Posted: 10:40 AM on November 6, 2010 Globe and Mail
MacKay bids Prentice adieu – but won’t follow him out door, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Friday, November 5, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mackay-bids-prentice-adieu-but-wont-follow-him-out-door/article1787339/

Peter MacKay a 'red tory'???

I'm not sure what 'red tory' means. But if 'red' refers to moderate, middle of the road, liberal values, MacKay is anything but 'red', as his right-wing, extremist, 'hawkish' stance on the purchase of the 65 F-35's at the cost of $16 billions, and counting, very clearly demonstrates.

MacKay has put our Canadian military's interests above the good of all Canadians. He has abdicated responsible government so as to "have associated myself with the military". The procurement of the F-35's is not moderate, it's a right-wing extremist position.

If 'Tory' refers to the old PC tradition in Canada then he is certainly not a 'tory'. After all it was MacKay that sold out the PC Party for Harper and his right-wing extremists.

(Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)

On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance. Wikipedia)

Peter MacKay may have started out as a 'red tory' but he sold his soul to the devi . . . sorry, Harper, in pursuit of personal power.

If 'red tory' instils trust based on a long history nation building keep in mind that with Harper and the Con's their history is neither long and anything but nation building.

If you ask yourself is Peter MacKay a straight shooter, keep in mind: if it isn't in Hansard, did it happen (is this the 'honourable path' that is in the best military tradition).

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 6:05pm, PDT, 5 Nov.'10
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/05/happiness-is-a-warm-f-35/
For the Tories, happiness is a warm F-35
Soudas's statements are right-wing extremist.

They are also displaying the position of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, since, after all, Soudas is speaking for Harper and the Con's, make no mistake about that. To suggest Soudas would make such statements without authorization from Harper is ludicrous.

They are crafted for consumption by the core of right-wing extremists with epi-centre Alberta, who support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, as long as Harper is seen to carry the flag. They are by no means a slip of the tongue, nor isolated, nor the first, nor the last.

'Out There' makes a good point when he/she suggests it is done to keep the anti-coalition fires burning. But it is much more.

Everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremists as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.

Unless the vast majority of Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue his crusade to convert Canada to Con'ism.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 9:45, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News - not posted - go figure
Re-Submitted: 10:05, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News

Aviation companies decry F-35 purchase
Dassault, Boeing claim they were shut out of lucrative military contract, November 5, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html#socialcomments-submit


Yesterday both Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay were confronted with the issue of the Statement of Requirements being released in the Spring ('10) but the decision to purchase the F-35's evidently made before then (Power & Politics, Evan Solomon, 4 Nov.'10).

This of course leads one to the logical inference that how could the other companies like Boeing have competed and as MacKay so delicately put it "lost".

Neither Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay answered this question directly.

They both, in an obfuscascious sort of way and in a fashion that suggested to me they both had access to the same pre-written response ( oh no, not a MEP, . . . can the F-35 defend Canadians against the MEP, the biggest threat to Canada and our way of life passed down and entrusted to us by our forefathers, established through their blood, sweat and tears - then, it might be worth it) referred back to the long process started in the mid '90's when Canada joined the Strike Force to be allowed to participate in the development of the F-35.

One could only conclude that that was when Boeing and the others 'lost', 15 years ago.

Also,They didn't seem to point out that Canada's participation at that time was to allow it to share in the development contracts, which it did and to a large net benefit (thank you Jean), but was non-committal as to its purchase.

MacKay suggests the F-35 is necessary because of its stealth feature, its being undetectable. Perhaps in '95 that was true, but according to Boeing and Dassault, it apparently is not the case now.

He also suggests interoperability, although does not explain just exactly what he is referring to and why other makes of jets wouldn't possess these qualities (I am assuming they are all equipped with radios, if not perhaps a few walkie-talkies might be apropos, at least it would be cheaper than purchasing the 65 F-35's).

If it's that important we need to know.

Everyone can understand the logic behind the Statement of Requirements being based on the specifications for mission success. What is hard to understand is why we aren't being told just exactly what those 'missions' are and consulted on whether we, all Canadians and not some small segment of right-extremists, want this for Canada.

Canada's military raison d'être is to support our chosen way of life. Their 'missions' ought to be based on that. We are not hear to give the military Carte blanche, without question, so that they are defining our way of life.

This is very much a political matter and everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremist, 'Hawks' as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.

