary information to assist. Everyone who can, including the media, who is at all concerned ought to be doing this - Canada's future and the future of our children and our children's children are at stake.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- What a 'Right-Wash' - Preston Manning, Honesty is the best policy

Preston Manning, Honesty is the best policy
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/honesty-is-the-best-policy/article1413594/
Tab 6, 12/29/2009 1:42:45 PM

"Preston Manning is president and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy"

Oh! and here I though it was the "Preston Manning" that is the right wing extremist that started, and was leader of, the Reform Party, mentor to Stephen Harper, co-author of numerous right wing papers along with Mike Harris, extreme right wing conservative who, along with Flaherty, Baird, Clement, Van Loan, destroyed Ontario both on a social and on an economic level.

If it were it would at least explain the extreme bias and distortion of Harper and 'ignorance' of the damage he has done to Canada, our reputation and trade Internationally.

One need only look at Harper's 'in-your-face' 'Insult Diplomacy' that delayed implementation of the Approved Destination Status by China for 4 years and compelled its President to publicly, while in the International spotlight, rebuke Harper.

Manning fails to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in Jan.'05 and it was Harper himself with his in-your-face, 'Insult Diplomacy' that caused the Chinese to drop it.(see: David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government" (ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)

And Canada may take prominence on the Global Scene in the not too distant future, if the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, decides to investigate Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con government's transferring Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities in 2006.

One can only wonder why Preston Manning would want to have us overlook his true background, but use a title like " Manning Centre for Building Democracy".

There is no Democracy in what Harper and the Con's are doing, right down to ignoring and his contempt for Parliament and Canadian political system.

Harper doesn't have an honest bone in his body, where he developed that trait, you tell me.

I guess what Manning meant to say is 'Laundering is the Best Policy'.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper - 'For whom the Gavel Falls'

Spector Visions, Saturday, December 26, 2009 8:45 AM, The secret(s) of Stephen Harper’s success, Norman Spector, submitted, 12/27/2009 12:30:37 PM, Tab 29

"Mr. Harper is refusing to call a public inquiry into the detainees issue because, though it is the right thing to do, it carries a high risk of alienating his political base — which strongly supports the Canadian military. "

Harper won't call for an inquiry because he knows it is not the military that have to worry. It is Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, and all the Con's that have to worry.

Martin "did the right thing", the proper thing, the only thing, if you want to be a true leader of this great country of ours, stood up and took responsibility.

Norman you may like Harper, but Harper has no class and no sense of decency. He has the political instincts of Attila the Hun, without a stateman's bone in his body.

Harper's only interested is power, grabbing it and holding onto it, Canada be damned. This may have worked in the Dark Ages, but for a complex, modern, economy based democracy it will prove Canada's undoing - which is, as you know, one of his, and his political base's , manifest objectives.

It will be an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

Harper can't Prorogue the Hague. Harper - 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - will have to answer.

I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.

However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada ,on the International level, to learn the truth.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Harper and the Con's.

Lloyd Macilquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canada's Inaction to Global Warming - The Devil Made Us Do It

So much Bunkam - So little time - continued - see below.

- Canada's Defense to the 'power of ten' law suits - "the devil made them do it"

The silent majority can no longer be silent, the Pantzopoulos poll is a dire demonstration of this.

For all those out there that do not support Harper, Baird, Prentice and all the Con's stance on Global Warming, my suggestion is to make your opposition as public as possible.

Then, perhaps, when the Third World come 'knocking' for retribution, and they will come 'knocking', our children and our children's children can beseech some kind of exclusion.

I agree that one person can't do much, except, passionately advocate that everyone get together and do all they can. And we must not allow Harper, Baird, Prentice and all the Con's to define "urgency" as "panic","passionate advocacy" as 'irrational'.

"The devil made them do it" defence may even be a defence at the 'Power of Ten Law Suits' - i.e. multi-trillion (or whatever comes after that) dollar law suits at the International Courts

- the 'power of 10' referring to the amounts awarded at the International Courts (i.e they will be expressed in "ten to the power of . . . ") -

when the Third World Countries sue our descendent's for the damage inflicted by our current actions and inactions on Global Warming - using, perhaps, the precedents established by the present era Cigarette law suites (see my previous posting - above). I would think that a precondition to the applicability of such a defence would be to what extent their (our children and our children's children) forefathers (us), on an individual bases stood up and fought.

Posting on the Internet may be a good way to do it, since in 50 years, the 'Web Archaeologists" will be able to "drill down" (to borough a military phrase) to the 2009 level and expose all.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- So much Bunkam from Harper - So little time for the World.

Ottawa Notebook, 'The warm front has passed' on climate change, Jane Taber, 17 Dec.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-warm-front-has-passed-on-climate-change/article1403636/ Tab 12, 13, 17

Dear Lady Jane,

So much Bunkam from Harper and Everyone that Supports Him - So little time for the World.

If Dimitri Pantzopoulos (former Conservative Party pollster) does not release the data from his poll how can any one say that "his research is solid".

I can see no reasons to throw out 200 years of development of the scientific principles of "transparency" and "skepticism" (i.e. make the data available to all so that it may be tested by his peers, this, of course, refers to all in the scientific community and not the Con Party) simply because we are dealing with probably the single most important issue, other than nuclear holocaust, the mankind has every faced as a species.

I realize that a reporter can not be expected to be well versed in transparency and objectivity, however, that is no excuse for out and out bias.

How do we know if this is just another application of the legendary Harper propaganda machine.

“My takes on the numbers is that attitudes to the environment are unlikely to rebound to previous levels even in the face of an improving economy. . ."
This is obviously subjective and not objective and clearly indicates a political statement - perhaps even an application of the basic Harper and the Con doctrine, so adeptly expressed by Tom Flanagan, 'it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible' [sic].

To say that numbers will not rebound is simply another way of denying Global Warming. Clearly as the effects of Global Warming because more and more manifest, the attitude to Global Warming will rebound.

This, course, is at the heart of the problem. When this happens it will be too late by far to do anything.

The actions of the Third World Countries at Copenhagen should be a wake-up call to everyone, especially in Canada.

When their countries are under ocean water, have no potable water, are experience systemic drought and crop failure, blight, super-storms, Tsunami's, hurricanes of Biblical proportions, they will turn their attention to Canada and see that we still have water, still have crops, have the resources to endure all these things and, of course, still releasing huge amounts of global warming gasses.

Does anyone really think they will say, "Oh, but Canada's inaction was justified because it only accounts for only 2% of global warming gasses. Not likely. More likely they will demand retribution.

In a past era it would very likely lead to 'the GWW' (Global Warming Wars). However, in this modern era, one need only look at what has happened to the cigarette companies in Canada and the United State - i.e. multi-trillion (or whatever comes after that) dollar law suites at the International Courts - the 'power of 10 law suites' i.e. the amounts awarded will be expressed in 10 to the power of whatever (of course, I could be mistaken about the GWW's). The Harper position to Global Warming and their so called 'Reports' and polls are so analogous to what the cigarette companies did for so many years, its scary, or it should be scary.

This will, in and of itself, of course, cripple our children and our children's children economy and cast their futures into a new Dark Age. And who will we have to thank - Harper, Baird, Prentice, all the Con's and everyone that supports them.

Keep in mind that nature takes care of its own. Global Warming on the evolutionary scene is no more than the 'smoking gun' of mankind's extinction. The inaction and total selfishness of people like Harper is merely the manifestation of the 'evolutionary flaw' of the species. The irony is that Harper's right wing ideology of sink or swim, the strongest survive, is exactly the principle that will lead to the extinction of the human species, and his approach to Global Warming the method. God gave us brains equipped with a discerning rational faculty, let's pray we use it.

If there is a mere possibility of our actions resulting in the type of Universal Cataclysm indicated by Global Warming we must act now and in the extreme.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

posted 10:43m PST, 17 Dec.'09
World leaders push for climate deal, 17 Dec.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-warm-front-has-passed-on-climate-change/article1403636/ Tab 99, 101

- All those outraged by Harper's Actions Regarding the Afghan Detainee Scandal Raise Your Hand

Diplomat fires back over Afghan detainee torture, CTV.ca News Staff, Dec. 16 2009
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091216/colvin_letter_091216/20091216?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection Submitted to CTV, 2:42pm, 16 Dec.'09

All those outraged by the actions* of Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn, and all the Con's, after learning about the Colvin Letter raise your hand . . .

Let's see: . . . one, two, three . . . 12,890,532 . . . 33,311,389 . . . oh come on Steve, don't be shy, you're going to have to raise your hand a bit higher . . . that's it.

There seems to be approximately 144 people in Canada who haven't put their hands up - I wonder what that could mean.

* the outrageous "actions" are referring to those of Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Hawn and all the Con's - putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way by potential exposure to possible war crimes allegations and prosecution at the International Criminal Court in the Hague and even with respect to domestic Canadian law, in regards to the transfer of Afghan detainees to the Afghan authorities; and, the ensuing cover-up and viscous character assassination of anyone who dares to stand up to them

For a summary of the Colvin letter: "Public inquiry only possible response to damning Colvin letter",
December 16, 2009, Liberal - News Room
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17125_public-inquiry-only-possible-response-to-damning-colvin-letter

Full text can be found at:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091216/colvin_letter2_091216/20091216?hub=Canada

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Colvin disputes witnesses' detainee testimony, Dec. 16 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/16/colvin-letter.html#socialcomments submitted 2:53, 16 Dec.'09; re-submitted at submitted to CBC at: 7:36 PST, 16 Dec.'09 (without 'full text can be found at CTV')

- Put rationality into the way our country is run - Give Harper, Flaherty and all the Con's the boot

A credible budget will have to include tax increases, C. Scott Clark and Peter DeVries
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-credible-budget-will-have-to-include-tax-increases/article1400092/
Tab 4

It is time that we put some rationality into the way the country is run and it certainly isn't with Harper at the helm.

20 Sep.'08 I posted:

The Harper government’s strategy from the time it took office was to slash taxes to the point that there is no appreciable surplus. This, obviously, was not an accident but a well thought out strategy. For one thing it was intended to make people ‘Happy with Harper’ by reducing taxes. For another thing, their obvious strategy is that any programs promised by the Liberal or other parties, would be attacked on the grounds that taxes would have to be increased to support it.

In actuality reducing taxes to the extreme is one of the objectives that the paper by Mike Harris and Preston Manning for the Fraser Institute just before Harper was elected and is part of a far reaching, well defined, Extreme Right Wing agenda. They recommend reduced government spending [to 30% of GDP, if I recall]) – which Harper does seem to have got to yet.

By slashing taxes to such an extent Harper has weakened Canada’s ability to withstand hash economic times through social policies (enshrined in the Canadian way of life and distinguishes us from the Americans).

This of course will be very important in the next year or two.

Disjointed ‘micro-policies’ also weakens our ability to deal with large problems like the environment and the economy in a coherent, comprehensive and effective fashion. For Harper and the Con’s this is not a bad thing since they really don’t want to ‘deal with the environment’ but would rather push it off to the individual Provinces ‘À la Firewall’. They really don’t want comprehensive Federal social programs since this detracts from their Laissez-faire, sink or swin, approach to the economy (which, of sourse, one of the major factors defining them as extremist, right wing) which again can be seen in Harper’s Firewall Letter.

Harper's reducing surpluses to zero is actually a result of his sink or swim approach to our economic activity. That is, people should not turn to the Federal government for help when they are thrown into dire need due to economic downturns, they should turn to themselves. This became very clear when Flaherty told the municipal leader to stop whining when The Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a study last November warning that much of the nation's municipal infrastructure is "on the brink of failure" and will cost $123 billion to upgrade. Flaherty responded "we're not in the pothole business in the government of Canada." (see: Toronto Star, "Cities told to stop `whining'", 22 Nov.'07).

. . .

Here is one of the Harper quotes – Scary Stuff! it is something that everyone should consider when choosing how to vote:

· Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.
(Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994 )

***

10 December, 2009
- "Debt Men - and Women - Walking"

Of course, if you think the deficit is large now just wait until the interest rates are increased by 2 points.
Interest rates will increase. Most economists in other countries are already pointing to the economic tsunami that awaits us when this happens.

This is a serious concern, more immediate than Global Warming, more far reaching than Afghan transferees being tortured.

When you look at the huge deficit Harper, Flaherty and the Con's are racking up, and you look at the "do-nothing" approach to Global Warming - one can only wonder, just what does Harper and the Con's have against our children and our children's children anyway.

When the Federal Government finances start to collapse under the weight of the debt and when the personal and company bankruptcies start to exponentiate, what will Harper have to say then - "we saved the Canadian economy", "steady as she goes", "even hand on the keel", "let the market forces prevail", "minimize Federal Government interference", "it's the Laissez faire way or the highway".

***

- 17 Oct.'09, "Best to give Harper the boot now"

Harper's strategy for the economy is to do nothing and it will grow itself out of deficit, in 5 to 6 years - wow, what a great excuse to keep Harper in power. This is like someone max'g his credit cards out on the basis that sometime in the future he will get a higher paying job and pay them off.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canada's Top 10 New Years Resolutions

Submitted 12:15am,PST 13 Dec.'09 - not posted
Submitted 7:45am,PST 14 Dec.'09

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/summing-up-the-spin-on-that-documents-release.html#socialcomments-submit

Summing up the spin on that documents release, Janyce McGregor , 11 Dec.'09
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/summing-up-the-spin-on-that-documents-release.html#socialcomments-submit Tab 18

Canada's Top 10 New Years Resolutions.

No. 10: Compel Harper and his gang to produce the Afghan Detainee Transferee documents, in toto

No. 9: Bring an motion or private member's Bill to hold a Public Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up by Harper and his gang

No. 8: Put Harper, MacKay et al under House arrest - or did they get rid of that already??? - For contempt of Parliament for not hand over the Afghan Detainee Transferee documents and in toto (i.e. all of them and un-redacted)

No7: Give Day the boot

No. 6: Give Toews the boot

No.5: Give Van Loan the boot

No.4: Give Baird the boot

No.3: Give MacKay the boot

No. 2: Give Harper the Boot

and the Number one Canada's New years Resolution . . .

If you care about Canada

mouse here

If you are one of the 33% diehard supporters of Harper and the Con's or the other 3-4 % that support them,

mouseover here

Maybe Parliament could introduce a motion to change "Stockwell Day's" name to "Doris Day".
What, already been suggested? by Rick Mercer? Brilliant!
Ahhh ... yes, I see, through the miracle of Internet I can go back in history and get:

"Rick Mercer gets minimum signatures for referendum to have Stockwell Day change name to Doris!"
http://web.ncf.ca/pat/pdqlib/humor.html

. . .

what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...

"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...

- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.

- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.

- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."
(http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat")

Am I ready this right! Did Day actually say these things?

Perhaps the media could through some light in this dark place.

And Day is running this country as International Trade Minister??? What would aliens say if they came and hovered over Ottawa.

All I can say is, God save Canada! Wait, God helps those that help themselves. We can not rely on divine intervention.

We must take the bull - graven image for all you traditionalists - by the horns, give Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan, Nicholson, Toews, . . . oh, and did I mention Day, the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, MacKay - How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Do they sell tickets? How far in advance do you have to book?

See: Tories to ignore vote on releasing prisoner reports, CTV News, 11 Dec.'09 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091211/afghanistan_motion_091211/20091211?hub=QPeriod#commentSection

"Defence Minister Peter MacKay has argued that releasing the records 'could be helpful to the enemy' and jeopardize Canadian troops."
Oh, is Pater MacKay still Minister of Defence?

Great, that means that when Canada withdraws its troops form Afghanistan in (July?) 2011, that Parliament can expect to get the documents. It's quite a while away from now, but might be the simplest solution, going to court would take longer.

Harper, MacKay's timeline for handing over these documents is more like "when hell freezes over".

Why, you ask. Especially when their reason is the safety of the troops.

"An interesting remark by MacKay, when he 'testified' last week at the Committee, may shed some light on this dark corner - "I am proud to have associated myself with the military and the diplomats" [sic]. Sounds like a Freudian slip to me.

And compare it to what Gar Pardy, retired Canadian diplomat, had to say the other day "Harper has been going around the world lately wrapping himself in the Canadian flag, but has achieving only to sully it".

Clearly a strategy of Harper and MacKay is to identify themselves with the military. But, why. For one, they may be hoping it will save their bacon - keep in mind potential criminal investigations by the International Criminal Courts, not to mention for Canadian criminal laws. Other motives - you tell me."

see below: cicblog.com/comments.html
- Peter MacKay word unreliable - a euphemism for liar - you judge
- Harper, MacKay show the utmost contempt for Parliament.

Well, let me see if I have the logic.

MacKay has been making great efforts to identify himself with Canada's military. Hence, he is 'one of our proud men and women in uniform'. And, withholding the documents may save his bacon. Therefore, dsiclosing the documents after Canada's troops withdraw, will still jeopardize Canadian troops - it may only be a handful of troops and they may all members of the Harper Cabinet, but hey, works for me.

Ditto for Harper.

Releasing the documents 'could be helpful to the enemy'.

This hardly requires comment.

The logic jumps out at you when you keep in mind that for Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan, Nicholson, Toews, . . . oh, and did I mention Day, the enemy is the Official Opposition, Ignatieff, the Liberal Party; Layton and the NDP; and, yes, although Harper has disenfranchised all those voted Block, Gilles Duceppe and the Block; and, in a word, anyone else who dares to stand up to them.

Could these documents be helpful to this 'enemy' - you betcha!

To all those that say Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, or whoever else it is at the time, when they say they will respect Parliament and withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2011 - you are, obviously, one of those 33% diehard supporters of Harper and the Con's or one of the additional 3-4% that are supporting Harper and the Con's. Canada, all Canadians as nation, our children and our children's children owes you all a great debt of gratitude.

How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted, 9:47am, PST, 13 Dec.09,
Summing up the spin on that documents release, Janyce McGregor , 11 Dec.'09
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/summing-up-the-spin-on-that-documents-release.html#socialcomments-submit Tab 13

not posted

re-submitted, 10:34pm PST (1:34 EST), 13 Dec.'09, (changing "h... freezes over" see above "hell ..." - with "... freezes over" and it was posted

****
Submitted: December 13, 2009 @ 10:10 am PST
Parliament in showdown with Harper government over Afghan documents, 11 Dec. '09, Jennifer Ditchburn, THE CANADIAN PRESS
http://www.coastreporter.net/article/GB/20091211/CP02/312119899/-1/SECHELT/opposition-passes-rare-motion-ordering-tories-to-release-afghanistan&template=cpArt

- Harper, 'Thanks For the Memories' - continued ...continued

At 10:26 am I posted my Comment. (see below)

At 10:33 am Harper-crites posted "Thanks Lloyd. I've added your blog to my bookmarks !!"

sometime after that my Comment was pulled down - vis.:

Moderator's Note: Lloyd Macilquham's comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.

(see Tab 28)

With anoher G&M Article, written by Jane Taber.
see below: - Dear Jane Taber (No. III) . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed

BeenThinking posted "Lloyd MacIlquham - funny thing, just as a experiment I put thumbs up - didn't come up. A thumbs down came in it's place.

This is fishy. "

As I mentioned a few days ago with another of Jane Taber's articles I got over 220 Thumbs Down in about 20 minutes.

What happened to the Media shining light into the dark corners of the Government. The whole point of the exercise is to expose all the nasty little ugliness's that the government is hiding and expose them to the light for all to see.

If you have no stomach for it, that is not the messenger's fault. That is the fault of the ones who hide the problem in the first place. I won't mention any names . . . ah ah aaaa ... Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan, Nicholson, Toews and all the Con's ... chooo, sorry, sneezed .

I used to have respect for the Globe and Mail.

When I was I kid in grade school I used to get up each morning, except Sunday, of course, around 4 - 5 am, and deliver the paper and was proud to be a G&M paperboy.

Later I used to read it faithfully every day.

My mother wrote many articles for the Globe and Mail over quite a few years and wrote with the utmost integrity.

I can only say that the Globe and mail has changed much and for the worse. You be the judge.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Dear Jane Taber (No. III) . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed

see below:

12/12/2009 11:52:32 AM
For all you 'Lame Sabers' out there.

If Gloria Galoway can write a political piece that actually is topical, informative and fairly even balanced, why can't Jane Taber.

. . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed again.

(See the G&M article "Tories fire session-ending shot at Liberals")

Actually, Lady Jane has come up with some fairly reasonable pieces in the past. That just begs the question more - Why did she publish this one.

Could it be, what I suggested: "anything to try to undermine confidence in the Liberals ...Perhaps Lady Jane sees the writing on the wall and is looking for some job security in the Senate"

You be the judge.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, 'Thanks For the Memories' - continued

Tories fire session-ending shot at Liberals, Gloria Galloway,Dec. 11, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-fire-session-ending-shot-at-liberals/article1397744/ Tab 29

Thanks Harper, Thanks MacKay, Thanks O'Connor, Thanks Baird, Thanks Prentice, Thanks Van Loan, Thanks Nicholson, Thanks Toews - nice work guys.

Harper, Baird, Cannon fail to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in Jan.'05. Harper's 'in-your-face' 'Insult Diplomacy' delayed implementation of the Approved Destination Status by China for 4 years and compelled its President to publicly, while in the International spotlight, rebuke Harper - Bravo!
See: David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government" (ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)

And Canada may take prominence on the Global Scene in the not too distant future, if the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, decides to investigate Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con government's transferring Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities in 2006. Thanks MacKay, Thanks O'Connor. Here! Here!

The bank of Canada is warning all Canadians about the amount of debt and the difficulties when it raises interest rates. What is going to happen to the Federal Government Finances, given the enormous debt and deficits brought in by Harper and Flaherty. Thanks Harper, Thanks Flaherty. Can't Wait!

What about the Harper make-over of Canada's International image - "Corrupt Petro-State" "Dirty Old Man" award - Nice - Thanks Harper, Thanks Baird, Thanks Prentice. Nice!

The attack on Colvin's credibility is, of course, outrageous. Thanks Harper, Thanks Harper, Thanks MacKay, Thanks Baird, Thanks Hawn. So, is the 10%-er slandering Irwin Cotler, Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. Thanks Toews. Clever!

Harper and the Con's "Tough on Crime" is no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass". The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). Thanks Van Loan, Thanks Nicholson. Deep!

Although I must say that Harper's vision of the nation of Canada as a bankrupt, third-world, very loose collection of 'autonomous states' fighting amongst each other and paying little more than lip service to Canada as federation, … oh, did I mention 'tough on crime', explains Harper's attitude of do nothing about Global Warming and our children be damned - that is, why bother, why go to the effort and expense. God Save Canada!

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

Why, you ask. If Canadians were told the truth by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan and the Con's I would be very surprised if they still though that Canada was on the right track.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, 'Thanks for the Memories'

Tories fire session-ending shot at Liberals, Gloria Galloway,Dec. 11, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-fire-session-ending-shot-at-liberals/article1397744/Tab 28

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians solely on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.

One can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

It's pathetic commentary on the Canadian Media when Canadians have to rely on the International Media to get a truth picture and perspective of the damage that Harper, MacKay and all the Con's are doing to not only our International image, but this great nation of ours.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

Harper and the Con's attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

When you look at the huge deficit Harper is racking up, and you look at the "do-nothing" approach to Global Warming - one can only wonder, just what does Harper have against our children and our children's children anyway.

It is outrageous to think of how our forefathers and mothers spent their blood, sweat and tears to build our nation over many generations and how Harper and his position on Global Warming; his transferring Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities who then torture them; his mind boggling budget deficits, which Harper and the Con's are spending as if it were their own, are destroying in a few, not so short, years. God save Canada!"

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Dear Jane Taber (No. II) . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed

Rumours of coup greatly exaggerated, Rae says, JANE TABER,
Dec. 12, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rumours-of-coup-greatly-exaggerated-rae-says/article1398289/

Re - My post (at 9:20 am, below) discussing Jane Taber and my post "This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media"

Last time in about 20 minutes I got over 220 Thumbs Down.

This time I added:

"Oh, and did I mention, Jane Taber is incredibly biased towards the Con's, which explains this article - anything to try to undermine confidence in the Liberals

Perhaps Lady Jane sees the writing on the wall and is looking for some job security in the Senate."

This time in the first 30 minutes I have only 7 Thumbs Down.

Is it because it's 9:30 Saturday morning in the X'mas season and people have been partying all night. Who, knows.

I don't agree with very much Norman Spector has to say and I feel he is about as biased as you get. I must admit that I have posted some comments along those line in his Columns. Does Normal Spector get his friends to surreptitiously 'Dis' my with 'Thumbs down' votes. No, he posts a reply to my Comments for everyone to see where he stands on the issue. Of course, he may not have that many people he can codgle (?) into voting against someone without good reason.

I guess in this day of Internet, any Newspaper can easily afford to have any reporter write just about anything, no matter how trivial or nonsensical, and publish it online. Not to point any fingers
. . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed again.

(500 characters left - some many characters and so little time)

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Dear Jane Taber . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed

Rumours of coup greatly exaggerated, Rae says, JANE TABER,
Dec. 12, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rumours-of-coup-greatly-exaggerated-rae-says/article1398289/

A few days ago I posted something to Jane Taber's article and entitled it

"This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media"

I wrote:

"One can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

It's pathetic commentary on the Canadian Media when Canadians have to rely on the International Media to get a truth picture and perspective of the damage that Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Flaherty, Baird, and all the Con's are doing to not only our International image, but this great nation of ours."

It is outrageous to think of how our forefathers and mothers expended their blood, sweat and tears to build our nation over many generations and how Harper and his position on Global Warming, his mind boggling budget deficits, which Harper and the Con's are spending as if it were their own, are destroying in a few, not so short, years. God save Canada!"

While I was writing it I sneezed 'ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo'

Within 20 minutes I had received over 225 'Downs' and one Up - (Thanks Mom)

I wanted to see what was going on so I posted essentially the same thing again. In the next hour or so it had received 6 Down, (and 2 Up - Mom, you can't vote twice, even if you are in heaven). Then it was pulled down.

I speculated that it was not likely Liberals, NDP or Con's.

That doesn't leave much else.

The reason I am posting this

. . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed again.

You be the judge.

Oh, and did I mention, Jane Taber is incredibly biased towards the Con's, which explains this article - anything to try to undermine confidence in the Liberals

Perhaps Lady Jane sees the writing on the wall and is looking for some job security in the Senate.

I wonder if this will get pulled down. Let's see.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, MacKay show the utmost contempt for Parliament.

MPs join forces to order release of Afghan records, Steven Chase and John Ibbitson, 11 Dec.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mps-join-forces-to-order-release-of-afghan-records/article1396446/ Tab 37

Harper, MacKay, Baird and all the Con's have shown, and are showing, the utmost contempt for Parliament.

Harper has been engaging in a concerted fight to completely sidestep Parliament. Some may argue the Opposition have allowed it. But, when you see the results of Ignatieff in the Summer standing up and saying "no more", you can not put the blame on him or the Liberals. It is all those who supported Harper, the Con's and still support them and their running this country, we can turn to to blame.

This is a classic battle between the Administrative Arm and the Democratic Arm of Canadian Government. This type of fight has, of course, occurred hroughout the history of civilization. When the administrative branch wins we call it 'dictatorship', 'totalitarianism', 'oligarchy', etc.

When the democratic arm wins we call it 'rule by the people, for the people'; 'rule by the will of the people'; 'freedom'; oh, and did I mention, 'Democracy'.

One indicator that betrays the intentions of those in the Administrative arm, is the extent to which they try to woo the military arm, the extent to which they try to associate themselves with the military, the extent to which they go around wrapping themselves in the flag and, of course the other side of the coin, the extent to which they accuse their 'enemy' of not supporting the military, attacking the military.

Another indicator is the fashion in which they approach their supporters, with emotionalism as opposed to rationalism. When their position of power is threatened they incite their diehard supporters to a frenzy. One must keep in mind that if only 10 - 15% of the population is animated to overthrow a political system, it's gone.

Never in Canada, you say. All I can say is, I hope to God, you're right and I'm wrong.

Perhaps the Opposition can bring a motion, private member's bill, establishing a Public Inquiry into the Afghan detainee transfer and cover-up. I would.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

also:

submitted 11:25am PST
Lives at risk if Afghan info release: Day, CBC News, December 11, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/11/day-documents.html

- "Debt Men - and Women - Walking" - How is China's exports rising good news for Canada

Fresh data fuel hopes for global recovery, Martin Crutsinger, The Associated Press, Dec. 11, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/fresh-data-fuel-hopes-for-global-recovery/article1396875/ Tab 3

With interest rates about to jump in the US in January and in Canada a few months later. And with individuals' debt, company debts, all levels of Government debts at the highest level, by far.

The fact that retail sales has increased during what is traditionally the big retail season, compared to the worst X'mas season imaginable last year can hardly be conclusive evidence of a recovering economy either in the US or Canada.

Also the key here is that China's exports are increasing. How is that good news for Canada's economics.

Interest rates will increase. Most economists in other countries are already pointing to the economic tsunami that awaits us when this happens.

This is a serious concern, more immediate than Global Warming, more far reaching than Afghan transferees being tortured.

When you look at the huge deficit Harper, Flaherty and the Con's are racking up, and you look at the "do-nothing" approach to Global Warming - one can only wonder, just what does Harper and the Con's have against our children and our children's children anyway.
When the Federal Government finances start to collapse under the weight of the debt and when the personal and company bankruptcies start to exponentiate, what will Harper have to say then - "we saved the Canadian economy", "steady as she goes", "even hand on the keel", "let the market forces prevail", "minimize Federal Government interference", "it's the Laissez faire way or the highway".

It will be interesting to see who Harper blames - I've noticed that Harper and his Con's always seem to have someone else to blame for their mistakes.

If Canadians were told the truth by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Prentice, Van Loan and the Con's I would be very surprised if they still though that Canada was on the right track.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- "Debt Men - and Women - Walking" - just what does Harper and the Con's have against our children and our children's children anyway

Submitted: 6:30pm PST, 10 Dec.'09
Bank of Canada warns of debt peril, December 10, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/10/carney-financial-system-review.html

Sounds like we're "Debt Men - and Women - Walking"

Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Prentice and all the Con's have been going around spending tens of millions of dollars to get the Canadian people to identify the stimulus spending with Harper and the Con's, while Canada racks up the largest deficit by far, ever, Canada be damned.

Of course, if you think the deficit is large now just wait until the interest rates are increased by 2 points.

Interest rates will increase. Most economists in other countries are already pointing to the economic tsunami that awaits us when this happens.

This is a serious concern, more immediate than Global Warming, more far reaching than Afghan transferees being tortured.

When you look at the huge deficit Harper, Flaherty and the Con's are racking up, and you look at the "do-nothing" approach to Global Warming - one can only wonder, just what does Harper and the Con's have against our children and our children's children anyway.

I hope Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's are still around so that we may "stick their noses in it" - figuratively, of course. Actually, I would prefer that they get the boot right now and we put someone in Office that will actually do something to save us.

Keep in mind that because of the good work of the previous Liberal government, the Federal Government finances were in very good shape and Canadian Banks even better. Harper and Flaherty have destroyed the Federal Finances and have run around the world taking credit for the strong position of our Banks.

When the Federal Government finances start to collapse under the weight of the debt and when the personal and company bankruptcies start to exponentiate, what will Harper have to say then - "we saved the Canadian economy", "steady as she goes", "even hand on the keel", "let the market forces prevail", "minimize Federal Government interference", "it's the Laissez faire way or the highway".

It will be interesting to see who Harper blames - I've noticed that Harper and his Con's always seem to have someone else to blame for their mistakes.

Apparently many people are satisfied with the direction Canada is taking right now. The problem is that we are not being made aware of what lies ahead. It is the Federal government 's responsibility to be truthful with us and inform us, and in timely fashion, so that we, all as a nation, and individually, may properly prepare. Harper's approach is the exact opposite - hide information, distorting the truth, obstruct, attack the character of anyone who dares to stand up against them. Ignorance is bliss, but it is not forward looking.

It should be clear to all that interest rates can not stay this low for ever.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Peter MacKay word unreliable - a euphemism for liar - you judge

Excerpt posted to: Ottawa Notebook, Torture weighs on Tories,
Jane Taber, December 10, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/torture-weighs-on-tories/article1395447/ Tab 7

Peter MacKay word unreliable - a euphemism for liar - you judge

Polls shows 61% of Canadians accept Mr. Colvin’s testimony over MacKay's, Harper, Hawn's refutation.

Surprise, Surprise, - not.

This is simply a manifestation of the 33%, or so, diehard supporters of Harper and the Con's, who, obviously, will support them, blindly and no matter what they say or do, to the bitter end. However, this is important to note and everyone in Canada should keep this in mind. One need only look at how Harper, Baird, Van Loan and all the Con's were able to rouse them with their call-to-arms a year ago.

My take on listening to people yesterday was that what Peter MacKay has to say is unreliable, whether that is a euphemism for liar, you judge.

I watched MacKay 'testify' at the Parliamentary Committee yesterday and the most striking thing to me was how closely it resembled the hallmarks of the guilty.

MacKay's viscous attack on Ujjal Dosanjh when he asked a question was totally predictable (see my posts yesterday) and typical of a person who is guilty and everyone knows he is guilty. In open court, very seldom do the guilty breakdown and admit their guilt, but to the jury watching their guilt becomes clear. Harper and MacKay don't want a public Inquiry, what could the reason possibly be.

Mr. Dosanjh accused Mr. MacKay of refusing to recognize that circumstantial evidence is enough, in international law, to stop a country from handing detainees to another, and accused him of thwarting the two ongoing investigations.

"There was substantial knowledge of torture in Afghan jails," Mr. Dosanjh said. "Every kid on the ground knew that. All the reports said that. Sir, you continued to transfer prisoners to torture in the name of Canada."

Mr. MacKay responded with controlled anger.

"I will respond to these outrageous allegations that I or any minister of the government would knowingly participate or collude in sending anyone off to torture. That is an outrageous, false and inflammatory accusation from somebody who has served in government and should know better." Pressure on MacKay cranks up after abuse confirmation, By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau, 10 Dec. '09
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1156858.html

and,
Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh went after MacKay hard in the committee, saying "ignorance of facts is no defence and I ask you to step down and relieve yourself of responsibility."

Dosanjh said there was "lots of evidence that there has been substantial risk of torture."

MacKay called Dosanjh's attack an "outrageous, inflammatory, insulting allegation."

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/World/ContentPosting?newsitemid=CTVNews%2F20091209%2Fmackay_afghanistan_091209&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

MacKay saying that he did not 'willfully', or 'turn an blind eye', allow Canadian troops to transfer Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities to be tortured, is an obviously tactic of the guilty. MacKay is a lawyer, not only that, he was a Crown Attorney (if I recall). He knows all these things and he ought to know that Canadians wouldn't get taken in. Why then, say it. Clearly for his 33% die-hard supporters. The threshold for transferring detainee to torture is far less than that.

The chances of MacKay not knowing this is remote. The chances of MacKay admitting this is remote.

"The jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and, most importantly, a recent decision from the International Criminal Court itself, has ruled that even if it is established that military and civilian commanders did not have actual knowledge, that is no defence to a charge of complicity in a war crime.
The standard that has been established is that persons in command must take all reasonable steps to acquire such knowledge and then to take all further necessary and reasonable steps to prevent the continuation of the war crime or to punish the perpetrators."
Errol Mendes "Ignorance is no defence when the subject is torture, Law puts onus on leaders to make every effort to learn about and prevent war crimes
Errol Mendes was a visiting professional at the International Criminal Court at The Hague this year. His book Peace and Justice at the International Criminal Court, A Court of Last Resort will be published early next year.
25 Nov.'09
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/730337

Another interesting remark by MacKay - vis."I am proud to have associated myself with the military and the diplomats" [sic]. Sounds like a Freudian slip to me. And compare it to what Gar Pardy, retired Canadian diplomat, had to say the other day "Harper has been going around the world lately wrapping himself in the Canadian flag, but has achieving only to sully it". Clearly a strategy of Harper and MacKay is to identify themselves with the military. But, why. For one, they may be hoping it will save their bacon - keep in mind potential criminal investigations by the International Criminal Courts, not to mention for Canadian criminal laws. Other motives - you tell me.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Excerpts Also Submitted to:

Natynczyk in the dark on Afghan prisoner's history, Steven Chase and Campbell Clark, 10 Dec.'09Tab 9

Opposition demands MacKay resign over detainees, CTV.ca News Staff, 10 Dec.'09

submitted: 11:35am, PST, 11 Dec.'09
Most Canadians believe Afghan detainees tortured: poll, December 10, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/09/ekos-poll009.html

- Peter MacKay, Do The Honourable Thing - Come Clean and Resign

Natynczyk makes major reversal on detainee story, CTV.ca News Staff, Dec. 9 2009
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091209/mackay_oconnor_091209/20091209?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection submitted: 11:48 am, PST, to CTV

Harper and MacKay have a self-image of being warriors.

However, the hallmark of a warrior is honesty, integrity and honour.

MacKay the way of the warrior would be to stand in front of the Commons Committee today and do the honourable thing - "seppuku "the modern figurative meaning being "spill you guts". Take responsibility for your actions, as be a real warrior.

If anyone wants to see what a true warrior handles themselves take a look at what Gen. Walter Natynczyk did today. He stood up and explained for all Canadians to hear that he had said something that wasn't true yesterday - vis.: the Afghan passed to Afghan authorities and mistreated (e.g. torture) had not been detained and that he learned last night that that wasn't true.

Natynczyk did the honourable thing, given the context.

MacKay is obviously going to say that he was not aware of any Afghan detainees transferred to Afghan authorities and has said there was no evidence of such.

What MacKay fails to point out that it was his and O'Connor's and Harper 'sand all the Con government's job to investigate and determine that no such thing was, in fact, occurring and ensure that no such thing would occur. This is especially true when Harper decided to up the activities of our troops in Afghanistan to out and out combat in 2006.

Harper has been going around the world lately wrapping himself in the Canadian flag, but achieving only to sully it (Gar Pardy, retired Canadian diplomat speaking on: active diplomats may not be wiling to stand up to Harper and MacKay after seeing the insult as and character assassination Colvin suffered and in the Canadian media where he couldn't defend his honour).

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- MacKay Do The Honourable Thing - "seppuku " - figuratively - i.e. "spill your guts and resign"

Submitted, 10:07 am PST, to:
Canadians had detained abused suspect: general, December 9, 2009, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/09/natynczyk-detainee.html#socialcomments Tab 79

Harper and MacKay think they are warriors.

However, the hallmark of a warrior is honesty, integrity and honour.

MacKay, the way of the warrior would be to stand in front of the Committee today and do the honourable thing - "seppuku " - figuratively - i.e. "spill your guts and resign". Take responsibility for your actions. Be a true warrior.

If anyone wants to see how a true warrior handles themselves take a look at Gen. Walter Natynczyk today. He stood up for all Canadians to hear that he had said something that wasn't true yesterday - the Afghan passed to Afghan authorities and mistreated had not been detained and that he learned last night that that wasn't true.

Natynczyk did the honourable thing.

MacKay is obviously going to say that he was not aware of any Afghan detainees transferred to Afghan authorities and has said there was no evidence of such.

MacKay's and Harper's job was to investigate and determine that no such thing was, in fact, occurring and ensure that no such thing would occur - especially true because Harper decided to up the activities of our troops in Afghanistan to out and out combat in 2006.

MacKay and Harper, rather than approach this issue in 2006 - 2007 in a reasonable fashion, respond in a meaningful fashion to the, quite legitimate, inquiries of Afghan detainee transfers, they denied everything, hid information, obstructed and distorted and insulted and attacked the credibility of whomever crossed their path and all that dare to stand up to them - and they are still doing this - and Canada be damned.

Harper has been going around the world lately wrapping himself in the Canadian flag, but has achieving only to sully it (Gar Pardy, retired Canadian diplomat).

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- What Will MacKay Say to the Parliamentary Committee Today

Ottawa Notebook, Peter MacKay reaches for the eggnog, December 9, 2009, Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/peter-mackay-reaches-for-the-eggnog/article1393826/ Tab 7

If anyone wants to predict what MacKay might say today?

With the possibility of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity allegations by the International Criminal Court (not to mention domestic Canadian Criminal law) staring him in the face.

MacKay is likely to respond to any questions by Opposition MP's in the same way that got him into this trouble in the first place, and the way he has been responding ever since then - hostility, aggression, insults, character assassination, accusations, avoidance, obscuration, obstruction, hiding behind "national security classification" ( I wonder how far that goes at The Hague) and generally, contempt for Parliament and those who are doing the job we Canadians sent them there for, or at 2/3rds of Canadians, anyway.

If I were one of men or women in uniform I would be demanding that the truth be revealed and immediately. MacKay and Harper's aggressive, in-your-face actions in 2006 may very well have placed our troops in harm's way, vis-a-vis Int'l Human Rights and War Crimes Laws, and even Canadian Criminal Laws, and Afghan detainee transfers, after Harper up'd Canada's participation to direct fighting when the came into power in 2006. If Canadians have to wait until the truth be revealed at the International Criminal Court, in the Hague, in the spotlight for all nations to see, they may be in a very bad mood about it all. If we bring the truth to light domestically, through a Public Inquiry Canadians may very well be more disposed to understanding just how difficult it is to answer the call of duty in the context of present day International laws and fighting on foreign soil, supporting our troops and turn towards Harper, MacKay and O'Connor and all Con's for justice.

- MacKay's, Harper's and all the Con's demonstrated contempt for Parliament.

- MacKay, Harper, Baird, and the other Con's approach to any criticism is to insult and attack the character of those that are criticizing, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a rational, civil fashion, as was and is their duty as Parliamentarians and those running the our Government.

- MacKay, Harper, Baird, and the other Con's have been doing this all along. They have no interest in the truth, doing what's right (morally, that is) or properly addressing the issues of the day. They only are concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.

- MacKay, Harper, Baird, and the other Con's actions are coming back to haunt them. Rather than approach this issue in 2006 - 2007 in a reasonable fashion as was, and is, their duty as the government and respond in a meaningful, useful fashion to the, quite legitimate, criticism of Afghan detainee transfers, they denied everything, hid information, obstructed and distorted and insulted and attacked the credibility of whomever crossed their path - sounds like what they are doing now with Colvin and all other that dare to stand up to them. They didn't have to take that approach but that is what they are all about, as I said, Canada be damned.

- If I were one of men or women in uniform I would be demanding that the truth be revealed and immediately. MacKay and Harper's aggressive, in-your-face actions in 2006 may very well have placed our troops in harm's way, vis-a-vis Int'l Human Rights and War Crimes Laws, and even Canadian Criminal Laws, and Afghan detainee transfers, after Harper up'd Canada's participation to direct fighting when the came into power in 2006. If Canadians have to wait until the truth be revealed at the International Criminal Court, in the Hague, in the spotlight for all nations to see, they may be in a very bad mood about it all. If we bring the truth to light domestically, through a Public Inquiry Canadians may very well be more disposed to understanding just how difficult it is to answer the call of duty in the context of present day International laws and fighting on foreign soil, supporting our troops and turn towards Harper, MacKay and O'Connor and all Con's for justice.

The problem is that this is on the record for all to see and now they are even more desperate since not only do they have they original issue staring them in the face again, they have their original denials, attacks, cover-up as well.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Global Warming - We can't afford to label "urgency" as "panic","passionate advocacy" as 'irrational'

- Global Warming - If There Is More Than a Mere Possibility We Must Act Now (see below) ... continued ...

(unfortuantely posting comments was closed when I read Jerky's comment)

Jerky wrote: "I not sure I understand your panic but man I'll defend to the death your right to be irrational "

We can't afford to label "urgency" as "panic". Nor can we afford to label "passionate advocacy" as 'irrational'.

It may not be urgent for you but that is the exact point. We must take urgent action, not for ourselves, but for our children. It may be irrational to you to have to pay out money now for something that won't affect you, but we made the problem, we are in the position to do something about it before it is too late. Saying that is economically expensive is a mere shirking of our responsibilities.

I agree that one person can't do much, except, passionately advocate that everyone get together and do all they can. Harper motives are manifestly clear and they are not for the good of Canadians, current or future generations. I agree with Goalie, Harper 'fudges the truth" and "slanders" all that would dare to stand up to him. I can only say, give Harper and the Con's the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Global Warming - If There Is More Than a Mere Possibility We Must Act Now

Travers: O Canada, the world's 'dirty old man', A privileged generation chose to roll the dice on its children's future, James Travers National Affairs Columnist, Dec 8 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/article/735644--travers-o-canada-the-world-s-dirty-old-man#article

If there is anything more than a mere possibility of suffering the predicted catastrophic consequences of heretofore never seen proportions, both in terms of human suffering and in terms of economic loss,
of the effects of Global Warming,

Then, we, each and every person in Canada, both individually and as a nation, must stand up to Harper, Baird, Prentice and anyone who supports the them, tell them to crawl back to wherever the came from, roll up our sleeves and manifest the political and moral Will to take the action that so urgently must be taken and before it is too late.

The concept of Global Warming will only be a 100% certainty when it actually occurs and then like the Flat Earth Society, there will still be residual Con's denying it.

The standard of proof for action can not be 100% certainty. And Harper and the Con's insisting on this is merely obscuration, obstruction in order to avoid having to do anything about it. The reasons are purely political, as is everything Harper and the Con's do, and Canada and our children and our children's children, be damned.

Dumping Global Warming on our children and our children's children is economic suicide and societal genocide. The big problem, of course, and this is a huge difference that every Canadian ought to think about when listened to Harper Con's like this one, is:

It is not us, personally, that will suffer but someone else. Unfortunately, those someone else will be, as I said and it is worth repeats, our children and our children's children.

"Corrupt Petro-State" award or the "Dirty Old Man" award - Nice - Thanks Harper, Thanks Baird, Thanks Prentice.

*****

I can only hope that in 50 years there will be a Canada as we know it and when they look back, they don't simply blame all of us, as a whole, for the damage done by Global Warming, but put the blame where it ought to lie - with Harper, Baird, Prentice all the Con's and all those Canadians that support Harper and the Con's. Perhaps all these articles and posting will still be circulating on the Internet so that they can see for themselves just exactly who it was that doomed them and for their own selfish reasons.

Global Warming - Nice legacy - Thanks Harper, Thanks Baird, Thanks Prentice (whose lack of visibility is so stark, and shocking given the current events, I had to look up who the current Minister of Environment was).

Of course, Canada's problem here, other than Harper general obstructionist, right wing extremist, approach, is Harper declaring that Canada's efforts in protecting out children's heritage is tied to the Americans.

Although I must say that Harper's vision of the nation of Canada as a bankrupt, third-world, very loose collection of 'autonomous states' fighting amongst each other and paying little more than lip service to Canada as federation, … oh, did I mention 'tough on crime', explains Harper's attitude of do nothing about Global Warming and our children be damned - that is, why bother, why go to the effort and expense.

- The Harper Legacy - "Corrupt Petro-State"; "Dirty Old Man Canada"

Bye-bye binding climate deal, Norman Spector, December 8, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/bye-bye-binding-climate-deal/article1392391/ Tab 4,

How about the "Corrupt Petro-State" award or the "Dirty Old Man" award

Thank Harper, Thanks Baird, Thanks Prentice (whose lack of visibility is so stark, and shocking given the current events, I had to look up who the current Minister of Environment was).

Of course, Canada's problem here, other than Harper general obstructionist, right wing extremist, approach, is Harper declaring that Canada's efforts in protecting out children's heritage is tied to the Americans.

Although I must say that Harper's vision of the nation of Canada as a bankrupt, third-world, very loose collection of 'autonomous states' fighting amongst each other and paying little more than lip service to Canada as federation, … oh, did I mention 'tough on crime', explains Harper's attitude of do nothing about Global Warming and our children be damned - that is, why bother, why go to the effort and expense.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Reply at Tab 5:

'Johnny Test'??? wrote:"Lloyd Macilquham . . . That's because we do 85% of our trade with them. Dumping a tough target on our companies while American ones get a free ride is economic suicide."

'Johnny Test', or, whomever you are.

Dumping Global Warming on our children and our children's children is economic suicide.

The only difference, and this is a huge difference that every Canadian ought to think about when listened to Harper Con's like this one.

It is not us, personally, that will suffer but someone else.

Unfortunately, those someone else's will be, as I said and it is worth repeats, our children and our children's children.

I can only hope that in 50 years there will be a Canada as we know it and when they look back, they don't simply blame all of us, as a whole, for the damage done by Global Warming, but put the blame where it ought to lie - with Harper, Baird, Prentice all the Con's and all those Canadians that support Harper and the Con's.

However, I can see why Con supporters might not use their real names when posting comments that support Harper's 'Do-Nnothing' stance on Global Warming - all these Postings may still be circulating on the Internet in 50 years - nice legacy.

I can understand Norman Spector taking the position he does, after all he was a Mulroney adviser (if I'm not mistaken) - nuff said. On the other hand he at least has the conviction of his beliefs to put his name to his opinions. I don't agree with him very often, but I respect that about Spector - i.e. despite having some really bizarre, extremely partizan right wing, opinions over the years, he stands up to be counted and puts his name to them.

12/7/2009 1:29:39 PM
This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media … continued see below (Tab 7)

227 votes against my first posting "This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media" and in the span of 30 minutes (and one in favour - thanks Mom) (see tab 5)

1 (one) vote against my second posting "This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media … continued" and in the span of 30 minutes (and two in favour - Mom your not allowed to vote twice, even from heaven) . (see tab 5)

What is just as interesting is that my second post "This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media … continued" was in the same vein as my first post.

Con supporters don't normally gang up so fast and if there were 227 of them waiting in the wings, so to speak, to pounce when some unsuspecting blogger posted their comment, in good faith at that, you would think that they would pounce on my second post as well and just as quickly. Also, you would think that they wouldn't let my comments stand and so would be trashing me with reply postings.

Then who is pouncing in such great numbers to my post and who has the ability to do it so quickly. And who would vote against my comments and not post replies and running the risk of being found out. It couldn't be the Liberals and I would be surprised if were the NDP and I've covered the Con's - also they may hide their identity but everyone can tell a Con when the read one.

Who does that leave? I won't mention any names, ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo - sorry sneezed again.

Anyone with a suggestion please Post it.

PS - But I have to say I am surprised Jane Taber has let my Comments stand - perhaps getting 227 votes against so quickly was a good thing - perhaps Taber wants everyone to see how Canadians have dissed my comments and so quickly.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media. … continued

"This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media" ... continued see below

197 votes against my first posting "This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media" and in the span of 20 minutes.

Wow, I must have said something right (morally right that is).

Please let me know what it was.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media. … continued

12/7/2009 12:57:59 PM
This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media. … continued (see below)

It is no wonder that Global Warming activists in Canada feel compelled to climb to the top of the Parliamentary Building to cry out their message.

They have to do something exceptionally astounding in order to catch the attention of the International Media so they will print their concerns so Canadians can read it, undistorted. We certainly can't rely on the Canadian Media for this. Who cares about how good Harper is at spin.

I won't mention any names, ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo - sorry sneezed again.

It's pathetic commentary on the Canadian Media when Canadians have to rely on the International Media to get a truth picture and perspective of the damage that Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Flaherty, Baird, and all the Con's are doing to not only our International image, but this great nation of ours.

It is outrageous to think of how our forefathers and mothers expended their blood, sweat and tears to build our nation over many generations and how Harper and his position on Global Warming, his mind boggling budget deficits, which Harper and the Con's are spending as if it were their own, are destroying in a few, not so short, years.

God save Canada!

Or, should I say God helps those who help themselves - let's take Canada's destiny into our own hands, and give Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, Toews, Van Loan and all the Con's the boot.

(PS - wow over 500 character left for this post - so many characters and so little time - but it might not matter, I'll be lucky if Jane Taber doesn't pull this one down)

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Ottawa Notebook, Eco-activists storm the Hill
Jane Taber , December 7, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/eco-activists-storm-the-hill/article1391264/ Tab 4

This is to all the 'Lame Sabers' in the Canadian Media.

"Dirty Canada" "Corrupt Petro-State"

This is what the International Press is reporting these days about Canada.

And if the proverbial S... hits the International fan regarding the transfer of Afghan prisoners to Afghan authorities, and especially if the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, decides to investigate Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con government's transferring Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities in 2006, they will likely have a lot worse things to say about Canada. And, we have nobody but ourselves, or at least those who support Harper, to blame.

What does the Canadian Press say regarding all this negative press against Canada's previously stellar International reputation. They blame Ignatieff and expound the wonders of Harper's 'mastery' of spin.

I won't mention any names, ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo - sorry I sneezed.

One can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

It is no wonder that Global Warming activists in Canada feel compelled to climb to the top of the Parliamentary Building to give their message. They have to do something exceptionally astounding in order to catch the attention of the International so they will print their concerns so Candians can read it. Who cares about how good Harper is at spin.

It's pathetic commentary on the Canadian Media when Canadians have to rely on the International Media to get a truth picture and perspective of the damage that Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Flaherty, Baird, and all the Con's are doing to not only our International image, but this great nation of ours.

It is outrageous to think of how our forefathers and mothers expended their blood, sweat and tears to build our nation over many generations and how Harper and his position on Global Warming, his mind boggling budget deficits, which Harper and the Con's are spending as if it were their own, are destroying in a few, not so short, years. God save Canada!

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canada considered a "corrupt petro-state” by the International community? - Thanks Harper - good work.

'Dirty' image puts Canada in climate doghouse at Copenhagen, Eric Reguly and Nathan Vanderklippe, Dec. 07, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/dirty-image-puts-canada-in-climate-doghouse-at-copenhagen/article1390657/ Tab 61

When Harper became Prime Minister one of the first announcements he made was to declare Canada an "Energy Super-Power".

One may dispute whether that was true at the time or not.

But, after just about 4 years as Prime Minister, Harper has changed the perception of Canada on the International stage from "Energy Superpower" to "corrupt petro-state.”

Thanks Harper, or rather should I say, thanks to everyone who supports Harper and keep him in power.

If our previous stellar International reputation is tarnished we only have ourselves to blame, or at least those who support Harper and his gang of Con's.

God save Canada!

Or, should I say God helps those who help themselves - let's take Canada's destiny into our own hands, and give Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, Toews, Van Loan and all the Con's the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- And Flaherty pushes bigger global role - God Save Canada!

Flaherty pushes bigger global role, Kevin Carmichael, Dec. 07, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-pushes-bigger-global-role/article1390617/ Tab 2

Harper, Flaherty, MacKay, Baird and all the Con's have already given Canada quite a reputation on the International stage, a 'bigger' negative, aggressionist and obstructionist role globally.

One need only read the current headlines in the Global media regarding Harper's obstructionist "Take No Action" stance on Global Warming and that the Tar Sands are quickly becoming the symbol of "Dirty Canada". Oh, sorry, he is following Obama. Well, Harper, take a look at what Obama, the US and other country in the World, that take their moral and legal obligations seriously, have to say about your position and the Tar Sands.

One need only look at Harper's 'in-your-face' 'Insult Diplomacy' that delayed implementation of the Approved Destination Status by China for 4 years and compelled its President to publicly, while in the International spotlight, rebuke Harper - thanks, Harper.

And Canada may take prominence on the Global Scene in the not too distant future, if the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, decides to investigate Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con government's transferring Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities in 2006.

Canadians put Harper in the position to do this, some might say with predictable results, and Canadians allowed Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con's to respond to legitimate and important questions by the Opposition in 2006 with in-your-face attitude, insults and viscous personal attacks, rather than take appropriate steps to ensure there is no question of violating International Human Rights and War Crime Laws, give real and pertinent answers. So, if our previous stellar International reputation is tarnished we only have ourselves to blame, or at least those who support Harper and his gang of Con's.

And Flaherty wants to take a bigger global role - God save Canada!

If Harper and the other Con's really were concerned about Canada's image and role Globally, they would resign.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- It is time to Stand Up, Be Counted, Expose Harper for What He Is

To James Tarvers and all te Reproters in Canada:

It is easy to point to Ignatieff and say he has dropped the ball.

But what about all those people who voted against Harper and want him out of power, yes even those Liberals amongst them.

It is time every one in Canada who wants to re-establish Democracy to stand up and let themselves be counted. With the support of the people I have no doubt that Ignatieff will rise to the occasion.

The media is not off the hook either. Aside from it being their country too; as Harper himself said the media ought to be "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.

Instead, the media would rather criticize Ignatieff. One can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

See: Travers: Harper writes the rules, wins the game, James Travers, 5 Dec.'06
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/734849#article

- To The Chinese Leadership, Harper is a mere boy scout - they don't need Harper to Cowtow

Harper’s not for kowtowing, Norman Spector , 4 Dec.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harpers-not-for-kowtowing/article1388431/
Tab 19
- Norman, To The Chinese Leadership, Harper's a mere boy scout. The Chines Officials don't need Harper to Cowtow, but like any child he does need a scolding now and then to keep him in line.

You reap what you sow.

The problem is that Harper sowed this discord and we Canadians are reaping the world stage rebuke and damage of trade relations.

Harper's reply is equally embarrassing and typically Harper - try to deflect, no matter how much Bunk you proffer. It is not likely to cause Hu Jing Tao to start tripping over himself from losing face.

Perhaps Harper can list the number of time the Can. Government has approached China to invite them to come to Canada.

You can be sure that Hu Jing Tao's rebuke was very carefully and deliberately designed to send a message, not to Harper - I can't see the Chinese caring very much what Harper, personally, thinks - but to the Canadian people. The timing of the rebuke was also very carefully chosen at a time when all Canadians would hear it directly and openly.

The clear message - Harper you may boast that Canada is an Oil Superpower and you may tout Canada as a source of raw materials. But, Harper you are such small potatoes that we have no reservation of humiliating you while the International light is shining on us. Other countries have Oil and raw materials, who don't take an 'in-your-face' approach and don't insult us to our faces on the International stage. Our culture is 5000 years old, we have just spent 100's of years of suffering and in poverty. We can wait a couple more years for you and your kind to get the boot from Canadians and then re-instate warm, cordial relations as friends and co-horts on the International Stage.

Harper also fails to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in Jan.'05 and it was Harper himself with his in-your-face, 'Insult Diplomacy' that caused the Chinese to drop it.(see: David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government" (ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted on December 13, 2009 @ 10:21 am PST
MP touts Asia trip’s accomplishments, December 11,2009 , David Burke/Whistler Question
http://www.coastreporter.net/article/20091211/SECHELT0101/312119974/-1/sechelt01/mp-touts-asia-trip-s-accomplishments

- Honk Kong gets Canada's beef. Canadians get Harper's bull

Canadian beef exporters regain access to Hong Kong, The Canadian Press,Dec. 06, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-beef-exporters-regain-access-to-hong-kong/article1390312/ Tab 12

Canada's beef exporters may benefit from this announcement.

But was it really necessary for Harper to go to Hong Kong to get this 'concession'. Especially when you consider that nobody in Hong Kong knows him or cares who he is.

Harper has reduced the Office of Prime Minister of Canada on the Asian stage to that of being a member of Da Shan's entourage.

In China Harper went strutting around like he single handedly got the Approved Destination Status concession from China. He failed to mention that Canada is one of the last countries in the world to be granted this status by China.

He also fails to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in January, 2005 and it was Harper himself with his in-your-face, 'Insult Diplomacy' that caused the Chinese to drop it. See the statement by David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government"
( http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)

Perhaps the real reason Harper went to Hong Kong is to delay having to return to Canada and 'face the music' regarding the Afghan Detainee scandal, the HST undoing of the 2 point reduction on GST, etc.. Evidently Harper is also trying to identify himself with Canada's military, perhaps to deflect the accusations that his actions in 2006 placed our troops in harm's way, vis-a-vis Int'l Human Rights and War Crimes Laws and Afghan detainee transfers, after Harper up'd Canada's participation to direct fighting when the came into power in 2006.

Now Hong Kong doesn't need to ask "Where's the Beef"; and,

Canadians don't have to ask "Where's the bull".

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canadians should be more concerned about the abuse by Harper and the Con's on Canadians and our Economy.

Harper says trade won't stifle human rights talk
Last Updated: Friday, December 4, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/12/04/china-harper-speech.html#socialcommentsTab 63

This can be seen in the current scandals including Harper placing our troops in harm's way, vis-a-vis Int'l Human Rights and War Crimes Laws and Afghan detainee transfers after Harper up'd Canada's participation to direct fighting when the came into power in 2006.

And, for example: If you go to the Gov't site at Industry Canada you can read:

BEIJING, CHINA, JANUARY 21, 2005:
CANADA GRANTED APPROVED DESTINATION STATUS BY CHINESE GOVERNMENT - THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. EMERSON, MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TODAY ANNOUNCED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA HAS AGREED TO RECOGNIZE CANADA AS AN OFFICIALLY APPROVED TRAVEL DESTINATION. ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html

The Approved Destination Status was never implemented in Jan.'05, when it was first announced by China as a direct result of the Liberal Government's efforts, because Harper and his Con's came into power, insulted the Chinese openly on the International Status in the Harper in-your-face diplomacy, and the implementation died 'on the cutting room floor' so to speak.

And who can forget Harper reducing the GST by 2 points despite the overwhelming evidence that it was the exact wrong thing to do.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

also posted to: Harper stands firm on human rights, PM softens his tone but not his message in speech to Canadian business elite in China, Bill Schiller, Dec 5 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/china/article/734787--harper-stands-firm-on-human-rights?bn=1#article tab 1

- Con'd again by Harper - Approved Destination Status

Scoring in China – without prostituting ourselves, John Ibbitson, December 4, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scoring-in-china-without-prostituting-ourselves/article1389642/Tab 27

If you go to the Canadian Government Website at Industry Canada you can read the headlines:

BEIJING, CHINA, JANUARY 21, 2005

CANADA GRANTED APPROVED DESTINATION STATUS BY CHINESE GOVERNMENT

THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. EMERSON, MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TODAY ANNOUNCED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA HAS AGREED TO RECOGNIZE CANADA AS AN OFFICIALLY APPROVED TRAVEL DESTINATION.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html

If Canada was awarded Approved Destination Status under the Liberal Government in January, 2005, 'then what happened'.

Oh, sorry I meant to say 'then Harper happened'.

The Approved Destination Status was never implemented because Harper and his Con's came into power, insulted the Chinese openly on the International Status in the Harper in-your-face, my way or the highway diplomacy, and the implementation died 'on the cutting room floor' so to speak.

Instead of gloating about his self professed great achievement in Beijing this week perhaps Harper could explain why it is that Canadians and the Canadian Economy was required to wait an additional almost 4 years to start to reap the benefits of what the Liberal Party while in government sowed.

The fact of the matter is that Harper had to go to Beijing this Fall humble himself and accept his public humiliation in order for the Beijing Government to bring the Approved Destination Status back on track.

Why, obviously, if British Columbia held the Winter Olympics without Chinese being able to attend, it would be a political disaster for Harper and the Con's, especially in BC and especially after bring in the HST.

Of course, now Harper will claim that he owns the Approved Destination Status file and it was due only to his efforts that we have it.

Con'd by Harper once again! God save Canada!

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Also submitted to: Don Martin: Harper wins another round, December 05, 2009
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/04/don-martin-china.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Canada 'scratching the surface' with China: Harper, December 4, 2009, Sean Kilpatrick / the Canadian Press
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091205/harper_china_091205/20091205?hub=TopStoriesV2

Tab 1

- Con'd again by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, and the Gang

Posted to: Canada pumps out the jobs, Jeremy Torobin and Michael Babad, Dec. 04, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-pumps-out-the-jobs/article1388321/#articleTab 18

If you actually read the Stats can Report
Labour Force Survey, November 2009
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091204/dq091204a-eng.htm

You get:

- Full-time and Part-time employment increase of 79,000

- Services sector, especially education, up 73,000 of the 79,000

- Education up 38,000

- Full -time jobs up 39,000

- Part-time jobs up 40,000

- net employment down 321,000 since last Oct.'08

- Ontario - unemployment at 9.3%, was unchanged in November

- Between October 2008 and March 2009, employment fell in almost all industries, especially in manufacturing and construction.

- Since March 2009, however, employment has slowed its decline in manufacturing,

- Since March 2009 it has picked up in construction and in a number of service industries

These figures suggest that:

- the increase in Full-time jobs was mostly in education.

This is not tied into the performance of the economy

and,

- the increase in part-time jobs mainly in other services - e.g., retail sales.

Considering retailers are gearing up for the Christmas Season this is not at all surprising, especially since it is being, effectively (although it is month over month, if there was a huge drop last Fall which has not significantly been recouped over the months since - and the net employment down 321,000 since last Oct.'08 so indicates - then it is effectively compared to the period of the big drop) compared to last Christmas Season, which, although I don't have the numbers in front of me, having lived through it - and survived to a degree - I suggest that it would not be very difficult to have an increase of part time employment in the retail sector in November. Then question then becomes what happens in February.

- Manufacturing has slowed its decline

manufacturing is a true indicator of how the economy is actually doing and not only is it not increasing it is still decreases albeit not as quickly - thank God for that.

This indicates that exports are not increasing and consumer spending is not increasing. It also indicates that manufacturers do not expect a huge increase in consumer spending for the Christmas season - otherwise they would have been gearing up.

- The job increases were definitely not in Construction which indicates that the Opposition claims that very little of the Multi-Billions Stimulus Spending has taken place are correct and that is just one more example of being Con'd by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, and the rest of the gang.

Another inference that can be made is that the Ontario economy is still in very bad shape and the Ontario budget will probably reflect the added spending in the public sector.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

posted also to:
Canada gained surprising 79,000 jobs in November, December 4, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/04/unemployment-november.html#socialcomments-submitTab 85

- Harper may be able to Con Canadians but apparently not the Chinese

John Ibbitson on the rebuke, Dec. 03, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/john-ibbitson-on-the-rebuke/article1386865/ Tab 3

Harper may be able to Con Canadians but apparently not the Chinese.

You reap what you sow.

The problem is that Harper, MacKay, Bernier and the Con's sowed this discord and we Canadians are reaping the world stage rebuke and damage of trade relations.

Harper's reply is equally embarrassing and typically Harper - try to deflect, no matter how much Bunk you proffer. It is not likely to cause Hu Jing Tao to start tripping over himself from losing face.

Perhaps Harper can list the number of time the Canadian Government has approached China to invite them to come to Canada. I would suspect 'Zero'. If the Chinese approached the Harper Government to come to Canada then it certainly was rebuked by Harper.

You can be sure that Hu Jing Tao's rebuke was very carefully and deliberately designed to send a message, not to Harper - I can't see the Chinese caring very much what Harper, personally, thinks - but to the Canadian people. The timing of the rebuke was also very carefully chosen at a time when all Canadians would hear it directly and openly.

The clear message - Harper you may boast that Canada is an Oil Superpower and you may tout Canada as a source of raw materials. But, Harper you are such small potatoes that we have no reservation of humiliating you while the International light is shining on us. Other countries have Oil and raw materials, who don't take an 'in-your-face' approach and don't insult us to our faces on the International stage. Our culture is 5000 years old, we have just spent 100's of years of suffering and in poverty. We can wait a couple more years for you and your kind to get the boot from Canadians and then re-instate warm, cordial relations as friends and co-horts on the International Stage.

Harper attitude towards the Chinese has put Canada at a huge disadvantage as far as trade with China. Harper's 'hard ball' approach compared to the Chinese amounts to little more than 'boy scout'.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

see also:

China publicly scolds Harper for taking too long to visit, Dec. 02, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/china-publicly-scolds-harper-for-taking-too-long-to-visit/article1386656/ Tab 49

A chronology of Canada-China relations
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-chronology-of-canada-china-relations/article1387009/
Tab1

Canadian, Chinese leaders should meet more often: Harper,
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/03/china-harper-visit.html#socialcomments Tab74

- Harper Put Our Men and Women in Uniform in Harm's Way

John Baird won't let truth blunt a good barb, Jane Taber, December 1, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/john-baird-wont-let-truth-blunt-a-good-barb/article1384665/?cid=art-rail-bureaublog Tab 16

If I were one of our men and women in uniform I would be demanding an explanation from Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and all Con's and demanding a Public Inquiry to get at the truth.

Harper was the one who up'ed the action of our troops in Afghanistan to out and out combat when they took over in '06.

Harper had a pressing and urgent obligation to take every step to ensure it was done in a fashion that accorded to International Law. Turning a blind eye, willfully or negligently ignoring, is not only a violation of the sacred trust placed in him when Harper took the Oath of Office, it was foreseeable that it could place our troops in the the very tenuous position of allegations of violating serious International Laws.

People in Canada can understand with this out and out fighting in Afghanistan things were happening much, much faster and made it more difficult to get a complete handle on, and sympathize for our generals and troops.

But that was all the more reason that Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the other Con's ought to have looked into the matter thoroughly. Instead of address these real issues, and in a timely and effective fashion, as these issues were raised in Parliament they responded by insults, accusing anyone who sought answers of being "Taliban sympathizers", obstructing, stone-walling, distorting, refusing to act and Canada be damned.

It is reprehensible that Harper and MacKay and the other Con's would accuse the Opposition of such.

When Harper accused Ignatieff, the Liberals, and anyone that would dare stand up to him on this, of "throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform based on the most flimsy of evidence" everyone in Canada should take note, demand he retract it and demand that a Public Inquiry be held.

Given the slanderous and deceitful nature of the comment I am not all surprise that Harper would make it while outside Canada, instead of to Ignatieff's face.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Con'd Again By Harper and his China Economic Update

Unconventional rollout for budget report shows chutzpah, John Ibbitson , December 2, 2009
John Ibbitson
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/unconventional-rollout-for-budget-report-shows-chutzpah/article1385214/ Tab 4

Harper says his schedule didn't allow him to release the economic update in December in Canada as so he is doing it in China, of all places.

Given China's economy is the strongest (albeit not the largest, yet) in the World right now and give that they are well out of any recession why do we have to have our Prime Minster go to China to air our problems, surely drawing attention to it can only have a negative impact on the image of Canada on the Chinese.

We should be putting our best foot forward. But then if that was our strategy we wouldn't be having Harper go there.

Yet Harper will be returning to Ottawa on 9 Dec.'09 and given that the announcement can only be max one hour with questions, why is it he is too busy.

We're being Con'd.

Harper was quite able to leave the UN to appear at a local Tim Horton's but he doesn't have the respect for Canadians to "tell us to our faces" what he has to say. Further Flaherty was schedule to give the update Wednesday afternoon.

Clearly there can only one reason for Harper making the announcement 10,000 kl (or so)from Canada - what he has to say is Bunk, he knows it, the Opposition knows it and anyone in Canada who is paying attention should know it, and he does not want to have to face the Opposition. He is hoping that it will all blow over by the time he returns.

We saw this the other day when he personally insulted the Opposition while in Trinidad when Harper accused Ignatieff, the Liberals, the NDP, the Block and anyone that would dare stand up to him on this, of "throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform based on the most flimsy of evidence".

Given the slanderous and deceitful nature of his comments I am not all surprise that Harper would make them while outside Canada, instead of to Ignatieff and all the Opposition faces.

Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada and he has a duty to conduct the affairs of the nation while in Canada where he can be brought to the test and made to account for what he does.

Harper waiting until he is out of the country to make import announcements for the nation; MacKay hiding behind Parliamentary privilege - these are the guys running our country.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- - If Harper had done his job in 2006 Re Afghan Prisoner Transfers - we wouldn't be in this mess.

Redactions hamper Afghan detainee probe, Paul Koring, Dec. 01, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/redactions-hamper-afghan-detainee-probe/article1383375/
Tab 39

Paul Koring - Very good article - well written, informative and to the point.

One suggestion. Perhaps you can post pic's of some of these heavily redacted documents the G&M has so everyone can see for themself exactly what you are referring to.

The real reason for the extreme redaction, aside from a serious cover-up by Harper is, of course, the possibility of prosecution in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, if not domestically.

These are very serious allegations and hopefully the Opposition, the media and the people of Canada will not let it ride. We have a right to know.
No one is accusing Canadians soldiers of torture.

Harper was the one who up'ed the action of our troops in Afghanistan to out and out combat when they took over in '06.

Harper had a pressing and urgent obligation to take every step to ensure it was done in a fashion that accorded to International Law. Turning a blind eye, willfully or negligently ignoring, is not only a violation of the sacred trust placed in them when Harper took the Oath of Office, it was foreseeable that it could placed our troops in the the very tenuous position of allegations of violating serious International Laws.

People in Canada can understand with this out and out fighting in Afghanistan things were happening much, much faster and made it more difficult to get a complete handle on, and sympathize for our generals and troops.

But that was all the more reason that Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the other Con's ought to have looked into the matter thoroughly. Instead of address these real issues, and in a timely and effective fashion, as they were raised in Parliament they responded by insults, accusing anyone who sought answers of being "Taliban sympathizers", obstructing, stone-walling, distorting, refusing to act and Canada be damned.

It is reprehensible that Harper and MacKay and the other Con's would accuse the Opposition of such - have they no shame.

If they had done their job we wouldn't be in this mess and O'Connor would probably still be Minister of Defense.

When Harper accused Ignatieff, the Liberals, the NDP, the Block and anyone that would dare stand up to him on this, of "throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform based on the most flimsy of evidence" everyone in Canada should take note, demand he retract it and demand that a Public Inquiry be held.

Given the slanderous and deceitful nature of the comment I am not all surprise that Harper would make it while outside Canada, instead of to Ignatieff's face.

When MacKay tells Michael Ignatieff, who is doing his job as leader of the Opposition as is Layton and Duceppe, to be "very wary about taking his foreign affairs advice from former NDP premiers." What exactly does he mean. Sounds like some kind of threat, while hiding behind Parliamentary privilege.

Harper waiting until he is out of the country; MacKay hiding behind Parliamentary privilege - these are the guys running our country.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

-bold, totally unsubstantiated and hugely exaggerated claim - totally in line with the way Harper and the Con's approach everything.

Continued:

This is totally in line with the way Harper and the Con's approach everything.

You wrote "every economist that thought the GST was the wrong tax to cut, I can come up with 10 that believes the GST was the right tax to cut." The fact is that even Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, can out and admitted that the 2% reduction in GST was politically motivated and contrary to the economic evidence".

For someone who won't even tell us your name, I find it not surprising that you would make bold, totally unsubstantiated and hugely exaggerated claim - totally in line with the way Harper and the Con's approach everything.

Also, I feel very comfortable suggesting that the 64% who voted against Harper don't want him running our country.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The GST was the wrong tax to cut, as almost every qualified economist in the country has underscored.

Reply to: Mary Ewen
elaboration...

Even Harper's advisor at the time, Ian Brodie, has admitted as much. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;

I find it veryu difficult to believe that there are very many serous minded Canadians whho voted for Harper because of his promise to reduce the GST. Harper received approx 376% of the vote. His core support is approx 33 - 35% od f people who would vote for Harper no matter what his platform is. Approx. 66% of voters voted against Harper.

The greatest and longest lasting damage of the sponsorship scandle was giving Harper and his Con's a foothold on our government. It is something that we, our children and their children will be paying for for many years to come.

Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.

The greatest and longest lasting damage of the sponsorship scandal was giving Harper and his Con's a foothold on our government. It is something that we, our children and their children will be paying for for many years to come.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- He who disregards truth and reality inevitably contradicts himself (Confucius said ???) - Con'd Again by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, et al. this time on their version of the HST.

History traps Ignatieff on HST issue, Chantal Hébert, 30 Nov.'09
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/732432--history-traps-ignatieff-on-hst-issue#article

Two years ago, when Harper reduced the GST by 2 points, not only did Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, and the other Con's say it was good for the economy but since then Harper and his Con's have been saying that this was their great contribution to preparation for the recession and singly saved us from the fate of the US.

Now they are saying that the HST, which will increase the tax by 1.5 points, is the best thing that could happen to our economy.

What Bunk!

We've been Con'd Again by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, et al. this time on their version of the HST.

These two positions simply don't add up and manifestly contradict each other.

The problem is that Harper does everything for political reasons and not what is, in reality, best for Canada, Canadians and our future.

He who disregards truth and reality inevitably contradicts himself (Confucius said ???)

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.

submitted to: History traps Ignatieff on HST issue, Chantal Hébert, 30 Nov.'09
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/732432--history-traps-ignatieff-on-hst-issue#article

If the HST were to apply only to the extent that the current value added taxes in BC and Ontario apply and thus not represent an increase in taxes to those living in these Provinces; and, instead of bribing the Ontario government and BC governments with our hard earned tax dollars, increased rebates were put in place at the Federal and/or Provincial level (that way Ontario and BC Governments can take credit) for those whose economic hardship is impacted by the payment of HST.

Then, perhaps these Provinces can reap any benefit to business while at the same time mitigating the hardship both to those living in these Provinces as well as Canadian.

The problem with the HST is the manner in which the Harper government is implementing it. It will increase valued added taxes paid by those living in Ontario and BC by approximately 1.5 points, because the number of goods and services taxed will increase. This is being done in the middle of a recessions and despite Harper, Flaherty insisting they are not and will not increase taxes. Harper and Fleherty have agreed to bribe the BC and Ontario governments with almost 6 billion of our tax dollars and one can only wonder if that is not the real motivator behind Gordon Campbell's recent statement about "taking it to the bank".

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Gordon, if you believe Harper on the HST then all I can say is that you've been Con'd.

Liberals in bind over HST motion, Bill Curry, Saturday, Nov. 28
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-in-bind-over-hst-motion/article1380336/ Tab 15

Apparently Gordon Campbell told CTV "If you have an agreement with the federal government, even if it's a minority federal government, you should be able to take that to the bank,".

What a bunch of bunk - in the political arena this is 'kid's stuff'. Everyone knows that the HST, especially when it entails a gratuitous payment to the Provinces must be approved by Parliament. If Campbell doesn't know this then what in the world is he doing leading the government of BC. He should be too embarrassed to utter such a comment.

If it is true and Campbell really thinks that there was a binding agreement between the Province and the Federal Government he should resign and get someone in there that has some kind of inkling as to how governments in Canada work.

On the other hand if Harper and the Cons promised him 1.6 Billion dollars, then let Harper give it him out of his own pocket, or that of the Con Party, and not the tax payers of Canada.

Gordon, if you believe this then all I can say is that you've been Con'd.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider such an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.

Liberals in bind over HST motion, Bill Curry, Saturday, Nov. 28
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-in-bind-over-hst-motion/article1380336/ Tab 14

The problem with the HST is the manner in which the Harper government is implementing it. It will increase valued added taxes paid by those living in Ontario and BC by approximately 1.5 points, because the number of goods and services taxed will increase. This is being done in the middle of a recessions and despite Harper, Flaherty insisting they are not and will not increase taxes. Harper and Fleherty have agreed to bribe the BC and Ontario governments with almost 6 billion of our tax dollars and one can only wonder if that is not the real motivator behind Gordon Campbell's recent statement about "taking it to the bank".

Also, there has been no clear explanation as to why Harper would pay this money to BC and Ontario, other than a bribe to implement the Harper version of the HST. What about all the other Provinces. Given the huge deficits that the Federal Government is already experiencing - estimated at well over 60 billion this year, how in the world can Harper, Flaherty and the Con's justify gratuitously promising such huge amounts, other than using tax payers money to buy vote for the Cons.

Harper ordering Flaherty and the other Con's not to comment and saying that it will die if this motion is not voted for and they will not bring it forward again is very substancial support for the fact that they are now trying to back away from these actions taken. Clearly, Harper realizes how bad this HST implementation is but does not have the courage or decency to admit it is bad and simply kill it. He is correct that it should die and a serious look at implementing an HST that is not so hurtful to people living in these Provinces or the Federal budget.

If the HST were to apply only to the extent that the current value added taxes in BC and Ontario apply and thus not represent an increase in taxes to those living in these Provinces; and, instead of bribing the Ontario government and BC governments with our hard earned tax dollars, increased rebates were put in place at the Federal and/or Provincial level (that way Ontario and BC Governments can take credit) for those whose economic hardship is impacted by the payment of HST. Then, perhaps these Provinces can reap any benefit to business while at the same time mitigating the hardship both to those living in these Provinces as well as Canadian.

Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider such an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.

We certainly can't expect Harper to take such an approach. Harper and the Con's consider only what they think will help them to grab onto power and maintain it, Canada and all those living in Canada be damned.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff - Shame on You Norman

continued from last Post

Norman Spector wrote:11/28/2009 2:17:44 PM
Lloyd Macilquham

If Mr. Ignatieff is sincere about keeping global warming within two degrees, scientists estimate that it will require a reduction of between 25 and 40 percent relative to 1990 levels. I rather doubt that he intends to campaign on that level of reductions.

Lloyd MacIlquham replied:11/28/2009 2:48:43 PM

Norman Spector,

Thanks for the reply.

Now I feel bad about musing if you get paid by Harper and the Cons.

However, I would like to know if the money you receive from the Globe and Mail for writing your column is declared by the Con Party as a political contribution. If not, then, perhaps, a contribution 'in kind' by you.

I have every confidence that Michael Ignatieff will do the right (morally right, that is) thing regarding Canada, all Canadians, our economy, our position in the world and towards making a better future for us, or children and contributing positively to a better Canada and a better world. Certainly if I have anything to do with it he will.

I can't say the same for Harper.

Nor have I ever heard anyone that would make such a statement, whether they are simply incredibly biased, politically motivated, or it is simply the ravelings of a lunatic.

Harper and the Con's have spent the last four and more years deliberately poisoning the waters. I am sure that Ignatieff and the Liberals will take the appropriate steps to purge the waters and rid us of this plague.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, deception, suppression of truth, slandering, mud slinging, vicious personal attacks and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff - Shame on You Norman

Dear Prime Minister, Norman Spector, November 27, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/dear-prime-minister/article1379729/ Tab 9

Norman Spector has once again demonstrated his extreme bias towards Harper and the Con's. One wonders whether he gets paid by Harper for his writing efforts. I can't imagine the Globe and Mail paying for this, well actually I can, they have gone to extremes to find someone like Spector.

It also shows the kind of distortion and deliberate muddying of the waters, without any consideration for the truth, for which Harper and the Con's are so famous.

Ignatieff's position as set out in Quebec City the other day is to keep Global Warming within two degrees. It is Global Warming that is the problem and it is about time someone took the rational approach and laid out the basic strategy to do what it takes to reduce Warming. To achieve this end he stated that ...

We will set 1990 - not 2006 - as the base line and set differentiated targets for developing countries.

The government would create a binding and verifiable cap-and-trade system - with hard caps leading to absolute reductions - that is fair to all regions and industries, and compatible with other systems for international carbon trading.

A Liberal government would set an ambitious target of quadrupling Canada’s production of renewable energy by Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, and promote energy efficiency through new transit systems, high-speed rail, and ”smart” electrical grids.

Mr. Ignatieff also proposed a single Clean Energy Act that would adopt the toughest vehicle emissions standards in North America and outlined strategies to protect our air, water, forests and Arctic.

See:
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16979_michael-ignatieff-presents-liberal-environment-climate-change-and-clean-energy-jobs-plan;
and,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23201281/Highlights-of-a-Liberal-plan-for-the-environment-climate-change-and-clean-energy-jobs

At the time the Globe and Mail attacked Ignatieff for being vague about the 1990 base line. Everybody knows why Ignatieff would choose the 1990 base-line - it is the objective standard that has been used since Kyoto; and, why Harper and the Con's chose a 2006 baseline - to obscure and muddy the waters in an effort to blur the fact that Harper doesn't want to do anything about Global Warming in case it offended the Con's and their supporters, Canada and the World be damned.

McGuinty explains that without having access to the relevant information that is only available to the Government, how can you come up with hard numbers. And, we can be certain that Harper and the Con's will not be releasing any such information.

McGuinty points out one of those "dark corners" of out current Government and what does Spector do, Shine light on it as his fearless leader "Harper" has declared. No, Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff.

Great job Spector! Just want Canada needs Globe and Mail!

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the Cons' Tangled Web of Deceipt

Tories will challenge Ignatieff on HST, John Ibbitson, Nov. 27, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-will-challenge-ignatieff-with-hst-ultimatum/article1379397/ Tab 44

Wow, a prime example of "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, 1808).

If I recall, I thought Harper said everything would be a Non-Confidence vote. The interesting thing is that he is explicitly stating it isn't. Given the financial impact I am not so sure.

So, the question is why is he doing this.

It can only be that he knows it represents a tax increase and despite trying to hang it on the provincial governments of BC and Ontario it is likely very few people are deceived by him on this. Harper has already given Flaherty instructions not to discuss the HST. So, basically Harper realizing his mistake in bringing on the HST is trying to blame Ignatieff for the failure to implement it.

Harper was pressing for the HST because of the damage to Canada' finances caused by reducing the GST by two points. As projections show the HST represents approximately 1.5 points increase in value added taxes, thus making up ¾'s at least. Harper reduced the GST by 2 points, despite the overwhelming number of people in our society whose job it is to know about these things saying it was the wrong thing to do, for purely political gain for himself and the Con's, and Canada be damned. Even Harper's assistant at the time has admitted as much.

When is Harper, Fleherty, Mackay and the other Con's going stop the manipulating, deceiving, distorting, obscuring, obstructing, viciously attacking, defaming and the character assassinations, all at the expense of the good of Canada and all Canadian. Don't hold your breath - I'm sure they wouldn't know how, even if they wanted to.

The biggest things is that these are the guys running our country, and we let them. I hope Ignatieff and the Liberals vote this 'Bill' down in no uncertain terms and let Harper know just were the people of Ontario and BC stand.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Jason Kenny, if there is a fog it is from Harper, Toews, Baird, MacKay, Flaherty, you and all the Con's and hopefully it is starting to lift.

Speaker rules flyers may have damaged MP's reputation, Mike De Souza, November 26, 2009
http://www.canada.com/news/Speaker+rules+flyers+have+damaged+reputation/2273061/story.html#PostComment

If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible. Presumably these 10%-ers are not covered by Parliamentary privilege.

After being chastised by the Speaker of the House of Commons, do they do the decent thing and apologies. No, they try to say that what they said was true and the other Parties do it. Perhaps Jason Kenny could show us all one of these other pamphlets from the Opposition that compares to the one at issue. Instead of bald accusations and defamations perhaps the Con's could respond with the facts for a change. If there is a fog it is from Harper, Kenny, Toews, Baird, MacKay, Flaherty and all the Con's and hopefully it is starting to lift.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- It is Better That We As Canadians Clear the Air than to Have it Come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague - continued

In G&M post - see below:

JR_1 wrote: "We know what was in those emails from Colvin …"

I posted, in reply:

The fact is we don't know what was in those E-mail and other important documents. The MP's on the Committee have made that and the difficultly in doing a proper job without them very clear.

Without the production of the pertinent documents and affording proper cross-examination there is hardly any point in waiting until the committee is finished.

That is why a Public Inquiry is required - to compel production of the documents and afford proper cross-examination of witnesses. For Harper, MacKay and the Con's to withhold the documents, viciously attack Colvin's credibility and do it in Parliament and national media where Colvin has no chance to defend himself, is reprehensible and smacks of a serious cover-up.

Until there is a full-fledged Public Inquiry with suitable access to all the documents involved, the best source for their contents is Colvin himself, considering he wrote them and he is not facing the possibility of accusations of being complicit in war crimes, or other violations of International or domestic law. Colvin's testimony is quite blunt and quite damning. It is not sufficient for Mackay, Harper or anyone else to simply deny everything. This is especially true given the amount of clear and convincing documentation that was published at the time from very credible and reliable sources setting the torture and abuse by the Afghan authorities.

Why should we have to wait until it come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, to find out the truth.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- It is Better That We As Canadians Clear the Air than to Have it Come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague.

Excerpt submitted to:

Debate on torture allegations very painful process to watch, Stephen Maher, 26 Nov.'09
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1154609.html
and
Warnings on detainees were e-mailed
to MacKay's office, Steven Chase, Nov. 26, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/warnings-on-detainees-were-e-mailed-to-mackays-office/article1377821/ Tab 38 & Tab 40

Maher, I think you make a good point. The three Generals that testified yesterday do have an interest in the outcome of this. It is also very understandable that they would defend their troops. In fact, if they weren't prepared to do that, they shouldn't have been in the positions they were.

It is a bit unfair to expect these people to dedicate their lives to fighting for Canada then attack their credibility for doing their job. But, the same can be said for Colvin and, most importantly, the truth must be know. The only way to do this is to allow an independent judicial body have access to all the pertinent documents - i.e. a Public Inquiry. Harper knows this, MacKay knows this, everyone knows this. It is better that we do this as Canadians than to to have it come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague.

One major problem that Harper, MacKay, the three Generals, and anyone else that says there were no concerns, have is the extent of the clear and convincing, uncontradicted and very serious reports publicly available to all the World regarding the abuse and torture in the Afghan prisons as set out by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State, United Nations, etc. This was put to the Generals yesterday when they were testifying but without a clear and direct answer.

It is unimaginable that any professional diplomat stationed in Afghanistan, or anybody in Foreign Affairs dealing with Afghanistan would not be aware of these materials, assuming they can read, of course. Any E-mail that even insinuated torture or abuse of prisoners should have jumped out of the page and smacked the reader in the face. Also, For MacKay, Harper or the three Generals to say there was no proof is a ludicrous position to take for obvious reasons and I would be very surprised if it offered a defense to war crime charges.

Also, it was put to Hillier very bluntly, "was it his opinion that Canadian troops were not violating International Law, or domestic law, by transferring the Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities" [sic]. Once again there was no direct blunt "yes", or "no", but a vague, meandering response that left the answer very unclear. Given the times allotted to the MP's and that they may not be trained in Cross-Examination, it was left in this very unsatisfactory state. This is, of course, a vital question going right to the heart of the matter and demanded a "yes" or "no" answer. At an Inquiry, it is much more likely that we would get the answer.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Put the Grit back in this party of pushovers, Lawrence Martin, Nov. 25, 2009,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/put-the-grit-back-in-this-party-of-pushovers/article1377551/ Tab 7

Studies have shown that you must counter a negative attack ad within 48 hours or it seeps into the subconscious of those exposed to it. This kind of propaganda technique has been used in the past - the old principle of 'if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people start to believe it'.

The other part of it is that Harper and the Cons have a very strong core of support of apparently approximately 33-35 % of the population. Also, these supporters tend to be extreme in their views and support. They contribute money to the Party in a very liberal fashion (or should I say non-Liberal). You cannot overlook this aspect in any analysis of this issue. The seemingly limitless source of funds (aside from converting tax payers money to pay for their propaganda) is the reason that they can saturate the air waves with their attack ads or as some have described it carpet bombing. The core support is important as we saw how Harper incited them almost to hysteria just before Harper suspended Parliament. In other words 1/3 of the population feed off these attack ads and aggressions by Harper and the Con. To get an idea of the seriousness of this, one need only reflect that it only take around 15% of the population to overturn a government, if they are dedicated to it.

It is not simply a question of Ignatieff and the Liberals not fighting Harper and his Gang of Con's "in the trenches", so to speak. It is also the 2/3 rds of Canadians that vote against Harper that are complacent and sit by and allow Harper to carry on this way, and considering he is running this country, you can only wonder way. It is also all those who support and have supported the Liberal Party who are sitting back and criticizing the leadership of the party and not lifting a finger to to help in fighting back.

McKenna is right Harper and the Con's are thugs, as their viscous attack on Colvin once again demonstrates. What are all Liberals going to do about it. What are all Canadians going to do about it.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible

excerpt posted to: "How low Tories go", Frances Russell, 25/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/how-low-tories-go-73367857.html

Once again Frances Russell has written a very good political commentary, informative, objective and to the point.

The attack on Colvin's credibility is, of course, outrageous. So, is the 10%-er slandering Irwin Cotler, Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. The biggest shocker is that these things are being done by the same people who are running our country. This not some two-bit group of misfits operating on the fringe of our society, not now since they got into power anyway.

If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible, presumably these 10%-ers are not covered by Parliamentary privilege.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Also, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

With a Press that is willing to write articles in an open, informative, objective manner such as this one, all Canadians will see Harper and his Con's for what they really are.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- HST - Harper and his advisers are having a good laugh over this one.

Comment on:
Can HST flip-flop boost the Liberals?, Opposing tax may not be right, but it's smart, John Ivison, National Post, 24 Nov.'09
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=42469079-0db0-4da3-b283-396aea1a7c2e

It's not the HST, it's the increase in taxes and in the middle of a recession!

It may be that the HST, theoretically, is beneficial to the economy overall. However, the way in which it is being implemented - i.e. taxing things that weren't taxed before or increasing the tax on things that were, that is causing all the problems. In other words, it represents a tax increase and of almost 2 points (a recent Toronto-Dominion Bank Report indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%). This is when Harper, Flaherty and the Con's keep saying they won't increase taxes and right in the middle of a recession. And that's the real issue.

The reduction of the GST and the promises of no taxes is such a huge problem for Harper and the Con's that Harper order Flaherty not to discuss the HST. Further evidence of this being a problem for Harper and the Con's is the fact that Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it. Harper is thus trying to undo the economic damage done by reducing the GST 2 points and passing the buck, so to speak, off to the Ontario and BC provincial governments - well worth spending 6 billion of Canadian's hard earned tax dollars.

I'm sure that behind closed doors, Harper and his advisers are having a good laugh over this one.

Harper and the Con's reduced the GST by two points, when they knew that it was bad economic policy. They did it solely for the political benefits and Canada be damned. It is no co-incidence that the HST will represent an increase in value added taxes of nearly 2 points, overall. Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”

It may be that Paul Martin and the Liberals in the past were in favour of an HST. But, that was not in the middle of a recession and there is nothing to indicate that the way it would be done would have represented an increase in value added tax over all.

I think that Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals would be quite right in opposing Harper's implementation of this tax.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Afghan Detainees come back to haunt Harper, MacKay

Political reasons to attack torture testimony, Stephen Maher, Mon. Nov 23
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1154143.html

Once again the CronicleHearald Columnists have come up with very good coverage of an important political issue. It is quickly becoming the place to go to for informed, thorough and meaningful political commentary.

Harper, Mackay, Baird, and the other Con's approach to any criticism is to insult and attack the character of those that are criticizing, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a rational, civil fashion, as was and is their duty as Parliamentarians and those running the our Government. They have been doing this all along. Harper, MacKay and the other Con's have no interest in the truth, doing what's right (morally, that is) or properly addressing the issues of the day. They only are concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.

This is a prime example of their actions coming back to haunt them. Rather than approach this issue in 2006 - 2007 in a reasonable fashion as was, and is, their duty as the government and respond in a meaningful, useful fashion to the, quite legitimate, criticism of Afghan detainee transfers, they denied everything, hid information, obstructed and distorted and attacked the credibility of whomever crossed their path. They didn't have to take that approach but that is what they are all about, as I said, Canada be damned.

The problem is that this is on the record for all to see and now they are even more desperate since not only do they have they original issue staring them in the face again, they have their original denials, attacks, cover-up as well.

If anyone has any question about what Colvin was saying about detainee torture and abuse, you only need to read the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Report for 2006 on Afghanistan
(state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78868.htm), published March, 2007:
. . .
Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of national security institutions, including arbitrary arrest, unconfirmed reports of torture, and illegal detention were numerous.
. . .
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
. . .
Prisoners were reportedly beaten, tortured, and denied adequate food.

If I were Mackay, I would be too embarrassed to admit I never heard of torture in Afghanistan during that period.

If anyone's credibility is under question it's that of Peter Mackay, Stephen Harper and the other Con's.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Tom Flanigan Con's Canadians on Gun Registry Vote

Tories tar long-gun success by 'swinging too hard' on torture, Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-tar-long-gun-success-by-swinging-too-hard-on-torture/article1372213/Tab 21

Flanagan would say that the Con's have won the registry battle, no matter what happened. This is just another example of "it doesn't have to be true, just plausible". It is simply to try to convince true conservatives that Harper really hasn't abandoned real conservative values.

The Free vote allowed by Ignatieff means that Parliament won, at least with respect to those Canadians represented by the Opposition.

How can the Harper government claim victory when it was a private member's bill. Surely the Harper Government could have introduced the Bill and part of their official agenda. Everyone, especially true conservatives, should take note of this. It clearly represents a backing away of true conservative values for the sole purpose of maintaining power.

Van Loan suppressing the firearms commissioner's report on the gun registry before the vote on the gun registry means that, once again, truth, honesty and good government have lost out.

Nothing can be read from 8 Liberals voting to have long guns taken out of the Gun Registry. Nor can anything, legitimately, be taken from Ignatieff encouraging his caucus to vote together against it. This is a free vote and it is not to get rid of the Gun Registry, but only a part. In '04 I ran as a Liberal candidate and one of my "local platform planks" was to have the Gun Registry reviewed with a purpose of distinguishing between the urban centres and rural areas. No one in the Liberal Party ever suggested that I might be 'breaking ranks'. If I were an MP now I would likely vote for the Bill, and at no time consider it as 'breaking ranks' or somehow being unfaithful to the Party leader. The Liberal party is dedicated to open, transparent discussion of ideas. It is Harper that suppresses Con MPs. The Canadian political landscape would be a very barren, hostile, dark and distorted place if all Canadian expected all political parties to act the same way Harper and the Cons do.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Reading Harper's statement is like entering Bizzaro World.

Harper lauds press freedom in speech, doesn't take questions from reporters, The Canadian Press, Nov. 22, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-lauds-press-freedom-in-speech-doesnt-take-
questions-from-reporters/article1373034/Tab 25

Perhaps then Harper will agree to a public inquiry into the Afghan prisoner transfer scandal and “shine
light into [it's] dark corners”.

Reading Harper's statement is like entering Bizzaro World.

First it is the Prime Minister's duty to ensure that there are no "dark corners" in the government.

Second, of all the Prime Ministers and governments I have lived through Harper and the Con's have done the most to create and hide "dark corners". They have far outstripped any other Canadian government in distorting the truth and obscuring and obstructing it.

Harper and the Con's fundamental principle is, precisely, "truth is only what the Con's says it is”.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest. Approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth
is a basic strategy for Harper and the Con's.

Also, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.

Perhaps, Harper and the Con's don't put a gun to reporters' heads, but the effect is the same.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- MacKay's defense on Afghan Detainee Transfers is the OJ Simpson defense - vis.: 'oh yah, Prove It'

Tories attack credibility of diplomat
who blew whistle on torture, Steven Chase, Paul Koring and Josh Wingrove, Nov. 20, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-work-to-undermine-diplomat-who-blew-whistle-on-torture/article1369993/Tab 96

When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are denying something their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, prove it"

When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are alleging something, their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as its plausible".

The underlying principle is that 'The Truth Doesn't Matter'. 'The only thing that matters is political expedience, the Truth be damned'.

Peter MacKay attacking Richard Colvin's credibility is totally ludicrous. MacKay is the one who promised not to allow the Progressive Conservative Party absorbed by the Alliance (now Con Party), and when he did he wrote off the 'promise' by saying that over 90% of the party supported it. Peter MacKay is the guy who said 'if it's not in Hansard, it didn't happen'.

Attacking Colvin's credibility by saying he had the chance to tell MacKay in person when he was there on an official visit, is of course, simply grasping at straws. First Colvin had sent out, what was it, 80 E-mails to everyone. MacKay does not explain why Colvin would have any reason to believe that Mackay or anyone else had not received it. It was an official visit and bringing this matter up was out of line and could cost him his job. He had also been leaned on by his superiors about his 'whistle-blowing' activities and this would only re-enforce his concerns about losing his job.

The chances that Richard Colvin is lying, or even exaggerating, is remote. He has no motivation to lie and every motivation to not say anything - his career. It would be very easy for him to say nothing and he had to know that by raising this issue he would be exposing himself to the fate of any "whistle-blower' - exactly what is now happening. Also, apparently the Federal Court has accepted Colvin testimony as credible, where there was an opportunity to cross-examine him, fairly and withing the rule of law.

MacKay's attack on Colvin's credibility is an unconscionable effort to obscure and obstruct and prevent the truth from being revealed to all Canadians.

Either MacKay and other high level government officials were aware of these E-mails or they weren't. Attacking Colvin's credibility could only be an excuse if MacKay had been aware of them but wrote them off as untrustworthy. If MacKay was aware of them then he ought to come out and admit it. Then, it is a question of, given that these reports are very serious with catastrophic consequences for Canada's reputation and the troupes in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghans being tortured, and are from such a high level diplomat they ought to have been investigated, as opposed to simply written off. Of course MacKay would also have to explain his position back in 2006 - 2007 when he was basically saying the same thing as now (except the part about being aware of these E-mails) and attacking the loyalty of serious and true minded Members of Parliament as being Taliban sympathizers.

If MacKay is saying that he, and other high level government officials, inside the armed forces and out, were not aware of these E-mails, then it is unconscionable to attack Colvin's credibility, they couldn't have written these E-mails off as not credible if they weren't aware of them. Then the question is why they weren't aware of them, itself scandalous, given their nature.

The only motivation Colvin could have had was for the reputation of Canada and the protection of Canadian troupes from accusations of war crimes.

Also, as Colvin has testified:

According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.

Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.

In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.

This, of course, flies in the face of MacKay's allegation that Colvin was relying on people who through acid in the face of girls and the Taliban and exposes Mackay, Harper and the Con's for what they really are, right wing extremists who only concern is clutching, grabbing and holding onto power, Canada be damned.

Excerpt of Richard Colvin's testimony at the House of Commons committee
(from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/testimony-on-afghan-detainees/article1368821/

Why should Canadians care?

One may ask rhetorically, ‘Even if Afghan detainees were being tortured, why should Canadians care?'
There are five compelling reasons.

First, our detainees were not what intelligence services would call ‘high-value targets,' such as IED
(improvised explosive device) bomb-makers, al-Qaeda terrorists or Taliban commanders. ‘High-value
targets' would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involves special forces and
targeted, intelligence-driven operations. The Afghans I am discussing today were picked up by
conventional forces during routine military operations, and on the basis typically not of intelligence
but suspicion or unproven denunciation.

According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.

Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.
In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.

A second reason Canadians should care is that seizing people and rendering them for torture is a very
serious violation of international and Canadian law. Complicity in torture is a war crime. It is
illegal and prosecutable.

Third, Canada has always been a powerful advocate of international law and human rights. That is a
keystone of who we are as Canadians, and what we have always stood for as a people and nation. If we
disregard our core principles and values, we also lose our moral authority abroad. If we are complicit
in the torture of Afghans in Kandahar, how can we credibly promote human rights in Tehran or Beijing?

Fourth, our actions were counter to our own stated policies. In April 2007, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper said publicly that “Canadian military officials don't send individuals off to be tortured.” That
was indeed our official policy. But behind the military's wall of secrecy, that, unfortunately, is
exactly what we were doing.

And finally, even if all the Afghans we detained had been Taliban, it would still have been wrong to
have them tortured. The Canadian military is proud and professional organization, thoroughly trained in
the rules of war and the correct treatment of prisoners.

I would like to quote the authoritative military manual on counter-insurgency. It says that “the abuse
of detained persons is immoral, illegal and unprofessional .... Torture, and cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment, is never a morally permissible option, even if lives depend on gaining information
.... The methods used (by the military) must reflect the nation's commitment to human dignity and
international humanitarian law.”

Even when we look at our U.S. allies, who work with us in Kandahar, their top commander Gen. David
Petraeus lists 10 ‘big ideas' of counter-insurgency. One is ‘Live your values.' He said that “whenever
we place expediency above our values, we end up regretting it.” In a counter-insurgency, “when you lose
moral legitimacy, you lose the war.”

Canada's counter-insurgency doctrine makes the same points: “Persons not taking part in hostilities” —
including fighters who have been detained — “must be treated humanely. Once (local) citizens have lost
confidence in (foreign) military forces ..., their sympathies and support will be transferred to the
insurgents.”

Counter-insurgency is an argument to win the support of the locals. Every action, reaction or failure
to act become part of the debate. In Kandahar, Canada needs to convince local people that we are better than the Taliban, that our values were superior, that we would look after their interests and protect
them. In my judgment, some of our actions in Kandahar, including complicity in torture, turned local
people against us. Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners.
Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.

Thank you

- Harper and the Con's Attack Ads Is Reason For Low Voter Turnout - Continued

Posted to:
A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 7

I can't believe they are still allowing posts to this article.
For anybody who might be following this article . . .

Here is some more support for the fact that the low voter turn out in this last by-election is attributable to the Harper and the Con's negative attack ads.

It also gives some insight to the Harper statement the other day "Profoundly evil to seek to resolve political differences through the destruction of the other side" [sic] (see my post: 09 November, 2009
- Is Harper's Fraudian Slip Showing, Again )

"
Alan Whitehorn, professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada, finds it alarming.

He worries about "this notion of all-out war, of obliterating the opposition rather than simply defeating them. My feeling is all the major parties have a right to exist," he said in an interview. "I've done work on genocide so I'm very sensitive to language that goes too far and begins to create a culture of intolerance and denigration...

"I've long been a critic of negative advertising that in the short term may help you to win elections. But in the long term, the cost to the political process and the esteem politicians and the political process suffer is counterproductive and is one of the factors contributing to low voter turnout, not to mention the sense of fatalism, despair and alienation as people ask 'What can I do?' "
"

Canadian politics should be civil, not civil war
By: Frances Russell 22/01/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/canadian_politics_should_be_civil_not_civil_war38129694.html

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Con'd Again?!!!

Posted, 11/13/2009 11:01:13 AM (this time I'll see how long it takes the G&M to take the post down)Ottawa Notebook, Disrespecting veterans?, Jane Taber, November 12, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/disrespecting-veterans/article1360873/ Tab 17

I have always tried to figure out the date and time of E-mails and it seems they are always off by a number of hours, even if it took only seconds to receive. Anyone with the explanation please let me know.

However, I am very skeptical if the time difference is exactly one day, what are the chances.

PS. last week my post (see: cicblog.com/comments.html) to Jane Taber's "Ottawa Notebook" was taken down, without explanation of course. I can only thing it was because I was critical of the format and content. With this article my opinion has not changed one iota - I mean, come on, is this article for real.

It couldn't have been taken down because I wrote:

"Reading Taber's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media."

Since I posted a similar comment to Joan Bryden's article two days later (and pointing out the trend in articles).

So it must have been my intro "Taber get a new format, this one bites! - or at least something about it bites!"

All I can say is, Ms. Taber, go to . . .

Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
winnipegfreepress.com

for real political commentating.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Jane taber Go To ...

Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

for real political commentating.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

posted to:

- Harper and the Con's Attack Ads Is Reason For Low Voter Turnout

Posted to: A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 6

Please see: Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls."

my post: " … I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% ..."

excerpt:
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Tom Flanigan's 'Tell All' about Harper and the Cons - continued

Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

Hi Frances Russell,

This is a great article and a real eye opener:
" Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader
. . .
Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."

. . .
Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.

During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election. "

Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval [apparently Flanigan hasn't totally made the transition from Harper Henchman to academic, I guess old habits die hard]
(IBID - I don't normally quote sections of articles but these are essentially quotes of Tom Flanigan and newsworthy)

For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold.

But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.

Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you [Russell] pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.

All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned.

"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls." [IBID]

I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% . As I posted (see below):

"If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point."

I think this effect may explain the recent polls (see below):

"Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use."

PS: Jane Taber, If you would like to see some real political commentating ...

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Lest We Forget - Remembrance Day

To all those who have answered the call of duty my deepest appreciation and respect.

To all those that make that call I pray to God it is done through wisdom with the purpose of achieving peace.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Don't get Con'd on these by-elections - continued

Jack Layton tonight on PowerPlay (CTV) when asked what he could attribute the win in BC explained that it was the HHST issue and a strong candidate.

Exactly in line with my posting yesterday.