When assessing the weight to be given to Peter MacKay's statements, we must all keep in mind that for MacKay, if it isn't in Hansard it didn't happen, and if it wasn't for MacKay's 'word being his bond' Harper wouldn't be running our country.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:23 PM on November 4, 2010 Globe and Mai
Tories won’t share cost-cutting plan, budget watchdog complains, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 03, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-wont-share-cost-cutting-plan-budget-watchdog-complains/article1784121/

"A spokesman for Mr. Flaherty, Chisholm Pothier, said the government stands by its projections. 'On savings, we’re confident we’re on track to meet the objectives we’ve laid out,' he said."

. . .

"Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said he trusts the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s projections over what the Finance Minister says. 'We've learned not to take Flaherty's numbers seriously,' he said." (IBID)

Don't trust Harper and the Con's???

You've got that right (morally, of course) Scott.

Who in Canada take what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party say at 'farce value'.

Except, the die-hard, right-wing extremists (representing 33%) epi-centred in Alberta who support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, provide Harper stay on ideological track. They support Harper not because what he says is right (morally) and in the best interests of all Canadians but because it's Right (ideologically) and in their, very narrow, best interests and the best interests of Con'isms.

“On savings, we’re confident we’re on track to meet the objectives we’ve laid out,” (IBID)

You can betcha it is no accident that Harper, Flaherty, Day and the Con's do not reveal the details on its planned operating budget freeze - if they did, we might learn what their 'objectives' really are.

Canada's debt increasing by $200 billion from 2007 - '08 to '15 - '16, is assuming Canada stays on its current course - you know, 'steady as she goes', without the opposition 'seizing the wheel'.

It represents a 50% increase in our debt, in 5 short years, with Harper and Flaherty at the helm.

Keep in mind that the revenues lost by the reduction in GST ($12b/yr) and the corporate tax reduction ($6b/yr) as well as the subsidies to the oil sands corp's ($1.4b) will make up approx half of this debt increase ($12+$6+$1.4=$19.4 X 5 yrs = $100b) and when you consider financing costs it's probably more like 2/3rds - thanks Steve, thanks Jim, thanks Stockwell.

It is not clear that this projected increase includes the $10's b's in increased prison facilities (oh, my mistake, it's the Provinces that must pay - that makes me feel a lot better) or the $16b and counting for the F-35's, etc..

So, it's the Con policies, not the stimulus spending, that will cause this catastrophic mushrooming of debt with Harper and the Con's at the helm.

And, this debt will have been incurred for no other reason than Harper and the Con's efforts to buy their way into power and maintain it so they may tear Canada asunder and drag us to the extreme right.

Our children and our children's children will be paying this 'Conversion to Con'ism' debt for generations.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:51 PM on November 3, 2010
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/

Harper, Flaherty and the Con's prediction about eliminating the deficit in '14 - '15 (surplus next budget), could come true and Page's concerns over increases transfer payments alleviated by one simple move - get rid of the transfer payments, and privatize healthcare.

Also, if Page is saying that the deficit will not be eliminated by the '15 - '16 budget, but Harper and the Con's are confidently saying it will, but only if we keep them in power. Is it simply a co-incidence that this time-line for eliminating the deficit falls just after the expiry of the Healthcare agreement.

Now, I wonder if Harper and the Con's have ever contemplated this. What does their ideology say about transfer payments and private Healthcare. What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership.

What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.

What, pray tell, might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (representing 33%) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater (and the rest of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed) might like to see.

What about the Vast Majority of Canadians, is that how we want to balance the books, by eliminating Healthcare and tearing Canada asunder.

Perhaps, we should ask them all.

The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years, in '13 - '14. At that time, do we, as Canadians, really want Harper and the Con's 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces. Do we want Harper, from now til then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:17 PM on November 3, 2010
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/

In whom should we trust, Kevin Page or Stephen Harper and the Conservative
Party?

Well, if it wasn't for the fact that Harper, Flaherty and the Con's:

- have been wrong and outright misrepresented the economy pretty much right from the start of their rule.

- denied the Recession up until the last part of the '08 election when they were forced to admit it, then had the unmitigated gall to say that their economic policies before then made the impact less, like reducing the GST by 2 points, taking $12 billion/year out of the Federal coffers.