Jack Layton without the hyperbola and the claims to be the real Opposition -that's scary.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Don't get Con'd on these by-elections - continued

A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 6

AvgCanadian wrote: "We couldn't agree with you more regarding the uniqueness of the "by-election".....However.....when you state:
"people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Conservatives"...how do you explain/spin the fact that they are so far ahead in the polls?
Could it be even remotely possible that "people are approving of the job being done in Ottawa?"

To AvgCanadian:

As Winston Churchill said "Polls are for dogs" (I love it when I can use that).

This is a very complex question and something that can hardly be discussed in 2000 characters. One thing is that if one takes a look at the polls going into elections compared to the election results, a significant number of times there is a reversal from high in the polls before the election to losing.

If Harper and the Cons thought they could get a majority they would force and election - this is simply based on past experience. The fact that he doesn't to me indicates that Harper doesn't read too much into these polls either.

Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use. Or, they may become "undecideds" and this can make the poll look like it favours the Con's.

And, something what is very important is the amount of undecideds, which not many of the polling results indicate. The % of hard core Con's compared to the total decideds is going to increase as the % undecideds increases. So, the poll may really just be indicating that there is a large amount of undecideds and hard core Con's are going to vote for Harper and the Con Party no matter what. There are around 33-35% hard core Con's, you do the math.

PS - you said "We", who is the "We"

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Don't get Con'd on these by-elections.

Posted to:
Byelection win will boost Tories in Quebec: MP, November 10, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/10/quebec-federal-byelection-tories-bloc.html Tab 5

The big winner in Quebec Norman Spector, November 10, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 5

A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 2

As I discussed yesterday on cicblog.com, in by-elections one of the important things is the % of voters. The voter turnout was: Voter turnout (%): Cumberland NS 36, Hochelaga Q 22, Montmagny Q 37, N West'er BC 29.9. I can't remember anything that consistently low.

If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point.

When there is a low turn out it is safe to assume that it is hard core supporters that vote. It indicates that there is no "issue" in contention, Leadership or otherwise, and those that bother to go out and vote are hard core supporters either for the candidate or the party.

Another important aspect of by-elections that is very different than general elections is that people are more likely to vote the candidate. This accounts for the Con win in Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, where the Cons ran a very popular candidate locally, he was the former mayor of La Pocatière. We saw this effect in the Outremont by-election of 'Sep. '07, where the NDP won because of the very high local profile of their candidate, compared to the other candidates. Did this foreshadow a break through by the NDP in the next general election, I suggest not.

For anyone who might suggest that this is a huge victory for Harper and the Con's you only need to look at the results for the Con's in the other Quebec by-election (Hochelaga): They got 1,774 votes!(10.1%) , behind the Liberal and in fact the Liberals got a higher % in the riding the Con's won than the Con's got in the ridi8ng that they lost (distant 3rd).

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

Elections Canada Voter Turnout (not including voters who reg on the day)
Cumberland NS 35.7%
Hochelaga Q 22.3%
Montmagny Q 36.6%
N West'er BC 29.9%

****************
Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley Last updated: 22:52 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Conservative Scott Armstrong 11,167 45.8
NDP-New Democratic Party Mark Austin 6,267 25.7
Green Party Jason Blanch 807 3.3
Liberal Jim Burrows 5,193 21.3
Independent Kate Graves 149 0.6
Christian Heritage Party Jim Hnatiuk 776 3.2

Voter turnout: 24,359 of 68,172 registered electors (35.7%)

Hochelaga Last updated: 00:20 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
neorhino.ca Gabrielle Anctil 128 0.7
Conservative Stéphanie Cloutier 1,774 10.1
Marxist-Leninist Christine Dandenault 79 0.5
Liberal Robert David 2,510 14.3
Green Party Christine Lebel 571 3.3
Bloc Québécois Daniel Paillé 8,972 51.2
NDP-New Democratic Party Jean-Claude Rocheleau 3,421 19.5
Independent John Turmel 71 0.4

Voter turnout: 17,526 of 78,714 registered electors (22.3%)

Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup Last updated: 00:26 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Liberal Marcel Catellier 3,768 13.2
Bloc Québécois Nancy Gagnon 10,737 37.7
Conservative Bernard Généreux 12,162 42.7
NDP-New Democratic Party François Lapointe 1,363 4.8
Green Party Charles A. Marois 472 1.7

Voter turnout: 28,502 of 77,851 registered electors (36.6%)

New Westminster--Coquitlam Last updated: 01:04 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Conservative Diana Dilworth 8,753 35.8
NDP-New Democratic Party Fin Donnelly 12,129 49.6
Green Party Rebecca Helps 1,046 4.3
Liberal Ken Beck Lee 2,514 10.3

Voter turnout: 24,442 of 81,805 registered electors (29.9%)

- Is Harper's Fraudian Slip Showing, Again

Harper today explained that it is

"Profoundly evil to seek to resolve political differences through the destruction of the other side" [sic]

I wish I had said that!

Wow, finally judgment passed on the Jim Flaherty economic update of last 27 Nov.'08 where Harper and the Con's sought to destroy the Liberal Party through the eliminate the public subsidies.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com./comments.html

- Con'd again

Tories position by-elections as test of Ignatieff, Joan Bryden, Nov. 08, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-position-by-elections-as-test-of-ignatieff/article1355790/Tab 22

Oh, by the way, did I mention ...

It is also very interesting that these self-proclaimed "political commentators" are only now, the day of voting when the trends are already established and known, suggesting that it is a reflection of Liberal Leadership.

The only thing you can be certain about with these Con "pundits" is that if the indications were that the Liberals were doing well you can be sure they wouldn't suggesting it is a negative reflection on Harper's leadership.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Missing Posting's: My Jane Taber Comment on 6 Nov - G&M - removed???

Jane Taber's article,Follow the leader? Not these Liberals, Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/

Wow,

It seems Globe and Mail took my post off - it was there at Tab 8???. I guess I will have to take out a Con Party membership.

You can read my post at:

cicblog.com/comments.html

If the Globe and Mail and Jane Taber are so concerned about what I wrote, they could simply explain why. If they are right (morally and not politically) and I am wrong, then I would be more than pleased to retract it.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Globe and Mail - Get Someone who Knows Canadian Politics

Tories position by-elections as test of Ignatieff, Joan Bryden, Nov. 08, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-position-by-elections-as-test-of-ignatieff/article1355790/Tab 19 & 20

Sorry, which in by-elections (see results for 14 Oct.'08, below) were the Liberals supposed to be close, the one where they got 8.45% of the votes (I feel sorry for the candidate - no rebates). Or is it the one where they got 11.29%. Maybe it is in Quebec where the best they did was 20%.

The only thing the article is demonstrating is the bias of the Globe and Mail and the lack of experience in Canadian politics of the reporter.

The big factor in these by-elections is the % of voters. If there is a big turnout then it indicates there is an issue that the voters feel strongly about right now. In by-elections there is a very great trend to vote local issues and candidates as opposed to Parties and Leaders - a trend that has been establish over many, many years and which all those who pay attention to Canadian politics ought to know, but which this reporter fails to discuss at all - you be the judge.

If there is a small turn out then you can expect that only the hard core supporters of each party to turn out. This says nothing about Leaders, Leadership or party fortunes generally. If there is a large turn out then there is probably some local issue (and how the economic downturn is affecting people in the riding can be such), again, this says nothing about Leaders, Leadership or party fortunes generally.

I can't imagine anyone approaching Harper or any of the Con's to get an objective comment on the meaning of the results of these by-elections, or anything else, as we are all too familiar.

It is also very interesting that these self-proclaimed "political commentators" are only now, the day of voting when the trends are already established and known, suggesting that it is a reflection of Liberal Leadership. The only thing you can be certain about with these "pundits" is that if the indications were that the Liberals were doing well you can be sure they wouldn't suggesting it is a negative reflection on Harper's leadership.

The Con's are not the Tories.

The Tories had a long history of participating in the building of a great nation, Canada, and could hold their heads up with pride. Harper and the Con's have no such history and are tearing it down.

Harper's only concern is power, grasping it and holding on to it, Canada be damned.

Also, I can't imagine anybody pointing to how Harper and the Con's conduct their affairs with pride. Their place in Canadian history will be quite the contrary.

One thing that the Con's and the Tories have in common is using taxpayer's money to buy votes. If I recall Brian Mulroney was a master at it, however much more sophisticated and subtle.

Will the voters in this by-election see through this? This is a good opportunity to see. In by-elections the voting is not so much for the leader or the party but more based on the candidates and the issues. On the other hand, these ridings are considered to maintain the status quo (the NS riding going Con). So, by comparing the last election result with the upcoming one may give some insight into this.

Also, hopefully the other candidates are exposing the Con's for what they are.

Reading Joan Bryden's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media.

Jane Taber's article,Follow the leader? Not these Liberals, Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/

had the same theme - hummmm, I wonder if it is simply a co-incidence.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

The following is a table for the results from the last election for the four ridings.

Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley (Nova Scotia)
14 Oct.'08
Con Ind/ NDP Lib Rej Votes Possible Votes
Totals 3493 27303 4874 3344 39765 68831
% 8.82 69.00 12.31 8.45 57.8

Hochelaga (Quebec)
14 Oct.08
Con Block NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 4201 22720 6600 9442 46327 79542
% 9.19 49.75 14.44 20.66 58.2

Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup (Quebec)
14 Oct.08
Con Block NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 13640 20494 2428 6835 45 057 78 377
% 30.63 46.03 5.45 15.35 57.5

New Westminster–Coquitlam (British Columbia)
14 Oct.08
Con Green NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 19299 3574 20787 5615 49857 80755
% 38.83 7.19 41.83 11.29 61.7

- 'Action': Harper and Con spending on media tied to media that publish pro-Con materials - need to know.

11/9/2009 2:20:20 PM
Wow,

It seems Globa and Mail took my post off - it was there at Tab 8. I guess I will have to take out a Con Party membership.

You can read my post at:

cicblog.com/comments.html

Lloyd MacIlquham

*************************************

Follow the leader? Not these Liberals
Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/Tab 8

Taber get a new format, this one bites! - or at least something about it bites!

Harper politicizes everything in the traditional Machiavelian fashion. To suggest that the Liberals are politicizing the H1N1 emergency is, obviously and in the most cynical of 'Actions', politicizing the issue. The H1N1 epidemic is extremely important and it is Harper's and Aglukkaq's responsibility, despite them blaming everyone else under the Sun and refusing to take any responsibility - now Harper's shtik is that they have shipped out more vaccine than the Provinces can handle. The only thing that is surprising about this is that the Provinces aren't speaking up and telling Harper where he can 'shtik it'.

If Harper were to stand up and take responsibility for how the H1N1 epidemic is being handled, perhaps the Official Opposition would not have to "hold their feet to the fire" to such a degree. I can imagine that Con's would be upset about Rossi's labeling of the Harper and the Con's Actions on swine flu and party patronage, saying “pork before swine.” All the Con's, Harper included, should all be very embarrassed, shamefaced. Harper and the Con's have been focusing all their energy, and our tax dollars, on 'educating' Canadians, not on the Shine flu, but that they personally are the source of the Stimulus spending, and Canada be damned.

Harper and the Cons feels that they have such an effective propaganda machine established and operating so smoothly, that they can do this 'with impunity' and then simply turn it on and paint anyone who stands up and points out what they are doing as the villain. Harper and the Cons have developed and implemented the biggest propaganda machine experienced in Western democracy in recent history. All I can say is God save Canada.

From Taber's article it seems clear that Sakamoto was approached for his comments and approached as an individual, and did not seek the interviewer out and pretend to be an individual. Sakamoto is entitled to voice his opinion and to have it heard as much as any other person in Canada. Hell, even Mike Duffy is.

With the Harper track record of obscuring, obstructing, hiding the truth, suppressing the facts why isn't, as one Commenter has pointed out, Taber talking about the firearms commissioner's report on the gun registry suppression by Van Loan before the vote on the gun registry. Given Harper and the Con's track record on suppressing information this should have been a top priority, certainly well above what Taber thinks is vital information such as "Ian Davey, a close friend and adviser to Mr. Ignatieff, is on a beach in Florida with his girlfriend, Jill Fairbrother" - sounds more like gossip mongering than informative reporting.

As far as voting on the Gun Registry. Nothing can be read from 8 Liberals voting to have long guns taken out. Nor can anything, legitimately, be taken from Ignatieff encouraging his caucus to vote together against it. This is a free vote and it is not to get rid of the Gun Registry, but only a part. In '04 I ran as a Liberal candidate and one of my "local platform planks" was to have the Gun Registry reviewed with a purpose of distinguishing between the urban centres and rural areas in a like fashion. No one in the Liberal Party ever suggested that I might be 'breaking ranks' and indeed, the impression I had was that voicing my views was supported. If I were an MP now I would likely vote for the Bill, and like to think I would have introduced one myself, and at no time consider it as 'breaking ranks' or somehow being unfaithful to the Party leader, whomever it may be. The Liberal party is dedicated to open, transparent discussion of ideas. It is Harper that suppresses Con MPs, and Ministers even. The Canadian political landscape would be a very barren, hostile, hollow place if all Canadian expected all political parties to act the same way Harper and the Cons do. And, fortunately, despite and insinuations by Taber, we're not there yet.

Reading Taber's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

- Let's All Get Tough on Con's - Give the Harper Gang the Boot!

Posted to:

In the next election, it's flu versus crime, Rick Salutin, Nov. 06, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/in-the-next-election-its-flu-versus-crime/article1352927/
Tab 4

Harper and the Con's "Tough on Crime" is no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. That is why the Harper approach is to lengthen the jail terms of offenders rather than do something that will actually reduce crime - a G.W. Bush agenda, manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster. The disaster Bush made of the US is a prime example of just how much damage can be done when the wrong person is leading the country, something every Canadian ought to think seriously about in the next election.

As it turns out Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass".

The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).

In other words, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.

That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition, and Canada be Damned. Is burning at the stake "cruel and unusual" for witches???

Harper and the Con's 'agenda' is no more than a hodgepodge of 'one-off's' that do not actually 'get tough' on anything but the tax-payers pocketbooks. It is interesting that they refer to it as an 'agenda' and not a 'policy' - it's so revealing of Harper's underlying approach - it's so Fraudian, it's spooky.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- When are we going to Roll out the Harper Debunking Vaccine

Posted to:http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/04/notes-on-a-non-crisis/#idc-ctools> Notes on a non-crisis, by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 Tab 3

Part 1:
"- There is no emergency. The current flu outbreak kills at a fraction of the rate of regular, seasonal flu, which hardly anyone worries about. "

This is a complete misrepresentation, to the extent that one can only wonder if it is deliberately intended. It is the number of deaths that must be looked at and not the rate. If the number of people who get H1N1 is ten times more than the regular flu then a mortality rate of 50% means 5 times more deaths. This is a nation wide EPIDEMIC and in fact has been declared by the World Health Organization as a PANDEMIC. Therefore we can expect that many times more people will contract N1H1 than "normal" - that's why they cal it an EPIDEMIC and not 'the seasonal flu'.

For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf

Part 2:

It is also a very sinister form of the flu in that generally the population in Canada has virtually no resistance to it (although they will), in fact it is reported that, essentially only those over 50 have built up a prior resistance. It has also been well documented to attack otherwise health individuals, and in particular our youth. In fact, children 5 and under have been identified as being a high risk group.

For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf

Part 3:

To suggest that it is the Liberals fault for contracting the supply of seasonal flu vaccine from one supplier in 2001 is, again, misleading. As pointed out, this is a 2009-2010 EPIDEMIC and not the seasonal flu. Our government has had many months (since it appeared in Mexico with its alarming number of deaths) and there has been a huge publicity campaign by the UN to alert the governments of all countries and their citizens. This cannot be an excuse, nor should we allow it as one.

Harper is the Prime Minster of Canada. This is a Canada wide epidemic. Instead of focusing all his and the Co's efforts and our tax dollars in Con'ing Canadians to identify the stimulus spending with Harper and the Cons and Canada be damned, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's ought to have been focusing on the H1N1 epidemic and the distribution of the vaccine. Harper has spent scores of millions (100 millions dollars) in Con'ing us, can you imagine how smoothly and quickly the distribution of the H1N1 vaccine would have been if they had spent that money (and there is supposed to be 400 millions available for these purposes) and energy on this national medical emergency.

For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf

Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Part 3A:

"no worse than garden variety government bungling". To suggest that the way Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are handling this emergency is acceptable because the government bungles everything else is bazaar.

I only wish that the Fed's in combination with the Provinces and Municipalities would handle collecting taxes in the same fashion as Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's have been handling the H1N1 epidemic. Then, I'm sure, there would be a lot of very happy Canadians. Also, as mentioned this is not "garden variety" circumstances. This is a very serious EPIDEMIC that has a very serious mortality rate - i.e a national medical emergency - the need to collect taxes is not a national emergency, at least in my list of priorities, this is.

It is fascinating to listen to Harper and the Con's explain, still once again, that it is not their fault. To listen to Harper, it is never his fault, it is always someone else's (one would think, just on the probabilities that something would be his fault, after all, no one is perfect)

Part 4:

Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, this is a Canada-wide epidemic, Harper should stand up, show some backbone, oh, sorry, leadership, and take responsibility. Instead, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are pointing to everyone else under the sun and say it's their fault.

The biggest shame is how Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's point to other countries and say, look we are doing better than them. Two things, for a family of someone in Canada who dies from H1N1 when it might have been prevented, it is very little solace to point to some other country and say, well for every one that dies here, two die there. Also, as my pappy used to say: "if Joe Blow down the street is incredibly negligent in his actions and it leads to scores of people dying, does that mean you should be incredibly negligent".

Part 5:

The media also has a responsibility ("social contract") not to re-enforce this "its not my fault" approach to national emergencies by Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's. I understand that they want to sell paper's and ... However, my consolance (apparently this is not a word???) is that soon enough the "traditional media" will go the way of the dinosaur and we will be given an opportunity to establish an 'Public Awareness Institution' that is not so self-interested, biased and focused on promoting their own agenda at the expense of all Canadians and this great nation of ours. Unfortunately it will be too late for this crisis.

For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf

Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html

PS: why in the world would the host only allow so few words per post then suggest that, if too lon, to break it up into parts???

Part 6:

Just one last thing . . .

When are we going to Roll out the Harper Debunking Vaccine!

- Harper should stand up, show some leadership, and take responsibility.

Don Martin: Vaccine claims don't add up, November 02, 2009
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/02/don-martin-vaccine-claims-don-t-add-up.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
20 comments

It's fascinating to listen to Harper and the Con's explain, still once again, that it is not their fault. To listen to Harper, it is never his fault, it is always someone else's (one would think, just on the probabilities that something would be his fault, after all, no one is perfect)

On the other hand, Harper has no reservation about goes for months spending 10's of millions of our dollars 'educating' the public in order to take credit for the stimulus spending.

Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, this is a Canada-wide epidemic, Harper should stand up, show some backbone, oh, sorry, leadership, and take responsibility. Instead, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are pointing to everyone else under the sun and say it's their fault.

The biggest shame is how Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's point to other countries and say, look we are doing better than them. Two things, for a family of someone in Canada who dies from H1N1 when it might have been prevented, it is very little solace to point to some other country and say, well for every one that dies here, two die there. Also, as my pappy used to say: "if Joe Blow down the street is incredibly negligent in his actions and it leads to scores of people dying, does that mean you should be incredibly negligent".

As pointed out by Don Martin, "Something doesn't add up". I have not heard a real explanation from Harper and the Cons as to why there is so much less vaccine available now that what they were saying a week ago. And this is important. Considering that rumors are that they shipping these 'missing millions' of doses to the US, including for use in their military in Afghanistan, one would think they would be quick to clarify the matter - even Harper wouldn't do that, would he???
Up until a week ago Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's were telling us everything is ok and there is enough H1N1 flu vaccine. They suggest that since the contract that makes GlaxoSmithKline the sole-source producer has been in place for years that they have prepared properly.

All of a sudden when the results of their so called preparations and made manifest, there is a huge problem and there is not as much vaccine, by a long shot. No body seems to be able to account for much of the doses that were shipped out. Also, Harper and Aglukkaq blame GlaxoSmithKline for the short-fall and hide behind Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, saying they were just following his advise. Harper and Aglukkaq also blame it on GlaxoSmithKline being the sole provider.

What Harper and Aglukkaq aren't telling us is, that although GlaxoSmithKline is our sole provider for the H1N1 vaccine, are we their sole customer. This, obviously, is vital information. Since, it may be that GlaxoSmithKline is providing the same vaccine to other countries and that is why they are unable to fulfill their contractual obligations with Canada. It could be a little more subtle than this and maybe GlaxoSmithKline are preparing another type of drug, or otherwise diverting their capacity, to be used by another country at Canada's expense. If this were the case, it is impossible to imagine that Harper and Aglukkaq would not know about this.

If this is the case, this is astonishingly unconscionable by Harper and Aglukkaq and the Con government. One would expect that the first thing they would want to clarify is that GlaxoSmithKline is not shipping the vaccine to anyone else, or otherwise diverting their capacity, while shortchanging us.

The failure by Harper and Aglukkaq to clarify this certainly raises eyebrows and we can only ask ourselves why such unconscionable behavior, especially in this time of national urgency.

Given Harper and the Con's track record of obscuring and obstructing, and hiding the truth, it is easy to conclude that he, Aglukkaq and the Con's are hiding something. Further, that there is no clear tracking of the doses is a well used technique for obscuring the truth and one it is easy to see Harper employing, amongst others of course.

So, perhaps the suggestion that Canada's vaccine is going to the US army in Afghanistan is not so far fetched. Certainly, if it is being diverted, or Canaad is being sold out to other interests, every Canadian has a right to know.

Given Harper's general policy of obscuring and obstruction the truth and suppressing the facts, it is not surprising that we haven't got a clear explanation and probably won't get one from the Harper, Baird, Clement, Aglukkaq or any other Con, no matter how important it is.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Liberal.ca
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16823_liberal-doctors-present-timeline-of-conservative-h1n1-incompetence

Liberal doctors present timeline of Conservative H1N1 incompetence Liberal MPs today recounted the Conservative government’s timeline of failure for preparing for H1N1 when compared to other countries.
H1N1 Timeline
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf

In their own words: H1N1 preparedness: Harper’s failure

Just the facts: Conservatives delayed H1N1 vaccine Order While the Conservative government is blaming the provinces and the vaccine manufacturer for H1N1 vaccine delays, the facts show that the federal government delayed ordering the vaccine when compared to other countries.

H1N1 fiasco

- 2 Nov 09 - Test

Howdie

- yada yada yada

It's me again

- Hi Everybody

It's me.

- I guess Alberta separating is one way to get rid of Harper and the Con's

Posted to: Climate change report 'irresponsible,' Prentice says, Bill Curry and Dawn Walton, Oct. 31, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-change-report-irresponsible-prentice-says/article1344485/ Tab 61
and
Canada can meet its climate goals, but the West will write the cheques, Shawn McCarthy, Oct. 30, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-can-meet-climate-goals-but-the-west-will-pay/article1342887/ Tab 45

This report - Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity: Final report on an economic study of greenhouse gas targets and policies for Canada, Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation:

"Ottawa will have to lead a massive restructuring of the Canadian economy, with wealth flowing from the West to the rest of the country, if it is to meet its climate-change targets"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-can-meet-climate-goals-but-the-west-will-pay/article1342887/

is based on implementing the Harper and the Con plan of reduction of greenhouse gases!

As far the Harper plan requiring a reduction in production of oil and gas, this is quite easy for anyone to predict. They are attempting to reach a certain goal which is set in absolute terms (20% reduction from 2006 by 2020). However, their plan is to reduce the amount of CO2 production in relative terms i.e. per barrel. Basically this report is saying that to reach the absolute goal as professed by Harper and the Con's themselves it will be required to also reduce the number of barrels produced. This is not rocket science.

Rather than approaching this report and this problem in an objection, rational fashion, Harper and the Con's are approaching Canadians, and especially Westerners on a purely emotional, irrational, basis, accusing the authors of bias, self serving and generally unethical behaviour. This is not surprising since Harper, Baird, and the Con's all think, and operate, only in these terms. How about Harper presenting a comprehensive, well thought out and factually supported plan for Canada playing its role in saving this planet for our children and our children's children. After all, that is what his job is supposed to be - not simply power grabbing and mongering and Canada, and the rest of the world, be damned.

The real problems is that Harper and the Con's have no real plan, nor do they intend to have any real plan. This '20-20 plan' of their coupled with CO2 sequestration (which, again, can be easily seen to be quite untenable for the tar sands) was thrown out there as a diversionary tactic when their backs were up against the environmental wall a couple of years ago. Harper simply has no intention of taking real and meaningful action on Green House gases, but to only stall and drag their feet, and the reason is simple. One need only look at the response from the West to this report. Some Con MP's are running around threatening separation by the West from Confederation based on this report. The Con buzz word out of Alberta is "divisive" an euphemism for 'separation'. Harper and the Con's power is centered in Alberta.

Again, this is not rocket science.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Someone should ask Harper, Baird, Clement, Aglukkaq and any other Con if they have received their flu shot yet. My guess is that, Harper has.

October 29, 2009 5:26 PM, 'Job sharing with Bob Rae', Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/job-sharing-with-bob-rae/article1344260/Tab 10

The H1N1 flu vaccine debacle is a prime example of the importance of who is running the government. Harper and the Con's have been so focused on spending tens of millions of dollars in advertizing to educate everyone on equating the stimulus spending with the Con Party. They should have been focusing on the H1N1 flu (Swine Flu) epidemic. This is just another example of Harper doing everything to grab and hold onto power and Canada be damned.

Bob Rae is right in pointing out that any death due to the Swine flu is a tragedy, especially if it could have been avoided, and we must take a very serious look at how it might have been prevented. Ignatieff and the Liberals have for weeks been pointing out the failures of the Con's in their handling of the whole matter. Even now, with the health of so many Canadians at issue the Con's response is simply to accuse the Liberals of partizan politics, which is, itself, partizan in the extreme. The fact is that no response to any crises is perfect and the idea in a democracy is that we rely on all the people to come forward, each according to their particular abilities. Harper and the Con's are essentially running the country as a totalitarian state and not a democracy.

How about, responding by saying something like "we are looking into these matters, and are continually doing everything we can to improve the way we are handling things and certainly any shortcomings anyone can point out are very welcome".

I have not heard a real explanation from Harper and the Cons as to why there is so much less vaccine available now that what they were saying a week ago. And this is important. Considering that the rumors are that they shipping these 'missing millions' of doses to the US, including for use in their military in Afghanistan, one would think they would be quick to clarify the matter. However, given Harper's general policy of obscuring and obstruction the truth and suppressing the facts, it is not surprising that we haven't got a clear explanation and probably won't get one from the Harper, Baird, Clement, Aglukkaq or any other Con, no matter how important it is.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Mr. Flanagan, if you really want people to learn from history then you should point to the similarities between Harper and Machiavelli.

Tom Flanagan, Ignatieff needs a history lesson, Oct. 30, 2009,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/ignatieff-needs-a-history-lesson/article1344354/
Tab2

Tom,

I'm always quick to point out when you are wrong and so I feel compelled, albeit grudgingly, to say that you get high marks this time.

However, if you really want people to learn from history then you should, perhaps, point to the similarities in method between Harper and Machiavelli. You'd have gotten [sic] 'A+' for that.

"When I published Harper's Team , Mr. Harper was peeved I was putting out too much information". I always wondered about that. I guess I just assumed that it was some sinister plot to somehow ease the public to the right of the political spectrum and encourage Harper to cease his evil ways of grabbing and clutching onto power and Canada be Damned (another historical reference I feel is apropos) and return to his roots, which he has abandoned so freely.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Ignatieff and the Liberals are right.

October 29, 2009 7:57 AM, Bennett's swine politics, Norman Spector
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/bennetts-swine-politics/article1343255/ tab3

It is a question of the chickens coming home to roost. Harper and the Cons have been spending tens of millions of tax payers dollars trying to have the stimulus spending identified with the Con Party. They should have refrained from such partizan activities and focused our money on the H1N1 epidemic. The message on the Go Trains should have been early warning symptoms for H1N1 and what to do, instead of trying to make Toronto voters think that Harper and the Cons are their benefactors. It is not wonder people are upset and concerned. This is just another example of Harper doing everything to grab and hold onto power and Canada be damned.

Harper has poisoned the political environment in Canada to such a degree with his in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, sloughing off legitimate criticism with "that left wing incompetent", refusal to cooperate unless forced by the threat of losing power, that in order to have have an effect the Opposition must be very forceful. This is one of those situations.

Even now, with the health of so many Canadians at issue the Con's response is simply to accuse the Liberals of partizan politics, which is, itself, partizan in the extreme. The fact is that no response to any crises is perfect and the idea in a democracy is that we rely on all the people to come forward, each according to their particular abilities. Harper and the Con's are essentially running the country as a totalitarian state and not a democracy.

How about, responding by saying something like "we are looking into these matters, and are continually doing everything we can to improve the way we are handling things and certainly any shortcomings anyone can point out are very welcome".

Oh, and did I mention, Normal Spector is incredibly biased.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- It is time we got 'Tough on Con's' and give Harper the boot.

"Watchdog to cost out Tory crime agenda Liberals request financial analysis, hoping to determine implications of crime bills", Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Oct. 27, 2009,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-office-looks-to-put-price-tag-on-tories-tough-on-crime-agenda/article1337669/
tab21

"Harper and the Con's Once Again Stifle the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page By Withhold Information for His Assessment of the Costs of the Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda", will be the headlines in a week or two.

Harper and the Con's 'agenda' is no more than a hodgepodge of 'one-off's' that do not actually 'get tough' on anything but the tax-payers pocketbooks. In fact, Harper's changes are not much more than following George Bush's agenda, which has been manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster.

It is interesting that they refer to it as an 'agenda' and not a 'policy'. There is no coherent, unified policy here. These 'actions' are intended strictly to appeal to the extreme right elements in our society and upon which Harper and the Con's so strongly rely for support. Harper has no concern for how much it costs or the likelihood of it actually reducing crime. The worst part is that once again Harper is buying votes with the tax payers dollars.

As it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in last September.

The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).

In other words, the report is correct, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.

That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition. Is burning at the stake "cruel and unusual" for witches???

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Flaherty is full of non-sense.

Recession fight leads to deepening federal deficit, Corporate tax receipts plunge 79%, October 23, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/10/23/federal-deficit.htmltab 79

The things mentioned by Flarherty, "paying down debt in good times, maintaining a prudent financial system and reducing taxes" are referring to a time when Flarerty, Harper and the Cons were very emphatically stating there would be no deficit and as he calls it in "good times". To say now that they were prudently preparing for the recession is total bunk.

They were done not because they were the right thing to do but to buy votes (e.g., with reducing the GST 2 points, as has been revealed by the Con's). Reducing taxes is proving to be a disastrous thing to have done as can be seen from the "78.6 per cent plunge in corporate tax revenues" - a result that is totally predictable for a recession. It is worse because once taxes are reduce it is very difficult to increase them, which was part of the Harper strategy in reducing them in the first place.

The Harper spending, now and before the recession, represents huge increases and it simply is not "maintaining a prudent financial system". Paying down debt is generally something I agree with, especially when you have extra cash on hand. However, where the cost of borrowing is very low it is very questionable to totally eliminate the surplus by paying down debt, and certainly, it is far more prudent to reserve some for contingencies, e.g., economic downturn, which is one of the things that was on the books and they eliminated, or investing in Canada's future through various social programs, especially aimed at our youth. If they were preparing us for a recession that ought to have increased the financial buffers that were built in, but they totally eliminated them, and as I said simply to buy votes. This is not 'prudent financial'.

The only 'financial plan' Harper, Flaherty and the Con's have, other than converting our tax dollars into their own spending fund, is to do nothing and wait until the US and other Western economies start to pick up and drag us up with them, then take credit. It may be 'prudent' for them but disastrous for Canada and the future of our children.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper calling an election would be quite the Harperiavellianism,

Submitted but not posted???Travers: PM may be wise to force election, Storms brewing over Afghanistan, stimulus, James Travers, National Reporter, Oct 24 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/715587--travers-pm-may-be-wise-to-force-election#article Tab 2

Harper calling an election would be quite the Harperiavellianism, given Harper, Baird and all the Con's mantra of "Canadians don't want an election" and an election would be a waste of taxpayers money and disrupt the 'fragile economic recovery'.

However, with Harper and the Con's it has always been, grab power, hide, distort and obstruct the truth, approach the voter on an emotional basis and Canada be damned, so I don't put it past him and the Con's at all.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The Con's are not the Tories

Stimulus money driving Tory bus , Party’s byelection candidates focusing on delivering cash,
Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press, Oct 24, 2009
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1149171.html

larkmack wrote: "Two things. The party lead by Mr Harper are not Tories."

He is absolutely correct. The Con's are not the Tories.

The Tories had a long history of participating in the building of a great nation, Canada, and could hold their heads up with pride. Harper and the Con's have no such history and are tearing it down.

Harper's only concern is power, grasping it and holding on to it, Canada be damned.

Also, I can't imagine anybody pointing to how Harper and the Con's conduct their affairs with pride. Their place in Canadian history will be quite the contrary.

One thing that the Con's and the Tories have in common is using taxpayer's money to buy votes. If I recall Brian Mulroney was a master at it, however much more sophisticated and subtle.

Will the voters see through this? This is a good opportunity to see. In by-elections the voting is not so much for the leader or the party but more based on the candidates and the issues. On the other hand, these ridings are considered to maintain the status quo (the NS riding going Con). So, by comparing the last election result with the upcoming one may give some insight into this.

Also, hopefully the other candidates are exposing the Con's for what they are.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Sorry, fly this by me again, why is Canada advertizing the Economic Action Plan

Tories spend $46,000 to turn GO Trains into rolling adsCash would be better spent on H1N1 campaign than on economic plan promotion, critics say, Richard J. Brennan, Ottawa Bureau, Oct 23 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/714707--tories-ad-money-turns-rail-cars-into-rolling-billboards#articletab 3

Whether it's 34 million or 60 million, what Harper, Baird and the Con's should explain is just exactly why is it so important to advertize the Canada's Economic Action Plan at all.

It is very difficult to imagine anyone not aware of it and certainly no one in a position to apply for funds pursuant to it. Perhaps Baird thinks that the mayor of Toronto will see the train go by and say, "Oh, yah, lets apply".

Clearly, the message Harper and the Con's are selling is vote Harper, vote Con. So, in reality, they are converting the $55 billion deficit to the Con Party's use, which means every man, woman and child in Canada is contributing over $1,500 to the Con Party - sounds like an Elections Act violation.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- another 'Harperism' - appeal to people's emotions to explanation why it is not his fault, but, in actuality, total non-sense

Tories starve Toronto's red ridings, MP chargesLiberal and NDP areas get 38% less from big parks and rec fund, Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa bureau chief Published On Thu Oct 22 2009Tab 16

Harper is suggesting that it is ok for the MP to use these 'Con-Cheques' with the MP's signature on it, but not their Con logo. This is convenient since, Harper himself has signed such 'cheques'. And, it is ok since it is the MP's hard work that got the funds for the riding, they represent the government and they should be acknowledged for their efforts.

This is, of course, another 'Harperism' - appeal to people's emotions to explanation why it is not his fault, but, in actuality, total non-sense.

If this were really Harper's position, then why is it that the Harper government has not arranged for any of the Liberal ridging to have such ceremonies, such larger than life cheques, to have the Liberal MP's signatures on it. The same rational applies, if one wants to look at these things objectively ... doesn't it. This goes for NDP ridging and Block riding as well, of course. After all, stimulus funds have been going to these other riding, as Harper himself points, albeit to a much lesser extent than Con ridging.

And if the Con stimulus funds ceremonies are not politicized then you might expect that they would invite representatives from the other major parties to attend, participate, and even help hold up these 'Cheques'. What are the chances of these things happening - none. And this should raise an eyebrow for all Canadians. Basically, Harper and the Con's are identifying these funds with the Con Party, as if Canadians collectively donated 55 billion to Harper and the Con Party - or over $1,500 for every man, woman and child in Canada - and I though the limit was only $1,100.00

There is no doubt that Harper and the Con's have politicized the stimulus funding to the hilt. This is a very unique situation, given the economic crash, the fact that Harper is a minority government and given Harper and the Con's promises on transparency, integrity openness de-politicizing government spending which Canadians evidently bought into. They ought to have arranged to transfer the funds in an non-partizan fashion, as Ignatieff and the Liberals proposed right at the beginning. Harper simply ignored this.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the Con's corruption is now and it is time they were 'outed' and made to pay the price.

Finger pointing and allegation, Jane Taber, Tuesday, October 20, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/finger-pointing-and-allegation/article1331239/ tab 8

There is no doubt that Harper and the Con's have been making a very concerted, centrally orchestrated effort to have the benefits of the stimulus spending identified with the Con party. Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest. Approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth is a basic strategy for Harper and the Con's.

Deflecting important questions and responding with insults, distortions, obscuring and obstructing and generally showing contempt for our Parliamentary system is another basic strategy that has been employed by Harper and the Con's since they got into power. Everyone in Canada should ask themselves why they feel the need to respond in this fashion, if not to hide the truth.

When are Harper and the Con's going to stop hiding behind the sponsorship scandal and stand up and take responsibility for their actions.

The sponsorship scandal is in the past and those responsible have paid the price.

Harper and the Con's corruption is now and it is time they were 'outed' and made to pay the price.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

***************
10/21/2009 12:47:02 PM

Llucas wrote (Tab 8): "'Approaching Canadians on an emotional level' is also how politics works. (See Myth of the Rational Voter)."

The actual title of the book is: "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

One can only wonder why you might leave off the last part of the title "Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

and that is precisely the point. Harper and the Con's, as you obviously condone, base their approach on emotions. This approach by its very nature totally disregards the truth and requires dishonesty since honesty leads to the truth and basing your approach on the truth is diametrically opposite to basing it on emotions.

The problem, besides having a leader of our country that hides and distorts the truth per se, is that it does lead to 'Bad Policies'. The only solution is openness, truthfulness,transparency, freedom of information, rationality, etc.

This also highlights the difference between an ideological approach, especially when it is extreme and right wing, and pragmatic approach. In other words, this is precisely the difference between the conservative and liberal approach.

You suggest that many Liberals in high places have gotten away with theft. This is a prime example of approaching an issue on emotions - a rational approach would be to give names and instances or at least point to some reliable source (e.g. not John Baird).

Also, the point is that it is high time that Harper and the Con's stopped hiding behind the sponsorship scandal, stood up and took responsibility for their actions. The importance is that it is now and they are running the country, these hard economic times make it just that much more vital. The Liberal were held accountable and it was Paul Martin, as Prime Minster, that stood up and accepted responsibility and they paid the price. Now, its Harper's turn, that is, if he has the moral fiber.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com\comments.html

- one can only wonder why Harper is throwing over $300 million of Canadian tax payers' money at development of carbon sequestration in Alberta

Jeffrey Simpson, On a cost basis, carbon-capture projects are madness, Last updated on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009 8:48AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/on-a-cost-basis-carbon-capture-projects-are-madness/article1329825/ tab 6

Jeffrey, you get high marks for your analysis.

It is great to see people taking a rational, factual approach to these issues. We certainly can't turn to Harper and the Con's for this as they present everything on emotional, fear mongering basis.

Harper keeps saying that he will follow the US approach to global warming. In the US carbon sequestration may make sense only because such a large part of their energy is derived from coal burning. In Canada it isn't. To follow the US on this is, in a word, wrong. Also, given that research and development in the US is so much greater than Canada' it is hard to see Canada being able to compete with the US in development in carbon sequestration technology. This is especially true given Harper's attack on funding for the sciences in Canada, whereas, if I recall correctly, Obama is going the exact opposite direction with their stimulus funding. Further, the tar sands represent a much bigger problem as far as carbon pollution is concerned and carbon sequestration is so much more difficult as to make it not only insanely costly but simply unfeasible.

Harper's strategy on using carbon sequestration is a carry over from the Bush era. Harper trashed Kyoto and was cornered into coming up with some kind of plan to reduce carbon emissions. He followed Bush's approach that science and technology will solve the problem, at some vague point in the future. Pushed further Harper came up with his carbon sequestration plans. He had no rational, factual underpinning for this policy, it was all strictly political.

Given Harper's power base is in Alberta one can only wonder why he would throw over $300 million of Canadian tax payers' money at development of carbon sequestration in Alberta.

Being presented with the realities of carbon sequestration I wonder how Canadians would really feel about this.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Breaking News: Con's deny interfering in Champlain Bridge contract, according to Transport Minister John Baird

Tories deny interfering in Champlain Bridge contract, Mike De Souza and David Akin, Canwest News ServiceOctober 18, 2009
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+deny+interfering+Champlain+Bridge+contract/2121100/story.html tab1

Well we have it from Mr. Baird, "No minister or minister's office had any involvement in this matter".
We can all rest easier now.

And, John Baird complaining about a "smear campaign" - am I reading that right???

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- When are Harper and the Con's going to stop hiding behind the sponsorship scandal and stand up and take responsibility for their actions.

Monday, October 19, 2009 9:11 AM, Don't call the Copps, Norman Spector
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/dont-call-the-copps/article1329025/
Tab8
Every time Harper and the Cons get caught red handed, they scream 'sponsorship scandal" - as if, everyone in Canada should say, "Oh my God, the sponsorship scandal, I guess what Harper and all his Minister's and other party members are doing must be ok".

If I recall, it was Harper's outrage and promise to do things properly, openly and transparently that got him into power. Well, now that he is in power, Harper is not, in reality, doing things properly or openly or transparently. This is a scandal and given his previous position and promises, hypocritical in the extreme and dishonest in and of itself.

Besides, Harper and the Con's , should not be so modest, they are quite capable of creating their own scandal as Sheila Copps is suggesting.

PS: the link to the Chantal Hébert article only has the front page indicating only that Kelly contacted Anderson's office and they were eager to to help. We are unable to confirm, from this, the rest of the story as relayed by Mr. Spector. However, it strikes me as odd that this is the first time I have heard of this allegation and perhaps, Norman, this is not much more than writers trying to sell their wares.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Just how much more of this abuse of power are Harper and the Con's hiding.

Optics of Conservative cheque scheme dodgy, By Sheila Copps, October 19, 2009
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/copps_corner-10-19-2009 tab1

Great article, Sheila, informative, to the point and newsworthy - keep up the great work.

Hopefully, everyone in Canada will start to pay attention to what Harper and the Con's are doing. Of course, stimulus spending and the deficit are not the only areas of Harper's government that we must be very concern about - for example, the environment, Afghanistan, obstructing and obscuring access to information, our Parliamentary institutions and oversights and, generally, their 'Canada be damned' approach to all they do as long as it helps them to grab and hold onto power.

Just how much more of this abuse of power are Harper and the Con's hiding.

It is no wonder that they want to suppress any type of access to information and Parliamentary oversight. Since, then Canadians will know just exactly what Harper and the Con's are doing.

Lloyd McIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- How much more of Harper and the Con's do we have to take before they get the boot.

Tory Senator on payroll of company that won contract
Jennifer Ditchburn, Ottawa — The Canadian Press Published on Sunday, Oct. 18, 2009http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-senator-on-payroll-of-company-that-won-contract/article1328339/
Tab 6

This is just one more outrageous straw on the camels back.

How much more of this kind of thing are Harper and the Con's hiding.

How much more of blatant favouritism to Conservative riding and Con supporters and Con's treating taxpayer's money as if it were their own is there.

How much more of Harper and the Con's do we have to take before they get the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The Harper strategy to eliminate the deficit is to wait until the economy grows out of it in 5 - 6 years. God save Canada.

Posted: 9:45am, 18 Oct.'09 (PDT)2008 federal deficit hit $5.8B, audit reveals, Friday, October 16, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/10/16/ottawa-federal-deficit.html#socialcomments tab 42

Harper, Flaherty and the Con's been hiding the truth, misrepresenting the realities, suppressing access to information and undermining Parliamentary overview and doing so for their own purpose of holding onto power and Canada be damned. The cuts to GST are a prime example that ought to raise the eyebrow of every Canadian, especially when we see the negative impact on the countries finances.

The Harper strategy to eliminate the deficit is to wait until the economy grows out of it in 5 - 6 years. God save Canada.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Best to give Harper the boot now

Wrong on the right, Since the Conservatives have morphed, maybe Canada needs a new party, By MICHAEL DEN TANDT,16th October 2009
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_dentandt/2009/10/16/11420341-sun.html#/comment/columnists/michael_dentandt/2009/10/16/pf-11420341.html
tab3

Harper is only interested in obtaining and maintaining power and Canada be damned.

He approaches the people in Canada on an emotional, fear mongering basis. The reduction in GST by 2 points is a prime example and it is in the open that Harper did this knowing that virtually all thy economists in Canada said it was the wrong thing to do.

His strategy for the economy is to do nothing and it will grow itself out of deficit, in 5 to 6 years - wow, what a great excuse to keep Harper in power, we wouldn't want to disrupt they recovery plan. This is like someone max'g his credit cards out on the basis that sometime in the future he will get a higher paying job and pay them off.

It is time that we put some rationality into the way the country is run and it certainly isn't with Harper at the helm.

Micheal, you suggest that if interest rates increase in the US their resulting downturn will hurt us. However, we must all keep in mind that if interest rates start to increase in other countries then Canada will be forced to do the same. This applies not just to the deficit but to the debt which is almost 10 times larger. The deficit may well balloon out of site then. This is not such a far out scenario and in fact we say the markets acting on this interest domino effect theory and week or so ago.

Best to give Harper the boot now.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canadians need a White Knight to slay this evil of Obstructing and Obscuring Access to Information by Harper and the Con's.

Ottawa won't budge on secrecy laws, October 16, 2009, Bruce Campion-Smith
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/711158--ottawa-chooses-secrecy tab 5

This is just another example in a long list of Harper and the Con's actions in obstructing and obscuring information. We see this, once again, with the Commission on Torture of Afghan prisoners. A lawyer for the Commission explains "If the government co-operates with a body established by Parliament within its mandate and gives the commission documents and access to witnesses then Canadians will know what happened". This goes right to the heart of the matter - that is, if there is access to information Canadians will know what's going on and Harper and the Con's simply do not want this.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.

When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they?

Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).

Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.

I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Rock On Iggy - It is about time someone stood up and fought Harper and the Con's for the good of all Canadians, for the present and for our future

Liberals won't shift from green in next election, Campbell Clark and John Ibbitson, Oct. 14, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/liberals-wont-shift-from-green-in-next-election/article1322673/Tab 3

As with the economy and other things, Harper and the Con's strategy regarding the environment is to do nothing, let the chips fall where they may, laissez-faire, sink-or-swim, hide the realities through obstruction and obscuration, distortion and out-right deception and approaching the people on an emotional, fear mongering, irrational basis.

Doing nothing is a fundamental aspect of Harper and the Con's extreme right wing ideology. The obstruction, deception, distortion of the realities is Harper's MO. In combination with doing it for his, and their, own political benefits and Canada be damned is based on the Con's being a new party without the pride and long history of contributing to the building of our nation.

Harper waiting for the US is an excuse and one that can only put us behind and on the receiving side of an benefits that may be derived from the development of a green economy. Harper and the Con's are treating the stimulus money with its ensuing huge deficits that our children and our children's children will be paying for well into the future as if it were theirs and was coming from them and the Con Party.
Their purpose in spending it is solely to promote Harper and the Con's, to buy votes.

This is so pervasive and blatant, one might wonder at what point it would be a violation of the Elections Act - e.g. the max contribution to a party is approx. $1,100, the current Con estimate of the deficit is $55 billion, $1,700 per every man, women and child in Canada. Thus, the Con's treating this as their money amounts to a contribution of $1,700 per every man, women and child in Canada, well above the max contribution to a Political Party allowed by the Elections Act.

It is about time someone stood up and fought Harper and the Con's for the good of all Canadians, for the present and for our future.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- All Harper and the Con's care about is power, obtaining it and maintaining it, Canada be damned.

submitted to: Toronto Star
Ottawa's $19 billion reversal of fortune
Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau, Published On Mon Oct 12 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/federalbudget/article/708904--ottawa-s-19-billion-reversal-of-fortune#article tab3

It is in the open now that the reduction of GST by 2 points was done even though Harper knew at the time that it was hurtful to our economic well being. Harper did it for the sole reason of buying votes.

The reduction in taxes by Harper, Flaherty and the Con's was done precisely for the same reason. Anyone who thought about it rationally could easily predict that it was eliminating any form of a safety net for our economy. They did it precisely for the political impact. Not only could they say "we reduce taxes" but that it is very difficult for anyone to now say that, realistically, taxes may very well be raised to prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion. There only 'plan' Harper has is to wait 5 or 6 years and hope that the economy will grow so big that it, by itself, eliminates the deficit. That is something like someone max'ing out their credit cards and saying that they will pay it off when they get that new job with a big increase in salary. This is no way to run a country unless, of course, you don't care if you're running it into the ground. Their spending was, obviously, done for the same reasons, buy votes.

Harper and the Con's strategy is to approach the Canadian voter emotionally and they completely disregard the realities or any kind of rational approach. This of course explains why Harper suppresses and distorts information, especially about our economy as with our Parliamentary Budget Officer. If the true numbers came out on our economy and what Harper and the Con's are doing we all could see very quickly what is happening and, obviously, Harper does not want this.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Everyone in Canada should stand up and say, in a single voice, "Mr. Harper, tear down your wall"

Posted 11 Oct.'09
"Ottawa's reporting on stimulus spending gets poor grade from watchdog",
Steven Chase, Ottawa — From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Oct.10, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-reporting-on-stimulus-spending-gets-poor-grade-from-watchdog/article1319704/ Tab 13

posted 7 Oct.'09

John Ibbitson, "Ignatieff responds with 'patient hard work' ", Ottawa — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Wednesday, Oct. 07, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-fights-back-with-patient-hard-work/article1314645/Tab 18

Actually, Harper and the Con's muzzling the Parliamentary Budget Officer and slashing his budget is an outrageous affront to openness, transparency, freedom of information that is so fundamental to our Democracy. This is especially true in these economic hard times where the government finances is so important and everyone knowing just what the government is doing is so important.

There is no coincidence between Harper muzzling the Parliamentary Budget Officer and slashing his budget and the continual errors in the estimates on the deficit made by Harper, Flaherty and the Con's or on their delaying on actually spending the funds for the stimulus package or the general mishandling of our finances.

You would think that the Prime Minister of our country would do everything to encourage and allow the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do the best job possible.

Harper, Flaherty and the Con's say they are doing a great job with the country's finances and getting us through the recession and assisting all those who have lost jobs and will lose jobs in the upcoming months. If this is really true then you would think they would do everything possible to encourage and allow the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do the best job possible so everyone can plainly see this for themselves. The fact that they are doing the exact opposite speaks volumes about the kind of job Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are really doing - i.e., so bad they must hide it from the public

John Ibbitson suggests that politically this is madness.

Well everyone in Canada, to a person, should be mad about this. Everyone in Canada should stand up and say, in a single voice, "Mr. Harper, tear down your wall". And, it raises an eyebrow that the media is not joining in.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- one of the big factors that a lot reports on polls leave out is the % 'undecided

Women and Ignatieff: What went wrong? , Michael Valpy, From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Monday, Oct. 05, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/women-and-ignatieff-where-did-it-go-wrong/article1313172/ Tab 34

The Comments sound like what they used to say about Harper when he because leader of the Opposition.

Also, one of the big factors that a lot reports on polls leave out is the % 'undecided'.

This is very important in the current dynamics since the Con's have a "die-hard" core of support and they are very unlikely to change from 'decided' to 'undecided'. Further they are very likely to choose anything Con, simply because it is Con, over anything other than Con simply because it is other than Con (that's what 'die-hard' support means).

On the other hand reports that do show the amount of undecided indicate that in the past few months there has been a significant increase in the number of 'undecideds'.

In such circumstances, what that means is that where the 'decided pie' decreases, the % that are made up of Con supporters increases per-centage-wise (if that's a word). The indications are that this is a significant effect. However, unfortunately there is not enough information given in the report to determine to what extent we are seeing this effect as opposed to true shifts in voter preferences. In the last election 'Liberal' voters protested by not voting. It is suggested that we are seeing this phenomenon now in these Polls.

For example, one would expect a high level of 'undecided' (which translates into non-voting in an election) in young people with a gradual decrease in 'undecided' the older the group. For the 18 - 35 group, one might expect little change in the number who express support for one party or the other over time since the number of undecided is so large anyway and the 'decideds' are likely die-hard supporters for one or the other party. As the age group gets older the number of 'undecided' decreases, or another way of putting it, the number of 'decided' increases. So, if the trend is that 'decideds' turn to 'undecideds' you might expect that the total % of decided decreases and where one represents essentially all 'die-hards' that parties % support will seem to increase, since it becomes a larger part of the 'decided pie' and the other party % will decrease. So, the prediction is that as the age group gets older, the total supporting one party or the other decreases with time and the % of decided will increase to the Con's since the % of supporters of the Con's that are die-hards is so high.

Compare this to the trend in the results here:

For 18 - 35, the total for the Con's and the Liberals is lower than the other groups and has the smallest change in time: 59 - 61 (presumably constant within statistical variance)

For 35 - 49, he total for the Con's and the Liberals is in the middle compared to the other groups and the change is decreasing as expected and has the middling change in time: 66 - 58 (change being: -8, presumably statistically significant)

For 50+, the total for the Con's and the Liberals is in the highest compared to the other groups and the change is decreasing as expected and has the highest change in time: 76 - 70 (change being: - 6, that it is lower could be accounted for by statistical variance as well as how the age groups id broken up, but it does not refute the above hypothesis since if the error is +/- 3 it could be - 5 for age group 35 - 49 and -9 for age group 50+, of course it could go the other way as well.)

So, the "trend" could be no more than reflecting that the Con's have a core of die-hard supporters with little more and the Liberals have a core of die-hard supporters along with a large number who support the Liberals but refuse to vote when they don't like what they see. This suggests that the Liberals and Ignatieff make sure these soft supporters understand what they and he is all about. It also suggests that these soft supporters should reconsider their stance if they want to get rid of Harper and the Con's.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper is no Class Act.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 09:45 AM, Harper sings, Iggy dodges,
Norman Spector
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harper-sings-iggy-dodges/article1311417/Tab 5
and
PM gets by with help from Yo-Yo Ma, Last Updated: Sunday, October 4, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/03/harper-piano.html#socialcomments-submit
tab 111 (n-o)

The only reason, manifestly, Harper is on stage playing, whether with Yo-Yo Ma or otherwise, is his position as Prime Minister.

This is clearly an abuse of power by Stephen Harper. If a leader wants to show support for the Arts the traditionally accepted, classy, method is they attend the show. Better, instead of severely cutting funds they increase funds.

By doing this Harper is again showing his contempt for the Arts by manipulating those in the Arts and using this performance in a blatant attempt to promote his brand of governance and the Con party: like somehow Harper must be a nice guy, or somehow right in his (extreme right wing) ideology, or somehow is right or good for the Arts or Canada generally, or that Canadians in general somehow agree with what he and his Con's stand for. On the other hand, perhaps it's the Arts that is manipulating Harper in that by letting him appear he, and his Con's, will somehow change their 'colour'. Harper may display other colours because of his minority government but deep down he is the same, extreme right wing ideologue, who has contempt for the Arts this will never change and, with a majority, he will have no hesitation in displaying his true colour.

I hope they sang "God save Canada" at the beginning of the evening.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- This is just another indication of the hidden Harper, Flaherity and the Con's "No-Action Plan"

Kevin Carmichael, Istanbul — Globe and Mail Update Last updated on Sunday, Oct. 04, 2009 09:50AM EDT, 'Jobless may need more help, Flaherty says'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/jobless-may-need-more-help-flaherty-says/article1311403/Tab 6

“I think we have to keep watching and if there are persisting challenges with respect to employment, it might be necessary to do more,” Mr. Flaherty said.

Leadership is not waiting until the damage is done and then doing something only when forced to act by the Opposition.

This is just more of the Harper, Flaherty and Con's appraoch of:

deny, ignore, mislead, hide the facts, manipulate, attack critics instead of making sound proposals, propose everything then drag their feet so that in actuality they are maintaining their underlying ideological approach of "hands-off", "sink-or-swim", survival-of-the-strongest", "every-person-for-themselves".

Compare this with what Flaherty said the other day about the deficit - that Harper and the Cons would wait 5 - 6 years to see if the economy will grow itself out of deficit and if this deosn't happen then do some trimming of program spending (G&M). Other than their excuse for staying in power for 6 years - vis.: recovery of the economy not thwarted by Harper and the Con's getting booted out of office, how can this "no-action plan" approach possibly be good for Canada and all Canadians. It's like saying lets wait until Katrina hits New Orleans and see whether the retaining walls need bolstering. My response is "God save Canada"

Obviously Harper, Flaherty and the Con's are taking the approach that International factors and economic forces will pull Canada out of the recession - all Harper has to do is sit back, do nothing and take the credit.

Since Harper, Flaherty and the Con's want to sit back, do nothing and wait, better we just give them the boot.

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- When is Harper, Flaherty and the Con's going to stand up and tell Canadians exactly what they are and what they stand for

Tab 10

Kevin Carmichael, Istanbul — Globe and Mail Update, Last updated on Saturday, Oct. 03, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/talk-on-economic-exit-strategies-dominates-imf-meetings/article1311037/

"...When that moment arrives, Mr. Flaherty said he is hopeful that economic growth will end the deficit within five or six years. If growth doesn't work on its own, Mr. Flaherty said he will trim program spending. ..."

Harper, Flaherty and the Con's exit strategy is the same as their 'entrance strategy' - deny, ignore, mislead, hide the facts, manipulate, attack critics instead of making sound proposals, propose everything then drag their feet so that in actuality they are maintaining their underlying ideological approach of "hands-off", "sink-or-swim", survival-of-the-strongest", "every-person-for-themselves".

Anyone get the explanation why Flaherty is saying the deficit will end in 5 - 6 years, other than an claim to stay in power that long - so that recovery is not thwarted.

Harper, Flaherty and the Con's are intending to wait until the economy grows itself out of deficit i.e., so that increases in tax revenues will cover the deficits. This is, of course, in line with their hands-off ideological approach. But, what possible justification do they have for being in Government if they are going to do nothing!

Oh, Flaherty says that if growth doesn't work on its own he will trim program spending. From what Harper and he are saying they are going to give it 5 - 6 years to see if it works. God save Canada.

By the way, you can be sure they are surreptitiously increasing taxes, without the decency to tell everyone exactly what they are doing.

When is Harper, Flaherty and the Con's going to stand up and tell Canadians exactly what they are and what they stand for - extreme right wing ideologues, who base their policies on some archaic capitalist philosophy that has been incompetent to the purposes of modern, complex, diverse, tolerant, Western democratic societies for over 100 years.

- Con'd Again

G&M "Team Tory, er, Team Canada " Steve Chase, OTTAWA — From Friday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Oct. 03, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/team-tory-er-team-canada/article1309352/

...

"A prominent symbol on some of Canada's official Olympic team clothing - unveiled yesterday - bears a close resemblance to the federal Conservative Party logo.
There are minor differences, of course. But basically it's a variation on the same blue "C" with a red maple leaf inside it that Mr. Harper's party uses to identify itself.

Gary Lunn, Tory minister responsible for the Olympics, acknowledges "there's no question there's similarities," but said Ottawa had no hand in the symbol.
"There's no politicization of the Olympics."

Mr. Lunn said the design was handled exclusively by Hudson's Bay Co. in consultation with the Canadian Olympic Committee and a panel of athletes."

*****

Gary Lunn's explanation simply doesn't hold water for a number of reasons.

First, bias is something that ought not to occur but also ought not look like it is occurring. Harper and the Con's should have done the right thing and taken steps immediately to have this changed.

It is very difficult to believe that no one in the government knew about this before it was made public - Lunn saying that he personally didn't know is simply not good enough, obviously.

Third, there always the possibility that whomever it was that chose it chose it knowing that it resembled, and quite closely at that, the Con logo and did so for future favours. By turning a blind eye, Harper and the Con's indirectly, or possibly deliberately, encourage thing kind of thing. I am not suggesting that this actually is the case, but given the Harper approach of secretiveness, shrewdness, manipulativeness, etc.,what's a guy to think.

By the way, everyone knows that the Globe and Mail flagrantly and blindly supports the Harper government (and an election or two ago came out and proclaimed it explicitly).

The "Thumbs Down" icon at the bottom of each Comment (recommendDown.png) looks suspiciously like the Con logo - insideous!

PS - while we're on the topic of branding.

The Conservative Party is not the Progressive Conservative Party and ought not be referred to as "Tory".

Your title ought to be "Team Con, er, Team Canada" or "Con'd again!" or the like.

- Why Harper and the Con's Must Go

Power can not be wielded upon irrationalism, and where the base is emotionalism.

History has too many examples of what results. One need only turn to the Roman Republic, their emperors, daily spectacles and appeal to the people based on emotion (it was Tom Flanagan who brought this comparison between the Harper and the Con's approach to that of the politics in the Roman Republic). Our culture rejected this on moral grounds 2000 years ago. Our sciences struggled for 500 years to purge itself of this. Yet one of the most important aspects of our society, governance of this great nation, not only has not rid itself of this but I currently, with the Harper and the Con's government, in the throws of its grip. Our modern society not only does not discourage it, but the media with its never ended search for the sensational as opposed to the important, the emotional as opposed to the reasoned, distortion as opposed to truth, self-interest as opposed to the good of the people, creates fertile ground for it, encourages it and is vital in its propagation. Together they feed off each other and, if not curtailed, together they lay waist all.

Irrationalism by its very definition leads to error. Emotionalism by its very nature has no self restraint. If they sit at the seat of power, then there is no external restraint either and so they are let lose on society like the Hounds of Hell.

Irrationalism based on emotionalism requires that those that oppose are 'enemies' and so polarizes the otherwise homogeneous society into 'enemy camps'. Once again history is replete with examples of situations where these 'enemy camps' were themselves based on irrationalism, emotionally centred.

An open, free, tolerant, democratic society where information is freely, openly and undistortedly available to all, where the Rule of Law, founded on rationalism, prevails, is the basis of governance keeps these Hounds at bay.

- HST is in reality the Harper Sales Tax

G&M: B.C. Dispatch, Harper so far unscathed by HST blowback, David Parkins for The Globe and Mail, Friday, Oct. 02, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/harper-so-far-unscathed-by-hst-blowback/article1308907/
Tab 4

"Competitive pressure is expected to force business to pass on much of the tax savings over time."

This has echos of Brian Mulrouney's pitch when he brought in the GST - vis.: prices would go down since businesses would be compelled to pass on the savings from the elimination of the manufacturing tax.

That was a crock then and its a crock now.

- If everyone in Canada were to take a close look at Harper what he stands for and what he is doing, we all would lose confidence his governance.

G&M: How ‘Iffy' and the Liberals dropped the ball
Lawrence Martin, Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/how-iffy-and-the-liberals-dropped-the-ball/article1307580/

It is this article that is "Iffy" and the media that has, once again "Dropped the Ball".

The real question that everyone should be asking is just how much of this is 'simply' media hype.

The only thing "Iffy" here is the underlying motivations of the newspapers and other media as well as those that write for them.

After reading this article one wonders whether the writer really has something important to say or simply came up with a catchy Title and had to write something in order to use it.

It is time that the media stop sensationalizing everything at the expense of presenting the realities and what is best for Canada and all Canadians simply to promote their own careers and bottom lines of their bosses.

For example, what Ignatieff said in Sault Ste Marie is that he and the Liberal Party has no confidence in Harper and the Con's and will not support them. In their non-confidence speech he set out the reasons. Who can point to any media report of the Coderre affair that actually sets out all the circumstances surrounding, as opposed to jumping on something that makes a catchy phrase or sound bite.

The fact of the matter is the media doesn't care what the realities are, only that they may attract attention to themselves.

What makes the 'news' is unabashed spectacle and sensationalism, with no regard to the realities. It is designed precisely to be catchy, play on our emotions and makes no effort whatsoever to communicate with us on any kind of intelligent level with the intent to present reality and in the light of truth. No wonder we have a government in Harper and the Cons that operate in precisely the same fashion. If Harper and the Con's agenda were, in reality, based on other than extreme right wing ideology it might not be so scary.

If everyone in Canada were to take a close look at Harper, his Con's, what they stand for and what they are doing, we all would lose confidence in them and their governance. The media ought to be spending their efforts in allowing all Canadians to see clearly how our country is being run, as opposed to 'Piling on Iggy'. This is a fundamental and vital aspect of the sacred and social contract enshrined in freedom of the press and the special place we have placed the media in.

- Harper and the Con's Economic Quackery

excerpt posted to: GDP reaction, ‘There’s no spark in our economy, Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2009 11:53AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/theres-no-spark-in-our-economy/article1306631/

So once again Harper and the Con's are saying steady as she goes, we know what we're doing, leave everything to us, our strategy is working, we have put Canada in a better position than the other world economies.

And once again, the realities, at the very least, do not support their position and, in fact, indicate the opposite.

Harper and the Con's can not be basing their plans and predictions on anything real since the realities dictate the opposite of what they are claiming.

It is very difficult to see that Harper and Flaherty would not know that the all the sectors, especially the utilities including oil and gas, where their power base is centred were down and the only one up was manufacturing. If they knew then they deliberately hid this information.

If they did not know then what are they doing "leading our country out of the recession".

And, if they did not know then how could they, in any honesty, say that things are stabilized and will improve with them at the helm.

Clearly, as with everything else, Harper and the Con's are not basing their policies on the realities but only upon their extreme right wing ideology.

What do we have to do to get the truth from Harper and his Con's. What is really happening with the stimulus money. What good does it do to approve an project that won't start for 6 - 8 -12 months or even years. What about the 100's of thousands of jobs that are going to be lost in the next 6 - 8 - 12 months. What about all those people whose EI has run out and will be running out in the next 6 - 8 - 12 months.

Best we get rid of Harper and the Cons.

Having an election this Fall may seem undesirable. But, any hurt is minimal compared to the disastrous effects likely of not so doing over the next year, especially to so many individuals and families - and that's what its all about. It is comparable to someone diagnosed with cancer. Denial does nothing but put off taking action. Following views that are ideologically based and not based in sound science and reality, in a word, Quackery, deceives us into thinking everything will be ok, and so not only delays taking real action but prevents us from facing our situation and taking real effective action, until it is too late.

- The Harper, extreme right wing, ideologically based, gov’t, weakens our society, disenfranchises the majority and creates unfairness and inequality.

The strength of Democracy lies in allowing each person, as an individual, to contribute their unique skills, experience and abilities to the good of the whole society. The fundamental principle that “everyone created equal” affords the underlying mechanism that allows each of us to make our contribution. The more diverse the society and the more open and transparent the processes, the broader the range of ideas, considerations, perception, depth of understanding and confidence in the solution and that is for the good of all.

Ideology runs contrary to this in that it pre-assuming that certain approaches and opinion are right, and so ought to be considered and other are wrong and oughtn’t to be considered (i.e , “I’m right, your wrong”). These approaches are based on considerations other than what the realities are and give credence to that part of the society that subscribes to the ideology and disenfranchises the remainder. The more diverse the society and the more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that have a say and the larger the remainder that don’t. In a word, the worse the solution and the less likely that it is for the good of all. No matter what it undermines the very strength of democracy, to say nothing of its inherent fairness and equality.

Apply this to Harper and the Cons.

Conclusion:

The Harper, extreme right wing, ideologically based, government, weakens our diverse, open, free society, disenfranchises the majority and creates unfairness and inequality.

- ‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.

posted to: study Critics say Harper's blueprint for revamping corrections policy disregards studied evidence, Bruce Cheadle, Ottawa — The Canadian Press Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009 07:20PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-prison-policy-wedge-politics-study/article1300457/

Harper and the Con’s have made “getting tough on Crime” one of their central policies.

However, as it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.

The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).

In other words, the report is correct, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition.

This was underlying the statement by Ian Brodie, Harper's former chief of staff, when he explained that

“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;

as well as, what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,

“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”

It is becoming more and more open that this is how Harper and the Con’s operate. No regard for what the realities are and what is in the best interest of all Canadians given those realities. But shear right wing extremist ideology.

‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.

Harper and the Con’s economic policies have the same irrational, fear mongering foundation and total disregard for what is true and best for all Canadians.

Basing our legislation on irrational, ideologically driven policies, whose support is obtained through fear mongering, deception, distortion, obstruction, obscuration and sinister manipulations, makes a farce of and undermines one of the most fundamental principles of our way of life, “The Rule of Law”.

All legislation ought to be put to the test in a fashion as was done in this Report. Perhaps this is something the Senate could do. Then serious second thought, and rigorous, open and enlightened debate in front of all the Nation, given to it in such light, not just in Parliament, but also the media, on the street corner and everywhere.

- Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong

Small business fears impact of HST, Sep 25, 2009 04:30 AM, Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/700811

In fact, Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST = “Harper Sales Tax”, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it.

The recently released Toronto-Dominion Bank Report, indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%.

On the one hand Harper and his Con’s have been going around saying how great it was for the economy to reduce the GST by 2 points. In the other, how great it is for the economy to have it effectively increased by 1.5%.

Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong to reduce the GST by two points and explain that this is needed to recoup the revenues that were lost by so doing.

Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.

“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”

How much more of this do we have to suffer before we simply just get rid of Harper and his Cons’

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Lets just give Harper the boot.

post to McLeans, Ian Brodie offers a candid case study in politics and policy
by John Geddes on Friday, March 27, 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/27/ian-brodie-offers-a-candid-case-study-in-politics-and-policy/2/

Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.

“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”

When you combine this with what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,

“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”

what do you get . . . The current government.

Is this really what Canada is all about.

Lets just give Harper the boot.

- The function of the government of any modern, free, diverse and tolerant Western Democracy is the protect those that need protection ...

The function of the government of any modern, free, diverse and tolerant Western Democracy is the protect those that need protection and help those that need help.

Any ideologically based government, by its very definition favours only a part of the people to the exclusion of the rest. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group it favours and the larger it excludes and the more restricted is the nature of its actions, to the extent that it acts as if those in power own the country and not serve at the people’s pleasure.

Any action taken by the government must be based on the particular issue at hand and all its relevant circumstance must be weighed in an objective, detached and dispassionate fashion, taking into consideration the opinions from all sides. It must operate in an open, transparent fashion based on the free flow of information, unobstructed and unaltered so that the people may know, understand and formulate their opinions. To the reasonable person this is only fair and just, enlightened. To the extremist it is weakness, indecisiveness, in the vernacular, ‘dithering’.

Power and authority must flow from the people and not vise-versa. The basic law does not grant rights and freedoms to the people, but is based on their rights and freedoms and allots to the government the powers and privileges to impinge on their rights and freedom only to the extent necessary to carry out its function.

- This highlights some of the most serious faults with the extreme right wing, Harper and the Con’s approach to government

excerpt submitted to Toronto Star,Statistics at odds with people's realityStatistics at odds with people's reality, Sep 21, 2009 04:30 AM CAROL GOAR
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697978#Comments

- This highlights some of the most serious faults with the extreme right wing, Harper and the Con’s sink-or-swim, Laissez-faire, let the chips fall where they may, only the strong survive, hands–off by the government approach.

However, the whole purpose of a modern, democratic government is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection.

It is easy to say that the Canadian economy is shifting and must redefine itself. But, this macro-economic approach does not take into account the micro-economic suffering imposed upon the individuals and families that are losing their jobs. It does very little good to say that you can switch to another job and you will back working in a year or so, if they go bankrupt and lose everything they have worked so hard for.

Also, the macro-economic approach of looking at the GDP, as the single factor of economic well-being, as Harper has so been want to do, can be very misleading when looked upon at the human level, for precisely the reasons stated by this report by the Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies.

The GDP of Canada could be quite good, but it may be due to the very good performance of one particular sector, e.g. oil and gas, but other sectors could be doing very poorly like forestry and manufacturing. The Harper approach, “let the strong survive”. However, the whole purpose of a modern, democratic government is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. Harper and the Cons are fixed in the capitalistic model of economic governance of a very much bygone era.

As long as Harper and the Cons are in power there is very little chance that there will be any Canadian government agencies belonging to the Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies.

Best for Canada is to simply give Harper the boot.

- There is very little doubt that Layton will prop up the Con’s as much as possible, including in the upcoming non-confidence vote.

posted to: Jack Layton puts his party on political hot seatSep 20, 2009 04:30 AM, ANGELO PERSICHILLI
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697996#Comments

If the voters of Canada don’t want elections so frequently, then they must come to terms with voting a majority. The Con’s have approx 31% core supporters and God help us if they get a majority.

That leaves the Liberals, and for the Liberals to get a majority a significant number of people who have been voting other parties, including NDP, will have to vote Liberal. If they don’t, it is quite simple, we will be stuck with Harper again and perhaps another minority.

There is not much chance that Layton would increase the number of NDP seats and they are, currently, there to be lost.

Given what I have observed about Layton over the years, my impression is that Layton is not the type of guy who would want to force an election right now, despite NDP ideology and despite previously expressed opposition to Harper and the Con’s .

Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- HST = Harper Sales Tax (Ignatieff)

Excerpt posted to G&M: Silver – Powers, Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:12 AM
Harper's HST revisionism , Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-hst-revisionism/article1289702/
and, "Thousands attend HST rallies in B.C.", Vancouver — The Canadian Press Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 06:44PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/thousands-of-bc-residents-attend-hst-rallies/article1294430/

It is Harper and the Cons that are really behind this. Harper has been putting pressure on the provinces for quite a while to do the “harmonization” thing. In his budget speech Harper states that:
“Provincial sales tax harmonization is the single most important step provinces with RSTs could take to improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-hst-revisionism/article1289702/)

In fact, Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST = “Harper Sales Tax”, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it.

The recently released Toronto-Dominion Bank Report, indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%. (http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090918.whst0918/GIStory/)
On the one hand Harper and his Con’s have been going around saying how great it was for the economy to reduce the GST by 2 points. In the other, how great it is for the economy to have it effectively increased by 1.5%.

Harper is managing to claw back 75% of the GST reduction he so recklessly brought in to the detriment our economy. Further, he will, no doubt, point to this as part of his “fiscal achievements” and at the same time have the Provincial governments take the blame.

Why doesn’t Harper show some class, stand up and admit he was wrong to reduce the GST by two points and explain that this is needed to recoup the revenues that were lost by so doing.

How much more of this do we have to suffer before we simply just get rid of Harper and his Cons’

- You can’t compare Harper to Diefenbaker or Mulroney, especially to explain away Harper’s exceedingly ‘modest background’.

excerpt submitted to: Ignatieff must reach average Canadians, STEPHEN MAHER LETTER FROM OTTAWA , Sat. Sep 19 - 4:46 AM
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1143380.html

But both John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney were ‘Big’ (although, I never liked Mulroney and too young to have liked or disliked Diefenbaker). Both were part of a political party, the Progressive Conservatives Party of Canada, that had a long and proud history in the contribution to the building of a nation – i.e., Canada. Harper is small, has no history to look upon with pride, conducts himself and his politics, both domestically and at the International level, in a mean, petty, ‘small’ fashion. Harper feels he must hide what he stands for from the general public (and he’s right-on in that matter).

When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney, as part of their general approach regarding debate in Parliament, ever so insult honourable members of the Opposition in Parliament in lieu of answering serious questions on matters of national importance, and to their face (for example calling Bob Rae a ‘left wing incompetent’ – as set out in Queens University, The Journal, 18 Sep.’09, “… During Question Period on Monday, [Harper] called Bob Rae a “left-wing incompetent.” I don’t care whether the man is or isn’t competent—you’re the Prime Minister. Act with a modicum of dignity, please …”, http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-09-18/opinions/raising-political-bar/).

When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney ever launch such attack ads with such raw emotional venom, and total disregard for the truth (as per Tom Flanagan).

When did Diefenbaker or Mulroney ever hide from the general public what they really stood for.

Harper’s aim is to minimalize Canada, dismantle our great nation to the great detriment of all Canadians and to favour a few. His approach is to incite his core supporters with emotional attacks on his ‘enemies’ with total disregard for truth and the good of our nation.

The fact is that the Conservative Party is not the Progressive Conservative Party of Canadian history and Harper is not part of it – just ask Brian Mulroney who didn’t even mention Harper’s name at the ‘fence mending’ gala for Cons and PC’s held the other night, which just so happens, Harper was unable to attend, surprise, surprise.

There is nothing wrong with ‘taking the high road’ and there is nothing wrong with having a background that any leader in a modern, open, tolerant, democracy, would envy, except, perhaps, one with an extreme, right wing agenda, and who applies the ‘propaganda’ approach of appealing to core supporters with emotion and not reason, disregarding the truth.

All Canadians ought to take a close look at Harper’s background. As I suggested to Kelly McParland last week “Perhaps you can post Harper's Resume next to Ignatieff's Resume and let Canadians compare.

Get rid of Harper and his Con’s.

- why the serious damage control by Harper if there is no potential damage

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Obama snubs Harper?”, Stephen Wicary, Wednesday, September 16, 2009 05:36 PM,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/obama-snubs-harper/article1290038/

I have to say it was a bit eye brow raising to hear about Harper’s greeting. Under normal circumstances I may not read too much into it. But, given Harper’s abysmal track record on diplomacy and his “in-your-face” approach to International relations, there is probably some significance to this. The fact that Harper's office would release that statement within minutes is a sure indication that there is serious significance to this - vis.: why the serious damage control if there is no potential damage.

Apparently there was to be 10 – 15 minutes, tête à tête, which is also eye-brow raising, and very ‘not-normal’. This seems to be a MO of Harper’s – i.e. hidden from the public view, and I have no problem inferring that it was Harper that requested it.

It is outrageous that Harper would talk with Obama for 10 – 15 minutes and not inform the Canadian people of what the substance of the conversation was about. This is a formal, official state visit, with Harper there only because he is the Prime Minister. Anything sensitive would have been discussed between offices before hand. What could possibly be so sensitive that Harper could not trust his assistants and official representatives, etc., to discuss it with their counterparts … Harper planning to invade the US???. This is not some private affair between two individuals, or a client seeking a lawyer’s advise.

This secrecy by Harper (other, countless, instances – countless if for no other reason than they are kept secret, hidden from us) should be a concern to all Canadians, and Americans, in this matter.

- Kelly,Perhaps you can post Harper's Resume next to Ignatieff's Resume and let Canadians compare.

submitted to: Kelly McParland: Michael Ignatieff's Canada is stuck in 1978
Posted: September 15, 2009, 5:15 PM by NP Editor

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/15/kelly-mcparland-michael-ignatieff-s-canada-is-stuck-in-1978.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Show us Stephen Harper's "passport filled with exotic stamps" before we were bestowed with the pleasure of his leadership (normally it is the Will of the Canadian People that bestow the honour and privilege on the individual, but Harper and his Cons have it backwards), and after for that mater.

Canadians are able, including Ignatieff whom you seem to feel is somehow a DDEP (de facto disenfranchised person), to look back with pride on Canada's role in the world and its interaction with all nations in the International Community. Ignatieff, himself, has contributed to Canada's stature in the International community himself over the years. In fact, his family has a tradition of doing Canada proud on the International scene.

Harper has no such tradition and, in fact, until he became our 'fearless leader' was for over 30 years completely devoid of any kind of relevant International experience whatsoever.

These attacks on Ignatieff are an obvious attempt to hide this fact and incite core supporters who don't care if they are true.

Harper's complete lack of experience in combination with his extreme right wing ideology, "in your face" approach to International diplomacy has seriously hurt Canada's image and stature on the world stage.

Harper is not the way Canadians want to be thought of by others in other countries.

Lets stand up and be counted, "stand on guard" for Canada and get rid of Harper and his Cons.

Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html, and after for that mater.

Canadians are able, including Ignatieff whom you seem to feel is somehow a DEP (de facto disenfranchised person), to look back with pride on Canada's role in the world and its interaction with all nations in the International Community. Ignatieff, himself, has contributed to Canada's stature in the International community himself over the years. In fact, his family has a tradition of doing Canada proud on the International scene.

Harper has no such tradition and, in fact, until he became our 'fearless leader' was for over 30 years completely devoid of any kind of relevant International experience whatsoever. These attacks on Ignatieff are an obvious attempt to hide this fact and incite core supporters who don't care if they are true.

Harper's complete lack of experience in combination with his extreme right wing ideology, "in your face" approach to International diplomacy has seriously hurt Canada's image and stature on the world stage. Harper is not the way Canadians want to be thought of by others in other countries.

Lets stand up and be counted, "stand on guard" for Canada and get rid of Harper and his Cons.

- Chrétien, and all Liberals, have always stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in

excerpt submitted to: Best answer to the Quebec question? A majority
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585

in reply to: Another Voice Of Reason

Everyone knows that he and the Liberals represented the middle of the road. However, I can see how someone who is viewing matters from the extremely far right might feel the need to so present.

In fact, Chrétien was always very clear as to where he stood and what he stood for. He, and all Liberals, stood tall, held their head up with pride for what they believe in.

Harper on the other hand hides from Canadian what he truly represents, as was clearly demonstrated by the closed door Sault Ste Marie meeting, . In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"); as well as, a recent interview with Tom Flanagan).

I can respect Gerry Nicholls for standing up for what he believes. And, I can respect Tom Flanagan for doing the same. However, I do not subscribe to their ideology and I do not agree with their political objectives.

However, I can not see how anyone can honestly have respect for Stephan Harper both for not having the courage of his convictions and for the way he has treated our parliamentary institutions, his political opponents and, when it gets right down to it, the good people of Canada.

You suggest that the problem is that Toronto has too much representation because it is based on population and so it should be changed to square milage.

I am surprised that Harper has not announced such a suggestion about disenfranchising Toronto, a large anti-Harper bastion. After all he did introduce a Bill C-56 a while back to expend the number of riding in a fashion that seriously under represented Ontario and Toronto. (see for example, "Premier Mcguinty Asks For Amendment To Bill C-56 - September 16, 2007", http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/event.php?ItemID=3742&Lang=en). One need not think too hard to come up with a 'plausible' explanation as to why Harper would want to dis-enfranchise Toronto.

Ontarians obviously have something to look forward to if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority. Better we simply give him the boot.

- There is only one thing the people of Quebec, and the rest of Canada for that matter, can do. Get rid of Harper and the Cons'.

excerpt submitted to: Best answer to the Quebec question? A majority
Sep 13, 2009 04:30 AM, Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/694585

"I believe Quebec voters are comfortable with the Bloc not because they want to separate but because it's very convenient to have their own party in Ottawa that cares only about their interests."

Angelo, you may have something there.

It has been a long time since I can recall Duceppe and the Block calling for separation of Quebec from Canada. In fact, Duceppe makes it quite clear that he is there to get the best for Quebec. There is good reason for it and your analysis certainly plays an important part, in particular, they don't want to separate.

Harper calling the Block separatist, who must not have a say in how Canada is governed disenfranchises approximately 41% of all of Quebec and effectively cuts them off from representation. Harper uses it also, and this is very important, to incite his core supporters, the vast majority in the West. This, in itself is divisive and threatens Canadian unity, which I am sure is what Harper is really referring in his attack ads made for Quebec.

With Harper in power the benefits to Quebec of having the Block in Ottawa is effectively neutralized. You can be sure, right wing extremism and the West will be favoured over the interests of Quebec, no matter what Harper and his Con's may say now and during an election. Harper and the Con's are rooted in extreme right wing ideology. Their power base is all the right wingers in Alberta and even Saskatchewan and to some extent BC. The closed door Sault Ste Marie speech to party faithfuls is precisely about maintaining the support of, and inciting, the right wing. There is a grass roots movement amongst Conservatives to demand that Harper stand up, with his head held high, no longer hiding like it is some kind of sin, and proclaim, openly to all Canadians, his right wing ideological roots and intentions. For example, Gerry Nicholls, formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton, "The next time the Tories send you a fundraising letter, write them back a polite note indicating you no longer wish to financially support a political party which acts more Liberal than Conservative" (see, "Gerry Nicholls: Canada needs conservatives, not Conservatives, National Post, September 11, 2009"; as well as a recent interview with Tom Flanigan)

The last election demonstrated that 2/3 rds of Canadians are opposed to right wing extremist ideologues running our country. This is particularly true in Quebec, if I may so bold as to suggest.

People in Quebec may feel comfortable voting Block, but, if Harper returns to power and Quebec votes the Block, then Quebec will be out in the cold.

There is only one thing the people of Quebec, and the rest of Canada for that matter, can do. Get rid of Harper and the Cons'.

- Canadians, also, have a lot to gain by an election - Getting rid of Harper and the Con's.

Submitted to: "Ignatieff has nothing to lose if the writ drops, And neither do we, so bring it on"
By Randall Denley, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 13, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ignatieff+nothing+lose+writ+drops/1989118/story.html#Comments

If Harper co-operated and worked with the Opposition parties there would be no election right now. Whether there is an election or not is not up to the Liberals. Nor is it up to the NDP or Block. It is up to Harper.

Unfortunately, Harper right from the start has taken the “in-your-face”, “my-way-or-the-highway”, “no-compromise” approach. He and the Cons have deliberately obstructed Parliament, including the Parliamentary Committees, to the point of being dysfunctional for their own partizan purposes and to the harm of all Canadians. He also uses it as a smoke screen for implementing on a slow but steady and insidious fashion his right wing extremist ideology through the Administrative side of the government. For example, apparently one of the worst things a Liberal government could do as far as Harper and his core of Con's is concerned is appoint left-wing ideologues to the judiciary. Well, given the sentiment, you can well imagine what ideology Harper is looking for in his appointees.

Harper and his Con's have shamelessly disrupted Parliament to the point of being dysfunctional then used this to justify his calling an election against his own legislation last fall as well as suspending Parliament. His approach is so extreme and so uncompromising that the only way to get Harper to compromise and do the right things is to threaten him with loss of power, i.e. real possibility of a non-confidence vote.

Part of the Harper strategy is to incite his core supporters with accusations, quite false, of the Liberals intending to undermine our democratic process to form a government if Harper doesn't get a majority. Harper fails to mention, of course, that he joined up with the NDP and Block, that's right, the same socialists and separatists, in an attempt to "overthrough" the Martin government in '04. Harper also fails to mention that it is precisely the same Parliamentary system that gave him power in the first place despite having 2/3rds of Canadians vote against him. One-third of the population supporting Harper does not represent the will of the people. In a minority the will of the people is compromise, work together. Harper refuses, even to the point of forcing an election.

- Harper and the Con's have developed and use the greatest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent times.

Here is an analysis of the Obama speech a few days ago:
September 11, 2009 , An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps, By Rich Lowry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/11/an_obama_speech_in_13_easy_steps_98267.html

If one calls that the 'ration' school of speech writing.

Then I suggest to you the following analysis of the 'propaganda school of speech writing:

The 'Propaganda' approach:
- lie
- blunt statement of what you want people to believe
- total disregard for the truth (not exactly the same as lying but helps to bolster them)
- disregard for the context of events but crass manipulation to suite your purpose
- slanderous accusations against opponents
- blunt statements "we're right - their wrong", “we're good – they're bad”, etc.
- designed to incite people emotionally both to create fear and motivate to action, i.e. a call-to-arms

The underlying principle is, of course, “if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will begin to believe it”

I invite all Canadians to apply my analysis of the 'Propaganda' approach to the, now infamous, covert Harper speech of last week, Harper and they Con's attack ads and pretty much everything that comes out of Harper's and the Con's mouths.

There is a reason, of course, why Harper and the Con's use the Propaganda approach. Quite simply, the vast majority of Canadians are against right wing extremist ideology and 2/3 rds voted against Harper and the Con's in the last election. Harper knows that if he were 'to stand up and be counted', hold his head up with pride and openly and truthfully tell the good people of Canada exactly what he stands for, he, and teh Con's, would lose power.

- 2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper. It's time he were given the boot.

submitted to:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1142053.html
Here’s the deal, despite what they say
STEPHEN MAHER Letter From Ottawa
Sat. Sep 12 - 4:46 AM

For Harper and the Cons it simply doesn't matter if it is true whether Ignatieff and Liberals intend to reform the coalition.

We saw this with Flanagan last week and yesterday when Mr. Ignatieff stated that he would not be forming a coalition and immediately after Harper's Parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, said that Ignatieff had not ruled out that possibility.

Perhaps Harper could explain why his alliance with what he labels as 'socialist and separatists' was ok for him and the Con's in Sep.'04 to 'overthrough' the Martin minority, but now when it would work against him it 'threatens Canadian unity'.

Apparently the new Harper attack ads accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of threatening national unity. Perhaps Harper would like to explain exactly what it is that he means by this.

The Harper strategy is not to inform Canadians and Harper has no interest in to what extent it reflects the truth.

The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's. There will be much more of this in the days to come, you can be assured. I can only suggest that we all as Canadians take note of this.

2/3rds of Canadians voted against Harper. It's time he were given the boot.

- The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's.

Comment on: TheStar.com - Canada - PM's horror stories might not pay off, September 11, 2009,
Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/694101

As Tom Flanagan stated a couple days ago when discussing the Harper strategy to accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of intending to reform the coalition:

“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/)

That Ms. Hébert is the heart of the matter.

For Harper and the Cons it simply doesn't matter if it is true whether Ignatieff and Liberals intend to reform the coalition.

We saw this today when Mr. Ignatieff stated that he would not be forming a coalition and immediately after Harper's Parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, said that Ignatieff had not ruled out that possibility.

Apparently the new Harper accuse Ignatieff and the Liberals of threatening national unity. Perhaps Harper would like to explain exactly what it is that he means by this.

The Harper strategy is not to inform Canadians and Harper has no interest in to what extent it reflects the truth.

The Harper accusations of Ignatieff going to form a coalition is being done precisely to incite core supporters of Harper and the Con's. There will be much more of this in the days to come, you can be assured. I can only suggest that we all as Canadians take note of this.

- Lets get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible.

Posted to: PM parries 'hidden agenda' attack, Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009 01:08PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-parries-hidden-agenda-attack/article1282210/

Certainly then we may proceed as a country with openness and pride as is right and proper.

Everyone in Canada ought to stop and reflect on the fact that we have a Prime Minister who refuses to talk publicly about getting a majority for fear of severe voter backlash. He will only talk about it behind closed doors to incite core supporters.

What is that telling us about Harper and what he stands for (or in this case doesn't stand but hides).

Certainly our Prime Minister ought to by proud of what he represents and openly profess it and encourage voters to support him in his objectives.

Instead we have Harper hiding what he truly stands for out of fear that when people see him and the Con's for what he, and they, really are, right wing extremist ideologues, they will drop him like a hot potato.

Is this really what Canada is all about - our National Dream.

- There is no Harper and the Con's surge in the Polls.

posted to: Joan Bryden, Ottawa — The Canadian Press Last updated on Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009 06:07PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieffs-support-slips-on-sabre-rattling/article1280965/

The current polls do not represent a surge for Harper and the Con's but can be accounted for by the core support of Harper and the Con's being unchanging at approx 31 - 32% and the number of undecided voters increasing.

This was evident in the Nanos poll release a day or two ago.

Conservative 37.5% (+6.2)
Liberal 33.4% (-0.4)
NDP 14.8% (-3.9)
BQ 9.7% (+0.5)
Green 4.6% (-2.4)
Undecided 24.6% (+8.9)
(http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp)

The Con's were at 32.3% of decided voters and assuming that that represents their core supporters, when the undecided voters increases by 8.9% these same core supporters now represent 35% of decided voters which is statistically speaking the same as the actual result of 37.5% ( accuracy of the poll of +/- 3.2%). The Liberals stayed the same, relatively, which suggests that in actual numbers the Liberals decreased and likely became undecided.

Everyone in Canada ought to stop and reflect on the fact that we have a Prime Minister who refuses to talk publicly about getting a majority for fear of severe voter backlash. He will only talk about it behind closed doors to incite core supporters. What is that telling us about Harper and what he stands for (or in this case hides ).

Certainly our Prime Minister ought to by proud of what he represents and openly profess it and encourage voters to support him in his objectives. Instead we have Harper hiding what he truly stands for out of fear that when people see him and the Con's for what he, and they, really are, right wing extremist ideologues, they will drop him like a hot potato.

I suggest we get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible. Certainly then we may proceed as a country with openness and pride.

Harper and the Cons Fear Mongering Hyperbola

posted to "Tories to stoke fear of opposition coalition", Steven Chase and Campbell Clark
Ottawa — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009 08:29AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/

[updated]

Two things quoted below that everyone in Canada ought to take very close note:

- Tom Flanagan talking about the possible Harper strategy of attacking the Liberals - for opportunism in forcing an election and reforming the coalition
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”

It is clear that Harper and the Cons are not in the least interested in the truth or what is in the best interest of Canada and all Canadians an d of all people Tom Flanagan should know.

- the other by Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research Group:
"The strategy's effectiveness lies more in its ability to spur Conservative supporters to head to the polls to vote than it does in converting swing voters to the Tories"

He is understating this considerably. You can be sure that Harper and the Cons will be doing whatever they can to incite their core supporters. Further, they will have very little concern for the truth.

We saw this last December when Harper and the Cons shut down Parliament to prevent it from exercising its authority.

Especially when you compare the letter (brought to our attention by Compos Mentis, posted to the above G&M article) he sent to the Governor General in 9 Sep.`04, requesting that she consider a Con government supported by the NDP and Block and signed by Harper, Layton and Duceppe:

***********
September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Also signed by Duceppe and Layton

***********

The basic principle that Harper and the Cons seem to be employing here is that 30% of the population that is very vocal, animated and who base their political decisions on emotion outweighs the vast majority of Canadians.

Flanagan has compared the political methods (attack ads) of Harper and the Cons to ancient Rome, which is likely very accurate. One of the basic strategies there was to appeal to the emotions of the people by giving them such things as the Gladiatorial fights. The analogy to the Harper and the Cons' attack ads is so close, it's scary.

For example on hearing that Ignatieff and the Liberals will no longer be supporting his government Harper and his Ministers have been going around saying how an election right now would hurt the economy. This is, of course, fear mongering hyperbola directed exactly at the core Con supporters to incite . And Flanagan is right we can look for much more of this during an election. The deputy chief economist at BMO came out and stated that the prime minister is overstating the effects of an election right now.

Even Dimitri Soudas, speaking for the Harper government on CBC News Today with Suhana Meharchand, (see: Macleans.ca: "Meharchand v. Soudas, Another in this week’s series of Frustrated Journalists Losing Their Patience", http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/04/meharchand-v-soudas/ ) had to back down on whether it would hurt the economy but merely asserted "An election will do absolutely nothing to make sure that government is able to continue implementing its economic action plan". That effect would be a far cry from hurting the economy and in fact would be exactly what Canadians need right now. Only core Harper and Con supporters would be indignant about this, precisely the target group they are aiming at.

Recently Harper stated "“To be honest with you, I am a lot more concerned by God's verdict regarding my life than the one of historians” (see: "‘God's verdict' outranks history's, PM says", Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc, Ottawa — From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Last updated on Friday, Sep. 04, 2009 03:18PM EDT, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gods-verdict-outranks-historys-pm-says/article1269229/). Once again, Harper is playing to the emotions of the religious right, a la George W. Bush. One question that everyone, especially Canadians, may ask in judgement on Harper is "were you honest in your dealings with the people of Canada while you were prime minister". What do you suppose Harper`s answer to that would be, standing in front of St Peter at the Pearly Gates, compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Give Harper the boot!

posted to Globe and Mail, “Tories to introduce own EI reform “, 8 Sep.'09, Rhéal Séguin

Just another example of how Harper and the Con's simply have no real intention of working with the other Parties and every intention of thrust upon Canadians policies designed only for their own political benefit and with no consideration for what is real for the good of Canadians.

One need only look at their little book on how to disrupt Parliamentary Committees, etc, to see the strategy – disrupt the working group until it is totally dysfunctional and then try to blame it on the other Parties.

This was likely a well established strategy right from the formation of the EI working group on the part of Harper and the Con's.

Any real policy on EI would take a considerable amount of time to develop. They must have been doing this secretly and at the same time as they were paying 'lip service' to their commitment to work together on the committee.

If Harper and the Con's were conducting themselves in good faith they ought to have presented it to the working group.

The alternative is that they are dumping upon the Canadian people something has they have thrown together in the last few days for political purposes and nothing else.

This is not how a modern, world class, developed democracy works.

Canada Has A Lot to Gain By an Election

submitted to, The Chronicle Herald, "Liberals have a lot to gain by forcing an election", Stephen Maher, 5 Sep.`09
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1141085.html

Mr. Maher,
Canada has a lot to gain – Getting rid of Harper and his Con's !

“If I had a million dollars ... I could afford to have a Small vision of Canada”

submitted to: Globe and mail, “Will Ignatieff's bid to stake out higher ground work? “, Lawrence Martin, 3 Sep.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/will-ignatieffs-bid-to-stake-out-higher-ground-work/article1273746/

If my personal net worth were in the millions, then I would not have to worry about my job, EI, the recession, stimulus spending, mega-deficits, CPP, privatization of health care, child-care, leaving future generations with crippling deficits (my children would be ok, and in fact it would ensure that they would be members of the 'Haves' party) and an environmental catastrophe (those with money will surely be able to adapt) and a whole 'lotta' other things.

I would be in favour of eliminating taxes and minimalization of our federal government system since this would protect my interests. Laissez-faire, sink-or-swim, every-person-for-themself, survival of the strongest, would be at the heart of my value system and “help those that need help and protect those that need protection” would, in all likelihood, be a very foreign concepts.

I would have no reservation of employing ruthless tactics to acquire power and hold onto it, in fact my value system would require it and make right – it was good for the Romans, wasn't it. Developing and employing a propaganda machine the likes of which Western Democracies have not experience in recent history would be `a good thing`. Attacking our democratic institutions, designed and in place to protect our way of life, including our Parliamentary System and Parliamentary itself, our Charter of Rights, our Supreme Court would be fair game. Suppressing the free flow of information, curtailing openness and transparency in government, deliberately disrupting Parliament and Parliamentary Committees to the extent of making them dysfunctional so as to create a `smoke screen` for the implementation of right wing policies administratively, and to use as justification for the going against your own legislation, using the powers entrusted to you to promote your self interest, attack the opposing Parties in an effort to weaken them, suspending Parliament to avoid the natural and Constitution consequences of your actions, de facto disenfranchisement of millions of Quebec voters would all be means to be employed, why not. I would turn away from being judged by my fellow country-persons because I know that future generations will point to me and my kind with disapproval.

Hell, if my personal net worth were in the millions the only thing that would stop me from voting for Harper and the Con's is my conscience.

- Harper and the Cons must Go

posted to Globe and Mail, “The resurgence of the Red Tory brand”, Lawrence Martin, 13 Aug.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-resurgence-of-the-red-tory-brand/article1249800/

Harper and the Con’s moderations in position from their extreme right wing ideology discussed came only after being forced to by the Opposition and not by any kind of desire to co-operation. Their actions are only to hold onto power and not any desire to act in the best interests of Canada and all Canadians, and even to selling out Conservative Party values.

Even still, this confrontational, in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach is taking its toll on our political Institutions and the general public’s confidence. It also acts a diversion as Harper and the Cons, albeit more gradually, implement their extreme right wing policies thru the Administrative Branch of the Government. It’s insidious and its dragging us back into a bygone era that has no place in a modern, diverse, tolerant and open, first world economy democratic society.

- A narrow, and/or extremist, purpose, or agenda, by its vary nature restricts individual freedom and democracy

posted to: Globe and Mail, “So, we're not a great power. Big deal – let's be a great nation”, J.L. Granatstein, 10 Aug.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/so-were-not-a-great-power-big-deal-lets-be-a-great-nation/article1245345/

It seems to me that any country that is a multifaceted and diverse, tolerant, open democracy might seem “divided and diverse, unfocussed and ordinarily rudderless” to some who have a narrow and particular agenda.

However, our strength, and greatness, lies precisely in the ability to maintain a first world economy based democracy given this diversity and freedom. What other country in the history of mankind has enjoyed, or enjoys, our freedom, openness, diversity and tolerance.

A narrow, and/or extremist, purpose, or agenda, by its vary nature restricts individual freedom and democracy by imposing the will of a few on the many. This, of course, is one of the reasons Canada should be vigilant regarding extreme right wing ideologically based political parties such as Harper and the Cons.

In the current global economy this is not the end of the issue. We still must compete with countries that do have agendae, that put economic development at the forefront and do focus its people on the restricted purpose of competing and/or domination.

However, it is my firm belief that not only can Canada compete but succeed once we, as individuals, and not through the agenda of some small sector of the population or extremist government, put our minds to it. In fact, our diversity and openness, unfettered by extremist ideologies, will facilitate comprehensive, effective and imaginative solutions, thus demonstrating to the rest of the world what ‘national greatness’ really means. We merely have to “stand up and be counted”.

- One can only wonder to what extent the media (Rex is simply jumping on the band wagon) is being motivated by the ‘Noldrums [News Doldrums] of Summer

Posted to: Globe and Mail, "For pols, the livin' is never easy", Rex Murphy, 8 Aug.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/for-pols-the-livin-is-never-easy/article1245339/

One can only wonder to what extent the media (Rex is simply jumping on the band wagon) is being motivated by the ‘Noldrums [=News Doldrums] of Summer’ in their demand for Ignatieff to make policy statements. Certainly Ignatieff has demonstrated that he feels it is vital to take real steps and real action to stimulate the economy. But, making press releases and statements simply so the news media can “sell papers and air time” is not necessarily in the best interests of this fair nation of ours, or the Liberal Party – both his charges.

Studied consideration of all the important factors to come up with a solution that is for the good of all and not one small sector is the name of the game, especially for Liberals:

“to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all (Lloyd MacIlquham)” .

“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership” (John Acton). This takes time and reflection.

It seems to me that Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort to ensure that the right balance is struck.

Rock on, Iggy.

- Gerald Caplan - how SH of you

postedc to: Globe and mail, "Unsolicited advice for Michael Ignatieff", 8 Aug.'09, Garald Caplan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unsolicited-advice-for-ignatieff/article1245062/

Sounds like Iggy slam’n, Garald. You, obviously, have nothing real to say about Iggy so you refer to ‘rumour’ and mud slinging – how SH of you.

This article must be your contribution to the NDP buildup to the next election. One is left wondering what your source is, other than a fertile imagination and perhaps a bit of desperation for lack of anything concrete to use in your attack.

“No wonder so many Canadians get on their knees and thank heavens for the NDP, and look forward with such anticipation to the party's convention next week.” If this were really the case then why are the NDP considering changing their brand in an attempt to hoodwink voters into thinking that the NDP is not the same old NPD but somehow the US Democratic Party and that Jack Layton is not the same old Jack Layton but somehow Barack Obama. Certainly the NDP would need a miracle to achieve that objective.

The important thing is getting rid of Harper and his gang of Con’s. If that requires Iggy to promise a few star candidates cabinet positions to get them to run, then so be it. I have great difficulty in seeing any Liberal objecting to that and it would be very surprising if any Liberal were to put their own personal ambitions ahead of this purpose. Also, I would have thought that the NDP would want Harper out as well.

However, your article indicates that Layton and the NDP are, as before, only interested in power grubbing and gaining more seats and not the welfare of this great nation or the people of Canada. Getting rid of Harper and the Con’s will take hard work and a concerted effort by all Liberals. The NDP are either with the Liberals on this one or against them. Attacking Iggy can only help Harper and the Con’s.

“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership” (John Acton) – Rock on, Iggy.

- Harper and the Con’s political methods are an insult to the inteligence and integrity of all Canadians

excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, "Tories paint Michael Ignatieff as purely political animal", James Travers, 4 Aug.'09
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/675712

Harper and the Con’s political methods are an insult to the inteligence and integrity of all Canadians and it is time for Harper and his methods to ‘hit the road’.

Harper and the Cons have developed and employ a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in recent democratic countries. These character attacks nnot only deliberately misrepresent things but are designed to distract people from the real issues, issues that are vitally important to Canada, our way of life and our future. Harper’s only concern is acquiring and maintaining power for power’s sake and their right wing extremist purposes.

Harper and the Con’s disregard and distain for our Parliamentary institutions and System of government is a deliberate attempt to paralyze our system of government so that Harper may rule with impunity and distract people from their extreme right wing ideology.

Even Tom Flanigan refers to the political methods of the Romans, one of the most corrupt and degenerate ‘democracies’ ever, as historical justification for Harper and the Con’s extreme, negative ads.

- One of the biggest advantages, and safeguards, of EI is precisely that the rules can be made temporary and adjustable in accordance with the economy

Submitted to: Toronto Star, “Improving EI much better stimulus than infrastructureImproving EI much better stimulus than infrastructure",
Ken Georgetti, 3 Aug.’09
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/674961

It is incomprehensible to require that the EI rules must be the same when Canada’s economy is doing well and when it is doing poorly. Criticizing the Liberal government because in the mid 90’s it changed the rules to fit the then current economic circumstances smacks of crass political opportunism.

The government of the day ought to be continually vigilant with all policies to determine how they might be adjusted to better serve Canada and Canadians under the existing circumstances. This is something ideologues, especial right wing extremist like Harper and the Cons, simply can not handle – they are fixed in their ideology and their policies are designed to conform not to current realities, but to conform to their ideology. That’s why you get guys like Harper denying the recession and dragging their feet with releasing funds for the stimulus packages.

Current economically based societies must have a government that takes a very hands on approach to the economy. Not only because economic circumstances are always changing, but there are many very large and powerful economies, with which we are required to compete, so do. Harper’s hand’s off, sink-or-swim, laissez faire, no government ‘interference’ (as they call it) is exactly wrong and with likely catastrophic consequences in the long run.

Employment insurance does feed money into the economy by placing it in the hands of people who are going to spend it. It is also has the additional social benefit of help people who need help – a vital aspect of a modern democracy, something the Harper government simply doesn’t seem to understand or agree with.

It does all this in a direct fashion, quickly and with very little overhead. Further, once in place it is difficult for the current government to drag their feet. These are all problems with infrastructure spending.

Certainly there must be safeguards. But one of the biggest safeguards in the EI system is precisely that the rules are temporary and adjustable in accordance with the economic times.

The president of the Bank of Canada suggested last week that Canada is moving out of the recession. However, the general consensus seems to be that unemployment will continue at these high levels and increase for quite a while. Ontario will be especially affected and, in all likelihood never recover, or at least not for decades.

- Carol, you should read the Toronto Star, you might learn something.

Submitted to Toronto Star, “Michael Ignatieff paying a price for his silence“, Carol Goar, 3 Aug.’09
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/674959

Thomas Axworthy provided the explanation (through no fault of his own, mind you) as to what Micheal Ignatieff is doing in his opinion in yesterday’s Star (“19th century advice for today's Liberals19th century advice for today's Liberals’)

Axworthy quoted of John Edward Dalberg Acton, whom he referred to as “one of the greatest liberals of the Victorian age”:

“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership”

Well, Carol, Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort to ensure that the “right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus” is struck – Rock on Iggie.

- It seems to me that Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort to ensure that the “right balance” is struck – Rock on Iggie.

Tom,

It is very difficult to take political outlooks from the 19th century and require that they be applied in the 21st context.

Certainly we owe a great debt of gratitude to Acton for his observation: "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and it is something that we ought to keep in the forefront in our current political context.

“Striking the right balance between ideals, expectations and consensus is an essential test of leadership” is a serious consideration. However, by using the phrase ‘right balance’ Acton, himself, ties the ‘balancing’ exercise into its context. We cannot take Acton’s context and use it to come to the right conclusions about that exactly that balance should be today.

Also, it is suggested that Dion erred precisely in not striking the right balance by not properly taking into account the current context in his political outlook. As an activist, or the leader of an NGO, Dion’s approach may have been the right approach. But, as the leader of a major party in a modern, free, democratic, diverse, tolerant and economy based first world country, and a Liberal party at that, he failed to even to engage in ‘striking the right balance’ and he certainly did not balance ideals with consensus, or expectations for that matter. The Liberal Party of Canada is not a NGO and does not have an agenda to promote to the exclusion of all other factors.

Studied consideration of all the important factors to come up with a solution that is for the good of all and not one small sector is the name of the game, especially for Liberals:

“to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all (Lloyd MacIlquham)” .

It seems to me that Ignatieff is taking the requisite time and effort ot ensure that the “right balance” is struck – Rock on Iggie.

- There is only one source of power – people.

Commnet on: Toronto Star, "Political power is national but economic power is globalPolitical power is national but economic power is global", Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/671644

There is only one source of power – people. For example without people the multi-nationals are empty shells with no place to go and nothing to do. The multi-nationals need people to work in their companies. They need people to ‘consume’ their products. Governments and rulers hold office at the ‘please’ of the people. If 15% of the people are animated to remove a government or ruler their days are numbered - time and time again we have seen this illustrated. Wealth is defined in terms of the wants, desires and needs of the people. Power is the ability to get people to do what you want. People do not need governments to extend their reach more internationally, they merely need to stand up and be counted.

- Con’d Again!

Posted to: Toronto Star, "Compared with last year's bullish caucus meeting, this week's retreat expected to be more 'grounded', Bruce Campion-Smith, Jul 27, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/672195

If Jim Flaherty says the recession is over then, I suggest everyone hunker down for some more bad times. One need only look at everything Flaherty, Harper and the Cons have been saying for the last two years to conclude if Harper or Flaherty say it, it just isn’t right.

Also, it may be that the economy might expand a bit, but what about all the damage and suffering that has already been, and will be, inflicted. It is something like saying that Katrina is over – maybe, but what about New Orleans. With Harper, Flaherty and the Con’s sink or swim, every person for themselves approach, I would think there is a lot of people in Canada that are not cheering Carney’s proclamation, even if it is not partisan.

- I want my Canada back

Posted (p.7) to: Globe and Mail, “Four blocks shape Canadian politics”, Jeffery Simpson, 28 Jul.’09

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/until-something-changes-the-road-to-majority-is-blocked/article1234181/

In our modern world, polls have replaced entrails readings and “Canadians now tell pollsters that they prefer majority government” is a harbinger of the change in the dynamics manifesting our current political constellation (away from the 4 ‘blocks’ as Simpson calls them).

Underlying this shift is the question that, presumably, a lot of Canadians (2/3rds anyway) are asking themselves: “Isn’t time we stopped the damage being done by Harper and the Con’s to Canada and our way of life”.

Any political analysis of when there will likely be an election and what will be at play must, in my opinion, take this into account.

- Rock on Iggie

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Ignatieff plays fast and loose with liberal creed”, Neil Reynolds, 22 Jul.’09

To me, for any open, free and tolerant society:

The Purpose is:

to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential
and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
through:
informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.
(Lloyd MacIlquham)

It seems to me that the Liberal values run along these lines.

However, Harper and the Con's extreme right wing brand of conservatism is very much a sink-or-swim, laisser faire, I'm big-you're small, every one for themselves approach.

Certainly "A liberal's disagreement with conservatives comes down to this: We both seek freedom but liberals believe no one can achieve it alone" captures this essential difference between the Liberal Party and Harper and the Cons’. Rock on Iggie.

– let get the bull out of the china shop.

posted to MacLeans, “Bogus’ peacekeeping?”, Nancy Macdonald, 18 Jul.’09
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/17/%E2%80%98bogus%E2%80%99-peacekeeping/

A human right advocate on the International scale criticizing a country for a perceived lack of will to depart from self absorption and take a leading role in the fight against inhumanity globally in the post 9-11 era – so, what more can you want. Sounds like he was doing his job.

Clearly, Ignatieff has a very in depth, comprehensive and clear understanding of the dynamics of international affairs. Harper and the Con’s have shown us the opposite.

In this fragile, complex age of globalization not only of economies and human suffering but nuclear and terrorist threats I choose Ignatieff – let get the bull out of the china shop.

Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and the Cons are very, very scary socially and politically

Posted to Globe and Mail, Column, Jeffrey Simpson, 15 Jul.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-dont-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/

Stephen Harper: You know, there's two schools in economics on this. One is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes.
(Stephen Harper, July 10 )

Jeffery Simpson: But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically
(Jeffery Simpson, G&M, 15 Jul.'09)

National Post: Needless to say, unravelling the long-run political and economic thought of Rev. Simpson is little like looking for consistency in papal encyclicals. Yesterday he again criticized Mr. Harper for cutting the GST. He has already called the GST cut "dumb, dumb," and now sees it as part of Mr. Harper's "scary, scary" tax policies, the product of his "right-wing ideological" tax cutting ways. The problem, he said, is that "the GST was the wrong tax to cut, as almost every qualified economist in the country has underscored."
(Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Wednesday, July 15, 2009)

**********

The National Post today (15 July) attacks Simpson for this article, suggesting that he is inconsistent since when the GST was first being introduced Simpson was against it. But, now he is saying that it was a mistake to reduce it by 2%.

Many people spoke out against the GST when it was being introduced and many made very good points. Our open free and democratic system allows for this and in fact requires it.

The GST was, and is, a bad tax, as implemented, and we were, in retrospect, con’d by Mulnony and the PC government regarding its benefits.

The problem is that the GST tax cost billions of dollars to implement and after a number of years has become so embedded into our economies and government (1% = 6 billion in revenue !!!) that upon study it is very, very difficult to get rid of and very disruptive of our economy and implementation of government programs. Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.

Sober Second Thought:
The GST tax highlights the damage that can be done by a particular government when they introduce a particular policy, and this was done by the right of middle, Progressive Conservative, party. It is ‘very, very scary socially and politically’ to think what damage an extreme right wing party like Harper and the Con’s can do. (The National Post article refers to it as “Brian Mulroney Conserviatives”. They may have be con’s but they were not Con’s – ask the right honourable Joe Clarke, Brian Mulroney, Bill Davis, et al.).

Anyone voting for Harper and the Cons, especially in Ontario and Quebec, should take this into consider when voting next time.

(Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html, 15 Jul.'09)

- James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time

posted to Toronto Star, 14 Jul.’09, “Michael Ignatieff hurt by his own tactics”, 14 Jul.’09, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/665630#Comments

James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time.

The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.

This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card.

The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.

Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.

(from my posting, 19 Jun.’09)

- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads

posted to: Globe and mail, “Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?”, 13 Jul.’09, Tom Flanigan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/have-the-liberals-gone-soft-why-are-they-upset-over-attack-ads/article1214605/

Hi Tom,

Good comparison, Tom.

- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads and other political methodologies.

Ever since the advent of Christianity, we have not turned to the Romans for our moral instructions.

The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage right Bush and Harper.

In fact Harper and the Cons have developed and employ a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in recent democratic countries.

There is no comparison between the current application of negative ads by Harper and the Cons and anything previously employed. To suggest so conveniently muddies the waters, which is likely the intention.

I think most people remember the Mulroney years and if I were a Con I would be very reluctant to bring that period to the attention of the voters.

It would be interesting to hear your answer on the following two questions:

- Other than the extreme right wing elements in our society is there anyone supporting the use of the type of negative ads that Harper and the Cons are employing?

- As Scott Reid suggested last week. Are all these articles by yourself, Preston Manning, et al, as well as the literature being sent out in Quebec at the taxpayers’ expense some kind of effort to identify the extreme right wing elements in our society?

- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.

Posted to: Gloabe and mail, “Sober, effective and democratically legitimate”, 13 Jul.’09, Globe Editorial
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sober-effective-and-democratically-legitimate/article1215814/

Godspeed Harper???

- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

It would be interesting to know who wrote this ‘opinion’ and what political affiliations, connections they have.

- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.

Posted to: G&M, “PM apologizes for Ignatieff attack”, 11 Jul.’09, Brian Laghi and Campbell Clark
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-apologizes-for-ignatieff-attack/article1213930/

Harper, once more is using the international stage to promote himself and the Con’s at home in Canada and not to properly represent Canada in one of the most important meeting of Western leaders in a generation.

To make a personal attack on the leader of the opposition in Canada had absolutely no place at the G8 meeting. It should be an eyebrow raiser for all Canadians. Harper ought not to have raised this in his speech even if it were correctly attributed to Mr. Ignatieff.

His total lack of respect for the importance of the meeting and the participants is also clearly demonstrated when he appeared late for the photo. This, of course, is totally unacceptable. There is concerns that he may have been late deliberately to demonstrate to Canadians that he is the ‘boss’ at the meeting.

Once again an assistant of Harper is being blamed. It seems to me that this is a general scenario with Harper. In may be that an assistant gave him the misinformation but Harper ought to have the good judgment not to refer to it at all given it was at an international conference, and the G8 to boot.

Clearly Harper has no consideration for comity and protocol on the international stage. His only concern is political self-interest.

- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.

- Preston, if you really want to restore confidence in Parliament –

simple:
Get rid of Harper and the Con’s

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “It's time for a fresh start in Parliament”, 2 July, 2009, Preston Manning
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-time-for-a-fresh-start-in-parliament/article1202622/

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

The legislation that Harper and the Cons have introduced is a hodge-podge intended not to generally promote any ideology, Conservative or otherwise, or address any serious social issues but are self-serving and/or designed for their ‘optics’ no matter how obviously bad they are (e.g., Flaherty ‘Fiscal Update’ last December and the reduction in GST). Clearly, the ‘more’ is not the ‘better’.

You suggest, “some agreement to alter the ‘confidence convention,’ so the only condition on which a government could be defeated in the House would be on an explicit motion of no-confidence moved for that purpose.” Clearly that would entrench Harper that much more, Preston, perhaps that is why you are suggesting it.

- It is the true will of the people that must be expressed.

Excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, “Sham-Ocracy: Parliament's Fissures “, 27 June, 2009, James Traves,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/656838

Our current political situation is the net manifestation of all the forces that are at play, as is the case in any era. It is the inevitable effect of the number, nature and strength of these forces. There is not be meaningful change until these forces are identified and modified, in some cases harnessed, in other cases roped in and curtailed. Past generations have taken on this task, sometimes requiring catastrophic change. Surely it is our tern.

It is clear that one big problem is ‘Party’ politics. It is because the MP’s vote along party lines that gives the leader of the governing party all the power. Our Parliamentary system is based on MP’s representing their constituents. Voting on Party lines runs contrary to this and we can see the effect. This is particularly counterproductive when there is a minority government. Our parliamentary system, in some ways, was set up to have 308 ‘parties’ and not simply 4 or 5. However, this ‘Party’ politics is more the effect than the cause. Also, voting along party lines is not, per se, an ‘evil’. It is when this is done to the exclusion of all else. In other words, the balance has been distorted. This distortion has become increasingly pronounced over my lifetime, paralleling the increase in power and influence of the ‘News’ media since Watergate. Perhaps this is no co-incidence, thus identifying one of this ‘forces’ that has changed and upset the balance.

Another big problem is, of course, Transparency, Access to Information and the underlying force of Freedom of Information generally. Clearly this is one of the forces that must be strengthened and with easily predictable results. As I have suggested on numerous occasions, Freedom of Information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Travers suggests that what Canada needs is a White Knight to champion the cause of Democracy. Certainly we need someone to fight, head-to-head and toe-to-toe the Black Knight, Steven Harper, but the change that is required will not likely come from ‘within’ the current political system. It is the true will of the people that must be expressed. Ironically, the ‘News’ media could play a very significant, and constructive role, if it so chose.

- ‘What If’ Harper and the Cons were to get a majority. All I can say is “then God Save Canada”

Excerpt submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

- Tom, If it gets rid of Harper and the Cons then, even if it is another minority government, an election would be anything but ‘pointless’.

Posted to: Globe and Mail, Comments by Tom Flanagan, Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 09:57AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/

The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.

If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.

Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.

Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).

- The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise

Posted (excerpts) to:

20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/

19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment

You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.

The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.

This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.

Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.

The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.

Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.

Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html

- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.

Comment on: Toronto Star, Opinion, 18 June, 2009, Bob Hepburn
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578

There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.

However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.

A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.

- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.

- Flaherty, lecturing the G8?

G&M, “Flaherty sees U.S. deficit as biggest threat to recovery”, 14 June, 2009, Eric Reguly

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/

Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.

Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.

Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.

I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.

- Cyclical ‘Dictatorship’ – The Harper Rule

excerpts submitted to:
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith

Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).

One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.

What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Ignatieff should be implementing his own “Getting tough on Cons” policy (‘Cons’ = ‘The Harper Gang’).

submitted to: Toronto Star, "Liberal revolt", 5 June.'09, Susan Delacourt
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html

If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.

Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.

Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.

- So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Premiers rally behind Harper in fight against Buy American”, 5 June, 2009, Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark, Steven Chase and Barrie Mckenna
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/

t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.

So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.

Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.

Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …

It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.

- Thank God Harper and the Cons don’t have a majority.

Comment submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311

If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.

Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- If Harper and the Con’s Had Never Taken the Helm of the Good Ship Canada Our Deficit Would be less than 10 billion

Submitted to Toronto Star, “Tories wield the deficit truncheonTories wield the deficit truncheon”, Linda Mcquaig, 2 June, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments

Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.

Good Point:

The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.

Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.

Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.

It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.

This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Ignatieff EI Changes verses Harper Stimulus Package

abridged version posted to:

G&M, “Wall adds voice to call for EI reform“, 31 May ’09, Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wall-adds-voice-to-call-for-ei-reform/article1161074/

The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “the stimulus is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts. In reality Harper doesn’t want to spend the money and has put this equal contribution from the provinces as an excuse.

One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it.

On the other hand, if the Harper government has not yet borrowed the money, and given it would be imprudent to do so without the particular infrastucture, or other project, ready including the provincial contributions, then when it is borrowed just how much greater will the deficit be.

I can only say God help us!

On the other hand the general consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly right to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on all sorts of things and thus stimulate the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Dunca recently stated (on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers):

"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed," he said on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers.

The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.

Lloyd MacIlquham
****************

5/31/2009 1:57:05 PM
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts.
_____________________________________________

One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it. If not what will the deficit be when they do.
_____________________________________________

General consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on daily needs, stimulating the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
_____________________________________________

"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed", Ontario Finance Minsiter
_____________________________________________

The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of the proposed changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim … if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
_____________________________________________

Harper has demonstrated that he and the Cons have no intention of adopting the best policies for Canadians unless he is pushed to the edge and confronted with the real threat of losing power.
_____________________________________________

I can only say, ‘God save us’!

- Poll on Patriotism Probably Skewed by Die Hard Harperites

Post to G&M, "Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires", 30 May '09, Brian Laghi

I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberals should do a response ad comparing Harper credentials, or lack thereof, with Ignatieff’s

Posted to: G&M, “Just answer the question, Iggy”, Rick Salutin, 29 May ‘09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#

5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM

I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.

…………………………………………………………………

- The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights.

Submitted to the Toronot Star, "Dark virus infects budget office", 23 May '09, James Travers.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

...

Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.

When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.

When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.

- Carbon Tax was a Non-Issue in the BC Election – The Real Issue was the Uselessness of Fixed date Elections

Globe and mail, “How a B.C. carbon tax rose from Dion's ashes“,Stewart Elgie And David Boyd And Chris Waddell, May 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home

I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.

Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.

One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.

On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.

The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.

The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.

Lloyd Maclquham

- Comment Posted to the G&M

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530#Comments

About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009

His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009

- History will look back at Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues

submitted 17 May '09, 8:35am(PDT) to:
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530

" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."

I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.

10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.

"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"

Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.

I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.

When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.

Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.

- Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.

Comment posted to:
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home

For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.

- Laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach has no place in a modern, complex, economy based society such as is Canada’s

My E-mail to lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
sent 10 May.'09:

Hi Lorrie Goldstein

The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html

I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.

I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html

You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.

“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.

The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.

One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.

For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.

It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.

On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.

If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.

It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).

When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.

Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,

- Harper’s Ham-Stringing and Strong-Arming Our Parliamentary and Administrative Watch-Dogs

comment on: Toronto Star, “Another victory for hired guns”, May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673

There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.

This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a

Submitted to: Toronto Star, "Ignatieff's Turner problem", May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, Thomas Walkom
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587

If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.

It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.

Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.

The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.

The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Reply to My Comments posted to Toronto Star, 7 May '09 - see below

To Lloyd MacIlquham

Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009

http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments

- Without transparency and the free, undistorted and unobstructed access to information the line between ‘Education’ and ‘Propaganda’ can be blurred

submitted to:
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments

Just Look at Harper and the Con’s

Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).

Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.

I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- You choose: Ignatieff – help those that need help v. Harper – sink or swim

Submitted 6 May.’09 8:02am (PDT) to:
Toronto Star,'Why Ignatieff's Liberals changed their tune on EI', Chantal Hébert, 6 May.'09
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/629664

Suggesting that the Liberals’ emphasis on EI is based on ‘electoral credit’ has things backwards. EI is part of Canada’s social safety net which is a defining feature of our society and an integral part of our social fabric. In a recession more people require EI and require it to a greater extent. Thus, EI becomes more important to more people. As noted this is particularly true in Ontario.

A fundamental aspect of government is to protect those that need protection and help those that need help. That Ignatieff and the Federal Liberals feel that it is their duty to do exactly this, especially when Harper and the Con’s fundamental ideology incorporates a ‘sink or swim’ approach, can hardly be said to be politicing to voters.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands.

submitted to the Toronto Star, 5 May'09: '
Election chatter: Don't go there', James Travers, TS, 5 May'09
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/628967

If the Liberal formed a government Harper would be just as disruptive, divisive, belligerent and disrespectful, if not more so, of the comity of Parliament, a fundamental principle of Westminster democracies, as the was when Martin was PM, when he disrespected its laws, which he himself initiated, by calling an early election last Fall and, when he shirked the will Parliament by suspending it. One need only recall the ‘call-to-arms’ and threat of division that Harper and the Con’s fostered in their build-up to his disbanding of Parliament.

It is clear that one of Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands. For him Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. To this end, Harper and the Con’s have developed and implement a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in recent times.

Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- “Just Watch Me”

submitted, 4 May ’09, 7:15am (PDT) in response to the Times article about whether Ignatieff will b able to make the transition from intellectual to politician.

From The Times, May 4, 2009, 'The Avenue of Mulberries - Combining the life of the mind with politics is difficult'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6216204.ece?Submitted=true

In the words of another outstanding Canadian intellect and politician , “Just watch me”.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1% - Am I reading this Right!

Submitted 2 May’09
Comment on: Ignatieff takes hit for tax remarks
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/627872

In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1%. At first blush I’d say there is something wrong with the polling and I would be very hesitant to rely on it. Perhaps it is that one time out 20 – The Star and La Presse might ask Nanos how many polls Nanos Research done lately. To me this is significant and I think that this should have been commented on in the article and an explanation given.

However, if true, it seems the Liberals are not out of the wood in Ontario. It is not likely that the NDP would get 1% of the vote in Ontario if there were and election. It is also hard to see people turning away from the Con’s to the NDP. So, an NDP rise, which would be at least 10% - 15% and inevitable, would represent a significant decrease for the Liberals, even to the extent of putting them far behind the Con’s and comparable to Oct.’08, 34%, from the current poll’s 43%. However, the Green seem to be fairly solid at around 4 – 8% and would likely only give 2 – 3% to the NDP.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- ave atque vale, Stéphane

Catullus

Latin text
1 Multās per gentēs et multa per aequora vectus
2 adveniō hās miserās, frāter, ad īnferiās,
3 ut tē postrēmō dōnārem mūnere mortis
4 et mūtam nēquīquam alloquerer cinerem.
5 quandoquidem fortūna mihī tētē abstulit ipsum.
6 heu miser indignē frāter adēmpte mihi,
7 nunc tamen intereā haec, prīscō quae mōre parentum
8 trādita sunt trīstī mūnere ad īnferiās,
9 accipe frāternō multum mānantia flētū,
10 atque in perpetuum, frāter, avē atque valē.

- Ignatieff’s Stance on Taxes

Coment on TS, "Bracing honesty or a `gotcha' moment?",
Apr 20, 2009 04:30 AM
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/620467

For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff on this is sheer partisan politics, dishonest and hurtful to the future of our country – just like his “steady as she goes” approach in the lest election.

Deficit means that we are spending more than we are taking in. We can only do that by borrowing the money. This borrowed money must be paid back – anyone who has figured a way around this, legally anyway, let me know. Either we pay it back sooner or we pay it back later – and if it is later, of course, we must pay much more. If we pay it sooner the money either comes from increased revenues based on current tax regime and government spending or we increase the taxes and/or cut out government spending. If we pay it back later then the “we” refers, actually, not to us personally but future generations i.e. our children. Harper and the Con’s by making the huge ideological tax cuts prior to admitting we were entering into a recession increases the likelihood that taxes, e.g. the hated GST, be increased again.

These are the realities and exactly what Ignatieff is talking about.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper and the Con’s suppressing free speech – tell me something I don’t know.

Commentary on the Harper Government banning British MP George Galloway from entering Canada.

Perhaps Harper is afraid the Galloway will come into Canada and start passing our humanitarian aid to members of the Oppositions Parties. After all, he did try to have financial assistance by the government banned and they haven’t even been declared terrorist organizations – but lets wait and see.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- let the trial being - Using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.

Comment on "First decriminalization, then plural marriages", Tom Flanagan, 23 mar.'09, G&M
“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcopoly23/BNStory/specialComment/home

What Tom Flanagan seems to be criticizing is the Canadian Courts’, especially the Supreme Court of Canada, clarification of our basic human rights as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights. In other words it is really our Charter of Rights and its application by our Courts in protecting our basic human rights, and religious freedom is a basic, fundamental human right, and our Supreme Court of Canada, that he is attacking.

This has been one of the big concerns about Harper and the Con’s and their extreme right wing ideology, and probably we are quite fortunate that they do not have a majority. Given Tom has been so closely connected to Harper and the Con’s in the past, at least, this attack on our Charter of Rights is very predictable and perhaps being done to “test the waters” so to speak.

Section 15(1) of the Charter states, in part: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on … religion…”. Sounds good to me.

Generally the Canadian Courts enforce, as far as I can see, our laws against bigamy, and polygamy is just an example. From what I have read and heard in the media, this case certainly raises the issues of the right to practice one’s religion and religious beliefs.

If the application of our laws against bigamy, in the case at hand, infringes s.15(1) of the Charter, then by a proper interpretation of Section 2 of the Charter it is up to the Government of Canada to prove that this infringement, in the particular case at hand, is “demonstrably justified”. So, let the trial begin. To me using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper and the Con’s To Be Made Accountable – That’s a Good Thing

Comment on T. Star, “Public at tipping point on bailouts”, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/606056#Comments

Just think, the people of Canada demanding that Harper act in an open, fair and transparent fashion, helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Sounds good to me.

It also sounds exactly like what Ignatieff has been demanding and the whole purpose of the periodic reviews that the Liberals forced Harper and the Con’s to adopt. As Ignatieff puts it Harper is ‘on probation’ and that's a good thing.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Mister Science Minister, Do the Right Thing and Resign:

Comment on the G&M article: Minister won't confirm belief in evolution
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home

It is in the highest scientific tradition to state that you do not accept a theory as “scientific fact” and to debate it – just ask Albert Einstein. But to refuse to even discuss it on religious grounds drags us back to the dark ages where they prosecuted Galileo as a heretic for suggesting that the Sun not the Earth was the center of the Universe.

The separation of religion and the state is vital to our society, its development and our basic freedoms. For Harper to put in place a Science Minister that refuses to even comment on, on a scientific level that is, any generally established scientific theory based on religious beliefs is not only indicative of an extreme right wing ideology but outright dangerous.

There is nothing wrong with having strong religious beliefs, of course, but when they pose the real possibility of interfering with the proper execution of his job, and in the case at hand I think the indications are that there is, then he should do the right thing and resign.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- When You’re Right – You’re Right!

Comment on:
“Carney hedges economic rebound prediction”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090314.wg20wrestle0314/BNStory/Business/home

Reading this article one might think that Flaherty is the main driving force in the global economic recovery. Flaherty’s statements are little more than a ‘cheap shot’ for the purpose of grandstanding. There is nothing constructive or informative about it.

Listening to Flaherty, and Harper, one gets the impression that the Canadian Banks being in such good shape is all their doing. Harper and Flaherty, of course, had nothing to do with it. They inherited it from the good management of previous governments, like they did the very healthy Federal Fiscal status. In fact, the laissez-faire, hands off, ‘steady-as-she-goes’ reduction in government interference with the economy, approach, so much a part of Harper’s right wing agenda, overt or covert, is generally accepted as at the foundation of the finacial crises and is one of the main thrusts of the Ecomonic G-20 meeting. Where’s Flaherty’s statement on increasing international regulation of financial institutions.

One need only read the G&M article “Canada's place is on the B list”, 13 Mar.’09, to get a real idea of how Flaherty, Harper and the Con’s are viewed on the Int’l Financial stage as far as them being “movers and shakers”. The British PM doesn’t even consider Flaherty and Harper as important enough for Canada to ‘merit “intensive diplomatic lobbying and engagement” ahead of the [London summit” on April 2]’. The British PM put Flaherty, Harper and the Con government in the same sphere of influence as such international economic policy leaders as: Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina. To Gordon Brown: when you’re right – you’re right!

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Access to Information is Vital to an Open, Free and Tolerant Society

submitted to:
TS, 5 Mar.'09, "Watchdog seeking to lift veil on cabinet", Bruce Campion-Smith
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/596832#Comments

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

- Get Ready for More of the Harper attack ads the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in Recent Years

Comment post to:
Liberals preparing for a fight if Tories run anti-Ignatieff attack ads
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090304.wignatieff04/BNStory/politics/home

As far as comparing someone’s current opinions with what they have expressed in the past might I quote that modern day philosopher-king Mohammad Ali:

“A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.”

That Harper and the Con’s would be monitoring what Michael Ignatieff says now and comparing it what he has said throughout his illustrious career in order to fabricate attack adds is beyond belief. Well, not really beyond belief when you consider that Harper and the Con’s have subjected the Canadian people to propaganda campaigns the likes of which has not been seen in Western democracies in recent times. Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper Filling the Conservative Leadership Vacuum in North America

I submitted the following Comment to:
WSJ, ‘Stephen Harper A Resolute Ally in the War on Terror’, 28 Feb.’09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123578347494598289.html

Being Canadian, the most important part of your article is your statement ” There is a vacuum in conservative leadership in North America and on the world stage, and Mr. Harper is stepping into it”.

I have no doubt that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party’s overall objectives are just that. However, for many Canadians, and I suggest a majority of at least 63% (those that voted against him being Prime Minister in the last election), this is not a good thing. Harper was obviously a puppet to President G.W. Bush while he was in office and is a George wanna-be now. One need only consider Harper’s statements just prior to the Obama visit to Canada regarding the Harper and Conservative government’s position on Global Warming (and I will let your readers do the research) – essentially it was a Mea Culpa blaming G.W. Bush, in effect saying (although for clarity not actually saying) “the devil made me do it”.

Also, I take exception and I have no doubt there are many Canadians that are of similar view, to your statement “…this prime minister and his Conservative Party have restored Canada's international prestige by increasing military funding and tenaciously supporting Canada's dangerous NATO mission in the Afghan province of Kandahar”. Canada has had for many years and especially since Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson considerable international prestige as peacekeepers and international mediators (and again, I will let your readers do the research). We have been very proud of this. Increasing military spending may be the American way but not the Canadian way and hopefuly it never will be.

Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC

The Stephen Harper Mea Culpa on his lack of Action on Global Warming “The devil made me do it”

My comments posted to:

http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note

Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”

For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.

Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.

Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.

We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.

On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper appealing to the middle of the road, that would be an Extreme Makeover.

Comments on TS “Politicians mine middle class for success”, 14 Feb.’09, Bruce Campion-Smith, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/587562

Middle class also means middle of the road in Canadian politics, it seems to me.

For Harper to appeal to the middle class either Harper will have to move to the center from the extreme right – not bloody likely, no matter how many makeovers, extreme or otherwise.

Or the middle will have to move to the extreme right – God help us.

It appears that Harper’s plan is to appear more middle of the road in order to get the middle class vote and retain power but to surely and steadily pull all Canadians and Canadian society more and more to the extreme right politically (compare Harper’s speech in Fredericton at the beginning of the last election – 13 Sep.’08).

- It is the people that suffer from recession and it is the people that must take action.

[Comments on the TS article
Leaders too willing to sit on sidelines, James Travers, Feb 12, 2009 04:30 AM,
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/586348]

It is we the people of Canada that must take action to pull ourselves out of economic ruin. It does no good to turn to the government and expect them to do the things that will, magically, make everything all right. It doesn’t matter what the government does, if all of us, individually, and as a nation, are not willing to take the necessary action.

Simply passing off huge debt to future generations, as attractive and simple a concept as it is, is not the solution and represents an abdication of responsibility. Someone once explained to me that the people in Canada and United States would never stand for another Depression. However, this is apparently not true.

A look at Obama’s rhetoric is very much addressing this issue and if he is able to change people’s attitudes then they may have some hope. Canadians must take charge and responsibility for their own future.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- There should be a Public Inquiry into Harper bringing the Libel suit against the Liberal Party

The Harper libel lawsuit is framed as a private matter as far as the courts are concerned. However, it is very serious matter as far as the people of Canada are concerned. Although the court has dismissed the case it is far too important politically for the people of Canada to dismiss. The suggestions seem to be that Harper brought this case for political reasons. My reading of this article is that Prof. Magnet suggests that it may be the case that it was brought to “push the problem down the line in time”. Down the line in time might be “after the next election”, which when reviewing the chronology of the case makes one wonder.

Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).

****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828

Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET

Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press

****************

Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.

For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.

Lloyd MacIlquham

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder

For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)

Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?

Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.

- Harper and the Con’s Insidious Neo-Conservative Agenda

My Comment, posted 7 Feb.’09, to “Job losses won't alter stimulus plan, Harper says“
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wjobs07/BNStory/Business/home:

These job loses are extreme, unanticipated and the worst in recorded in recorded history – three time higher than the 40,000 expected; 71,000 in Ontario alone. What is Harper’s response “not blown off tract every time there is some bad news”. If this is your ‘run-of-the-mill’ bad news that does not call for special consideration, then God help us.

That Harper would not do anything to adjust to this new and drastic acceleration in economic worsening is indicative of someone who actions are motivated by something other than protecting Canadian against this economic disaster. He took the same position during the election i.e. ‘steady as she goes’ and his economic update in November was, of course, ridiculously devoid of any action to address this extreme situation. The only way he would do anything was by the Opposition Parties threatening to throw him out of office – Impeachment Canadian style. Fortunately Ignatieff and the Liberals forced Harper and the Cons to include the periodic review of their actions on the economy.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Harper and the Con’s real agenda may very well be to take advantage of a disaster to implement their extreme right wing extremist agenda. We can only wait to see how bad things must get before Harper feels it is time to act. Unfortunately, it will likely be far too later to do anything about our current situation, surprise, surprise, and the action he takes may by quite shocking to anyone who has grown accustom to our way of life.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Duceppe Makes it Easier for Liberals

comment on: "Separatism is back at forefront, Duceppe tells party meeting", February 01, 2009, Karine Fortin
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/580512

So too Harper and the Conservatives have “moved away” from their right wing extremist political ideology to that of a more Liberal approach. So too Duceppe and the Block a few years ago moved away from their sovereignist position to that of “what’s best for Quebec” and now are moving back to a sovereignist position. They both do it for the same reason, to hold onto power. It is interesting to note that apparently Duceppe is not taking the position that separation from Canada is “what’s best for Quebec” – if he is it wasn’t reported in this article.

Whether one likes it or not the Block represent a very large percentage of the people of Quebec and no one has the right to disenfranchise them except the people who vote for them. Fortunately for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, Duceppe has just made it easier to do this. By Harper and the Con’s disenfranchising rhetoric in December Quebecers are likely to turn away from that party in the next Federal election. The trend in Quebec in the last few years has been away from separatists. I am not sure that a recession would change that. Duceppe is a smart politician and one can only wonder if he knows something others don’t. But, it appears he is deliberately distancing his party from the Liberals thus widening the gap and making it easier for people to vote Liberal in the next Federal election. Harper and the Con’s have developed the biggest propaganda machine experienced in any Western democracy in recent years and will, obviously, torque it up that the Block are separatists and they single handedly saved Canada.

However, the truly scary thought is that had it not been the Liberals receiving the support of Duceppe and the Block, as well as the NDP, in forcing the Conservatives to real action we would all be facing this economic tsunami without any action by our Federal government. Certainly in so doing Duceppe has done far more to keep Canada and nation together than Harper and the Con’s.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Comment on: Kelly McParland: Ignatieff blows smoke on tax threat

- Comment on: Kelly McParland: Ignatieff blows smoke on tax threat
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/18/kelly-mcparland-ignatieff-is-blowing-smoke-on-tax-threat.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Hi Kelly

Michael Ignatieff’s statements are a question of context. I like your links to the articles you are referring but making links to one’s references regarding another’s statements doesn’t excuse one from accusing that person of saying a lemon’s and orange when he refers to both as fruit or even citrius fruit.

There is a huge difference between “broad based tax cuts” which reduce tax and infinitum as opposed to one to tax relieve explicitly designed to boost spending during economic hard times. One need only compare the Harper and Conservative reduction of the GST by 2% with England’s policy to reduce VAT (same as our GST) for one year to boost spending. These are very different types of tax reductions. The latter is obviously designed, by putting a one year limit on the reduction, precisely so that it doesn’t hobble future goverments and future generations. It should be pointed out that Harper and the Conservatives were very quick to equate their structural reduction in GST with the Englsih temporary reduction by completing ignoring this very important difference.

When Micheal Ignatieff says, "I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast",

You can hardly say that he is referring to the same thing as general “broad based tax cuts” that Harper and the Conservatives are referring to, that have no time limit, will diminish the Federal Government’s capacity, build in a structural deficit, lead to on going structural Federal deficits of the kind we saw with Mulroney and the PC in the early ‘90’s and force the next Liberal government to implement serious program spending cuts of the kind that Jean Chrétien was required to do and even general tax increases to have any hope of saving our children and preserving our nation. Harper's aim here appears to be implementing his right wing agenda, as opposed to truly helping Canadians through a very difficult time and this proposal is not much better than his economic update of November. It is no surprise that the Liberals are reacting this way. Not only is it not contradictory but it is very consistent.

I think all media reporters in Canada should take head of James Travers’ article in the Toronto Star of 10 Jan.’09 vis: “…in October, with the country facing the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, the smallest number of voters in memory went to the polls without knowing very much about the situation or how the next prime minister would respond. …”

In these times of economic severity it is vital that all reporters and newspapers make their best efforts to clarify the message of all politicians and political parties so as ensure that the general public is properly informed and not simply inundated with stories bias to promote one Party over another.

- Layton, Show Your Sincerity and Tear up the Coalition Agreement and Pledge to Support to Liberals

Reply to: G&M: NDP 'unlikely' to support budget, favours coalition
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wxopposition14/CommentStory/politics/home

When Jack Layton says that Harper and the Con’s can’t be trusted I believe he is quite sincere, and right of course.

………………………………………………

But if his motives were truly to rid Canada of this scourge, as opposed to simply grabbing power, then perhaps he could come out and say that for the sake of this great nation of ours he is willing to tear up the agreement, and his 6 cabinet posts, but pledge to the Liberals his and the NDP’s support if they were to form government, similar to what the Block has done.
………………………………………………

Michael Ignatieff is right in his position that the Block MP’s are not traitors to Canada but duly elected representatives of a very large and significant segment of Canadians who are being deliberately alienated and marginalized to the extend of being disenfranchised for the sake of the self-serving political expediency of Harper and the Con’s. This scare mongering is being achieved by the greatest propaganda machine Democratic countries have seen in recent history. This is a development that, I think, all Canadians should be very concerned about and take action to marginalize it as all right wing extremist philosophies should be in a tolerant, free, open modern democracy .

………………………………………………

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Media Social Responsibility to ‘Keep the Government Honest’

Comment on
'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws
Jan 10, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers

I think there is not doubt that the position taken by Harper and the Conservative Party regarding the economy during the last election, and since, has been unconscionable, both in hiding and obscuring the realities and in their exploiting their position of power and the economic crises for self-serving political advantage and to the exclusion of any significant help for Canadians.

It may very well be that had the media, during the election, set aside political partisanship and focusing on informing the public in an objective fashion that the Canadian people could have made a more “informed” decision. For example, one may ask what purpose did it serve for the Globe and Mail to come out near the end of the campaign to support Harper and the Conservatives.

This role of the media is vital especially when one considers that Harper and the Conservatives have set up one of the biggest propaganda machines that any Democratic country has experienced in recent times.

It does not suffice for the media to say that they are private concerns and so may do as they please. The media plays a very special role in any modern Democracy in “keeping the government honest”. In return, they hold a very special and exceptional position both in law and socially. One need only read the media replies to criticisms and restrictions on freedom to information to hear this argument and from the mouths of the media, when it suites them, of course. Biased reporting for partisan purposes is in reality a violation of this “social trust”.

What is the likelihood of the media changing? You tell me.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Comments on Senate Reform , Lloyd MacIlquham, 17 Jan.’08

I was saving this for a good time to post – now seems to be good

see: Tor Star, "Big brains better than big names", James Travers, Dec 18, 2008 04:30 AM, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/555601)

Appointed senate for ‘life’ was intended to free senators from partisan politics and to have highly qualified people as opposed to those who are popular or long time party supporters

Senate is according to number of seats for each province

Custom has developed that Senate does not exercise ‘veto’ powers since not elected so limited to review and debate Change to have the province appoint representatives, selected on merit in various areas of activity, the choice procedure to be conducted open and transparently (not necessarily a committee review, not necessarily an election) with strong protocol against partisan choices.

If the term of appointment must be limited then at least 12-16 years with appointments staggered either every four year or six years to avoid large % during one party reign in government adding partisanship and undue bias towards any particular transient socio-economic trends

Number of committees established in various areas of important societal activities - e.g. children; poverty, housing, etc.; minorities; aboriginal and first nations; human rights & charter of rights; law and order, security; science – impact and development; environment; various aspects of economy – domestic, international; population growth including immigration; inter-provincial affairs; taxes; health care; culture; international affairs; (at least one for each department and Ministry of the federal government) etc. Senators appointed based on their expertise in one of these areas to serve on that committee. Each province holds a seat on each committee (or possibly two seats). Committees to deal pro-actively on the various issues as well as review of legislation with sufficient powers to initiate and conduct a review even to the point of a full blown commission. Committees open, transparent and accessible. Parliament may request such a committee and each piece of legislation subject to some kind of review and bound to consider the committee reports in open and transparent fashion.

Example:
“public benefit” products, sectors – there is a need in a segment of the population that is compelling but this need is not being taken care of by the private sector, for whatever reason for exampled, either because chances of a profit are not high enough to motivate the private sector such as too expensive to develop and the segment benefited is too small or regulations on private industry cause too long a delay in bringing to market; as well as, strategic products, simply too important to Canadian for economic, health , or whatever other reasons, that there is a public benefit in direct involvement.

Basic problems with turning to private companies to due research and take products to the market place for “public benefit” products is that they may not be profitable.
For example, pharmaceuticals are reducing the amount of research for antibiotics because of their infrequent use in the population, so can spend 100’s of million in research and never recoup it. Canada establish programs to either set up facilities to do the research or fund existing private companies.

Whenever some breakthrough in research is announced it is always followed up with “George Murphy, a study co-author and chief of dermatopathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said this proves the principle that specifically targeting and attacking cancer stem cells can work. The next step is to see if the same strategy will work in humans, he said, adding new melanoma treatment will likely be years down the road.” (See Scientists slow cancer's growth, By destroying stem cells that drive tumour's expansion, melanoma can be controlled http://www.thestar.com/living/article/294901Jan 17, 2008 04:30 AM)

Or “it will be 10 years, etc.”
If it that important then why 10 years, presumably due to costs, perhaps the regulations can be adjusted to facilitate research, but maintain safety.
Environmental research, …,
Senate committees to identify these “public benefit” products and make recommendations, then mechanism for their approval and investment

- Letter to the Liberal Party Executive Regarding Electing a New Leader

Here is the E-mail to Doug Ferguson and Greg Fergus, of the Liberal Executive in the morning of 5 Dec. regarding this issue. I have yet to receive a response.

. . .

We do not know what Harper and the Governor General talked about and whether the Governor General simply followed Harper’s advise or whether she put some kind of conditions on it.

Simply following Harper’s advise, of course, suggest strongly to me, that if Harper is defeated in a vote of non-confidence at the end of January, the Governor General will follow his advise to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Also, if she simply followed his advise to prorogue without any kind of qualification to him, then what is to stop him from advising another prorogueing of parliament in January, assuming he calls to reconvene Parliament.

If the Governor General put conditions like “You get one chance to do something, if you come to me at the end of January after a vote of non-confidence I will invite the Opposition to form a government” then all Canadians ought to be told. For obvious reasons Harper would be highly motivated to keep this secret.

I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.

Electing a New Leader of the Liberal Party Immediately

I am sure that many people feel that if there is a showdown with Harper and the Conservatives, if Dion is leader of the Liberal party it will be a disaster. This is especially true if there is an election called in late January.

If Dion remains leader, there will, obviously, be a very strong motivation for Liberal MP’s to abstain from any confidence vote until May when the new leader is elected. . That would be a path disastrous to our country and the Liberal Party.

For these reasons, and as suggested by David Herle, yesterday, we must have a new leader by the time Parliament is reconvenes at the end of January.

It is not feasible to move up the convention to mid January, obviously.

That is why I am proposing that the Liberal Party hold a general vote, by all members. This, it is submitted, could, especially given modern technology, quite feasible to arrange by mid January. If a Canada wide general election can be held within 35 days of being called, so too, can a Liberal Party election.

If the Liberal Party Constitution cannot be satisfied within this kind of time frame; then, certainly upon the vote being tallied Mr. Dion could step down as leader and the Executive appoint the person elected as “interim” leader until that person, man or woman, can be formally confirmed as leader in satisfaction of the Liberal Party Constitution. [Clarification: The mechanism for this - the choices in this vote would be from the existing candidates in the leadership race and when one is “elected” in this fashion, the other would withdraw from the race. Then, the convention would be an “Acclimation”.]

I would certainly be quite willing to pass up my Christmas and News Years to assist in this.

Below (or refer to my Blog: http://cicblog.com/comments.html) is a copy of my comment on Broadbent’s Statements in the G&M this morning (I also submitted (as of this E-mail it hasn’t appeared) a portion (in bold) to the CTV article “Huge job losses in Ont. push up unemployment rate”, CTV.ca, Dec. 5 2008

W. Lloyd MacIlquham, B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D.
Barrister and Solicitor

*****************
Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.

However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.

Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.

Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).

I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!

Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:

71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.

Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!

The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.

Harper has refused to discuss what was said.

So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.

I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.

What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.

God save us, God save Canada

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Comments on Ed Braodbent’s statements

“Fanning the fires of national disunity”, Ed Braodbent, G&M, 4 Dec.’08
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wcobroadbent05/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest

_____

Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.

However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.

Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.

Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).

I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!

Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:

71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.

Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!

The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.

Harper has refused to discuss what was said.

So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.

I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.

What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.

God save us, God save Canada

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Wall !

If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin in order to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.

In so doing he has lost the trust of Parliament and its confidence.

And, in so doing he has wasted the very precious time required to take swift and effective steps to address these very serious and quickly deteriorating economic conditions.

Rather, Harper is doing everything he can to show his contempt and distain for the duly elected Parliament, despite deriving his authority and position of Prime Minister thru its Confidence. He has, and is, showing no respect for the time honoured Institutions that are Canadian Democracy and has deluded himself into thinking that he has somehow been anointed King as opposed to obtaining a minority. If allowed to continue he may well irreversibly harm or destroy these Institutions. One wonders if, indeed, he is taking advantage of these difficult and turbulent economic times to forward such a plan.

The Liberal-NDP coalition has the trust of Parliament and its confidence. Further it will bring stability during these very serious economic times.

Harper’s claim that this is a separatist coalition is, obviously, hyperbola, designed to scare those who blindly put their trust in the office of Prime Minister. Mr. Dion, given his past dedication to keeping Canada together in the face of real separatist threats, is amply qualified to keep any separatists at bay.

Harper is disenfranchising a very large percentage of the people of Canada and in particular, Quebec. 1,379,565 people in Quebec voted for Block candidates and 50 Block Candidates were duly elected.

That is, by saying that the Liberal-NDP coalition ought not to listen to the Block and the Block ought not to support the coalition, Harper is marginalizing these duly elected representatives of the people and effectively denying 38.1% of the Quebec voters the right to be heard in Parliament.

We are not talking about whether someone “voted for Harper or Dion to be Prime Minister”, which is not applicable in our Democratic Parliamentary System . (In our Parliamentary System, as it now stands, and has through many generations, citizens vote for the person they want to represent them in Parliament.) We are talking about denying their duly elected representatives from a voice in Parliament. This goes to the very heart of our Democratic Institutions and Principals. It is totally within Harper’s modus operandi to marginalize the Block since he is attempting to marginalize all the Opposition Parties, and, indeed Parliament itself. That Harper made a very similar agreement with the Block whilst in Opposition during the Martin minority a very short time ago goes to the questioning of Harper’s motives and intent.

The way to heel the wounds caused by past spasms of separation is not through marginalizing but by inclusion. Whether there is a coalition or not all MP from Quebec must be heard, they have the right to be heard. If they are marginalized it can only go towards feeding the flames of separation which could rent our country asunder.

Now Harper is organizing ‘rallies’ to demonstrate his support. If every single person in each of these centres that voted for the Conservative candidate in the last election (approx. 2.5 million) attended there would be no more than 18% of all voters. In other words, even if 2.5 million people attended, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn as to how Canadians, generally, are feeling about Harper and what he has done or the Liberal-NDP coalition. It would only reliably indicate how Harper loyalists are feeling and we already know that. Thus, one may only wonder what is the real purpose of these ‘rallies’.

The Governor General’s decision is not simply choosing a person to run this Country this is taking the necessary steps to protect our Democracy and save our country.

The Governor General’s primary purpose is to preserve our Democratic Institutions and protect our country. This cannot be done by granting a request by Stephen Harper to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament. Nor can we waste any more precious time, or overburden the Canadian people, in calling another election. Harper has wasted more than we have. Further, Mr. Harper’s contempt and distain for Parliament shows that even if he gave a return date, it could not be relied upon.

I shudder to have to peer into our future and the future of Canada as we know it.

- Conservatives at the height of Hypocrisy

Apparently the Con’s are also considering having Harper step down and choosing another leader, who by the way it just so happens would automatically become Prime Minister.

How can anyone take them seriously on this, given that they are spending all their efforts to convince the Canadian people that Dion has no right to become Prime Minister because he wasn’t elected.

Also, who would they choose as Prime Minister . . .
Jim Flaherty !
Or, perhaps, Stockwell Day !
Maybe, John Baird !

How about Preston Manning or Mike Harris.

What you say, they haven’t been elected by the fair voters of our great nation
Hummmm . . . . , I know, they could appoint Preston Manning or Mike Harris to the Senate then give him the Cabinet post of ‘Prime Minister’! After all there is precedent for such.

And in that vein there is always the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney !

But wait, shouldn’t it be a less extremist part of the old PC Party.
Let’s see …. I know, certainly Peter MacKay must be in line given he broke the trust the PC party put in him when they elected him leader not to join the party to the Conservative Party (then Alliance).

– God help us!!!

I don’t recall the Conservatives running on the platform that if they lose the trust and confidence of Parliament that they will at the same time claim that they can instill another as Prime Minister without election but Parliament, who right it is to choose the Prime Minster does not have the right to replace with someone that has their trust and confidence.

What unabashed Hypocrisy.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- To Stephen Harper, ‘Put Canada first and stop the nonsense’!

Harper and the Conservatives have lost the trust and confidence of Parliament.

They have done this by ignoring Parliament and refusing to take swift and effective action to address the very serious and fast developing crisis we Canadians, as with everyone else in the world, are facing right now. He decided to, instead, to ignore the crisis to take partisan advantage of the situation to hamstring the Opposition.

As Patricia Croft, Cheif Economist for RBC Global Asset management put it yesterday on CTV News Harper and the Conservatives had the ability to put something together but are "fiddling while Rome burns".

For Harper and the Conservatives to say wait until a month or two months from now is something like telling the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses in the restraining walls are so they can decide what to do. What about all those people who get hurt when the old restraining wall give way. [I know I have used this before, but I think it is right on and makes clear the current situation]

It is exactly that Harper and the Conservatives have not ‘put Canada first’ but have continued their ‘non-sense’ that has required the Opposition to unite and present themself as the only viable choice to lead Parliament.

The Canadian people elect Parliament and Parliament chooses the Governing Party, the Governing Party elects the Prime Minister. (No one who understands the Canadian Democratic system would say it would be undemocratic for a governing party to elect another leader who would, without being elected by the people take power as Prime Minster – for example, say Harper were to resign and the Con’s elected Flaherty as their leader.)

How does this give Harper the right to govern.

Quite frankly it doesn't, Parliament gives him the right to govern and Parliament has not only lost confidence in Harper and the Conservative Party it has lost trust in Harper and the Conservative Party.

If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.

Harper’s actions are outrageous.

Harper ought to have the decency to put Canada first and step aside forthwith and allow Parliament to put in place someone they have trust and confidence in to salvage what they can. By continuing and vowing to fight he is only causing worse damage to all of us and wasting the scarce and precious time available to do what is required.

[Comments on G&M “Stelmach to Ottawa: 'Stop the nonsense'“ In response to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach “Put Canada first and stop the nonsense,” ]

Lloyd MacIlquham

- "It's the People, Stupid!"

Here is something I wrote today on the G&M article, yesterday, "A well-shaped package would be worth the wait", Jack Mintz …"The real reason for their consternation is that the opposition could be kneecapped by the Conservative proposal to eliminate federal taxpayers' subsidies to political parties by April 1. "

I posted an abridged version to the G&M this morning.

_____________

To all those that think that this is all about the Conservatives eliminating the subsidies to the political parties . . .

"It's the People, Stupid!"

I can only suggest that you meet all our fellow Canadians who lose their jobs, or otherwise suffer sever economic injury, between now and the Conservatives decide to implement a meaningful and effective stimulus package and explain why it was right for Canadians to wait.

Every economy based major political entity in the world is acting immediately to attempt to reduce the damage caused not only to their economy but, much more importantly, to the people in their countries. These actions are all being taken since the Federal election. They are based on current and currently projected economic forecasts, not on something based on the situation a year ago.

To tell people to wait until sometime next year for their budget is something like saying to the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses are in the restraining walls in order to decide what to do. What about all those people that suffer because of the delay in action when the dam bursts.

Harper and Flaherty ought to have introduced a meaningful and effective stimulus package last week in their update. It was worse than negligent to do otherwise.

That Harper and Flaherty would abstain from performing their duty and instead attack public servants and the Opposition parties, is bizarre, indicative, not of a Prime Minster seriously addressing one of the worse crisis in Canada's history, but of a politician and party trying to take advantage of the serious situation to undermine the opposition parties.

This was not a miscalculation by some advisor.

This was a well thought out scheme based on the Harper and Conservative extreme right wing ideology to take advantage of the serious economic crisis to further their extreme right wing agenda. One need only listen to the very well prepared “Harper Black Friday Promulgation” and his blunt and ominous statement that the Opposition Parties do not have the right (despite having the support of almost 2/3rd of the Canadian voters) to join together to run this country without an election, but that only he, Harper, and the Conservatives, are the only ones (with only 36% support of the Canadian votes) that have right to run the country. One must ask them self just what is it, the underlying “hidden” message Harper is asserting.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Conservative Immigration Policies – More Right Wing, Extremist Ideology

The Conservative policies on Immigration are indicative of a total misunderstanding of the significance and importance of Immigration to Canada and Canadian society. Also, statements like “Should we find that one sector is in real trouble a few months from now, we can obviously modify the instructions to reflect that” is simplistic and hopefully intended merely as “Spin” to try and sell their policies and not an indication of their lack of comprehension.

The above was posted to the G&M article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLimmigration1128/BNStory/politics/home

“Tories unveil immigration reforms”, Romina Maurino, Canadian Press, 28 Nov.’08

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper “Black Friday Promulgation”

It seems that Harper is the only one that thinks that “Stephane Dion does not have the right to take office without an election”. However, one can only wonder what it is that Harper is saying exactly. Is this just rhetoric or is this a much more sinister message.

It is hard to think that Harper’s speech was simply the irrational ranting of a person soon to be dethroned. He seems to be saying that the previous vote trumps the Constitution, the will of Parliament and Governor General. Given that his minority party is the government of the day as a result of the Constitution, Will of Parliament and Governor General, his logic seems a bit self-defeating. Almost 2/3 rds of the Canadian people voted against Harper.

By his own logic, Harper would not have the right to take office. According to our Constitution however, he had the right to so do. According to our Constitution it behooves a minority government to form a consensus or it runs the risk it will fall. The Office of Prime Minster simply does not have the authority to determine whether after they fall there will be an election or not. Harper seems to be confusing Canada with the United States where they actually vote for and elect their head of the executive. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Harper, but this is Canada.

The last election did not elect him ‘Prime Minister”, it elected MP’s whose job it is to represent their constituency. According to our Parliamentary system, his party may form the government and it’s leader become Prime Minister provided, and as long as, it has the confidence of Parliament. This is not a ‘presidential’ system, where the election elects the President for a definite period of time. If one were to apply Harper’s argument our parliamentary system would be thrown out the window.

It is clear that the Governor General has the authority, and the duty, to consider, in these circumstances, whether a stable coalition can form a government and if so to invite them to so do.

It seems to me that, instead, the Constitutional experts should be deciding whether Harper would have the right to suspend Parliament until sometime after the New Year or even sine die, prior to a Confidence vote. Given his statements it seems he has backed himself into having to either reach out and work with the Opposition Parties or do something extreme like try to suspend Parliament. It seems to me that progressive, moderate, middle of the road parties would reach out and try to form a consensus. Only extremist ideologies allow for in your face government by minority.

An abridgement was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wGG29/BNStory/politics/
“GG would have little choice but to accept coalition pact, experts say”,Gloria Galloway, 29 Nov.’08

Lloyd MacIlquham

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberals should replace the leadership convention

I submitted the following to Scot’s Diatribes on 21 Nov.’08. They later truncated it saying it was too long. I am posting here in its entirety.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2008/11/21/liberals-should-replace-the-leadership-convention/#comment-17208

17208. wlloydm said on November 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm

…
In reply to “Liberals should replace the leadership convention. “
I posted a quite in depth discussion of the issue you raise on my Blog on 2 Nov.’08:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html

“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”

Also,

On 14 Nov ’08 I posted a response to the G&M article “Dropping gloves early, Rae walks out on forum”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081116.wliberalleadership1116/CommentStory/politics/
. . .
At least Bob Rae is on the right track. He should go that step further and suggest that there should be a number of votes - one for each province and where it is not the delegates that votes but the grass roots of the party. Each of these votes produces a number of delegates for each candidate. I know, it sounds familiar. But, it is a very successful formula for democratic participation and getting people at the individual level involved and [engaged]. Who knows perhaps if people feel they are involved and their opinions count they may even decide to support the party and actually vote Liberal come election day – and that’s a good thing.
and,

On or about 29 Oct I sent an E-mail to Greg Fergus, National Director, Liberal Party of Canada, upon his invitation to send feedback, regarding the very issue you mentioned:
(the essence of which is set out below see below).

If I recall I also sent a similar E-mail Douglas Ferguson, upon similar prompting.

I sent another E-mail to Greg Fergus, on around 11 Nov.’08, asking for his reply.

I have, as yet, received no reply from either to this issue

___________________

http://cicblog.com/comments.html

“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
. . .
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.

It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.

This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.

The draw backs are:

- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.

- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.

It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
___________________

contents of:

29 Oct.'08, E-mail to Greg Fergus
and,

1 Nov.'08, E-mail to Douglas Ferguson

Inability to raise funds is generally acknowledged as a major problem for the Liberal Party. I submit that there is a direct co-relation between this and the lack of direct involvement of individuals, at the grass roots as they say, in the Party and how it conducts business. It is generally observed that prior to the changes to the fund-raising provisions in the Elections Act, the Liberal Party relied to a very large extent on large donations from businesses and a relatively elite group of individuals.

Now, with the restrictions this is obviously not a viable alternative. It is submitted that the manner in which the leadership is determined – delegates selected by Riding Associations voting at a convention, was well suited and went hand-in-hand with former type of fund raising i.e. it left the selection of the leader to relatively a few, hard core Party members, which in turn allowed a more direct say by those contributing. This form of delegate convention also was well suited to the behind the scenes power brokering and, yes, “king making”. This form of electing the leader obviously leaves out the input by the individual Party members and, in fact, it is suggested, alienates them. In the case of the last leadership race, Dion was not a front runner during the campaigning and as such was not scrutinized by the media to any real extent which in turn did not allow Canadians to see who he was and respond.

Once elected of course the media attention was on him and, it is submitted he simply didn’t resonate as a leader with the grass roots Canadians. Dion suggests that the attack ads are why he did not ‘catch on’ with Canadians. Attack ads do have an impact (and I read somewhere that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious). However, it is submitted that if they resonate with what people’s instincts are telling them and put to words what people are already feeling but have not formulated into words, they have a much greater impact.

It is hard to see how a response will purge this type of impact. Being coroneted as Liberal Leader does not transform the person into a leader that will inspire the people. I find it hard to believe that Pierre Trudeau was just some run of the mill Joe who upon being made Leader transformed into this dynamic, charismatic leader. What being elected leader did was bring him to the attention of all Canadians who could see in him these leadership qualities.

Allowing all Liberals to have a direct vote allows them to vet all the candidates and support the one(s) that “inspires” them. It is submitted that this direct involvement not only tends to result in a more popular leader, generally, but promotes involvement at the grass roots which is bound to carry forward with ongoing support with respect to fundraising, volunteers and votes. It also tends to eliminate the “power brokers” and back room deals that result in a leader who only a relatively very few people want and for reasons that might not be for the best as far as the Party is concerned and promotes the electing of a leader that Canadians can identify with. With modern communications allowing all Liberals to vote is certainly quite feasible either thru the Internet or telephone calling.

Making it easy for people to join the Liberal Party, assuming they hold Liberal values and of course pay their 10 bucks, to vote would broaden the base. Modern technology and banking facilitates these large numbers of people contributing small amounts which is also in line with the Elections Act. If it is too difficult to get the powers that be in the Liberal Party to change over, then perhaps a middle ground where regional delegate are voted on in a serious of preliminary votes in various set regions of the country open to all Liberals in that region would help. It may be trhat this typ eof process has been suggested before but I am hoping that results of this last election and the difficulty ion raising finds impresses upon all the members of the Party the importance of this type of “grass roots” process in electing a leader.

The attack adds did have an impact and I read some where that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious.
____________________

- Our Dysfunctional Parliament

This was written in response to the Toronto Star article, “More polite but still dysfunctional”, Nov 22, 2008 04:30 AM , James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/541607

The Toronto Star allows only 1000 spaces in reply so I was unable to post all of this but only a small part.
___________________________

I think you [James Travers] have identified a very serious problem and the cause. Since Paul Martin's minority government Harper and the Conservatives have done everything he, and they, can, irrespective of decorum, to pull Martin down and cling to power. Their approach is completely new and different and, in my opinion, something that the Canadian people are really not totally tuned into, because, quite simply, no one and no party has acted in such a fashion before. There has never been such an extremist party in power in Canada. People may view the Harper and the Conservatives as the old Progressive Conservatives, (by name identification), who were moderate (in comparison) and employed moderate means, within the Canadian norms. The Harper and the Conservatives tactics are the Hallmark of extremists. These including walking out of the house, to the deliberate and well developed plans, (or conspiracies), by Harper and the Conservatives since in power with the only objective to maintain and increase their grip on power.

Their tactics which include: Secrecy, muzzelling and suppressing his cabinet and MP’s, restricting access by the Press, obstructing Access to Information, in-your-face confrontational approach as opposed to discussion, negotiation and compromise, responding in Parliament to legitimate and important questions for which the Opposition not only have a right to ask but have a duty to the people of Canada, with insults instead of answers that the Canadian people require, abusing power by making non-confidence motions confidence motions in order to force their narrow ideology on the people, to burying controversial and non-confidence type legislation that they have no hope of having pass in Bills of confidence, are all the Hallmark of extremism, in this case Right Wing.

The basis of our form of democracy is that their are a number of parties. These parties vie to form the government. But in exchanged they give the people what is beneficial to the people. That is, there is an exchange: you give us what we and a country needs and we will let you run the ship. This, of course, leads to an adversarial approach between parties and vigorous debate and holding to account in the House of Commons. Of course, this is precisely what it is designed to do and much of our society is premised on the "adversarial" approach.

However, our form of democracy works only when the Opposition and ultimately the Canadian people have knowledge of what the government is doing, i.e. transparency, and is able to hold the government to account, i.e. raising these issues in the House of Commons. The above cited tactics by Harper and the Conservatives thwarts this and, I suggest, this is no accident. For any open, free and tolerant society, the Purpose is: to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.

To me the solution is that the people of Canada become aware of what the Harper and Conservatives represent and they stand up and be counted. As long as the Opposition are so polarized it seems to me that Harpe will be able to get away with his scheme. I don't think it is a question of the Opposition Parties uniting, with leaders such as Jack Layton it is not likely to happen. The 62% of the Canadian people, who voted against Harper, will have to unite.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Innovative Research Group Poll:

Innovative Research Group – who would be worst of four possible Liberal leadership contenders to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis

My post to teh G&M article "Rae to formally launch campaign Thursday"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wrae20/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest

1. You (lloyd macilquham, from Canada) wrote: This “poll” represents much that is bad about Polls. By their own admission it was one question “tacked on” to another Poll, the substance of which - i.e. questions, sequence of asking, results, was not revealed, nor “for whom the Poll tolled” (i.e who commissioned it, who asked that this question be tacked on).

Clearly, by conducting a poll in this way, the result for the “tacked on” question can be manipulated to give just about any result – i.e the answer to the last question is dependent on the former questions – what a revelation!

Further, by not revealing who requested the question and the fact that it was a “rival Liberal camp” that released the result of the Poll for this question, makes the actual wording of the Poll in its entirety and who requested the addendum becomes even more important and tends to make the results very questionable. By saying that it was not commissioned by a rival leadership camp and was not intended to be made public does not, obviously, redeem it.

Also, asking simply one question gives meaningless results as far as who is best qualified to be the Liberal Leader and go on to lead the Liberals to victory in the next election.

Everyone has strong points and everyone has weak points. For example, for Ignatieff, it is lack of experience not only at the head of a government, but leading the Party in an election.

And, of course, as Bob Rae, himself points out, 20% saying he is the worst of the four (three now) indicates that 80% don’t think he is the worst candidate to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis. Given that, in those polled there are likely between 30 – 36% Conservative, 17 – 20% NDP some Greens and some Block. Really, can it be said that 20% has any meaning since those 20% could easily be people who are not going to vote Liberal anyway.

Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:07 PM EST

*******
continuation of Post to G&M
*******

You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:

I suggest that if the other Liberal Leaders want to play fair, and be transparent, they should demand whomever it is in their camp that leaked the poll, or have other information regarding it that is not known to the public, generally, to step forward and reveal all the details so that all Liberals may make informed and enlightened decisions.

By all the candidates insisting on muck throwers not hide behind anonymity but step forward, it will, in my opinion, reduce the amount of muck thrown. And that is a good thing. The Liberal Candidates should be ensuring that the Liberals’ put their best foot forward while the spotlight of the country is shining on them during this leadership campaign.

When you look at Ignatieff not agreeing to an open debate last weekend, one can only wonder how open and transparent he would be as Leader or even Prime Minister. We don’t know who, and from which leadership camp, leaked the results of the Poll.

I think it is safe to say that it wasn’t from Bob Rae’s camp. That leaves only Michael Ignatieff’s and Dominic LeBlanc’s camp and we can only wonder from which. At least we know what we are getting with Bob Rae and he can say he is, so far anyway, an advocate for openness and transparency. Lets have a poll on that issue.

Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:27 PM EST

Rae to focus on economy in battle with Ignatieff

Comments I posted 14 Nov to G&M in response to their article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081113.wliberals14/BNStory/politics/home

************

You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:

Bob Rae’s running the Ontario economy is history. Steven Harper and Jim Flaherty’s timely stripping the Federal government’s safety nets just prior to the world economic downturn, forcing a deficit and applying their sink or swim approach to private industry in Ontario is current. If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded, he has had 15 years to learn from his experiences.

Harper and Flaherty are still making their mistakes – perhaps they should step down and come back in 15 years so that we may benefit from the wisdom and experience they, presumably, would have gained. Certainly if either Harper or Flaherty have as an illustrious career after their stint in power and make as great a contribution to Canada as Bob Rae has, then I may consider them myself (ha ha ha).

If it wasn’t for the Liberal’s 5 point as expounded by Dion during the election, Harper and Flaherty would be continuing with their “steady as she goes”, sink or swim, formula for disaster.

The fact of the matter is that when Bob Rae took over as Premier of Ontario, Ontario, the rest of Canada and the United States were entering into recession. No matter what party was in power or who the leader was, this was the realities – the recession was unavoidable.

I just thank God that Mike Harris wasn’t the Premier and Flaherty the Finance Minister at the time.

The criticism Bob Rea’s term as Premier was and is (although the Harper criticism is conspicuously divest of rational, concrete basis) the ‘Rae Days’. The Purpose was to save 10’s of thousands of public servants from losing their jobs. It was unpopular because it cost public servants 5 days of pay. Boy what a mistake! This was actually a very bold action, especially for an NDP leader. On the other hand getting 100’s of thousands of public servant upset with you is a politically questionable strategy.

*********
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote: Armins copy of Swank from Canada writes: lloyd macilquham from Nanaimo, Canada writes: If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded,
________________
Actually, he conceded in his book that he was unprepared to win and that he DID make mistakes. I hope he "wins" the Liberal "leadership". That'll be the last nail in their coffin.
________________

[my reply]

Actually . . . as per CBC: Rae said his experience governing during tough economic times should be seen as a strength. "We made some critical decisions as a province and I'm very proud of those. Did I learn some tough lessons in the course of it? Absolutely. But I think those lessons are very, very helpful," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/13/ignatieff-leadership.html

This is hardly a “mia culpa”. Perhaps you can refer to the actual section of his book where he made his alleged concession – quoting the partagraph (within the context) would be nice.

(PS – “and this is by no means conceded” is referring, of course, to me as per the context.)

- Roy McMurtry and Alvin Curling Report on Youth Violence

I was going to post this as a comment to the following but missed the cut-off by seconds.

Youth violence tied to racism, report says
CAROLINE ALPHONSO
Globe and Mail Update
November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081114.wyouthviol1114/BNStory/National/home

Hi Alvin, nice to see you back in action – sorry I mean town.

An analysis of all the comments made here might be interesting.

I am not sure that spending a lot of money as suggested is the answer.

As far as youth gang violence is concerned it seems to me that until the communities in which they live and thrive decide to do something about it at the “grounds” level, so to speak, no amount of money or effort by any level of government will have much effect – unless, of course, you are considering a military type occupation with 4 –5 police on every street corner – compare New York City. Even this does not cure the problem but it does tend to suppresses the violence. To be clear I would not support such a “solution”. But nor do I support the government, no matter what level, simply throwing money at the problem.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.

The following is in part my response to:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.WBSteele20081101193706/WBStory/WBSteele#commentLatest

Apparently, Gerard Kennedy is leaning strongly to running in the leadership as the party renewal candidate.

I don’t think you can blame Kennedy since he was simply playing the game as it was defined. In other words, riding associations selecting delegates who are bound in the way they vote only on the first round of voting, is ideally suited, and I suggest designed for, the vary purpose – i.e. back room wheeling and dealing. In fact, his inner circle was, obviously, very good at it since, they say, around 92% of Kennedy’s supporters swung to Dion - who would have thought it possible. So, in other words, not only was he playing the game as it was designed, he, or should I say his inner circle, excelled at it.

Bottom line is that we must blame the delegate – convention system of voting and not Kennedy.

In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.

It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.

This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.

The draw backs are:

- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.
- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.

It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.

The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.

- Harper – Extremist Right Wing Idealogue – Canadian Election

My Comment

[as posted to G&M article, 4 Oct.’08, “Harper dismisses new plagiarism allegations”: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081004.wharperplagiarism1004/BNStory/Front/:]

This is only “standard political rhetoric” for extreme right wing conservative idealogues.

Also, Harper statement adopted from Mike Harris is extremist right wing conservative code for ignoring what is best for Canadians and imposing extreme right wing ideology – vis.: "Thinking about things from a new and different perspective IS NOT ABOUT READING THE POLLS AND HAVING FOCUS GROUP TESTS. (emphasis added)

*******

Harper’s response to accusations of plagiarizing Mike Harris:
“In this case, we're talking about a couple of sentences of fairly standard political rhetoric.”

Harper’s statement:
"Thinking about things from a new and different perspective is not about reading the polls and having focus group tests. It is never easy because it takes courage, conviction and the strength to know that taking a new and innovative course is going to make change for the better. Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing."

Harris’ Statement:
"Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing. Leaders are the ones who do what they say they are going to do, despite the opposition and protests and complaints from the special interests who support the status quo."

- Harper – Tough on Crime

Comments on:
CBC “Tories would end house arrest sentences for serious crimes: Harper”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/23/harper-house-arrest.html?Authorized=1&AuthenticationKey=2_50_57a1e73d-a238-4cdc-960e-ec0fe12abe72.pakcebhmnjlldh#socialcomments-submit

Posted 23 Sep.’08, 9:10 pm, PDT

Harpers' statement, “Listiening to ordinarty people” is obviously right wing extremist code for being based on extreme right wing conservative ideology i.e what Harper and the Conservatives want and not on what studies and professional opinion indicate is the best way to handle these matters. That this is extreme right wing ideology is bolstered when Harper goes on to elaborate that "Our party believes that …”. It is further demonstrated by his statement that “Yes, we believe they're wrong," when referring to the professionals in the field such as criminologists and police.

It is shocking to think that in this day and age we could have someone seriously running to lead this country who out of hand and categorically states, without any objective basis, that the professionals in the field are wrong. In this golden age of human rights and enlightened approaches to society’s problems, this is a throw back to the “dark ages”. Harper’s statements are indicative of the type of ‘approach’ that in a bygone era of fear, superstition and ignorance brought executions in public squares and cutting people’s hands off for stealing, witch hunts and inquisitions.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper Extremist Right Wing Agenda – Canadian Election

The Harper government’s strategy from the time it took office was to slash taxes to the point that there is no appreciable surplus. This, obviously, was not an accident but a well thought out strategy. For one thing it was intended to make people ‘Happy with Harper’ by reducing taxes. For another thing, their obvious strategy is that any programs promised by the Liberal or other parties, would be attacked on the grounds that taxes would have to be increased to support it. The more comprehensive the policy the bigger the attack. On the other hand the Cons are employing the strategy of ‘a plethora of micro policies’ – small policies that are focused on a small, well defined segments of the voter population, aimed at maximizing media attention but claiming low costs to implement and simple top understand. It also allows them to do this on a continuous basis throughout the campaign. When in power they bring in these micro-policies and claim that they are a party of action and fulfill their promises. On the other hand, their true agenda is brought in through stealth – there are many examples, for example in the last Budget regarding funding for films, the amendments to the Immigration Act (IRPA), criminal laws being extended to the fetus, and others, as well as administrative changes.

In actuality reducing taxes to the extreme is one of the objectives that the paper by Mike Harris and Preston Manning for the Fraser Institute just before Harper was elected and is part of a far reaching, well defined, Extreme Right Wing agenda. They recommend reduced government spending – which Harper does seem t have got to yet.

By slashing taxes to such an extent Harper has weakened Canada’s ability to withstand hash economic times through social policies (enshrined in the Canadian way of life and distinguishes us from the Americans). This of course will be very important in the next year or two. Disjointed ‘micro-policies’ also weakens our ability to deal with large problems like the environment and the economy in a coherent, comprehensive and effective fashion. For Harper and the Con’s this is not a bad thing since they really don’t want to ‘deal with the environment’ but would rather push it off to the individual Provinces ‘À la Firewall’. They really don’t want comprehensive Federal social programs since this detracts from their Laissez-faire, sink or swin, approach to the economy (which, of sourse, one of the major factors defining them as extremist, right wing) which again can be seen in Harper’s Firewall Letter.

Harper's reducing surpluses to zero is actually a result of his sink or swim approach to our economic activity. That is, people should not turn to the Federal government for help when they are thrown into dire need due to economic downturns, they should turn to themselves. This became very clear when Flaherty told the municipal leader to stop whining when The Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a study last November warning that much of the nation's municipal infrastructure is "on the brink of failure" and will cost $123 billion to upgrade. Flaherty responded "we're not in the pothole business in the government of Canada." (see: Toronto Star, "Cities told to stop `whining'", 22 Nov.'07).

Here is one of the Harper quotes – Scary Stuff! it is something that everyone should consider when choosing how to vote:

· Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.
o Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994

The Liberal Party has a long tradition now (since Cretien) of sound fiscal management. Further they left the state of the Government finances and the state of the economy in very good shape, far beyond reasonable expectations.

Keep in mind that in Ontario the PC government was touting sound financial management right up to the end of their reign. When the Liberals took office they found a deficit of a billion dollars which the PC had not revealed. These are a lot of the same people that are now involved with the Harper and the Con Party.

Harper saying that Bob Rae “took a slowdown and turned it into the biggest recession since the 1930s” is obvious fear mongering and very much not true ( not to use the ‘liar’ word) .

- The Harper One-Man-Show Government - Is Good for a Banana Republic – Canadian Election

Submitted:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/assign_us.html
17 Sep.’08 – 9:23pm (PDT)

*************

I drafted this comment for Your Turn – 17 Sep.’08, but it ended before I was finished:.

I agree with the previous caller that suggested that it is the people the leader surrounds himself with that indicates a good leader.

To elaborate, in a modern democratic society that is based on a developed economy, running the government is simply too complex to have a “one person show” at the head of the government. Perhaps some ‘Banana Republic’ dictatorship can get by with one person making all the decisions, but not Canada.

Delegation of duties and authority is the hallmark of good leadership. Harper is very much a ‘one man show’ running the government. The Conservatives simply don’t have the depth on their bench to delegate responsibility. This may be inferred from Harper’s own actions to restrict his Ministers while Prime Minister – if they had the talent then why wouldn’t he use them. It is also made manifest with the Maxim Bernier affair. This also explains why Harper and his Conservatives avoid discussing issues head on, but try to obscure and obstruct with insults.

It is very clear, as demonstrated during the Liberal Leadership Race and after, that the Liberal Party has an abundance of talent. Further, the Liberal Party knows how to delegate authority as demonstrated during the Jean Chrétien era. The Harper style of leadership may be well suited for some third world Banana Republic but for Canada it is suggested that Stephane Dion and the Liberal Team is the best choice.

Lloyd MacIlquham

24. Great Balls of Fear Mongering, Batman - Canadian Election

Meanwhile, in the Batcave, Batman and Robin are discussing the Canadian Election including the Speech by Danny Williams, Harper extremist right wing,conservative Hidden Agenda, the In-and-out election financing scheme and the Harper strategy of addressing important issues with insults.

Robin: Holy forebodings, Batman, I see Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland is warning that “a majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”

Batman: That’s right, Robin,

Mr. Williams is very upset because of promises made by Harper in the last election which he promptly broke after gaining power.

Robin: Didn’t we cover that in our segment “Holy Flip-Flops Batman! When Is A Promise Not A Promise”, Batman, back in January ‘07

Batman: Good memory, Robin! Harper tried to explain away his broken promise by suggesting that he had only been expressing a preference during the election.

Robin: Holy Duplicity, Batman, did anyone fall for this somewhat simplistic deception.

Batman: Certainly the Premier of Newfoundland didn’t, Robin and, as I recall, at the time he vowed to expose Harper during the election, which he is doing.

Robin: He certainly is not mincing words, Batman. He’s coming right out and calling Harper a ‘Fraud’.

Batman: Good observation, Robin. This is based on Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaiming, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Robin: But Harper and the Con’s have broken other promises as well, Batman.

Batman: Yes, Robin, in my count, Harper has broken numerous promises since acquiring power, not the least of which, aside from Mr. Williams’ complaint is the Income Trust disaster, to the point of indicating an underlying design.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, by promising the people of Canada whatever he thinks they want to hear, without the intention of keep it if elected, and saying whatever he thinks is necessary, without the concern for its truth, in order to get them to vote for him and the Con’s.

Robin: Holy “Blue Shaft”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.

Batman: “Blue Shaft”, Robin? That’s Williams’ line, perhaps you can use something like “Holy Con-Job”. Robin: Thanks, Batman.

Holy “Con-Job”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.

Batman: By not voting them into power, Robin, and that is exactly what Mr. Williams is talking about and why he refers to a majority Harper government

as “one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”

Robin: Batman, what are others saying about all this?

Batman: Well, Robin, many people are speaking out.

Robin: Who, who, Batman?

Batman: At the start of this election Campaign Harper said that Dion would increase the GST.

Robin: Not the insidious GST, brought in by the last Conservative government.

Batman: Yes, Robin. Dion immediately responded by, quite unequivocally, stating that Harper was a liar.

Robin: Was he, … I mean, lying, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, one might expect that most people would,

when accused of lying, be quick to defend their statement, if indeed it is defensible. Harper has simply seemed to have shrugged it off

- a further indication that these are not mistakes but well thought out and executed attacks with total disregard for whether there is any truth to it.

Robin: Holy ‘Dirty Politics’, Batman, you mean there’s more.

Batman: There are more examples than bats in a belfry, Robin.

When the Harper team attacked the integrity of the father of a fallen war hero, Robin, even Layton felt compelled to point out that “the public only has to listen to the way that Conservative MPs and Harper conduct themselves in the House of Commons.

If you disagree with them, you are open season for an insult.” (Toronto Star, 11 Sep’08).

Then there’s the In-and-Out Election financing scheme, Robin. Harper and the Con’s response was to not only attack the integrity of other Parties, by asserting that they did the

same thing, which is apparently not the case at all, but also that of one of Canada’s most internationally respected institutions – Elections Canada, by accusing them of being biased towards the Liberals.

If Harper and the Con’s really believe that they are not

running afoul of election financing rules then perhaps Harper can show some leadership by stating that the Con’s will be doing the same thing in this election. By not so doing one might infer that these are carefully contrived and executed attacks designed to deflect attention from the real issue.

When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, the Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime

Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”.

Robin: Great Ball of Fear Mongering, Batman. How can the Prime Minister of our great land respond to such important issues with such vulgarities,

devoid of any considered, enlightened or informed thought, but focused entirely on insults and fear mongering.

Batman: These are not slips of the tongue, Robin, but carefully contrived and executed attacks with the intention of playing on people’s fears and

thereby acquiring power, of deflecting attention away from an open and informed discussion of the issues and, of dealing with matters to the benefit of a few and detriment of many.

Robin: Holy, right wing extremism, Batman. Why all the obstruction and obscuration.

Why doesn’t Harper encourage open, informed and transparent discussion of the issues.

Batman: Well, Robin, perhaps they fear people will see them for what they really are – extremist, right wing conservative.

Robin: Great Fraudian Slips, Batman. Then Harper saying the other day that he and the Cons’ “want to pull Canadians towards conservatives” is really a concern that Canadians will begin to realize the extent of their “Hidden Agenda” to make Canada extreme, right wing, conservative.

Batman: Yes, you have something there, Robin. It is how they think and approach everything.

Robin: And when Harper says in his new Ad “investments that will produce results”, ‘results’ refers to implementing the their extreme Conservative Agenda and make our great nation conservative.

Batman: You’re catching on, Robin. And there’s more, Robin. Now Harper is saying the Green Shift will plunge Canada into a recession and destroy national unity causing “all kinds of political tensions across the country."

Robin: Holy ‘hidden meaning’,

Batman, just what does Harper mean by “all kinds of political tensions across the country." It sounds like some kind of right wing extremist code to me.

Batman: Well, Robin, ever since the Firewall letter it has become clearer and clearer that Harper’s intention is to

shift power to the Provinces, in particular, Alberta and weaken Federalism. It appears, that it plays well in Quebec is a bonus for them and they use Quebec as a cover to obscure their real agenda and shift power to Alberta and isolate it from the rest of Canada.

Harper’s inaction on Green House Gas issues, is a prime example of this overall strategy.

Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: Well, Robin, by not taking action Federally it forces each Province to enact their own policies to reduce

Green-House-Gases, including Alberta. That, in turn gives the Federal government an excuse not to get involved and makes it much more difficult to implement any plan for the overall good of the country.

Robin: Holy ‘Clarity’, Batman, you might say it’s an issue of:

“Each Province acting unilaterally and in its own interest does not a Nation make.”
Robin: What can we do, Batman.

Batman: We can only beseech each and every Canadian to think carefully before casting their vote, especially giving Harper and the Con’s a majority gov’t.

We've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 15 September, 2008 (2008-09-15)

- Canadian Election – Fear Mongering by Harper and Layton

Canadian Election...

here is my Comment on the G&M article, 11 Sep, "Green Shift touted as both saviour and damnation"
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlede0911/BNStory/politics/home)

“Fear Mongering” – blatant and misleading – is my response to Harper’s and Layton’s claim that the Green Shift will plunge the economy into recession.

If Harper and Layton are concerned about wealth and power being concentrated they should look at the high price of oil. If they are concerned about our economy going into recession they should look at the large number of manufacturing jobs being lost in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They should also look at the unfair treatment Ontario receives regarding the distribution of our tax dollars as Ontario’s Premier so justly pointed out just a few days ago and the anti-Ontario attitude of Harper and the Conservative Party.

So far Harper’s response to the Green Shift:

When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. Now he is saying it will plunge Canada into a recession.

This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base on fear mongering and insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian.

Jack Layton is trying to tell us that his environmental polices are “identical” to those of Obama (Toronto Star: “NDP to take aim at PM, shrug off Dion” September 05, 2008.

In reality Layton and the NDP is diametrically opposed to this policy of Obama.. A Foxnews article on 4 Aug., states that “A new Obama ad released Monday trumpets his proposal to revive the windfall profits tax on energy companies . . .

The tax would target “big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says. Obama has pushed for such a tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.”

This is clearly along the same lines as the Dion Green Shift and has nothing to do with a ‘cap-and-trade system’, which is the heart of the Layton’s environmental polices.

Danny Williams suggested the Liberal have the ‘Green Shift’ and the Conservatives have the ‘Blue Shaft’ now we have the NDP ‘Orange Sham’.

- Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

I grew up in the Beaches and went to Grade School and High School there. This Summer I came back to visit and went to the Beaches Jazz Festival. It was almost like I never left. It is very much ‘you can take the boy out of the Beaches but you can’t take the Beaches out of the boy’.

One thing I learned growing up, both inside and outside school, was to view things with an open mind, not to have preconceived notions about how things should be and to be able to adjust my thinking as I am confronted with new information and a new context.

I grew up in a very much an open, free and tolerant community, where informed, open and transparent discussion was always the order of the day. And, I know I wasn’t the only one.

I am saying this now because I think that all those living in the Beaches ought to consider this when deciding how to vote.

Any party that is ideologically driven can, by definition, not be free in their views since their views are based on preconceived notions about what is right and what is wrong and not open to change.

They can not have open discussions since invariably someone will confront them with a reality that is diametrically opposed to their way of thinking and which might require them to somehow admit that their position is wrong.

They cannot be transparent since that would expose the weakness in their position. They can only obscure and obstruct. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right – you’re wrong”. They are very reluctant to expose themselves to rational analysis and attempt to keep the discussion at an irrational, emotional level.

They consider implementing their ideology without consideration to anything else as being ‘decisive’; and, taking time to listen to the other side of an issue and perhaps adapting and adjusting their position as called for to be a sign of weakness and lacking in leadership.

You can see all this with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party which is motivated by extreme right wing ideology. It seems to me that there are many examples of Harper and the Conservative party obscuring issues and obstructing attempts to get at the truth. Harper and the Conservatives deal with issues not by open, free and transparent debate but by appealing to people emotions and, of course, hurling insults. Their attacks are designed on an emotional level.

I was listening to a Conservative strategist on 6 Sep. (Geoff Norquay, I believe) who stated that Harper [is someone] “who knows where he wants to take the country”. It seems to me that his type of statement is indicative of extreme right wing ideology. First of all it is referring to where “he [Harper]” wants to take the country and leave no room for debate, consultation or consideration of other points of view. That a majority of people in Canada may not want to go where he wants to take them is not a consideration to Harper or the Conservatives. That a majority of people in Canada are not made privy to where Harper and the Conservatives want to go is no accident.

Second, it is anything but transparent – it is based on the belief that the important thing is that Harper knows and whether we, the people, know is not a consideration. This statement is designed to be dynamic and decisive. But, it is appeals to the emotions and not the intellect. This statement is not a slip of the tongue either, since last October he was quoted as saying “After 18 months, I think the PM and the cabinet have a much clearer sense of what the issues are and the direction that they want to take the country" (Toronto Star, “Harper, Tories riding high”, October 22, 2007). It is where they want to take the country that has any significance to them. Given that Harper and the Conservative had a minority government it is actually quite startling to see things phrased in such one-sided, uncompromising terms. It is clearly a manifestation of extreme ideology, in this case right wing.

Global Warming is, of course, a prime example. Nothing in my lifetime, except in the ‘60s with the threat of nuclear war, has there been such a grave threat to our fundamental way of life than Global Warming. It’s seriousness is heightened by the fact that it may be decades before the full extent of the impact will be felt. It is not my generation that will suffer the most but our children and their children.

Any political leader that proposes significant steps be taken ought to be considered with the utmost seriousness. When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian. It is deliberately aimed to play on people’s emotions and fears. When Dion recently explained that after consultation with many people throughout the country he would, within the Green Shift policy, increase benefits for farmers, etc., to offset their use of diesel fuel, the Harper and Conservative response was that Dion is indecisive, flip-flopping and not a leader. How can anyone suggest that informed, open and transparent discussion to the benefit of all Canadians is indecision and lacking in leadership, unless of course they are motivated be extremist beliefs.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien criticized Harper for his in-your-face [my words] diplomacy with China. This is a very important issue. For example, many billions of dollars flow from Canada to China every year. Tourism from China would allow us to recoup some of this and would offset the loss of tourists from the US and from within Canada (due to the high price of gasoline and the Canadian dollar). The main obstacle to the floodgates of tourists from China coming to Canada is the Harper approach to diplomacy with the Chinese government. Rather than engaging in an open, informed and rational discussion of this very important matter to which Chrétien was drawing attention, the response by the Conservative Party was to attack Chrétien’s integrity (by asserting that Chretien’s China policy was influenced by his post-politics business plans, and the interests of rich and powerful friends - G&M, “Personal financial interest behind Chrétien attack on PM's China policy, Kenney says”, August 20, 2008). Chrétien pointed out that Harper not attending the Olympics would have been considered an insult by the Chinese government and that it was likely politically motivated. Rather than explain his decision not to attend, something that all Canadian have a right to know, we are left wondering why. Perhaps, when it gets right down to it, the Chinese government simply did not invite him because of his approach to them and he didn’t want Canadians to know the true impact of his ‘in-your-face’ diplomacy.

This response was no slip of the tongue by a rogue MP. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct. For example, when Elections Canada executed a search warrant of Conservative Party headquarters. The Conservative Party’s response was to attack the integrity of Elections Canada. When confronted with the Cadmen tape, their response was to challenge the integrity of the tape.

Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 3

I also submitted this (after editing slightly to meet the 2000 character limitation) for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/CommentStory/specialComment/home)

With all due respect, I found your opinion as set out in "The request the G-G can't refuse" to be quite weak (see comments by “Lloyd MacIlquham”).

However, of much greater concern is the possibility (see comment by R Miller from Halifax) that perhaps you might have ties to the Conservatives in that you may have ties to the Fraser Institute a (in my view) very right wing conservative think tank boasting amongst its ranks, Preston Manning (Senior Fellow) and Mike Harris (Senior Fellow) and so your opinion may be biased. Of course, everyone is entitled to express their opinions, even if it is biased and politically motivated. However, when they are presented as being the head of a prestigious academic institution, especially in Law, it seems to me that people look for an objective, disinterested assessment of the situation (see comment by: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada) and not someone using their position to promote their personal, subjective views and interests.

Please clarify. Lloyd MacIlquham

R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Slightly off topic, but as an academic, would Professor Monahan have to publically disclose whether he has had an association or financial assistance from any of the following groups ?
-The Civitas Society,
-The Fraser Institute
-The Atlantic Institute of Market Studies
-The Donner Institute
It would seem somewhat relevant before presenting an opinion piece arguing that a Governor General cannot refuse a Prime Minister's request for an election which is certainly far from clear from precedent, Bill C-16 or this discussion.

If Professor Monahan was printing this article for a reputable legal journal, would he not have to disclose possible conflicts of interest as is done for publications in medical journals ?

brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: It would be in everyone's best interest to read Patrick Monahan's bio before posting frivolous uneducated rebuttals towards his article! …

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 2

I submitted this for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:

[Monahan, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/BNStory/specialComment/home/

"The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election.”]

It seems to me that one must be very careful when comparing our system to the English (“Westminster” systems) since they differ in one very important aspect which is central to the issue at hand. We have a Constitution (and a Charter) which is the Paramount Law of the Land. Tradition does not trump the Constitution in Canada. In England, to my understanding anyway, Tradition is the constitution and there is no “Constitution” to trump it. In Canada, Tradition may be persuasive provided it does not go contrary to the Constitution or the Laws of Canada, both in the letter and the intent, otherwise our Constitution and Laws become ancillary and whole basis for the rule of law collapses into anarchy. Your opinion does not seem to touch on this, essential difference at all.

You assert “a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister”. However, this is the issue. It may be that this tradition may not go against the letter of the Constitution (although this is debatable) but it certainly goes against the application of Bill C-16 in both its meaning and intent. If the provisions of Bill C-16 are to mean anything and there is a presumption that they do, then they must free the GG hands to dissolved parliament under these circumstances. One of the things that the GG ought to determine is if, in fact, the government does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament and this can only, in this circumstance anyway, be determined while Parliament is sitting. It would seem prudent that the Governor general obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, if the government of the day requests that parliament be dissolved and does not co-operate in resolving this issue, the GG could turn to the opposing parties to see if they could form a government, if only long enough to have this issue resolved.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election

Comment on the G&M article dated 29 August by Patrick Monahan, "The request the G-G can't refuse" (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wcoessay30/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=2)

With all due respect I can�t agree with your [Patrick Monahan's - see above] assessment of Bill C-16 and the current situation regarding the dissolution of parliament.

It seem that you are suggesting that it is the �letter of the law� that is applicable at the expense of the true intent (as in part expressed, as you point out, by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, I will refrain from the quote).

If one looks at the letter of the law then, it is submitted:

Clearly Bill C-16 cannot impinge on the Governor-Generals Constitutional powers in this regard and any provisions so purporting would be of no force or effect. It is not required that any piece of legislation have a �saving� provision to assert this. Any legislation is read and applied within this context, as in accordance with the Paramountcy of the Constitution.

However, the above principle of Paramountcy applies to Constitutional powers but not traditions. In other words, the tradition that the Governor General follow the advise of the Prime Minister can be impinged by law.

To give the provision of Bill C-16 that states �Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor-General�s discretion� any meaning whatsoever (and lift it from pre-amble to provision) one ought to interpret it as explicitly freely the Governor-General from such traditions. In other words, had Bill C-16 not had this provision, then, perhaps your analysis would stand on better ground.

On the other hand, if government of the day does not, in actual fact, enjoy the confidence of parliament then the Governor General has no option but to either dissolve Parliament. Or, of course, she may approach the other parties regarding forming a government. In the unusual circumstances as we find them, it seems to me that this latter choice is the appropriate course of action and it would look better for Harper if she did (vis.: the other parties not being able to get it together adds support to his contention that parliament is dysfunctional).

Also, I can�t agree that how long the government in question has been in power is relevant and I am unable to find any basis for your assertion.

And, I can not concur with your conclude that the Harper government still enjoys the confidence of the House. This is very unclear and something that can only be determined when while the House is sitting. You base your conclusion on events during the last session. I don�t think that is valid. Whether a government enjoys the confidence of the House can change in the space of a day, and, obviously does (since Parliament is then forthwith dissolved or changed). I cannot see how one can state that Harper government still enjoys the confidence of the House before Parliament is resumed, especially given the current positions of the various parties.

It appears to me that everything points to having Parliament called and whether the Harper government enjoys the confidence of the House made manifest before Harper should approach the Governor-General to dissolve parliament and if he were to do that before then, not only are the Governor-General�s hands not bound but she ought to wait until the will of parliament is made manifest.

Lloyd MacIlquham, 31 Aug'08, all rights reserved

- Respect

Query: "Respect cannot be demanded it must be earned. Respect is earned only by giving it away."

Like so many so called "truisms" its acceptance is based on sounding nice but, in reality, is simply not true:

Every human being, by the very nature of their existence, is entitled to basic, fundamental respect. Whether this flows from being God's creations and everyone equal in his eyes or, whether simply because we are all the same and "in it together", it is an inalienable right that lies at the very heart of human rights and the dignity of mankind. This fundamental respect need not be earned and may not be lost. However, it can be denied by others at their own peril of doing irreparable harm to the dignity not to those being subjected but to their inner souls and their own self-respect. Also, it is not a question of giving it away but it flows automatically and freely by simply "doing onto other as you would have the do onto you".

Most human abuse and certainly wars, repression by those ruling countries, and the like, is sourced in denying others this basic, fundamental respect. Most animosity between individuals can be traced to originating from one person denying this basic, fundamental respect. When one denies another this basic, fundamental respect, the other has a right to demand otherwise and a duty to so do. By not standing up to such tyranny on a grand scale, or bullying on a personal level, one is abdicating the special place in nature we all have been granted and leaving future generations just that much closer to the law of the jungle.

A philosophy of "Respect cannot be demanded it must be earned. Respect is earned only by giving it away" makes human relations and interaction into a "zero sum game". It converts "respect" into the currency of exchange, used to manipulate, coerce and extort. But much worse, as with all such things, it is relied upon for the foundation of rationalizing one's actions and treatment of other thus obscures truth, blurring reality and killing the soul, one cut at a time.

W. Lloyd MacIlquham, 15 July, 2008 (all rights reserved)

22. Have You Had Enough ! Robin - The Maxim Bernier Affair

Previously (episode 21, 18) Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Revelations, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: You opened with that line last time, Robin, what could possibly be more outrageous than what Harper has been doing to curtail the free flow of information.

Robin: I’ve just been reading about the resignation of the Honourable Maxime Bernier from the Foreign Affairs portfolio. What’s going on, Batman. It seems it just one thing after another with Harper and the Conservative Government

Batman: That’s right, Robin. The big concerns here are, why have Harper and the Con.’s been stonewalling any questions about security, despite how legitimate they are; why did Harper choose Bernier anyway; and, why are they so resistant to an independent investigation into the whole affair.

Robin: Holy, Obscure and Obstruct, Batman, perhaps they have something to hide, you know, a cover-up.

Batman: Well, Robin, you may have something there. Harper went on for 5 weeks stonewalling the Opposition when they asked questions about Canada’s security while all the time confidential documents had apparently gone out of and remained out of Bernier’s control.

Robin: But, Batman, wouldn’t that come to the attention of Foreign Affairs, or whomever else is in charge of such matters.

Batman: That certainly must be the case and that is what is so concerning about all this. It

seems that, perhaps, something is rotten in the state of Canada, Robin.

Robin: Great Shakespeare’s ghost, Batman. Didn’t Bernier make a number of serious gaffs while Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Batman: Apparently so, Robin, and that raises another issue, that is 'Why

was Bernier chosen for such a senior Ministerial portfolio'. Many people feel it was because Harper and the Con.’s wanted to promote their chances in Quebec in the next election.
Robin: Holy Serious compromise of our great nation’s security, Batman. You mean to say that Harper appointed Bernier to such

a sensitive and important position, not because of ability, but to get votes. I though Harper was supposed to be a political strategic genius and the man to bring integrity and transparency to our government.

Batman: Things are becoming much more transparent, Robin.

Robin: Well what does Harper have to say for himself.

Batman: Well, Robin, apparently Harper has said that he doesn’t believe national security was compromised.

Robin: But, isn’t stonewalling and refusing to do anything when our national interest is at

stake, a breach of national security in and of itself, Batman.
Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly is to me. Harper as Prime Minister had an obligation to investigate and disclose to the Canadian people, immediately, when the possibility of a situation where national security could be breached was raised.

Robin: Batman, what is Harper`s response. He stonewalled for 5 weeks. Certainly it doesn`t lie in Harper`s mouth to say he didn`t know of any compromised confidential documents.
Batman: His response, apparently, was trying to say that it was strictly a personal affair and asserting "I don't take this subject seriously."

Now that things are coming to light his position seems to be that he knew nothing of the missing confidential documents until a couple of days ago, just a few hours before this matter was made public. Now he seems to be ignoring the Opposition calls for a Public Inquiry saying that the External Affairs Department will investigate.

Robin: But surely they are involved in all this, Batman, since it is their confidential documents that was apparently unaccounted for 5 weeks.

Batman: Your right, Robin, that is certainly one question that needs answering as well. This is not to say that they couldn`t do a good job, but it is the

appearance of the government investigating itself. It seems to me that it is better that some independent body do the investigating.

Robin: It just seems to be one thing after another with Harper government that throws his and the Con. Party`s integrity,

transparency and clarity into question. We've got to get our Canada back, Batman, before it's too late.

Batman: "Have you had enough" is all I can suggest to the people in this great nation of ours, Robin.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 May, 2008-05-28

-- Lloyd Live - “How Businesses on Vancouver Island can benefit from Immigration”

Lloyd Live:

broadcasting live from Nanaimo, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island.

"How Businesses can benefit from Immigration"

May 15, 2008, 7:00pm

Topics

Tourism: "You Snooze _ You Lose"

Vancouver Island is a great place to spend a vacation. It have many things to offer including great Summer weather, great out_doors experiences, great shore line and beaches, golf courses, and so on; and, of course no pollution. Canada’s Immigration policies can have a great effect on the number of people coming to Vancouver Island. This is particularly true for the emerging economies such as China, India and others which, for Canada, are untapped markets for tourism. With the Winter Olympics coming up this will likely have an even greater influence. This is a great opportunity for local businesses to join together take to make a common effort to attract these new markets and give them something to talk about. I am taking steps to set up an association for this purpose, Vancouver Island Ventures Association (VIVA Le Tourism). If you are interested then contact me.

Some Common Problems:

_ Competition from others areas of Canada that are "beating us to the start"

_ Tourists in China don’t know about Vancouver Island or what we have to offer

_ Inertia and the lack of will to seize the opportunity

May 22, 2008, 7:00pm

Topic

Employment: "All the Right Stuff"

One of the biggest problems that has come to my attention while practising Immigration law here in Central Vancouver Island Region is the difficulty of employers finding and keeping employees who are able and willing to work . This applies not simply to positions requiring individuals who are highly education, highly skilled and extensive experience. It also applies to less skilled positions. There are a number of Immigration programs available both at the Federal and Provincial that may be applicable to your situation.

Some Common Problems:

_ The employer is not aware of the Immigration program(s) that may be applicable

_ The employer is unaware of what is really required in making an application in the Immigration program

_ The employer has neither the time nor resources for finding someone from another country suitable for the position

***************************************************************

May 15, 2008, 7:00pm

QUE CARDS:

Hello.

This is Lloyd MacIlquham broadcasting live from Nanaimo, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island.

This is the inaugural Lloyd-Live broadcast, the first I what I hope will be many on issues Important to our community.

The Topic for this evening is "How Businesses can benefit from Immigration"

Due to technical reasons of bandwidth and time

This will be a 2 part series:

Tonight The first part:

Tourism: "You Snooze _ You Lose"

and

Next Thursday (May 22 at 7:00pm)

Employment: "All the Right Stuff"

These two issues apply to any community in Canada but I have found that they are particularly important to Vancouver Island.

I am not going to give a lecture on Immigration nor solve your problems, if you have any. This is simply a very informal discussion of the issues involved.

First a bit about myself.

I am a Lawyer licensed in both British Columbia and Ontario

I have a Juris Doctor Degree in Law from the University of Toronto

I also have a Master’s Degree in Science (Mathematics)

I have taught High school computer science

I, of course, maintain a Website and have had one since 1994, which I design and encode.

My Website is

http://www.cicblog.com

I have been practising law in the area of Immigration for over 17 years now both in Toronto and here on Vancouver Island.

Immportance of Immigration Generally:

One of the things I have noticed over the years is that many people simply don’t realize just how beneficial Canada’s Immigration policies can be, especially for business.

We have all heard how If it weren’t for new immigrants our population would not be increasing and how they give a support through their taxers to our aging population. These are important and well known and deal with people coming to Canada on as permanent basis as Immigrants.

Finding Workers

What is not so well known is that Canada’s Immigration policies can also be very useful in finding people where companies are unable to find people here that are able and willing. This is a particular problem for Vancouver Island.

Visitors

Canada Immigration policies also deal with people coming to Canada to visit, including tourists. Our Immigration policies determine for which countries people are required to have visitor visa’s (now referred to as Temporary Resident Visa’s) and for which countries people can simply hop on a plane and go through Canada customs when they get off (or drive, of course).

This is important for countries with expanding economies that are quickly developing a middle class with disposable incomes - for example China and India.

However, these countries typically have Visa restrictions which can make coming to Canada a very long and difficult process often with little chance of success at the end.

Tourism as a Export

Having people come to Canada to spend their money is every bit as good as sending them exports. It has the added advantage that they come here and meet us, see how we live and are exposed to our values. This of course leads to an increase in understanding and a decrease in mistrust between peoples. It can help to solve some of our current international problems and, of course, promotes trade.

Benefits of Tourism

For example say a businessman from China comes to Vancouver Island for a holiday. One of the first things he will notice, in addition to our wonderful natural surroundings, is just how pollution free we are, compared to him. Do you think this will not have an impact on him when he returns and compares what he and his children are living in.

This may seem insignificant but that how mountains are moved - one little ‘insignificant bit’ at a time.

He will also go back with a much better understanding of who we are and what our values are.

They will also go back with a much better idea of what we have to offer. Next time he is considering importing something he may very well give Canada a higher place on his "due diligence" list.

Tourism Contributes to Solving GW, World Peace and Pocket Book

So, as we can see, Canada’s Immigration policies regarding who can come to Canada to visit has a direct and important impact not only on our pocket books, but also reducing Global Warming and, indeed, peace and harmony throughout the World.

Today I will focus on our pocket books and leave World Peace and Global Warming to another day.

This of course leads me to my first Topic:

"Tourism: ‘You Snooze _ You Lose’"

Vancouver Island is a great place to spend a vacation. It have many things to offer including great Summer weather, great out_doors experiences, great shore line and beaches, golf courses, and so on; and, of course no pollution. Canada’s Immigration policies can have a great effect on the number of people coming to Vancouver Island. This is particularly true for the emerging economies such as China, India and others which, for Canada, are untapped markets for tourism. With the Winter Olympics coming up this will likely have an even greater influence. This is a great opportunity for local businesses to join together take to make a common effort to attract these new markets and give them an alternative to talk about.

We are at the early stages of setting up an organization for this purpose, one we refer to as "Vancouver Island Ventures" association ( tag line: "VIVA Le Tourism"). If you are interested then contact me at: lloydlive@cicblog.com

Some Common Problems:

_ Competition from others areas of Canada that are "beating us to the start"

_ Tourists in China don’t know about Vancouver Island or what we have to offer

_ Inertia and the lack of will to seize the opportunity

China is a good example.

As we all know China’s economy is more than simply "an immerging" economy. It has emerged and will only get bigger. This has created an ever increasing middle class of people. Typically they are in middle to high level business and government positions, professionals, self made buinessmen and their spouses and children. This of course, is the "Nouveau Riche". In China typically they have one child but families are close knit and this child is given the opportunities.

There are a number of issues regarding tourism from China.

- Approved Destination Status, given to countries by the Chinese government that allows licensed travel agencies in China to advertize and organize tours.

In January 2005 China agreed to grant Canada Approved Destination Status, with the details to be worked out. They are still working on them.

Apparently negotiations with the Chinese government have bogged down since 2005.

- Canada Immigration which issues Visitor Visas to Chinese that allows them to enter the country

- Chinese do not view Canada as a tourist destination

- The US has just been granted Approved Destination Status with a basic agreement in place. This will likely add to Canada’s obscurity and decrease its attractiveness. Since, once they have visited The US why bother with Canada.

- Chinese have even less idea about what Vancouver Island has to offer

- Once Canada receives Approved Destination Status it is likely that the Big Tour companies will take over, effectively leaving the small businesses involved in tourism "out of the loop", so to speak.

This is important since:

When was the last time a big bus pulled up to a local fishing charter to allow a pile of tourists off to go fishing.

Or, for that matter when was the last time a big tour bus pulled up to a local bed and breakfast, or other small tourism establishment.

- Other cities and regions in Canada are much better known as tourist destinations ( vis.: Toronto, Vancouver, Niagara Falls)

- other cities and regions are actively preparing for when the flood-gates open that is when ADS is in operation.

The time is of the essence for doing something so that we don’t lose out

As the saying goes "You snooze - You lose"

To give you an idea of what is involved:

- In 2006, 28.8 million Chinese tourists travelled abroad,

- a 17% increase in this number is expected for 2007

- It is estimated that by the year 2020 there will be 100 million Chinese tourists travelling abroad.

- The vast majority of Visitor Visas issued by Canada Immigration are for business, student and family, not "tourist’

- only 139,000 visited Canada in 2006,

The reason given by the Canadian Immigration Officials, in my experience, generally is the risk that they won’t return to China.

The official reason is that the Visa Official is not satisfied that they have sufficient connection to China to motivate them to return.

- With ADS Australia saw its numbers of visitors from China increase from 93,000 in 1999 to 309,000 in 2006.

- In 2004 the European Union was granted Ads

- In 2006 France has reported a boom in tourist arrivals from China, to the tune of 820,000

- They estimate that the Chinese spend an average of $3,000 per day in Paris. Of course, we`re not Paris, but then who is?

- Surveys have indicated that ease of obtaining a Visitor Visa is the third most important factor for China, after clean environment and safety

and,

- 95% feel that ease of getting a Visitor Visa is important

We have the environment

We have the safety

That just leaves the ease of getting a Visa

So, ADS is not nothing.

One part of the solution is political.

Let our representatives know that it is time for action. This is on two fronts:

- finalizing the ADS

- solving the Visitor Visa issue.

These of course are related

The way things look now is that once we have ADS the Big Tourism companies will be licensed and be able to get Visitor Visa’s for their tours. Others won’t. This, of course, by itself will be enough to shut out the small business in Vancouver Island

Another part of the solution is, "Organization".

A single small company on Vancouver Island may not have the resources or wherewithal to tap into the China market, even of the people they are contacting can get Visitor Visa’s.

target sector

Also, the target sector is important. Whereas the big tour companies may target the "economy class" and base their profits on volume

The way to go as far as I am concerned is targeting the middle class of people who have recently arrived at the situation where they have disposable income and want to take holidays and do something different, exciting and which they can brag about when they return home.

There are a number of advantages in this Approach

- People in this target group are not likely to "go underground" once they arrive in Canada since, in my experience, they don’t want to live here anyway - they are far too successful and enjoy the good life in China to give it all up. In fact normally after being here for a couple of week they want to get back.

So, this should make it easier to get Visitor Visa’s

Their priority is to do interesting and exciting things that their friends haven’t done. Things they can remember and talk about until at least the next trip

Small businesses that provide such unique and individualized experiences to a small number at a time are very well positioned to tap into such a market.

This describes Vancouver Island to a "Vee"

Also, it may be difficult to get people to travel all that way and spend that much money to do one thing, e.g. go fishing.

On the other hand, it may not be so difficult if the tourists are going to do a number of unique and exciting things when they are here.

So, it just makes sense that instead of approaching this individually that the small businesses on Vancouver Island join together.

That`s the purpose of VIVA = "Vancouver Island Ventures" association".

Small businesses involved in tourism on The Island will be able to provide us with information on what they have to offer.

We will make this database available to tourism companies who will make up "designer packages" aimed at the middle to upper middle income earners with disposable income and whose only desire is to do something interesting and different on their vacation and be able to go home and brag about it.

We are starting with China, but this will work for India and any other country as well.

We are still at the developmental stages but with Approved Destination Status inevitable and with the Winter Olympics coming up we do not want to linger any longer.

As The saying goes "You snooze - You Lose"

Organizing has the added advantage of demonstrating to the various levels of government that the small businesses involved with tourism are serious about this issue.

In order for a project like this to work you need people who are familiar with China, dealing with Chinese and the tourism industry both in China and Canada.

As mentioned I have been practising Immigration law for over 17 year, during almost all of this time has included people from China.

Also, my wife is from China and taught at a tourism school there before she came to Canada.

She also has a diploma in Travel and Tourism from Seneca College in Toronto

India is in a very similar situation to China, with a quickly developing economy and middle class with disposable income. It is also very difficult to get Visitor Visas.

Anyone interested in participating in our organization may contact me at:

lloyd-live@cicblog.com

Next Thursday (May 22 at 7:00pm)

Employment: "All the Right Stuff"

Labels: Nanaimo Vancouver island tourism immigration visitors

21. Harper government ceasing CAIRS “Coordination of Access to Information Requests System"

Discussion on:
“Coordination of Access to Information Requests System" ( CAIRS )
and the Stephen Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights and Harper's latest anfractuous assault; the suggestion that Stephane Dion "fight the good fight"; a discussion of Jack Layton policy of 'vote lending' and suggesting he has put political self-interest ahead of the good of our great nation and recommending NDP lend Liberals their vote; and, an update on "Sun Tsu says fight" (Episode 20), "Holy 'Good Con, Bad Con'" (Episode 19), "Holy Obscuration and Obstruction," (Episode 18), "Holy 'Good Con, Bad Con'" (Episode 17) and "Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues" (Episode 16).

. . .

Previously (episode 18) Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;

and, the suggestion that Stephane Dion pick up the torch of ‘freedom of information’.

However, shocking information has just reached them regarding new, extreme measures implemented by Harper and the Conservatives to further curtain transparency in government and the free flow of information.

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .

Robin: Holy Revelations, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: What’s that, Robin, don’t tell me Harper and the Conservatives have taken more steps to limit our rights and freedoms.

Robin: That’s right, Batman - lucky guess. I can hardly believe what I am reading.

Batman: Educated guess. Read on MacDuff, ... err, Robin.

Robin: It appears Harper and his Conservative Government have “kill access to information database” (CBC, 2 May ‘08).

Batman: You mean the “Coordination of Access to Information Requests System" ( CAIRS ) - the data base containing almost all the access to information requests that have been submitted over the years and which is freely accessible to all, including researchers, media and the general public. Surely you can't be serious.

Robin: I am serious, Batman, . . . and don't call me Shirley.

Batman: What possible excuse can they give, Robin, for killing something that is so useful to so many people and is a basic tool to keep the government transparent and accountable.

Robin: Apparently it wasn't valued by government departments and the "valuable resources currently being used to maintain CAIRS would be better used in the collection and analysis of improved statistical reporting," (CBC article, above).

Batman: Certainly, Robin, maintaining the access to information database cannot be that costly, especially considering its usefulness and importance to an open and free democracy. If anything they should be putting it "on-line". To quote Mr. Justice LaForest of the Supreme Court of Canada (in the Dagg decision)

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation--is to facilitate democracy. . . . It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry."

Robin: Holy Regressive, Conservative Right Wing Ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct", Batman. What's really going on.

Batman: Who knows what is lurking in the hearts of Harper and the Conservatives, Robin. We should all ask ourselves: “is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours”;

Robin: Holy Enlightenment, Batman, didn’t Harper and the Con. Party run on clarity and transparency in the last election
Batman: That’s my recollection too, Robin, and Harper and the Con. Party’s style of government is becoming much more transparent and their Hidden Agenda much clearer.

Robin: What about Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party. Certainly they will champion the cause of freedom and democracy.

Batman: Based on his past actions we cannot simply assume he will pick up the banner and “fight the good fight” for our futures and for our children.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Apparently Dion is too pre-occupied with being elected. However, in delaying he may find himself in a hole too deep to dig himself out of. The strange thing is, that at the end of the day he may very well be elected despite himself. Since, how else can we extricate ourselves.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Harper and the Con. Party have a small minority and very small percentage of people voted for them in the last election. Presumably the voting was spread out amongst the four major parties because the Canadian voters didn’t mind giving Harper a chance and

see what they could do. With this and the many other actions that Harper has taken to dismantle our way of life, the Canadian people may see much clearer what Harper is all about and decide we cannot afford to remain so polarized in our voting. To so do, the Liberal Party is the only real choice.

Robin: But what about Layton

and the NDP. Surely Layton could recommend to the NDP supporters that they lend the Liberals their vote in the up-coming election. After all, he is a strong proponent of such policies ... or, at least he used to be. Wasn’t he the one who said “friends, Liberals, country persons, lend me your vote”

Batman: Something like that, Robin, although perhaps not quite so articulate. Evidently Layton is too pre-occupied with his dream of power thru supplanting the Liberal Party to join together in a common cause for the good of all of Canada. And of course, in so doing, may very well be the basis of another Harper victory.

Robin: Holy Ironies, Batman. But, Dion does not seem to be considered a strong leader.

Batman: Good leadership, Robin, in a modern, democratic, economically developed society is not one person imposing his/her will on all the rest. Good leadership refers to the whole and not one part.

The Liberal Party has many fine members, something in which the Con. Party evidently is seriously lacking. This is referred to in hockey as “Depth”. In fact, apparently, the Conservative Party’s Lack of depth is so bad that once in power Harper immediately put muzzles on all his Ministers which have remained to this day.

Many consider this to be a shrewd, if not somewhat Machiavellian, political move. This, of course, may be another reason for restricting the free flow of information regarding the Harper and the Con. government.
Robin: Great Ineptitude, Batman, you mean in addition to Harper and the Con. Party trying to keep

their extreme Right Wing Hidden Agenda, hidden they are trying to cover up their lack of talent.

Batman: It appears things are becoming much clearer for you too, Robin.

Robin: But, it may very well be too late to undo the damage done. What can we do, Batman.

Batman: I don’t know. Perhaps we will have no choice but to look elsewhere for a Champion. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 4 May, 2008-05-04

- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme

My comments, submitted 1 May ’08, to: Courier Islander (Campbell River)
Regarding:

“Tories making matters worse”
Courier-Islander (Campbell River)
Wed 30 Apr 2008
Page: A12
Section: Opinion
Byline: Paul Willcocks
Column: BC
Source: Courier-Islander

I was the Liberal candidate for Nanaimo-Cowichan in ’04 and I am not sure that I can agree with Paul Willcocks, when he writes “Here on Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo-Cowichan Conservatives complained they were made to pay for advertising that hurt their effort. The ads, directed at a national audience, attacked the Liberals. The local Conservatives' main opponent was New Democrat incumbent Jean Crowder. The attacks, by discouraging Liberal votes, might have helped Crowder to victory.” [emphasis added]. Although it is a bit ambiguous whether he is reporting what the local Conservatives are claiming or making a suggestion.

A review of the election results as found on Elections Canada Website show that for ’97, 2000, ’04 and ’06 the number of people voting Liberal is almost the same (10663, 10857, 9257 & 9352, respectively). These numbers are hardly supportive of such an assertion.

Below are two comments on the In-and-Out Election Finance Scheme I posted to my Web Blog on 29 Apr’08 & 25 Apr.’08

Lloyd MacIlquham

- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme - "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

I Submitted this to MacLean’s Magazine, 29 Apr.’08

Reply to: Local campaigns are largely a fiction anyway - For all the opposition hyperventilating, it's not clear the Tories did anything wrong, by Andrew Coyne, 23 Apr. '08; http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080423_16408_16408&id=8

"Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

It seems to me that “Democracy” is, by its very meaning, ‘grass roots’. Party politics is a form of “oligarchy“ but a necessary evil, in large part dues to finances. The intention in an election is that the locally elected candidate's duty and obligation is to represent each and every individual in their constituency, no matter which candidate they may have supported. In reality when they get to Ottawa they follow 'party lines ', where it is in the best interests of their constituency, or not. Party lines are determined by the leader, and a very few of his/her appointed advisors, the leader, of course, being elected by the party and not the people. The biggest fiction is when the Primed Minister or Ministers introduce a policy that is riddled with self interest, promoting their particular ideology and with a blatant disregard of the general good, and they say "it is the will of the people".

Surely, it is the above fantasy that ought to be addressed. The Canada Elections Act is a major tool to bring our way of government back to the people (more free votes, less confidence votes, would help, too). It is done, for one, through regulating campaign expenses.

The In-and-Out financing scheme appears to fly in the face of this and in so doing undermines the democratic underpinning of our political system. Can we say that this scheme lies within Parliament 's intention in bring into force the Canada Elections Act.

By s.407(1), Canada Elections Act, a cost incurred is a "campaign expense" if it is "used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period " [to paraphrase]. It may be that this allows a local campaign to buy advertising that supports the national campaign; but, no matter what, it must be done "directly". In other words, it is submitted that a local campaign may very well be prohibited from claiming something as an election expense when it is transferred to and spent by the national party campaign, whether the nation campaign uses it to purchase national advertising, local advertising or anything else. I fail to see how s.446(c) might come into play here to save the In-and-Out scheme since it is, it seems to me, referring to whether someone who has provided services or goods can sue the local candidate if there is nothing in writing. It is also referring to "expense in relation to a candidate’s electoral campaign" and not "campaign expenses", which as suggested above has that "directness" element.

And, of course, if the local campaign submits invoices addressed to their local campaign for these ads to support their claim to the 60% rebate from the Canadian government for election expenses, then, that is something that Elections Canada may very well be interested in.

If s.407(1) allows local campaigns to incur costs for the national campaign, and as far as I am concerned this is shortcoming of the Canada Elections Act – a piece of legislation that was apparently hurridly brought into law and in parts appears to be poorly drafted, then I have no problem with Elections Canada insisting on them doing it according to the law.

I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)

(it can be found on my website: http://www.cicblog.com/comments.html, "In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme "

. . . see below

20. Sun Tsu says fight, Robin

Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" as well as the IN-and-Out (In-Out) election finance scheme.

Now, they are discussing Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party not being founded on the “Rule of Law” and what can be done to thwart there actions.

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Hidden Agendas, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: What’s that, Robin, don’t tell me the Joker is running for mayor, again.

Robin: If only, Batman, this is something much more insidious.

Batman: More insidious that the Joker, Robin, what could that be.

Robin: It appears Harper and his Conservative Government has included fundamental and far reaching changes to the Immigration legislation in their Budget Implementation Bill.

Batman: That’s correct, Robin, but it goes much further than that.

These changes give the Minister of Immigration the power to pick and choose, at her own discretion, who will be allowed into Canada and who will be refused. This, of course, means, given the very tight control over his Ministers, that, in reality, it would be at the discretion of Stephen Harper, himself.

This new selection process would apply even where the people affected meet the requirements, whether they have already submitted their applications and no matter how long they have been waiting to have that application processed. This is achieved with the simple changing of one word in the legislation from

[to paraphrase] if they meet the requirements they "shall" be issued a visa to they "may" be issued a visa - "may" being at the discretion of the Minister.

Robin: Holy "Too Clever by Half", Batman, what`s that have to do with the Budget.

Batman: Once again, a very good question, Robin. Many people are asking themselves the same thing. It appears the only thing it has to do with the Budget is that Dion had indicated that he was not prepared to vote down the Budget and if Harper had introduced these changes to the Immigration legislation in a

separate piece of legislation, it would have achieved very little more than embarrassing him and his party.

Robin: Holy Despots, Batman, what is Harper and the Con.`s excuse this time.

Batman: It seems, Robin, Harper is trying to excuse it by saying that something must be done about the backlog, which they blame on the Liberals while in office.
Robin: Great Caesar`s Ghost, Batman, is Harper still harping on that. When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to stand up and be judged for what they are.

Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs, I did it again] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Extremists, Batman,

certainly there must be other, more moderate, ways to deal with the backlog than simply kick out people who qualify and have been waiting, or make them wait even longer. After all, what did they do to deserve such treatment, I mean other than trust that Canada would treat them fairly and with dignity and respect.

Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly might make the International Community of Nations shake their heads in shock and disbelief. This may very well be seen not to fall within Canada’s fine traditions of fair play and honourable behaviour.

Robin: Wouldn`t allotting sufficiently more money to processing the applications and changing how the applications are processed be the obvious answer, and one which many have suggested.

Batman: That does seem transparent, Robin, and allotting

sufficiently more funds to deal with the backlog has the added benefit of being something that might actually belong in the Budget.

Robin: Holy Simpliciter, Batman, so why doesn`t Harper do just that.

Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.

Robin: Holy duplicity, Batman, wasn't it Stephen Harper who promised increased transparency in government in the last election, Batman.

Batman: That’s my recollection as well, Robin, and now we are seeing what Harper and the Con.’s are really all about, and with greater clarity.

Robin: Holy “Banana Republics”, Batman, do we really want this kind of government. Batman: Not I, Robin. And,

perhaps all the fair minded people throughout Canada should ask themselves “ is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours ”, and so doing, join together in a common cause to put this proud nation of ours back on its true course.

After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and I think it may be not unreasonable to suggest that amongst those who voted against Harper in the last election very few would approve of these actions.

Robin: Holy Lack of Oversight, Batman, it seems that the proposed changes take our Immigration system, which has always so important to the vitality of our great nation, outside the "Rule of Law".

Batman: Yes, Robin, it specifically takes it outside the "Rule Of Law" in that even if applicants

meet the requirements of Immigration legislation they it is only that they "may" be issued a visa and not "shall", as the legislation now directs. In other words, the law no longer rules it is the Minister, herself.

Robin: But, Batman, doesn't that

put the Minister above the law - et tu, Harper.
Batman: "Ergo, Harper", is more appropriate, Robin, . . . I think. Effectively, yes, Robin, she will be able to pick and choose amongst those that apply at her own discretion and without having to abide by any laws, policies, or whatever. This is

despite how qualified they are and how long they have been waiting since they applied.
Robin: Surely Parliament won't support it and since Harper only has a small minority they would not likely pass it.
Batman:That, Robin, appears to be why Harper and the Con.'s have tacked it onto the Budget Implementation Bill.

Robin: This does appear more insidious than the Joker becoming mayor.

Batman: Yes, Robin. But it gets much worse than this.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: It appears Harper and the Conservatives are playing fast and loose with our laws in other areas as well.

Robin: Say it isn't true, Batman.
Batman: No Can Do, Robin. They have also buried into the same legislation changes to the film and video tax credit program that would apparently allow the government to cancel tax credits after it is made if deemed offensive to the public.

Robin: Holy “Insidious Implementation of Extremist, Conservative, Ideology”, Batman, it sounds like good, old censorship to me, Batman. Doesn't that also make investing in and producing films more uncertain.
Batman: Not if you conform to Harper and the Con's view of what should be censored, Robin.

Robin: Immigration and censorship, they're beyond belief, Batman. Given their stance on abortion, I'm surprised Harper and the Conservative Party haven’t tried to criminalize abortion in some anfractuous fashion.
Batman: Funny, or not so funny, you should say that, Robin. As a

matter of fact Harper is amending the Criminal Code (Bill C-484) which many consider a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion (Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists - see: Montreal Gazette, 16 Apr.’08). Whether you feel abortions should not be legal, the manner in which they are doing this should gives rise to concern.

Robin: Great ethical and moral struggles, Batman, you mean, the end doesn’t justify the means.
Batman: Precisely, Robin. If the will of the Canadian people is to recriminalize abortion then it should be done thru “informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all” and not “the back-door”.

Robin: But doesn’t our Charter of Rights declare that Canada is founded on the “Rule of Law”, Batman.

Batman: You’re absolutely right, Robin. But that doesn’t mean Harper and the Conservative Party are founded on the “Rule of Law”.

The Minister of Immigration has indicated that the Charter will not be violated. However, it is not at all clear, to me anyway, that the Charter applies to the people applying for immigration, where they are neither Canadian citizens, nor permanent resident, nor on Canadian soil. So, when s.15(1), Charter, states

that “every individual is equal before and under the law” and has the right to equal benefit without discrimination based race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, it is not at all clear that “every individual” applies to everyone in the world, no matter where they live and their status vis-a-vis Canada.

Robin: Holy "regression to the Dark Ages", Batman, it seems that Harper and the Conservative government could restrict Immigration from visible minority countries in favour of those from Western countries. And, Harper doesn’t even need to apply the "Opting Out Clause". Can they do this.

Batman: The question, Robin, is, “Can we stop them”. Also, with such extreme, discretionary power, it could prove very difficult to have the Minister's decisions overturned in Court.

Robin: But how can Harper and the Con.'s justify this and putting it into the Budget Implementation Bill,

thus avoiding "informed, open and transparent discussion".

Batman: I don't know, Robin. It is very difficult to see how granting the Minister of Immigration such sweeping, arbitrary powers has anything to do with the budget. It is much more readily explained as abusing the Parliamentary System to

implement legislation that allows Harper to gradually and thru stealth implement his extreme, right wing agenda regarding immigration, censorship and abortion and through an assault on the fundamental basis of the Charter of Rights, which, if I recall from the last election, has been a serious concern about a Harper government.

Robin: Haper and the Conservative Party have a minority government, quite small at that. What about the other Parties, surely there is something they can do.
Batman: Well, Robin, for one they could join together in a common cause to save this great nation of ours, and ask the Governor General to allow them to form the government.

Robin: Holly “Better Chance of Being Struck By Lightning Three Times”, Batman.

Batman: So it appears, Robin. They could introduce Private Members Bills to bring back accountability and the rule of law to Immigration, censorship, et al. Such Bills would

not be money Bills and so not automatically Confidence Votes. If Harper declares them as Confidence votes he would have a lot of ‘xplianin’ to do to the good people of Canada in the ensuing election.

Robin: Holy “Finally Showing Their True Colours”, Batman.

Certainly this is a good course to take, on the opposing Parties will pick up on.

Batman: We shall see, Robin.

Robin: But what about Stephane Dion , surely rallying the Liberal Party to fight Harper and the Conservatives on this would stop it in its tracks.

Batman: Stephane Dion strategy appears to be to "leave a marker" on these, and other issues, presumably to bring them up during the next election campaign.

Robin: But surely he knows that a tomb stone is a marker as well, Batman.

Batman: Hopefully, Robin, and the hole Dion finds himself in may be too deep to dig himself out of. Sometimes you just got to fight and "damn the torpedoes". There is an ancient Japanese Samurai saying (to paraphrase), if you are in a life or death struggle, choose death.

Robin: Certainly, you're

not suggesting that Dion choose to lose the next election, Batman.

Batman: No, Robin. The Samurai were mongst the fiercest warriors the world has ever seen. They did not fight to lose. By 'choosing death' the Samurai freed themself from the emotional drag of

concerns for their own personal safety and freed their spirit to fight. If Dion decides to fight Liberals throughout this fair land of ours may join the fray.

Robin: What about Sun Tzu’s saying that you should not engage the enemy unless you are assured of winning.

Batman: Sun Tsu was indeed a great military commander. However, I suggest that "Sun Tsu says fight", Robin. Dion has already been engaged by Harper and the Conservatives.

Dion does not have the luxury of making that choice. This is perhaps the fundamental error in his assessment.

Robin: Holy "Stand Up and be Counted", Batman, will the universe unfold as it should.

Batman: I don't know, Robin. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 April, 2008-04-28

- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme

I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)

It seems to me that first:

- "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).

- also, implementing an interpretation was Conrad Black’s undoing

- as you also suggested it may depend on how it was implemented

This interpretation does in my opinion, effectively, give the Conservatives a huge advantage:

In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.

The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be

directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.

That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)

Please refer to my Youtube posting:
“Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNu_BQvlPHA

Also, a quick review of the Canada Elections Act, it seems to me (and this is not a legal opinion and a more in depth analysis could result in a different conclusion) - I have set out the provisions I am referring to below:

If the meaning of “individual” includes “person”. Then, it is submitted, a candidate is an individual and so s.405.3. Of course, s.405.2 applies.

My understanding is that the funds to the Candidate were transfers and not contributions, and so not caught by 405(1). The same goes for the funds from the Candidate to the Party, and so not to be caught by s.405(1) or 405.3, above.

If they are transfers of funds then how can the candidate claim it as an election expense which, apparently, must be used to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate. It may be that the National campaign used the transferred funds to purchased ads, but can it be said that it was used by the candidate to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate.

If the candidate purchased the ads directly and not transferred the funds to the Party, it is possible the above does not apply.

Also, if it is not an election expense then can the candidate legally claim it and get the 60% rebated.

On the other hand, it if a candidate submitted an invoice for the ads that indicated it was a “direct“ campaign expenditure, Elections Canada may very well want to look at it more closely.

It seems to me that “directly“ is very important, as can be seen above, and seems to be left out of your analysis.

If what you suggest is true, then what is stopping individuals from contributing their limit to the candidate knowing that the funds will be transferred to the Party for spending on National advertising that is attributed to the candidate, with the candidate getting the 60% rebate. The individual might then also contribute their limit to the Party directly.

As with Ken Drydan, I would be very surprised if this was the intention of the Canada Elections Act and could lead to very unlevel playing field, throwing the results into serious question.

***********

"candidate" means a person whose nomination as a candidate at an election has been confirmed under subsection 71(1) and who, or whose official agent, has not complied with sections 451 to 463 and 471 to 475 in respect of that election.

404(2.1) A transfer of funds is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to an electoral district association of the party;

(b) from a registered association to the party with which it is affiliated or another registered association of the party;

(c) from a candidate endorsed by a registered party to the party or a registered association of the party; or

(d) from a candidate to himself or herself in his or her capacity as a nomination contestant in respect of the same election.

Exclusion for funds other than trust funds — registered parties and registered associations

(2.2) A transfer of funds, other than trust funds, is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to a candidate endorsed by the party; or

(b) from a registered association to a candidate endorsed by the party with which the association is affiliated.

405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;

(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;

(b) $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and

(c) $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

405.2 (1) No person or entity shall

(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or

(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose

. . .

405.3 No individual shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate or a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant that comes from money, property or the services of any person or entity that was provided to that individual for that purpose.

406. An electoral campaign expense of a candidate is an expense reasonably incurred as an incidence of the election, including

(a) an election expense;

(b) a personal expense; and

(c) any fees of the candidate’s auditor, and any costs incurred for a recount of votes cast in the candidate’s electoral district, that have not been reimbursed by the Receiver General.

Election expenses

407. (1) An election expense includes any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the non-monetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period.

Exclusions — certain fund-raising and nominations

(2) Expenses for a fund-raising activity and expenses to directly promote the nomination of a person as a candidate or as leader of a registered party, other than expenses referred to in paragraph (3)(a) that are related to such fund-raising and promotional activities, are not election expenses under subsection (1).
Inclusions

(3) An election expense referred to in subsection (1) includes a cost incurred for, or a non-monetary contribution in relation to,
(a) the production of advertising or promotional material and its distribution, broadcast or publication in any media or by any other means;

(b) the payment of remuneration and expenses to or on behalf of a person for their services as an official agent, registered agent or in any other capacity;

(c) securing a meeting space or the supply of light refreshments at meetings;

(d) any product or service provided by a government, a Crown corporation or any other public agency; and

(e) the conduct of election surveys or other surveys or research during an election period.

Definition of “cost incurred”

(4) In subsection (1), "cost incurred" means an expense that is incurred by a registered party or a candidate, whether it is paid or unpaid.

19. Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !

19. Holy " Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman ! -
Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights.
Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave, Batman and Robin are enjoying a leisurely breakfast, reading the local newspaper.

Robin: Holy revelations , Batman, what’s this I read about Elections Canada searching the Conservative party’s headquarters.
Batman: That’s right Robin, it is, apparently, regarding the Conservative Party’s spending policies during the last election on advertising, whether they nationally spent above their limit and whether certain local campaigns claimed campaign expenses for advertising in contravention of the Elections Act.
All this to the tune of over 1 million dollars.

Robin: That’s a lot of money, Batman, this sounds quite serious.
Batman: Your right, Robin, it is serious not simply because of the scale but also, as some of the opposition are pointing out,
given the closeness of the election, spending an extra million dollars on national advertising in a national campaign could, possibly, have had an impact on the outcome. Although they also point out that this could be hard to establish. However, Robin, we may have to wait until we see the results of the search.
What we can infer, however, is that Elections Canada, reputed by many around the world as an icon of integrity and stalwart upholder of democracy, is taking it very seriously.

Robin: Certainly in the case of something so fundamental to our way of life as electing the Prime Minister and ruling party,
it is not whether it can be proved to have had an impact, but whether there is more than a mere possibility it had an impact.

Batman: That’s right, Robin. "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).
In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.
The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be
directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.
That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an
advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)

Robin: Great Loop Holes, Batman, wasn't Conrad Black's undoing based on implementing an interpretation.
Batman: So say some, Robin, and sometimes it depends on how it is implemented as well. This may be part of the basis for Elections Canada’s very unusual and extreme actions.

Robin: Holy Banana Republics, Batman, surely the Conservatives have an explanation.
Batman: It seems their position is that what they did was a legal interpretation of the Elections Act and they have been up front about it all. They are apparently claiming the Liberal Party and other parties do the same thing. They also seem to be accusing Elections Canada of having a vendetta against Harper and the Conservative
Party; and, further, seem to be claiming that Elections Canada has a bias towards the Liberal Party since they didn't investigate them for the Sponsorship scandal.

Robin: Great Caesar`s ghost, Batman, are the Conservatives still Harping on that Batman.
Batman: It seems so, Robin. It must be kept in mind that being investigated does not in itself mean you are guilty. However, certainly with something so important as electing our Prime Minister, one might expect that the Conservative Party would welcome such investigation and do everything to avoid making such accusations which may give the
impression of trying to obscure and obstruct. This is especially if they are firm in their conviction that what they have done is within the law; and especially since Harper is the Prime Minister. Otherwise, are we any better than the so called "Banana Republics".
Robin: When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to cease their standard ploy of “obstructing and obscuring”, or as the G&M (2 Apr.’08, “From stridency to distractions”) has referred to it "a dizzying array of rhetorical devices", and stand up to be judged on their own actions.
Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.
Robin: Great Pink Slips, Batman, perhaps the Election Commissioner's days in office are numbered.

Batman: Perhaps, Robin, that may be well within Harper's capabilities. But, perhaps Harper and the Conservative party's days in office are numbered.
Robin: Holy Proof is in the Pudding, Batman, surely if the Conservatives are so sure about the correctness of their scheme, they can demonstrate it by using it again in the next election. In fact, maybe they could call an election themselves right now.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, but with the fixed election date it may be that that would be tantamount to acknowledging a lack of confidence by the Canadian people.
Robin: Holy Show Good Faith, Batman, what can they do to demonstrate to the Canadian people their bona fides and confidence in their position.
Batman: Well Robin, Harper could, for one, go in front of the good people of Canada right now and make an unequivocal and clear statement that he and the Conservative Party will employ the exact same scheme in the next election. Certainly not doing so could raise doubts about the firmness of their convictions. It may be that their
interpretation is allowed, after all, and if so, certainly such a statement now would show leadership.
Robin: Holy Back Peddling, Batman, didn’t Harper do just the opposite yesterday, when he said if the official interpretation of the law changes then the Tories will adapt. (CTV, 22 Apr.’08, “Harper says Tories
followed spending rules”).
Batman: Apparently, Robin. We can let the people of Canada decide how solid is Harper’s conviction that their position is correct. On the other hand, it seems, we have a number of top Conservatives applying all these dizzying defenses. Perhaps this is just another “obscure and obstruct” ploy.
After all, Harper's M.O. is tight control, its hard to see this not being a very closely coordinated media blitz.

Robin: Holy Good Con – Bad Con , Batman. Didn't we see this with Flaherty's media assault on Ontario.

Batman: Evidently, Robin.
Robin: Perhaps Dion could force an election. Surely, he might find that in an election people all across this fair land asking themselves, as apparently some already are,
“is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours”, and so doing, join together in a common cause. After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and now we are seeing what they are really all about with greater clarity.
Batman: You may have a point, Robin. Harper did run on clarity and things are becoming much clearer.

Robin: Holy Ground Swell, but Dion might not be considered a good leader.

Batman: Robin, the Liberal Party has many fine members
Good leadership in a modern, democratic, economically developed society is not one person imposing his/her will on all the rest. Good leadership refers to the whole and not one part. It may seem that Dion may become Prime Minister despite himself, but it is the Liberal Party that would lead our great nation.
Robin: It would seem that Harper has missed this entirely.

Batman: Or, perhaps, Harper is finding it lonely at the top.

Robin: But, what about the Liberal Party support for Dion.
Batman: Good question, Robin. Perhaps it is time for all Liberals to join together to support Dion. Perhaps that is the signal he is waiting for.

Robin: But how, Batman, can he be convinced of this.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, the Liberal Party could join together to assist Dion in retiring his debt from the leadership race. This might demonstrate to the people of Canada just what it means to be a Liberal and that they are a united, committed party very much capable to lead. It might also free him of a distracting concern.
Robin: What can we do about the damage to our country and way of life caused by Harper and the Conservatives being in power.

Batman: Sometimes it is not possible to undo all the damage done. Everyone should keep in mind that who runs this country does matter.
Dion has indicated he may very well undo some of the damage. But, I don't know if all of it can be undone. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-04-23

18. Holy Obscuration and Obstruction, Batman !

18. Holy Obscuration and Obstruction, Batman ! -
On the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;

and, the suggestion that Stephane Dion pick up the torch of ‘freedom of information’,
incorporating its entrenchment amongst our fundamental rights and freedoms as a central principle of the Liberal Party. And, an update on "Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues".

Meanwhile, back at the Batcave
Batman and Robin have become aware of an issue central to very foundations of our democracy as we know it. But first, . . .

Batman: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.
Robin: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.
Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Jim Flaherty, in explaining why the Harper government would not come to the aid of The Ford Motor Company in Windsor, is quoted as saying “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman, that’s outrageous. Surely Flaherty is speaking for himself. Ford Motors is one of the most successful companies the world has ever seen and, in fact, a leader in the modern industrial age.
Ford has certainly and will certainly make immeasurably greater contribution to our lives and economy than Flaherty & Harper ever have or will. How many hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, in Canada have derived their livelihood directly or indirectly from the Ford Motor Company.
Batman: I agree, Robin, and it seems others do as well. Canadian Auto Workers union president Buzz Hargrove is quoted as saying "This is a big slap in the face to the auto industry, but also to Ontario". "The message is, 'too bad, you hang on, on your own, or you're gone.' "
Robin: How can Harper take such a sink or swim attitude, especially since he was supported by such a small minority in the last election. Where are our traditions, our sense of history and pride in what Canadian have built up over the many years.
Batman: Well, Robin, the Conservative party has a very short history with very little tradition. After all, it is not the Progressive Conservative Party, which has a long and proud history, one that is very much identified with Canada as a nation.
However, to the Batcave, Robin, something has come to my attention that threatens the very foundation of our free and democratic society. Something that is very subtle and insidious, Robin, which without our continual vigilance and that of every Canadian could very well lead to the curtailment of our civil liberties and human rights.
Robin: Great Scott, Batman, don't tell me they're selling the Toronto Maple Leafs?

Batman: No, Robin, we don't have to fear that, yet, anyway.

Robin: Then, they're increasing the tax on beer. That's dastardly, Batman!
Batman: Beer and hockey, both great Canadian traditions, Robin, but, no.

Robin: what could it be, Batman?
Batman: Puzzle me this, Robin. What is as common as the daily news, as reclusive as a Kremlin, as important as any University or library and as useful as any tool ever made by man.

Robin: Not the Joker, again, Batman!
Batman: That's 'Riddler', Robin, and no.

Robin: I'm stuck, Batman, give me a hint.
Batman: What common thread do all these have. What is freely and opening displayed every day in the news that we wouldn't find in a repressive political regime, that is readily accessible from all our Universities and libraries and we use to our great benefit.
Robin: Holy pecuniosity, Batman, you don`t mean "money"?
Batman: Wrong again, Robin. "Pecuniosity", Robin? We're going to have to have a long talk.

Robin: I give up, Batman, what is it?

Batman: "Information", Robin.
Robin: Holy satori, Batman, I see! But, why the concern, certainly we live in an open society, where information is readily available, where civil liberties and human rights flourish and highly cherished.

Batman: Well, Robin, it appears our society is not as open as we would like to think.
Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: There have been recent reports that the Harper government is obstructing the dissemination of information regarding its activities, and obscuring the process for accessing it.
Robin: Holy general patterns, Batman, didn`t we see an "Obstruct and Obscure" strategy by Harper and his government last time when we were discussing his policies on Global Warming and our economy.

Batman: Recent reports in the news
("Government stymying efforts to obtain info, commissioner failing to help: critic", Alison Auld, The Canadian Press, 5 Jan.'08) indicate that the response time for Access To Information Requests has increased dramatically from 30 to 60 days a couple of years ago to 150 or even 250 days over the last several months.
Robin: Holy Incidiosity, Batman, its certainly not "shock and awe".

Batman: "Incidiosity" ... ah, never mind ... Apparently, this is due to Stephen Harper introducing so many layers of scrutiny.
Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and expert in access to information legislation is quoted as saying "The intent is to frustrate efforts ... and ultimately you're going to go away,".

Robin: But, Batman, perhaps that's an isolated case.
Batman: Oh, there's more, Robin, clearly showing a general trend. We all should be very concerned. The article goes on to state: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."
Robin: But, Batman, perhaps there have been such huge delays since before Harper took office?

Batman: Apparently not, Robin. The article further states that: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said
the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."

Also, the G&M, in October, published an article entitled "Conservatives tightening tap on flow of information, figures show" which stated:
"Figures obtained by The Globe and Mail reveal the government is slower to respond to requests filed under the Access to Information Act, and that more information is censored when documents are finally released."

When Mr.Savoier was asked whether it was worse today than it was he stated "Yes, absolutely".
He gave specific examples, e.g., the Afghan detainees scandal that we are so familiar with, no thanks to Harper, of course. The Press is complaining that the delays are long and often they documents are blacked out.
In an article from last October by Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press "Anatomy of an Access To Information release:
'talking points' blacked out", the exampled of the talking points of one of the ministers of the Harper government being heavily censored.

Robin: Holy paranoia, Batman, aren't the talking points notes drafted for a minister for public consumption.
Batman: Yes, Robin, that's my understanding, too.

Robin: Then, Batman, why would the Harper government want to censor them, and under what exception could they possibly fall to even make the censorship legal.

Batman: Good question, Robin.
Robin: But, how can Harper cause such delays, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, for one, it appears that now most access to information requests are reviewed by the Privy Council Office
(whose role is to "provides essential advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet" and their "goal is to help the Government of Canada serve Canada and Canadians") and multiple departments now must be consulted with.

Robin: Holy breach of trust, Batman,
didn't Harper make increased transparency a central policy in the last Federal election. How can this be called increased transparency?

Batman: Yes he did, Robin, as everyone can remember. It worse though, Robin.
Harper promised to amend the Access to Information Act to increase transparency, but has failed to so do. Also, Harper has severely curtailed access by the media as well as Reports such as the one submitted by his then newly appointed advisor to the Middle-East. Stephane Dion is demanding it, apparently questioning if it indeed exists.
Robin: Holy black eye on Democracy, Batman. Isn`t it true that the existence of liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy.
Batman: That`s certainly at the core of my beliefs, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t it protect all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Batman: I agree again, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights.

Batman: Once again your reasoning is impeccable, Robin.
Robin: And shouldn`t we be ensuring these rights by placing them on the same footing as civil and human rights.
Batman: That`s something that we should surely be doing, Robin, and with great haste.
Robin: Well, Batman, can we say that the limits imposed by Harper are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Batman: No, Robin, I can’t say any such thing. In fact it appears that the Harper government is going in the opposite direction.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Instead of enshrining the right to access to information
Harper seems to be obstructing our access to information and obscuring the information that is being released.

Robin: Holy regressive-conservative, right wing ideology, Batman, what can we do.
Batman: I don`t know, Robin.
Perhaps Stephane Dion will pick up the torch of freedom of information and incorporate it as a central principle of the Liberal Party. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-17

17. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman ! (Continued)

17. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman ! -
Continued ... Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Stephen Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation; as well as, similarities between Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty and their policies with Mike Harris, Preston Manning and the current Republican Regime in the United States as lead by G.W. Bush.. . .

Robin: Jeepers Batman, it seems Flaherty must have read our “Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues”.

Batman: It’s nice to think somebody is reading us, Robin, but why do you say that.

Robin: Well Batman, in a recent Toronto Star article (27 Dec.’07) Flaherty appears to be responding to some of our points regarding the impact of the Harper tax cuts on Canada as a nation.

Batman: Yes, Robin. But it is interesting that he makes no attempt

to distance himself from Mike Harris or Preston Manning. In fact it was those two who called for huge reductions in taxes along with huge reductions in government spending and downsizing in their report “Building Prosperity in a Canada Strong and Free”, released last November by the Fraser Institute.

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, just who is running our country, Batman.

Batman: That’s a very good question, one that will be hopefully answered soon enough, Robin. Both Harper and Flaherty will be given ample opportunity to explain themselves.

Robin: Holy predictions, Batman, are you suggesting an early election.

Batman: We shall see. But not matter what, Robin, the chickens will surely come home to roost. Robin: That’s great. Batman, but what about the way Harper and Flaherty are changing the very fabric of our society.

Batman: Harper and Flaherty he just doesn’t get it, or, perhaps, don't want to get it. Flaherty talks about the various sectors of our economy restructuring according to international market pressure without the help of the government.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, according to the article “in years past, Canadians used to look to Ottawa for help in challenging economic times, Flaherty said. But that era is over.”
Robin: Holy Cop-out, Batman, does that mean what I think: Harper and Flaherty are dismantling the Federal Government structure and

deliberately exposing all Canadians to the raw forces of international capitalism to sink or swim.

Batman: You are starting to see the realities, Robin. Harper and Flaherty’s rhetoric appears to be obstructing the clear effect of what ‘restructuring’ means on a personal level.

For example, the people in the sector being phased out lose their jobs. It may be that other people get jobs in the new sector so that overall the employment rate stays similar. But, this is a shift, a shift that favours some groups at the expense of others, the result of which is an increase in the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Robin: But, Batman, surely they could be retrained to fill these new jobs. And there must be other things that can be done.

Batman: Yes, Robin, but the whole point is that in the past Canadians from all parts of the country have joined together to

help in this type of situation, through various programs. But, for the Harper government “that era is over”.

Robin: But, with such a big surplus even Harper’s heart would soften, wouldn’t it Batman?

Batman: Unfortunately, Robin,

Harper may make token gestures here or there, but that is the point about extent of his tax cuts. As can be gleaned from what Flaherty himself is saying, Canada will simply not have the surplus in the future since it has been eliminated by the 200 billion in tax cuts. According to a recent G&M article (27 Dec.’07),

“Mr. Flaherty said he would ‘like to do more’ to reduce personal income taxes further, but said there is little room for substantial action, due to a slowing economy and the previous tax cuts.
Robin: But what about all the reports about employment increases and increased trade with other countries like China.

Batman: Elementary my dear, Robin … Erh… anyway … In order to see what is really going on we must look at these things in more detail, on a sector-by-sector, region-by-region, level.
Robin: I think I see, Batman. You mean that it could simply be that the rich are getting richer than the poor are getting poorer.

Batman: Something like that, Robin. It may be that exports of raw materials, coal, oil and gas, minerals, and the like, are increasing and at a greater rate than manufacturing is decreasing. In such a scenario the overall result could very well be that trade with other countries is increasing and the employment rate is increasing.

But, tell that to those in the manufacturing sector who are losing their jobs and the companies that are going out of business.

Robin: But, Batman, what about Harper’s predictions of a slowing economy?

Batman: ‘Obscure, Obstruct ’ seems to be a basic strategy for Harper and his government, Robin - their rhetoric obscuring the reality, their posturing obstructing resolution.

Robin: Holy abdication of responsibility, Batman.

Batman: This appears to be the case with the environmental issues as well.
Robin: Holy cataclysm, Batman, it’s one thing to lose a sector of the economy, but the environment is our future and that of our children. How can we allow its destruction in the future to simply to benefit one part of economy now.

Batman: That is a question we all must ask ourselves. But, it is worse than that, Robin. By dismantling the federal government and granting 200 billion in tax cuts, two very important means to combat global warming and help the sectors hit by it are seriously restrained.

We need a strong federal government with the resources to fight global warming. Our future and that of our children depend on it. If ever there was a time that all Canadians must band together under one banner and act for the good of all it is to fight Global Warming.

Robin: Holy Call-to-Arms, Batman, what can we if we all join together as one federation.

Batman: Secure our future, Robin. England has recently announced a major, nation wide project to create offshore wind farms that would generate enough power to light every home in the United Kingdom by 2020.

This is expected to result in very significant reductions in CO2 production.
Without a federal government to oversee such a project and the funds to finance it, Canada has no hope of anything of this nature.
Robin: If England is doing it, why don’t we. After all, Canada

has winds as well, Batman, just look at our great white north.

Batman: Well Robin, the calls for such projects appear to be falling on deaf ears. According to a recent article in the G&M (3 Jan.’08) the “vice-president of Nunavut's Qulliq Energy

Corporation, said Nunavut is also interested in alternative energy sources such as wind. However, he said, nothing is moving quickly, partly because of the lack of federal money for research and projects. “They don't seem to have any interest in any alternative-energy projects,” he said.

Robin: Maybe, Dion and the Liberals or even Elizabeth May and the Green Party will announce their intention to create a project similar to that in England, Batman. Maybe they will make it a central cause to unite all Canadians together in this, our most important endeavour.

Batman: Perhaps, Robin, I don’t know. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-08

16. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman !

16. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman ! -
Meanwhile back in the Batcave . . .

Batman and Robin are back from their extended vacation at the posh and very exclusive Fortress of Solitude Resort and are making ready for the new season of defending all that we hold dear in our fair country.

Robin can hear singing from the Bat cave “...If I had Two hundred billion dollars. . .”

Robin: Holy Barenaked Ladies, Batman, is that you singing?

Batman: Yes, Robin, I’m preparing a new problem to give to the Batcomputer.

Robin: Not the Joker again, Batman.

Batman: No, Robin. It’s the Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation.

Since forming the government it seems Harper, Flaherty and the Conservatives have announced tax cuts that over the next 5 years will add up to approximately $200 billion.

Robin: Holy crass politicking, Batman, it sounds like vote buying to me. But don’t all parties do that?

Batman: Perhaps, Robin, to some extent. However, when the tax cuts add up to so much, it suggests something more may be going on.

Robin: You mean the Harper Hidden Agenda.

Batman: Riddle me this, Robin

‘What well know conservative think tank issued a report late last year concluding that now is the ideal time to move forward on reducing spending, cutting taxes and eliminating provincial trade barriers. Robin: Holy premonitions, Batman, it sounds just like Harper’s speech from the throne and following mini-budget.

Batman: You may be on to something there, Robin, and that’s the point. The above quote is from Fraser Institute’s Report written by Mike Harris’ and Preston Manning’s and released late last year.

Robin: Holy déjà vu, Batmen, you don’t mean

Batman: Yes, Robin, it’s the same Mike Harris that as Premier of Ontario in the mid ’90 to late ‘90’s many consider ruthlessly slashed spending with such reckless abandon, reaping havoc in Ontario’s Educational System from which they are now just recovering and played an important role to the Walkerton tragedy.

Robin: Then Preston Manning must be the same Preston Manning who helped start and was leader of the Reform Party, considered by many to be on the extreme right wing of Canada’s political spectrum.

Batman: That’s right Robin, they are one and the same.

Robin: But, Batman, don’t these policies reflect American Republican values.

Batmen: Well, Robin, each one of us as Canadians must ask ourselves that question. But to illustrate one need only go to

American.com and read their article of 22 May’07,“Canada’s Problem:Domestic Trade Barriers”

Robin: 200 billion dollars over 5 years seems like a awful lot. Wouldn’t it be better to use a portion of that money to help Canadians.

Batman: Many would consider that an important part of true Canadian values, Robin.

Robin: After all, Batman, isn’t the primary purpose of the Canadian Federal Government to facilitate all Canadians in all parts of our fair lands to join together to help those that need help

and to protect those that need protecting. Especially groups of Canadians in any particular region, socio-economic situation, demographic, etc., for example, child poverty and development; the deteriorating infrastructure of all our cities; the manufacturing industry in Ontario and Quebec; and, of course, healthcare.

Batman: I think you are getting a clear understanding of the issue.
Evidently, Robin, the Harper Government and the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s, vision of Canada does not include these same values as is manifested by Mr. Flaherty’s recent comments to our Cities on the problem of deteriorating infrastructure.

Robin: But, Batman, wasn’t Jim Flaherty a Minister in Mike Harris’ cabinet when he was Premier of Ontario in the mid ‘90s’.

Batman: Very astute, Robin. In fact, Jim Flaherty was Minister of Finance near the end of Mr. Harris’ regime

Indeed, Robin, Mr. Flaherty actually “became identified as one of the most right-wing figures in the Harris administration” according to the Wikipedia entry.

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman! What were his comments, or dare I ask.

Batman: We must always dare to question, Robin, so as to guard our Canadian way of life.

Mr. Flaherty was quoted in a recent Globe and Mail article as saying: "What's not right is for municipalities or provinces to look to be bailed out on their responsibilities by another level of government."

Robin: Holy revelations, Batman, it is hard to believe one of Canada's leaders and a person we have vested the authority and responsibility could take such an opposite approach, and, in the same breath, try to suggest that the individual groups of Canadians seeking the help from all Canadians are somehow wrong for so doing;

Batman: Unfortunatedly it gets worse, Robin. Mr. Flaherty is quoted as further adding: "Canadians are tired of that. They expect each level of government to do its own work and to balance budgets and to act like responsible people who are elected and [not] … blame this government over there or that government over there”

Robin: But, Batman, how can he say that Canadians are tired of joining together to help a segment of our society that need help, especially since the Conservatives received on 36% of the vote and have a small minority.

Batman: Good question, Robin. I don't think even the BatComputer could solve that riddle. But we must try, Robin, we must try.

BatComputer:

But, I can-no do-er, Captain

Oh, sorry, wrong genre

Let me see, here. Ah, Yes!

Warning! Warning!
Danger! Danger!
This does not compute!
This does not Compute!

Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! Won’t this type of attitude change the whole fabric of our society and Canada as a nation.

Batman: That’s right, Robin, not only do we have the immediate effects like the bridges we use every day in our Cities collapsing. But,

Batman: The long term effects are much more serious, Robin.

Robin: Surely, Batman, we as Canadians can’t allow things like this to happen, can we?

Batman: No, Robin. The long term effects are to weaken the social fabric that holds Canada together as one great nation.

By dismantling Federalism we, in reality, are migrating towards a society based more on survival of the fittest and where the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens.

Robin: Holy Clone, Batman, that sounds just like the United States.

Batman: Many think that that is the case, Robin, at least for the current Republican regime lead by George W. Bush.

Robin: What can we do, Batman?

Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 10 December, 2007

2. Liberal Convention - Rallying Cry

He shoots ... He scores ... Ken Dryden did something tonight that he was never able to do during his illustrious hockey career.

That is, score, and in the dying seconds of his speech at that.

Just as his microphone was being cut off because the time for his speech was ending he came out with what could be the rallying cry of all Liberals in the next election and something that all Canadians might take to heart:

"I want my Canada Back"

But it was heard and, I am sure, is still, reverberating amongst all Liberals at the Convention and those watching.

Scott Brison also gave insight into the complexity of the issue of the environment and the degree to which the current government lacks understanding.

He pointed out the great potential we Canadians have to take the lead in the world in developing technology to be applied to the war against global warming and pollution and how this is, in reality, a boost for our economy and not a drag on it.

He was able to do all this by taking off from the Clinton [Campaign of 1996] now famous iteration:

"Its the Green economy, stupid"

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 21 November, 2006

Liberal Convention - Quebec as a Nation Motion

I hope Ignatieff, Rae, Kennedy, Dion, Brison, Volpe, Dryden, Hall-Findlay, and those voting at the convention consider it.

To me anyway, and I am sure a lot of other people, the Quebec as a nation motion is a very divisive issue.

My proposal...given: - the importance of this issue,
- the relatively few members of the Liberal Party that will be debating it at the Convention and they will not have been given instructions, nor bound to follow any such, from their respective

Riding and other Associations

- the apparent geographical diversity in opinion
- my firm belief in what I refer to as my Basic Philosophy (and what I believe to be at the heart of
Liberalism in Canada).

That is: to build a great nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
and, (my) Fundamental Approach:

Which is: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all Canadians it is proposed that: introduction of the resolution at the Convention be postponed so that the issue may be presented to all the members of the Liberal Party to be discussed in an informed, open, transparent fashion.

Thus, leading to a truly democratic principle upon which the Liberal Part may contribute to the building and strengthening of this great nation of ours and then to be voted on by the Membership on an individual basis by mail-in vote (or other such).

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 21 November, 2006

6. When is a Promise not a Promise -

Batman: Puzzle me this, Robin! When is a Promise not a Promise?

Robin: I don’t know Batman, a promise is a promise is a promise!

Batmen: Apparently not always, Robin, it seems a promise is not a promise when it is a “preference”!

Robin: Holy doubletalk Batmen, how could that be!

Batman: Well, Robin, it seems that on 26 January this year, at the Harar news conference The Right Hon. Steven Harper was asked by a reporter whether campaign promises were something that are somehow less important than promises made other times.

This was after the reporter had explained, amongst other things, that Mr. Harper had in the last election campaign promised to allow Saskatchewan to keep 100% of its revenues but was now willing to consider giving something less than 100%.

The Right Honourable Steven Harper responded by saying that these are important promises that he stands by. He then went on to say, after discussing health care wait times, that on the question of a new equalization formula, you know full well the government expressed its preferences in the campaign.

Robin: Holy flip flop, Batman, that tops even the Joker. Can he do that?

Batman: I hope not Robin. We’ve got to get our Canada back before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 27 Januray, 2007

8. When is it Fair to be Unfair?

Batman: To the Bat Cave Robin

Robin: What’s up, Batman. The Joker again?

Batman: No Robin, something much more insidious.

But first, we must solve the following riddle:
'When is it Fair to be Unfair?'

Robin: Holy down-is-up Batman! Unfair is unfair. How can it be fair?

Batman: I don't know, Robin. But we’ve got to try to sort this logic out.
On 30 January we were told by the Harper government why they broke their campaign promise not to tax Income Trusts.

Robin: Why Batman?

Batman: it seems, Robin,
because they think it's fair.

Robin: Holy breach-of-trust, Batman!
Isn’t it unfair to promise not to do something in order to get people to vote for you then after being elected break that promise.

Batman: I think you might be on to something, Robin.

Added to that, the Harper government’s broken promise resulted in the loss of up to 25 billions in investment dollars from Canadian companies.

Robin: I don’t understand how that’s fair.

Batman: Neither do I, Robin.

The Harper government says that not taxing the Income Trusts means that they may not be able to give Canadians the tax breaks they are planning in their upcoming budget. Their logic apparently is that these tax breaks will benefit the majority of Canadians and so it is fair to break their promise since it only hurts a minority of people, even though the damage is so great.

Robin: But Batman, they only received a bit more than one third of the votes, where is their moral authority.

Batman: I don’t know, Robin.
Let’s feed this information into the Bat Computer, Robin, and see what comes out.

Bat Computer:

. . . . . .

Warning!

Warning!

Danger!

Danger!

This does not

compute!

This does not

Compute!

Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! What can we do.

Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 31 Januray, 2007

10. Next Episode: When is it Fair to be Unfair?

Last time, in the Bat Cave . . .

Batman and Robin were trying to understand the logic in Stephen Harper breaking his campaign promise not to tax the Income Trusts.

It seems that Harper and the Conservatives think it is fair to break their promise since it only hurts a minority of people, even though the damage is so great, and it will free up money to allow them to give tax breaks that will benefit the majority.

Batman: We have some new clues Robin to the puzzle “When is it Fair to be Unfair?”

Robin: What are they, Batman?

Batman: Well Robin, we have seen that Harper is doing this to free up money to finance their tax breaks. So, Robin, lets look at these tax breaks and the upcoming budget.

Robin: The old “follow the money” principle, Batman.

Batman: That’s right, Robin. It seems obvious, but, sometimes the obvious approach is the best.7 February, a tax break to assist tobacco processors was unveiled by Harper and his Conservatives. It is not at all clear that this tax break will benefit any companies outside one of the Harper Conservative Cabinet Minister’s riding. It is thought that the Conservatives may be in danger of losing this riding in the next election.Apparently the Finance Minister’s office commented that “it’s an issue of tax fairness”.

Also, it seems that Harper’s next budget will be announced on 20 March, just 6 days before the Quebec election, 26 March.It also seems that Harper may be intending to give the Quebec Liberals a big boost in his upcoming budget. This could be to increase the Harper Conservatives’ profile in Quebec and increase the Conservatives' chances of gaining seats in Quebec in the next Federal election, which may possibly be within a few months later.

Robin: Holy enlightenment, Batman! Does that mean that Harper broke his promise not to tax Income Trusts which cost up to 25 billion in investment dollars from Canadian companies, to fund Conservative tax breaks designed to boost their chances in specific ridings that are expected to be tough fights in the next election?

Batman: There does seem to be a pattern here, Robin.

Robin: And Harper’s rational is that it is only fair since it will benefit the majority?

Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Apparently so.

Robin: How does Harper breaking his campaign promises benefit the majority. Harper and the Conservatives had only a little more than a third of the vote in the last election.

Batman: Well, Robin, maybe that is a clue as to their reasoning in saying that's its fair.
That is, maybe they think that since a majority voted against them, a majority do not want him to do what he promised and so he has a moral obligation to break his promises.

Robin: Holy twisted logic, Batman, surely Harper wouldn't think that way?

Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.

What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.To be continued

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 February, 2007

11. Strange uncharted political constellation

In the Bat Cave Batman and Robin consider a strategy where Dion and the Liberal Party announce right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that Dion will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals win

Robin: Did I hear right Batman, Elizabeth May, newly elected leader of the Green Party, is planning to run in Central Nova (Nova Scotia)?

Batman: Apparently so, Robin

Robin: But isn’t that Peter McKay’s riding?

Batman: Right Robin, and he is, of course, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Harper Conservative government

Robin: Holy apparitions, Batman. How can this be true.

Batman: Well Robin, we are in a strange uncharted constellation right now, politically speaking.

Robin: How so, Batman

Batman: Harper is saying that he doesn’t want an election, yet he and the Conservative party are doing everything one would expect if he were planning to call an election.

Robin: But why would Harper want an election right now, surely he would rather simply continue in power.

Batman: That’s right Robin, it would seem that the longer Harper stays in power the more he and his policies shift to the centre. Recently, he appears to be re-working centralist, pragmatic liberal policies and programs. This, it would appear, is a well thought out strategy.

Robin: What strategy is that, Batman?

Batman: It's what I refer to as the “If you can’t beat them, be them, until you can”. If you project this trend to a year from now the Conservative party may in reality be perceived as a centrist, liberal party and so more palatable to the general public. At that time they may very well be ripe for a majority.

Robin: But Batman, why all the preparations now?

Batman: Well Robin, any Hawk could answer that with ease – ‘deterrence’. The negative ad campaign launched against Dion can be considered a pre-emptive strike intended to weaken the enemy so as to reduce their appetite for war, I mean an election campaign. This and the recent convention could be a show of strength, i.e. they have the organization and they have funds to burn, so to speak.

These are pre-budget actions so as to convince the opposition not to vote it, and the government, down.

Take a centrist and pragmatic budget and policies that are allowed to run for a year and “Bob’s your uncle”.

There is even suggestions that Harper may be pressuring the opposition to support the bill calling for elections every four years.

Robin: So Batman, Harper says he doesn't want an election, but makes people think he does, so that in actuality he won't!

But, what about Dion and the Liberals?

Batman: Dion, also is saying he doesn’t want an election right now. However, it may be that in reality he does.

Robin: But, why Batman?

Batman: Well, Robin, if Harper and the Conservatives are assuming the central ground more and more and in reality want to wait a year, then, it would seem reasonable to counter this with an election right now. In other words, given a year, Harper may be able to turn things around for himself and the Conservatives on the environment and Afghanistan and his recent policies, if allowed to take root, might do just that.
Then there is always the possibility that with time Dion may fall out of favour with the electorate.

Robin: So, how does Elizabeth May come into play.

Batman: Well Robin the talk is that the Liberals and Green Party may get together.

Robin: But how will that help May beat McKay?

Batman: It probably won’t, but then it doesn’t have to!

Robin: Is this another riddle, Batman?

Batman: No, Robin, even if May loses, but the Liberals win, Dion could, simply, bring her and others in the Green Party into his cabinet.

Robin: Can he do that?

Batman: Well according to Harper, he can.
In fact, Dion may wish to consider a strategy where he announces right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that he will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals form the government.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 17 March, 2007

12.Part 2: Strange uncharted political constellation

Last time, in the Bat Cave Batman and Robin were discussing the strategy where Dion and the Liberal Party announce right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that Dion will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals win.

Robin: Well, Batman, it looks like you were right about the Harper budget being very centrist and pragmatic.

Batman: That’s right, Robin. There does not seem to be any overall principles at play there. It does not seem to be intended to strengthen Canada and all it stands for. It appears to have been craftily drafted to target very specific sectors of out society with benefits at the expense of others.

Robin: But why would he want to favour only certain groups in Canada at the expense of others
as opposed to promoting an over all plan for the future of all Canadians.

Batman: Well Robin, when you look at what sectors are benefited it would appear that the Budget was drafted with the intention of gaining votes so as to increase the number of seats in the next election in an attempt to gain majority.

Robin: Holy Machiavellianism, Batman. Isn’t that a pure power grasp at the expense of Canada’s social fabric and future.

Batman: You may have a point there Robin, it is liberal spending without the underlying liberal principles. In fact, Harper seems to have jettisoned all principles, including conservative.

Robin: Holy Déjà vu, Batman, haven't we see this kind of approach by Harper already, Batman, where Harper's broke promise not to tax Income Trusts resulted in a devaluation in the affected companies by up to $25 billion dollars.

Batman: A trend seems to be emerging, Robin.Now we have the broken promise regarding allowing the Provinces to keep 100% of their non- renewable resource revenues in the Equalization formula. It appears that the Premiers of 5 Provinces, including three Atlantic Provinces, are very upset.

Robin: But during his budget speech didn't the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, proclaim, “The long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the Provincial and Federal governments is over!”

Batman: Ironically so, Robin.It reminds me a lot of President Bush when he announced in May ’03 that the Iraqi war was over.

Robin: How so Batman?

Batman: It may be that it should have been over, but due to inept handling of the situation it only got worse.

Robin: so, you mean, instead of putting Canada on course for harmony between all the various and diverse regions of Canada, the Harper government has chose favouritism and distortions purely for personal political gain.

Batman: It seems so, Robin.

Robin: But, how does that affect Elizabeth May?

Batman: Well, Robin, it may very well give her efforts to defeat Peter Mackay and get elected in Nova Scotia a real boost. And so, Dion would not have to pull a “Harper” and appoint May to the Senate first before making her Minister of the Environment.

Robin: Holy, turn-arounds, Batman. Do you think May will win?

Batman: I don’t know, Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 17 March, 2007

13. Holy Witch Hunt, Batman !

Meanwhile back at the Bat Cave, Batman and Robin are having their morning coffee and reading the newspaper.

Robin: Batman, is it true what I’m reading, that the Harper government has just a announced that they are commencing an investigation of government opinion polling practices.

Batman: Well yes and no, Robin.

Robin: How so, ‘yes and no’, Batman?.

Batman: yes there is an investigation into government opinion polling practices, but no, it is not current practices but those from 4 to 17 years ago and by previous governments. Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, announced yesterday that he is appointing Daniel Paillé as an Independent Advisor to investigate government practices in using public opinion research from 1990 until 2003. The report should be presented after 6 months and he may recommend a judicial inquiry similar to the Gomery Commission.

Robin: Holy public expenditures Batman, why in the world would they decide to initiate such an action, aren’t there more important matters to look into.

Batman: Yes Robin, you would think so, but then it depends on what you mean by important and to whom.

Robin: Another Riddle Batman?

Batman: Yes Robin. Lets look at what we have. Fortier says the reason they are commencing this action is found in the Auditor General’s Report of Feb.’04. He is quoted as saying at the press conference of 11 April, “Questions have been raised about how the previous government used this research tool”. So, he has initiated this action to ensure “that public opinion research practices are open, transparent, and fair, as well as provide value for Canadian taxpayers”.

Robin: But Batman, how can investigating activities that occurred so long ago and under a different governments ensure open, transparent and fair practices ‘are’, as in now, being employed, under their own government rule. Don’t they simply have to ask themselves what they, themselves, are doing.

Batman: Yes Robin. It would appear that if you take the Harper government’s statements at their face value they do not seem to add up. Further, Robin, to add to this puzzle the person they appointed as the “independent adviser” was a former Minister in the PQ cabinet during the 1995 Quebec referendum, which is right in the middle of the time period covered by the investigation.

Robin: Holy conflict of interest, Batman. Why would Harper choose someone with such a background. Isn’t there anyone else in Canada qualified to do the job.

Batman: This great nation of ours has many good and fair people qualified to conduct such an investigation. This includes the Auditor-General, Shiela Fraser, herself, who actually did conduct an investigation and concluded in her Feb.’04 Report that “Based on our review of a sample of transactions and management practices, we found that the government managed its public opinion research activities adequately."Of course, Robin, it is not a question that Daniel Paillé is biassed. It is a question of his being perceived bias, especially when he, himself, refuses to state whether he still supports Quebec separation.

Robin: But Batman, how is this action by the Harper government transparent? And, how can the Canadian people consider it fair?

Batman: I don’t know Robin, I just know it gets even worse. The Minister under whose portfolio this investigation is being conducted, Michael Fortier, is not even elected but was appointed to the Senate by Harper. What’s more he does not seem to have any ambition to try to get himself elected.

Robin: Holy lack of Accountability, Batman. So, Harper, under the pretext of ensuring accountability in the government now, has initiated this action to investigate activities from 4 to 14 years ago, by the previous Liberal government, by hiring a minister in the former PQ cabinet that conducted the ’95 referendum for which the same Liberal government was instrumental in defeating to present a report in 6 months with the possibility of a judicial review to follow.

Batman: Yes Robin, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.

Robin: But why Batman, what possible good could it achieve.

Batman: political advantage for Harper and the Conservative Party. It seems, Robin, that much of the political gains in the last election by the Conservative Party in Quebec was due to the Sponsorship Scandal and now even every time it makes headlines Liberal support in Quebec decreases and Conservative support increases. Harper may very well be planning to call the next election to coincide with the report or possibly once a judicial inquiry has had time to make headlines.

If on the other hand nothing comes out of it, he simply lets is slide and searches for the next possibility.

Robin: Holy Witch Hunt, Batman. So, if he doesn’t dig up any dirt here he will hunt for something else It appears Harper is converting the executive branch of the government towards his own political dirty work. What can we do, Batman?

Batman: I don’t know Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 12 April, 2007

14. Holy Hypocrisy, Batman!

I has come to Robin's attention that Harper and Layton are criticizing Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May on their recently announced agreement to co-operate in their efforts to defeat Harper and promote the environment.

Robin: It seems that Stephane Dion might be following your suggestion to make Elizabeth May Minister of Environment if the Liberal win the election

Batman: Well, not quite Robin. He and May jointly announced that their parties will not be fielding candidates in the other leader’s riding.This is quite different than what we discussed previously.

Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: Well Robin, what Dion is doing goes to the fundamental structure of the Liberal Party.It also seems to run contrary to the “308-riding strategy” expounded last December by Gerard Kennedy, Dion's adviser on election preparations. Not fielding a candidate exposes the Liberals to the accusations of not being “National” and dis-enfranchising voters.

Robin: And that is what is happening.

Batman: Yes Robin, but you must keep in mind that no matter what Dion and the Liberals do the NDP and Harper will criticize. So, we must discount their comments if we want to get to the truth of the matter. One thing we can infer, though, from their reactions is that the longer and louder they cry the more they feel it hurts their chances for power.

Robin: Holy Hypocrisy, Batman, you mean Harper and the NDP are really criticizing because they feel Dion’s move will hurt them at the polls? How might it do that?

Batman: Well not running a candidate will likely increase the seriousness of Elizabeth May’s challenge to Peter MacKayin Central Nova, to the extent even of displacing the NDP.

Also, the Green Party and the Liberals being able to work together in the common purpose of protecting the environment and defeating Harper threatens to unite the centre and left and squeezing out Jack Layton and the NDP.

Robin: But, this is only one riding. How can that make a difference?

Batman: Well, Robin, it make be a case of leading by example. This may be a signal to the grass roots of each Party to co-operate. They then leave it to the individual party members.

Robin: But, isn’t it necessary to unite the centre and left in order to ensure that Harper doesn’t form a majority.

Batman: Once again, Robin, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.

Robin: Then, why doesn’t Jack Layton join in with the Liberals and Green Party.

Batman: Good question, Robin. In the last election it seemed Layton had visions of himself equalling or bettering Broadbent’s achievements, squeezing the Liberals out and even forming the Official Opposition.This, of course, didn’t happen and for good reason, not the least of which may be Jack Layton himself. It would appear that Layton is not yet ready to concede this dream, in other words his quest for power and influence. Also, Layton seems to think that he and the NDP benefit from a minority government in that it gives him and the party increased stature.This is, of course, despite its inhibiting effect on good government and allowing Harper to rule.

Robin: You mean, Batman, Layton does not join in with the Liberal and the Green because of sheer desire for power and influence, even if it means that Harper and the Conservatives run the country.

Batman: That would appear to be so, Robin. And the situation may not change until leadership in the NDP changes.

Robin: Holy the Pot-Calling-the Kettle-Black, Batman, isn’t the NDP accusing the Liberals of power mongering.

Batman: Apparently, Robin, this is an example of a basic principle that they, and Harper as well, seem to be applying, that is ‘project your own shortcomings onto your enemy’.

Robin: Well Batman, that sheds light on Layton and the NDP. But, what about Harper and the Conservatives?

Batman: Well, Robin, Peter MacKay, is Harper’s general in the Atlantic Provinces and he will be campaigning in all these ridings and so not as much his own. On the other hand, if he were to lose the riding it would be a huge defeat for Harper and the symbolism would not be lost on Canadians. So, MacKay is forced to spend more energy and time in his own riding disrupting the Conservative campaign in the Atlantic Provinces.

Robin: But does Elizabeth May really have a chance even with this agreement between her and Dion.

Batman: Good question Robin, it can’t be said that this agreement will definitely 'put it over the top' for May.

Robin: Then why do it, Batman, especially with the kind of backlash that they should have foreseen.

Batman: Well Robin, if this agreement represents the full extent of their efforts to unite the centre and left, then it may be a failure Robin, and for the reason you suggest.

Robin: Holy left-in-the-dark, Batman, what could this all mean?

Batman: Another basic principle in politics when you are deciding on a controversial courses of action is to “run it up the flag pole and see how it flies”.
Apparently Dion did not do this. Given the impact on the Liberal Party, itself, if this were the extent of their plans, this really should have been done. However, it may be that this agreement itself was announced to see what the reaction would be in order to gage further, more extensive, actions in co- operation between the Parties.

Robin: You mean, like Dion announcing that he will ask Elizabeth May to be Minister of Environment if the Liberals win.

Batman: Possibly, Robin, but given the nature of the agreement, it may be that there is something else afoot.

Robin: Just one more thing, if there won’t be an election for a year or so, why make this announcement now. Couldn’t they simply hold off on a nomination meeting in Central Nova, let rumours start to rise about such a deal and thus applying your flag-pole principle.

Batman: Well, Robin, if Dion foresees an election in the very near future, then there would be no time for this.

Robin: Well that goes back to our previous discussion that it is better for Dion to have the election in now rather than a year from now, which would likely benefit Harper. Does the agreement between Dion and May mean that the Liberals are going to press for an election now.

Batman: I don’t know, Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 16 April, 2007

15. Holy Bizzaro World, Batman! -

Meanwhile, back in the Bat Cave . . .

Robin and Batman discuss the possible decline and fall of the Harper empire based on recent events regarding Harper's handling of the Afghanistan issues as well as the Environmental issue.

Robin: Holy allergies, Batman! are my eyes deceiving me, or does Steven Harper look tired.

Batman: It is allergy season, Robin, but I am not so sure that its pollen that’s got to him.

Robin: Another riddle Batman?

Batman: Well, Robin, it may be that we’re seeing a crack in the dam so to speak.

Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: Apparently Harper right from the start of his term as Prime Minister has insisted on doing everything himself and not leaving anything to his Ministers or others.

Robin: But he is the leader, Batman.

Batman: That’s right Robin, but today’s societies, especially in developed, economy based, societies, are very complex. The issues are complex and the solutions even more so. Quite simply, one man cannot run an economy and society the size of Canada’s.

Robin: But why do you say there are cracks in the dam?

Batman: Well, Robin, it seems that he has made a number of mistakes, lately, some which may prove quite serious down the road.

Robin: So, you mean, Batman, the dam could burst!

Batman: That’s the possibility, Robin. Recently the Minister of Defence announced the purchase of 100 tanks that the Dutch government had mothballed. He touted that Canada needed them now for the Afghanistan war and would be able to use them for the next 10 to 15 years.

Robin: But, Batman, Canada’s present tank situation is in great disrepair.

Batman: Well, Robin, so is Canada’s intercontinental ballistic missile program.

Robin: But, we don’t have one and as a society we don’t want one. Further, it doesn’t make sense in the post Cold War environment.

Batman: That’s the point, Robin. These tanks could only be used in all-out-ground combat i.e. war. In 2003 Gen. Hillier was apparently quite happy to get rid of the tanks in favour of a single wheeled-vehicle platform since tanks had little utility in post Cold War operations. Use of tanks represents a serious escalation in fighting in Afghanistan.Also, our mission in Afghanistan was extended by Harper until 2009, if Canada’s needs tanks in Afghanistan, then it would make sense to make some kind of arrangement until then, for example, leasing them for two years.

Robin: But, isn’t that what Canada is doing for 20 tanks from Germany?

Batman: That’s right Robin, and the question is why couldn’t they do that to fill all their requirements.

Robin: But, how is that a blunder by Harper

Batman: Well, Robin, the Liberal party will probably raise Afghanistan as a key issue in the upcoming election.Buying tanks for use in Afghanistan and for the next 10 to 15 years raises the implication that the Harper government is looking to extend the war there past 2009. In fact they voted against the recent bill brought forward by the Liberals to end the mission by 2009.

Robin: But so did the NDP

Batman: Yes, Robin, but as we have discussed before, that may just be Layton trying to maintain what power and influence he has and so we should probably discount that.

Robin: Thanks for the insight, Batman. Please continue.

Batman: If the election were in the near future, Afghanistan would be a big problem for Harper. However, if the election were in a year or more, so in mid to late 2008, Harper would simply have to sit tight since any criticism could be answered by pointing out that the mission was only extended to 2009.By the Minister of Defence making the announcement about tanks and their use for the next 10 to 15 years, it will be very difficult for Harper to take this position.

Robin: Holy, losing your grip, Batman.

Batman: Of course, the current situation with respect to Canada upholding its Geneva Convention obligations is a prime example of things getting out of control for Harper and he now has two of his Minister’s in on it, with all three making statements that don’t seem to fit in with what the others are saying. It may be that he should have lefteverything to the Minister of Defence with clear instructions for others to keep out.

Robin: But, Batman, the Minister of Defence was being pounded. Shouldn’t other Ministers come to his defence.

Batman: Not when it confuses and obscures the real issues, Robin. The Canadian people have a rightto know and the Harper government has an obligation to tell them, and in a clear and timely fashion.

Robin: Holy lack of Clarity, Batman!

Batman: Harper appears to be losing his grip with respect to the issue of the environment as well.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Harper introduced the Clear Air Act which received a very negative re-action. He then invited the other parties to make amendments, which they did. It would seem that if Harper re- introduced the amended Clean Air Act it would very likely passed into legislation.Then, if the election were a year from now or so, when the current dust has settled, he might very well respond to criticism on the environmental issues by saying that he was the one that brought all parties together on this, the most important and non partisan of issues facing us, not only as a nation, but all humanity.

This is what the Canadian people expect of their leader and this is how a minority government ought to work. However, now, it appears, that Harper will not bring this bill as amended forward and so let it die.
The Minister of Environment, just yesterday introduced new regulations under the existing legislation regarding pollution and global warming.

Robin: But, Batman, didn’t Harper reject Stephane Dion’s argument that the existing legislation is sufficient to deal with these issues, when he introduced his ill-fated Clear Air Act.

Batman: Apparently, so, Robin.

Robin: And, Batman, now they are using the existing legislation to make regulations to give the impression that they are “tough” on pollution and try to justify not re-introducing the new version of his Clean Air Act, which he himself, invited the other parties to amend.

Batman: Once again you seem to have a clear assessment of the situation.

Robin: Holy Bazzaro World, Batman, what is going on?

Batman: Maybe Harper is trying to convince everyone that the Conservatives, in reality, have a chaotic agenda and not a hidden agenda.

We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 27 April, 2007

16. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman !

Meanwhile back in the Batcave . . .

Batman and Robin are back from their extended vacation at the posh and very exclusive Fortress of Solitude Resort and are making ready for the new season of defending all that we hold dear in our fair country.

Robin can hear singing from the Bat cave “...If I had Two hundred billion dollars. . .”

Robin: Holy Barenaked Ladies, Batman, is that you singing?

Batman: Yes, Robin, I’m preparing a new problem to give to the Batcomputer.

Robin: Not the Joker again, Batman.

Batman: No, Robin. It’s the Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation.

Since forming the government it seems Harper, Flaherty and the Conservatives have announced tax cuts that over the next 5 years will add up to approximately $200 billion.

Robin: Holy crass politicking, Batman, it sounds like vote buying to me. But don’t all parties do that?

Batman: Perhaps, Robin, to some extent. However, when the tax cuts add up to so much, it suggests something more may be going on.

Robin: You mean the Harper Hidden Agenda.

Batman: Riddle me this, Robin

‘What well know conservative think tank issued a report late last year concluding that now is the ideal time to move forward on reducing spending, cutting taxes and eliminating provincial trade barriers.

Robin: Holy premonitions, Batman, it sounds just like Harper’s speech from the throne and following mini-budget.

Batman: You may be on to something there, Robin, and that’s the point. The above quote is from Fraser Institute’s Report written by Mike Harris’ and Preston Manning’s and released late last year.

Robin: Holy déjà vu, Batmen, you don’t mean

Batman: Yes, Robin, it’s the same Mike Harris that as Premier of Ontario in the mid ’90 to late ‘90’s many consider ruthlessly slashed spending with such reckless abandon, reaping havoc in Ontario’s Educational System from which they are now just recovering and played an important role to the Walkerton tragedy.

Robin: Then Preston Manning must be the same Preston Manning who helped start and was leader of the Reform Party, considered by many to be on the extreme right wing of Canada’s political spectrum.

Batman: That’s right Robin, they are one and the same.

Robin: But, Batman, don’t these policies reflect American Republican values.

Batman: Well, Robin, each one of us as Canadians must ask ourselves that question. But to illustrate one need only go to

American.com and read their article of 22 May’07,“Canada’s Problem:Domestic Trade Barriers”

Robin: 200 billion dollars over 5 years seems like a awful lot. Wouldn’t it be better to use a portion of that money to help Canadians.

Batman: Many would consider that an important part of true Canadian values, Robin.

Robin: After all, Batman, isn’t the primary purpose of the Canadian Federal Government to facilitate all Canadians in all parts of our fair lands to join together to help those that need help

and to protect those that need protecting. Especially groups of Canadians in any particular region, socio-economic situation, demographic, etc., for example, child poverty and development; the deteriorating infrastructure of all our cities; the manufacturing industry in Ontario and Quebec; and, of course, healthcare.

Batman: I think you are getting a clear understanding of the issue.
Evidently, Robin, the Harper Government and the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s, vision of Canada does not include these same values as is manifested by Mr. Flaherty’s recent comments to our Cities on the problem of deteriorating infrastructure.

Robin: But, Batman, wasn’t Jim Flaherty a Minister in Mike Harris’ cabinet when he was Premier of Ontario in the mid ‘90s’.

Batman: Very astute, Robin. In fact, Jim Flaherty was Minister of Finance near the end of Mr. Harris’ regime

Indeed, Robin, Mr. Flaherty actually “became identified as one of the most right-wing figures in the Harris administration” according to the Wikipedia entry.

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman! What were his comments, or dare I ask.

Batman: We must always dare to question, Robin, so as to guard our Canadian way of life.

Mr. Flaherty was quoted in a recent Globe and Mail article as saying: "What's not right is for municipalities or provinces to look to be bailed out on their responsibilities by another level of government."

Robin: Holy revelations, Batman, it is hard to believe one of Canada's leaders and a person we have vested the authority and responsibility could take such an opposite approach, and, in the same breath, try to suggest that the individual groups of Canadians seeking the help from all Canadians are somehow wrong for so doing;

Batman: Unfortunatedly it gets worse, Robin. Mr. Flaherty is quoted as further adding: "Canadians are tired of that. They expect each level of government to do its own work and to balance budgets and to act like responsible people who are elected and [not] … blame this government over there or that government over there”

Robin: But, Batman, how can he say that Canadians are tired of joining together to help a segment of our society that need help, especially since the Conservatives received on 36% of the vote and have a small minority.

Batman: Good question, Robin. I don't think even the BatComputer could solve that riddle. But we must try, Robin, we must try.

BatComputer: But, I can-no do-er, Captain

Oh, sorry, wrong genre

Let me see, here. Ah, Yes!

. . .

. . .

Warning! Warning!

Danger! Danger!

This does not compute!

This does not Compute!:
. . .

. . .

Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! Won’t this type of attitude change the whole fabric of our society and Canada as a nation.

Batman: That’s right, Robin, not only do we have the immediate effects like the bridges we use every day in our Cities collapsing. But,

Batman: The long term effects are much more serious, Robin.

Robin: Surely, Batman, we as Canadians can’t allow things like this to happen, can we?

Batman: No, Robin. The long term effects are to weaken the social fabric that holds Canada together as one great nation.

By dismantling Federalism we, in reality, are migrating towards a society based more on survival of the fittest and where the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens.

Robin: Holy Clone, Batman, that sounds just like the United States.

Batman: Many think that that is the case, Robin, at least for the current Republican regime lead by George W. Bush.

Robin: What can we do, Batman?

Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 10 December, 2007

17. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman !

Continued ... Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Stephen Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation; as well as, similarities between Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty and their policies with Mike Harris, Preston Manning and the current Republican Regime in the United States as lead by G.W. Bush.. . .

Robin: Jeepers Batman, it seems Flaherty must have read our “Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues”.

Batman: It’s nice to think somebody is reading us, Robin, but why do you say that.

Robin: Well Batman, in a recent Toronto Star article (27 Dec.’07) Flaherty appears to be responding to some of our points regarding the impact of the Harper tax cuts on Canada as a nation.

Batman: Yes, Robin. But it is interesting that he makes no attempt to distance himself from Mike Harris or Preston Manning. In fact it was those two who called for huge reductions in taxes along with huge reductions in government spending and downsizing in their report “Building Prosperity in a Canada Strong and Free”, released last November by the Fraser Institute.

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, just who is running our country, Batman.

Batman: That’s a very good question, one that will be hopefully answered soon enough, Robin. Both Harper and Flaherty will be given ample opportunity to explain themselves.
Robin: Holy predictions, Batman, are you suggesting an early election.

Batman: We shall see. But not matter what, Robin, the chickens will surely come home to roost.

Robin: That’s great. Batman, but what about the way Harper and Flaherty are changing the very fabric of our society.

Batman: Harper and Flaherty he just doesn’t get it, or, perhaps, don't want to get it. Flaherty talks about the various sectors of our economy restructuring according to international market pressure without the help of the government.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, according to the article “in years past, Canadians used to look to Ottawa for help in challenging economic times, Flaherty said. But that era is over.”

Robin: Holy Cop-out, Batman, does that mean what I think: Harper and Flaherty are dismantling the Federal Government structure and deliberately exposing all Canadians to the raw forces of international capitalism to sink or swim.

Batman: You are starting to see the realities, Robin. Harper and Flaherty’s rhetoric appears to be obstructing the clear effect of what ‘restructuring’ means on a personal level. For example, the people in the sector being phased out lose their jobs. It may be that other people get jobs in the new sector so that overall the employment rate stays similar. But, this is a shift, a shift that favours some groups at the expense of others, the result of which is an increase in the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Robin: But, Batman, surely they could be retrained to fill these new jobs. And there must be other things that can be done.

Batman: Yes, Robin, but the whole point is that in the past Canadians from all parts of the country have joined together tohelp in this type of situation, through various programs. But, for the Harper government “that era is over”.

Robin: But, with such a big surplus even Harper’s heart would soften, wouldn’t it Batman?

Batman: Unfortunately, Robin, Harper may make token gestures here or there, but that is the point about extent of his tax cuts. As can be gleaned from what Flaherty himself is saying, Canada will simply not have the surplus in the future since it has been eliminated by the 200 billion in tax cuts. According to a recent G&M article (27 Dec.’07),“Mr. Flaherty said he would ‘like to do more’ to reduce personal income taxes further, but said there is little room for substantial action, due to a slowing economy and the previous tax cuts.

Robin: But what about all the reports about employment increases and increased trade with other countries like China.

Batman: Elementary my dear, Robin … Erh… anyway … In order to see what is really going on we must look at these things in more detail, on a sector-by-sector, region-by-region, level.

Robin: I think I see, Batman. You mean that it could simply be that the rich are getting richer than the poor are getting poorer.

Batman: Something like that, Robin. It may be that exports of raw materials, coal, oil and gas, minerals, and the like, are increasing and at a greater rate than manufacturing is decreasing. In such a scenario the overall result could very well be that trade with other countries is increasing and the employment rate is increasing. But, tell that to those in the manufacturing sector who are losing their jobs and the companies that are going out of business.

Robin: But, Batman, what about Harper’s predictions of a slowing economy?

Batman: ‘Obscure, Obstruct ’ seems to be a basic strategy for Harper and his government, Robin - their rhetoric obscuring the reality, their posturing obstructing resolution.

Robin: Holy abdication of responsibility, Batman.

Batman: This appears to be the case with the environmental issues as well.

Robin: Holy cataclysm, Batman, it’s one thing to lose a sector of the economy, but the environment is our future and that of our children. How can we allow its destruction in the future to simply to benefit one part of economy now.

Batman: That is a question we all must ask ourselves. But, it is worse than that, Robin. By dismantling the federal government and granting 200 billion in tax cuts, two very important means to combat global warming and help the sectors hit by it are seriously restrained. We need a strong federal government with the resources to fight global warming. Our future and that of our children depend on it. If ever there was a time that all Canadians must band together under one banner and act for the good of all it is to fight Global Warming.

Robin: Holy Call-to-Arms, Batman, what can we if we all join together as one federation.

Batman: Secure our future, Robin. England has recently announced a major, nation wide project to create offshore wind farms that would generate enough power to light every home in the United Kingdom by 2020.This is expected to result in very significant reductions in CO2 production. Without a federal government to oversee such a project and the funds to finance it, Canada has no hope of anything of this nature.

Robin: If England is doing it, why don’t we. After all, Canadahas winds as well, Batman, just look at our great white north.

Batman: Well Robin, the calls for such projects appear to be falling on deaf ears. According to a recent article in the G&M (3 Jan.’08) the “vice-president of Nunavut's Qulliq EnergyCorporation, said Nunavut is also interested in alternative energy sources such as wind. However, he said, nothing is moving quickly, partly because of the lack of federal money for research and projects. “They don't seem to have any interest in any alternative-energy projects,” he said.

Robin: Maybe, Dion and the Liberals or even Elizabeth May and the Green Party will announce their intention to create a project similar to that in England, Batman. Maybe they will make it a central cause to unite all Canadians together in this, our most important endeavour.

Batman: Perhaps, Robin, I don’t know. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-08

18. Holy Obscuration and Obstruction, Batman !

On the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights; and, the suggestion that Stephane Dion pick up the torch of ‘freedom of information’, incorporating its entrenchment amongst our fundamental rights and freedoms as a central principle of the Liberal Party. And, an update on "Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues".

Meanwhile, back at the Batcave Batman and Robin have become aware of an issue central to very foundations of our democracy as we know it. But first, . . .

Batman: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.

Robin: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.

Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Jim Flaherty, in explaining why the Harper government would not come to the aid of The Ford Motor Company in Windsor, is quoted as saying “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman, that’s outrageous. Surely Flaherty is speaking for himself. Ford Motors is one of the most successful companies the world has ever seen and, in fact, a leader in the modern industrial age.

Ford has certainly and will certainly make immeasurably greater contribution to our lives and economy than Flaherty & Harper ever have or will. How many hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, in Canada have derived their livelihood directly or indirectly from the Ford Motor Company.

Batman: I agree, Robin, and it seems others do as well. Canadian Auto Workers union president Buzz Hargrove is quoted as saying "This is a big slap in the face to the auto industry, but also to Ontario". "The message is, 'too bad, you hang on, on your own, or you're gone.' "

Robin: How can Harper take such a sink or swim attitude, especially since he was supported by such a small minority in the last election. Where are our traditions, our sense of history and pride in what Canadian have built up over the many years.

Batman: Well, Robin, the Conservative party has a very short history with very little tradition. After all, it is not the Progressive Conservative Party, which has a long and proud history, one that is very much identified with Canada as a nation.

However, to the Batcave, Robin, something has come to my attention that threatens the very foundation of our free and democratic society. Something that is very subtle and insidious, Robin, which without our continual vigilance and that of every Canadian could very well lead to the curtailment of our civil liberties and human rights.

Robin: Great Scott, Batman, don't tell me they're selling the Toronto Maple Leafs?

Batman: No, Robin, we don't have to fear that, yet, anyway.

Robin: Then, they're increasing the tax on beer. That's dastardly, Batman!

Batman: Beer and hockey, both great Canadian traditions, Robin, but, no.

Robin: what could it be, Batman?

Batman: Puzzle me this, Robin. What is as common as the daily news, as reclusive as a Kremlin, as important as any University or library and as useful as any tool ever made by man.

Robin: Not the Joker, again, Batman!

Batman: That's 'Riddler', Robin, and no.

Robin: I'm stuck, Batman, give me a hint.

Batman: What common thread do all these have. What is freely and opening displayed every day in the news that we wouldn't find in a repressive political regime, that is readily accessible from all our Universities and libraries and we use to our great benefit.

Robin: Holy pecuniosity, Batman, you don`t mean "money"?
Batman: Wrong again, Robin. "Pecuniosity", Robin? We're going to have to have a long talk.

Robin: I give up, Batman, what is it?

Batman: "Information", Robin.

Robin: Holy satori, Batman, I see! But, why the concern, certainly we live in an open society, where information is readily available, where civil liberties and human rights flourish and highly cherished.

Batman: Well, Robin, it appears our society is not as open as we would like to think.

Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: There have been recent reports that the Harper government is obstructing the dissemination of information regarding its activities, and obscuring the process for accessing it.

Robin: Holy general patterns, Batman, didn`t we see an "Obstruct and Obscure" strategy by Harper and his government last time when we were discussing his policies on Global Warming and our economy.

Batman: Recent reports in the news

("Government stymying efforts to obtain info, commissioner failing to help: critic", Alison Auld, The Canadian Press, 5 Jan.'08) indicate that the response time for Access To Information Requests has increased dramatically from 30 to 60 days a couple of years ago to 150 or even 250 days over the last several months.

Robin: Holy Incidiosity, Batman, its certainly not "shock and awe".

Batman: "Incidiosity" ... ah, never mind ... Apparently, this is due to Stephen Harper introducing so many layers of scrutiny.

Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and expert in access to information legislation is quoted as saying "The intent is to frustrate efforts ... and ultimately you're going to go away,".

Robin: But, Batman, perhaps that's an isolated case.

Batman: Oh, there's more, Robin, clearly showing a general trend. We all should be very concerned. The article goes on to state: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."

Robin: But, Batman, perhaps there have been such huge delays since before Harper took office?

Batman: Apparently not, Robin. The article further states that: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said

the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."

Also, the G&M, in October, published an article entitled "Conservatives tightening tap on flow of information, figures show" which stated:

"Figures obtained by The Globe and Mail reveal the government is slower to respond to requests filed under the Access to Information Act, and that more information is censored when documents are finally released."

When Mr.Savoier was asked whether it was worse today than it was he stated "Yes, absolutely".

He gave specific examples, e.g., the Afghan detainees scandal that we are so familiar with, no thanks to Harper, of course. The Press is complaining that the delays are long and often they documents are blacked out.

In an article from last October by Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press "Anatomy of an Access To Information release: 'talking points' blacked out", the exampled of the talking points of one of the ministers of the Harper government being heavily censored.

Robin: Holy paranoia, Batman, aren't the talking points notes drafted for a minister for public consumption.

Batman: Yes, Robin, that's my understanding, too.

Robin: Then, Batman, why would the Harper government want to censor them, and under what exception could they possibly fall to even make the censorship legal.

Batman: Good question, Robin.

Robin: But, how can Harper cause such delays, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, for one, it appears that now most access to information requests are reviewed by the Privy Council Office

(whose role is to "provides essential advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet" and their "goal is to help the Government of Canada serve Canada and Canadians") and multiple departments now must be consulted with.

Robin: Holy breach of trust, Batman,

didn't Harper make increased transparency a central policy in the last Federal election. How can this be called increased transparency?

Batman: Yes he did, Robin, as everyone can remember. It worse though, Robin.

Harper promised to amend the Access to Information Act to increase transparency, but has failed to so do. Also, Harper has severely curtailed access by the media as well as Reports such as the one submitted by his then newly appointed advisor to the Middle-East. Stephane Dion is demanding it, apparently questioning if it indeed exists.

Robin: Holy black eye on Democracy, Batman. Isn`t it true that the existence of liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy.
Batman: That`s certainly at the core of my beliefs, Robin.

Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t it protect all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Batman: I agree again, Robin.

Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights.

Batman: Once again your reasoning is impeccable, Robin.

Robin: And shouldn`t we be ensuring these rights by placing them on the same footing as civil and human rights.
Batman: That`s something that we should surely be doing, Robin, and with great haste.
Robin: Well, Batman, can we say that the limits imposed by Harper are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

Batman: No, Robin, I can’t say any such thing. In fact it appears that the Harper government is going in the opposite direction.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Instead of enshrining the right to access to information

Harper seems to be obstructing our access to information and obscuring the information that is being released.

Robin: Holy regressive-conservative, right wing ideology, Batman, what can we do.
Batman: I don`t know, Robin.

Perhaps Stephane Dion will pick up the torch of freedom of information and incorporate it as a central principle of the Liberal Party. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-17

If the theories and instrumentation used to observe stars flow from our intellect how can we say that stars don’t

A discussion of the formation of the universe, it seems, requires a discussion of what we regard as reality. Without getting too philosophical and trying to maintain a somewhat practical approach, there is a distinction between reality and science. Science, it is submitted, develops theory based on ‘facts’. However, these facts are what can be referred to, and often are of course, as ‘experimental’ facts. In other words observables.

What I will refer to as primary observables are what we experience through our basic 5 senses. However, science has gone far beyond these primary observables. The vast majority of observations, or experimental facts, are through instrumentation and the resulting ‘facts’, or scientific facts, through inference by applying mathematical and existing scientific theory. Instrumentation is not an extension of our basic 5 senses but rather an extension of our intellect applying, at times, as a technique, simulation of our senses. The design of instruments i.e. to what we expect these observables to speak, is based on the application of existing scientific facts in accordance with accepted scientific and mathematical theory.

Someone once asked me what the relationship between language, generally, and mathematics. I explained that, in my opinion, mathematics was an extension of our perception in order to deal with the unknown in a rational fashion. The basic test for a scientific theory is very much one of "proof is in the pudding". In other words, does it work. The fundamental elements for any theory in considering this issue are internal consistency and usefulness. The test of usefulness is to what extent it satisfies our desire for an ‘explanation’ of the observables and predictability. Esthetics seems to play a role as well – thus, ‘the simplest answer is usually the right one’.

To follow this line of reasoning back, a scientific theory is very much a manifestation of our intellects and very much culturally oriented. It thus has the limitations of our intellects and is biased by our culture. Observables are an expression of what our instruments tell us. What our instruments tell us is very much a manifestation of our intellects as well as integrally connected to scientific and mathematical theory, with in turn are rooted in our intellects. Thus, scientific facts can be no more, since it is based on the application of scientific and mathematical theory to observables, than a manifestation of our intellects and culturally modified. For example, we can consider that the speed of light is constant as a scientific fact. This has been confirmed now by many experiments over many years. Einstein, of course based his special theory of relativity on this and this theory has enjoyed tremendous success. However, is the speed of light, in reality, constant? To what extent is this ‘conclusion’ merely a reflection of the limitations of our intellect. In other words is it really a result of our intellectual frame of reference. I do not think this is easily answered since the underlining issue is the limitations on our intellect which, obviously, limits what we can, at our present stage of development, comprehend or even be cognisant of. It is submitted that the same applies to our ‘known universe’ – stars, galaxies, etc. If the theories and instrumentation used to observe stars flow from our intellect how can we say that stars don’t.

Christianity in China

Christianity in China

The article you enclosed below is interesting and obviously the person who wrote it has been quite involved for many years. Generally that makes it touch to critique - but not for me, of course.

His discourse seems to be very much from the Protestant, Pentecostal point of view and, as far as I am concerned, anytime someone looks at an issues from such a one sided point of view they run a real risk of missing very important aspects and even dimensions of the issue. Someone might say, well it may be he is coming from one direction, but then, he is right. This of course raises one of the main distinctions between ‘preaching’ and ‘intellectual discussion’. Here, will all due respect, it seems to me he is preaching but couching it in intellectual discussion. One of the main issues he appears to overlook, of course, is religions indigenous to the Far East, for example, Buddhism, and now Fallun Gung (if it can be classified as a religion).

Another issue he appears to overlook is the co-relation between economy prosperity, along with its desire for anything Western, and Protestantism. Basically, one may argue that Western religion, and Protestantism in particular, go hand in hand with economic development. A further argument is that it is economic development that gives rise to democracy (it creates a middle class who are educated and have the economic freedom to consider things on a level higher than hand-to-mouth, and who, with a newly installed vested interest demand a say on how things are run).

So, it is not entirely accurate, in my opinion, to say that Protestantism gives rise to democracy. But, it may be more accurate that Christianity helps to creates an social order that is favourable to the development of commerce which in turn gives rise to democracy. A trivial example of how this may work is the commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. Clearly, dealing with people on a commerce basis requires a considerable amount of trust. For example, you may sign a contract with another person but if they don’t honour it, or, worse, never had any intention of honouring it, then doing business becomes impossible. This is even though there may be a well developed civil court system. This example is very apropos for the China situation since, as I am sure you have heard a million times, one of the big complaints Canadian businesses have had over the years is that the Chinese businessmen simply can’t be trusted. So, as people become more prosperous they demand a society that is more stable and where conducting commerce is more predictable. The Ten Commandments are very much suited to this. So they naturally are drawn towards Christianity. To take this further, any denomination that proselytises aggressively will, perhaps, make considerable gains.

Also, as mentioned he does not take into account indigenous religions and I think that this is a weakness in his presentation. In a word, Christianity is a Western religion and they are Eastern. There is a difference and, in such issues, in my opinion, these differences are significant. For example, if we look at history, it may be that the Chinese take Protestantism and meld it with a more eastern religion so that the result is something in between. It may be called Pentecostal but it is really Chinese-Pentecostal and 100 years from now people will look back at the differences.

On the other hand, as we have discussed before, the Chinese government ban on religious freedom to the extent of persecution, will likely result in one religion emerging as the dominant religion. He, of course, touches on this issue, but there are two things. If the Chinese government were to allow religious freedom, which, if they were smart they would, then this phenomenon would, in my opinion, very likely by undermined, resulting in, basically, 1.3 billion little religions. Also, there is competition for the spirits of the Chinese and since they are Chinese in nature may very have a greater chance in a ‘survival of the fittest’ atmosphere.

Anyway, after the above, I hope you’re still talking to me.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, August, 2007

Glass Half-Filled

If you give someone a glass of water some may say it’s half full and some may say it’s half empty. However, some may comment on the degree to which the essential physical properties of the water have been restricted by its conformity to the glass.

This is not a trivial observation since it applies to many things. For example, when we formulate the expression of an idea verbally the concepts involved are seriously restricted and modified by the words used, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied. It also applies to the concepts and thought processes involved as well. In other words when we talk about a particular idea it is our concept of the idea and not the ‘thing’ itself that we are trying to articulate.

This applies to scientific endeavours as well. The theories we develop are nothing more than verbal expression of concept we develop. It maybe said that these concepts are developed by reference to observables (experimentally obtained ‘facts’). However, it is our psyche that is considering, interpreting and incorporating these ‘observables’. In other words, we develop a ‘world view’ or, to phrase it more simply, ‘ideas’ based on this information and the theory is the verbal expression, and so seriously restricted and modified by the formulation of this world view, the words used to express it, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied (there may be other influences as well).

Further, the ‘observable’ is severely restricted by the experiment and instruments used in the experiment and are, in reality, nothing more than some incomplete and fuzzy reflection of what is being observed. Of course the experiment itself is based on theory and current ‘knowledge’, all of` which is subject to the same analysis. It is clear to see how the particular equipment used must restrict what we observe regarding the properties of whatever it is for which we are attempting to learn the essence by conducting the experiment. It may be a bit harder to see that the design of the experiment, what equipment is used, the construction of the equipment, the recording of the results, their processing, interpretation and integration are seriously restricted in a fashion as described, but it must. Of course, what makes a good scientist is being able to come up with something useful despite the above restrictions.

For a quick illustration see ”E really does equal mc squared”, G&M, 21Dec.’05,(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051221.wmit1221/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?). The article reports that some scientist conducted an experiment to determine the equation e=mc2 to a greater degree of accuracy, explaining that it is only a theory. There are a few things to keep in mind when reading this article. There is no indication that the scientist made any reference to what light is. It seems a bit strange that someone would be conducting such an experiment without even know what is light(‘c’ refers to the speed of light) and if we don’t know what light is how can we talk about its speed. On the other and he explains that this theory (expressed by this mathematical equation) is quite useful -vis.: “GPS is the most common use of the theory in modern life”. He concludes:” However, despite surviving its most difficult test to date, Prof. Pritchard said it doesn't prove Einstein's theory to be absolutely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete."

The second thing to keep in mind is that, as can be seen from the above quote, he is referring to our ‘world view’. On the other hand, he is operating under a misconception when he says “more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete” since he is equating our ‘world view’ with reality - clearly not accurate. If all we are interested in is a drink of water then restricting the essence of water by pouring it into a glass may be tolerated. However, if we are interested in the essence of water we are clearly severely restricted in what we can say about its physical and chemical properties. This also applied to attempting to understand a particular circumstance or incident, en event.

As a lawyer I attempt to get to the bottom of things by asking questions. However, clearly asking questions restricts the information we obtains severely and the information we obtain is subject to interpretation (or ‘twisting’) since it is, by necessity, ambiguous (some lawyer have been accused of using this as a strategy). So, although professing to get at ‘the truth’ in reality what is obtained is some prejudiced and vague reflection of the truth. The further we get from a specific incident and the closer we get to trying to understand the ‘essence’ of someone’s situation the greater this problem. This problem is heightened if we apply predetermined questions.

A good example of this are the application forms the Canada Immigration requires the person to fill in (accurately, truthfully and completely). By the very nature of forms they are a predetermined set of questions which they have decided will get to the essence of the issue (spousal sponsorship, say). In my experience it is very seldom that by answering them one gets an understanding of the essence of the relationship and the persons’ circumstance. Further, it doesn’t matter what list of questions they put in the application forms this will be the case - to a greater or lesser degree (fortunately for me, since it gives me a job). When I am interviewing someone I must also keep in mind the cultural aspect.

A list of predetermined questions immediately restricts the information gathering by the Western bias that experience must be ‘objective’, ‘chronological’ and obey the logical rules implied with the assumption of ‘causality’ (cause and effect). There is also the underlying belief, very Western in my opinion, that information obtained in such a manner is correct (keep in mind that in Mediaeval times Westerners operated under the belief that answers obtained thru torture were correct and that trial by ordeal was a legitimate manner of getting at the truth - it is interesting to note that this lead to the development of the institution of lawyers).

Very early in my career doing refugee claims I determined the importance of my Western bias and its potential for restricting my ability to learn the essence of the situation. On the other hand, if we want to get the essence of a circumstance or a person asking questions can be useful and even necessary. But, its restricting influence may be reduced allowing us to come to a more useful ‘world view’ by not approaching it with a predetermined set of questions.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, January, 2005

Poll on reasonable accommodation

My Comments:

I think, with all due respect, that conduction opinion polls regarding human rights of minorities
can be a dangerous thing, even in a democracy, or perhaps because we are in a democracy where the majority (this may be disputed in the current Canadian context) rules. By design it is looking at the opinions of the general public (i.e. the majority) with respect to the accommodation of a minority group. The Charter of Right and Freedoms is precisely to protect the rights of minorities against the will of the majority. It seems to me self-evident that: “The greater the accommodation in question and the smaller the minority group the stronger the results of the opinion poll may be against accommodation; but, the greater the need for protection.”

As an extreme example, one need only ask one’s self what the results of an opinion poll would
likely have been on the Chinese Head Tax (or, on the free accommodation of Chinese immigrants) during its hay-day.

I am a strong believer in a free and open society. However, I have a lot of difficulty
understanding the benefits of such opinion polls or what the possible purpose(s) might be, except perhaps, to illustrate the need and importance of fundamental laws such as the Charter and of we, Canadians, being vigilant in their application.

We have emerged into a Golden Age of Human Rights, lets not allow anything to cause us to drift back into the Dark Ages.

Lloyd MacIlquham

The above comments were in response to the following:

http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/49#comment_2657
By significant majorities in Canada as a whole, and by overwhelming majorities in Quebec, Canadians and Quebecers declare limits to reasonable accommodation.

When asked whether it was reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities, or whether immigrants should fully adapt to culture in Canada, only 18 percent of respondents said reasonable accommodation best reflected their personal views, as opposed to 53 percent who thought immigrants should fully adapt (21 percent who agreed with neither statement).

In Quebec, only 5.4 percent of respondents thought reasonable accommodation reflected their views, while fully 76.9 percent thought immigrants should fully adapt.Interestingly, the parts of Canada with fewer new Canadians were more likely to support accommodation. Leaders from across Canada should be watching the developments in Quebec, because they may well be a precursor of things to come in other parts of Canada.In the support materials on the right is the release and the detailed polling tables. Survey results touch upon awareness of reasonable accommodation, and views about accommodating minorities at work, school, public places etc.

Quite a bit of very interesting information.

Comments

01 May, 2010

- "Get tough on Con's" - give Harper and his gang the boot.

- Harper Way Ahead Poll - Am I Reading That Right

30 April, 2010

- Harper, me thinks thow dost protest too much

29 April, 2010

- Stephen Harper, news flash: Walsh is 'gravely' mistaken

28 April, 2010

- 'Ding-Dong the wicked witch is dead' . . . oh, sorry, must have been dreaming.

27 April, 2010

- Harper, Canada's Religious Leader???

26 April, 2010

- Harper : 'Jaffer-Gate' ('Jaffer-Gate'??? - hey, you hear it first here, folks, I think)

24 April, 2010

- Harper: 'Let Them Eat Cake', I mean, Keep them Distracted on Guergis-Jaffer Affair

23 April, 2010

- Harper: 'The people of Canada have a different philosophy than us' -continued

22 April, 2010

- Harper: 'The people of Canada have a different philosophy than us'

21 April, 2010

- Harper to MPC Commission 'Never mind the Facts, Just Make A Decision'

20 April, 2010

- Harper has Found His True Calling In Life???

19 April, 2010

- Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for enshrining in the Charter the Free, Unobstructed Access to Information

18 April, 2010

- Natynczyk: The Military can't release any records - How Harperesque!

17 April, 2010

- Harper - Darth Vader, Mike Harris - Emperor Palpatine - Then Who Is Ignatieff???

- Harper, here's a tip: Machiavellianism is Most Passé

16 April, 2010

- Harper Call Off Your Attack Dogs

15 April, 2010

- 'Heart of Darkness', Stephen Harper Produced and Director

14 April, 2010

- Harper: 'I'm Transparent, Honest - You'll Just have to Trust Me On That"

13 April, 2010

- Harper Open - Au contraire mon frere

- Harper's Serious Lapse In Judgment, Again

- "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"

12 April, 2010

- Harper, 'Mover and Shaker'? How about 'Hodger and Podger'

11 April, 2010

- Harper is Rare Indeed, Thank God !

10 April, 2010

- There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures

09 April, 2010

- in Reality, Harper and the Con's want to break up Confederation

08 April, 2010

- Harper wanted to play soldier right from the start

07 April, 2010

- There Is A Party More Extremist, Ideological than Harper and the Con's? Where?

- Harper and the NDS Kindred Spirits, What's This World Coming to !

06 April, 2010

- The Iacobucci Report Redacted for Security Reasons - Harper's Security

05 April, 2010

- Harper, Cannon, Day, Toews, and all you Con ideologues, here's a heads up

04 April, 2010

- Harper, MacKay and the Con's playing soldier - Continued

02 April, 2010

- With Harper 'the devil is in the details'

- 'Harper releases Documents' - Ha Ha, Ha, April Fools!

01 April, 2010

- Harper, MacKay and the Con's playing soldier

31 March, 2010

- Harper is No Democrat

30 March, 2010

- Harper - I want my Canada back

- Harper's Policies May Unit Canadians - to give the Con's the Boot

29 March, 2010

- Give Harper the Boot - What Better Way to Promote Canada's Future - I Wonder If Anyone Suggested that At the Thinkers Conference

26 March, 2010

- Harper, Too-Clever-By-Half

25 March, 2010

- Harper: One-out-of-Three, What More Do You Want

24 March, 2010

- Harper Carries The Torch of Extreme-Conservatism Handed-Off From George W. Bush

23 March, 2010

- ' Stimulus Had Little Impact' - Thanks, Harper and all You Con's