- economic update a month or so later, was not founded in sound fiscal policy to aimed at protecting Canadians, their finances and their jobs, but consisting of an outrageous and opportunistic, vicious partizan attack on the Opposition Parties with no consideration for the economic wellbeing of Canadians.

- spending $16 b on 65 F-35's and $10's of b's on prisons, as well as other wild, insane spending.

- eliminating $6 b a year from the Federal coffers by reducing fiscal responsibilities of large and prosperous corporations, exactly at the wrong time

- only successful fiscal policies they can point to had been brought in by the Liberal gov't.

- prediction that the deficit will be eliminated by '15 - '16, being predicated on Harper and the Con's continuing to run the country, of course.

On the other hand, by releasing a report that through cold hard application of rationality exposes Harper and the Con claims for their true implications - partizan bogue - Page runs the risk of incurring the viscous, personal and professional attacks and reprisals for which Harper and the Con's have become quite acclaimed.

Weighing both sides, I put my trust in Kevin Page.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 11:36, PDT CBC News
Canada's UN loss 'most embarrassing moment': Ignatieff, November 2, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/02/ignatieff-speech-foreign-relations.html#socialcomments-submit

Mr. Ignatieff, when you're right (morally, that is), you're right.

The loss is very embarrassing, if you're one on the 2/3rds of all Canadians that are not die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

These die-hards (manifested as 33% in all the polls) support Harper and the Cons pretty much no matter what, based solely on ideological reasons and the facts, rationality and the impact on Canada and all Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.

Harper and the Con's are right-wing extremists and so too these die-hards.

It would be folly to think that the leaders in the Int'l community don't see Harper and the Con's for what they are.

When Harper says "Our engagement internationally . . . promotion of our values" he is referring to the extremist, right-wing promotion of the extremist, right-wing policies of the Conservative Party and their core (33%) of die-hard supporters, i.e. Con'ism.

He is not referring to the "promotion of our values" of the vast majority of Canadians, who do so in the same moderate, conciliatory, balanced fashion that Canada has demonstrated on the International stage since the inception of the UN and for which it won the Security Counsel seat 6 time out of 6. The only real difference this time is Harper, his extremist, right-wing, policies and approach to Int'l affairs.

We could only have hoped that the Int'l Community was writing Harper off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' - a brief distortion in the continuum of true Canadian values. They didn't and God help Canada if it isn't.

That Harper and the Con's would try to blame the loss on Ignatieff and the other countries that are normally on Canada's side changing their vote is also a big embarrassment. The whole purpose of a secret ballot is so the members can vote their conscience and not have to fear reprisals from Harper, and given the vicious manner in which he and the other Con's attack anyone that dares oppose them, can you really blame them.

Of course Harper has a real track record for not accepting responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Either it is a civil servant or the opposition. If all else fails, he claims the Liberals did it when they were in office. For the government of this great nation to do this is also an embarrassment, domestically, if not Internationally.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, embarrass us all with impunity.

Unless vast majority of Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to embarrass Canada and all Canadians.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:59 PM on October 31, 2010 The Globe and Mail
Tories use terror plot as ammunition in fighter-jet battle, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, October 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-use-terror-plot-as-ammunition-in-fighter-jet-battle/article1779354/comments/

Dimitri Soudas is, of course, if I recall, the Harper spokesman that proclaimed last August how fortunate we were to be spending 16 billion on the 65 F-35's in order to prevent Russian prop planes, that had no intention of transgressing Canadian sovereignty in the first place, from invading Canada.

He was also, again if I recall, the Harper spokesman that afforded insight to us how Ignatieff single handedly, through his mega-star influence over the international community, shot down Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Counsel.

Now, he is ranting about how giving the US cargo planes an escort somehow means Canada is right (morally - we all know it is 'Right' ideologically, in fact, extreme 'Right') to spend the 16 billion on the 65 F-35's.

To suggest that Ignatieff would rather use 'kites' than fighter jets to defend Canadian sovereignty, is an insult to all Canadians intelligence and a total disinterest in the rationality of such a procurement.

Soudas, of course, make no rational connection between this incident and how purchasing F-35 might have allowed Canada to provide a safer escort, or generally help Canada fight terrorism.

He bases everything on emotional rhetoric, aimed at rousing the core of Con supporters and not informing all Canadians, insulting the opposition as opposed to reaching out and seaking serious discourse from all Canadians on a very serious issue.

This is not nothing. It is generally accepted, by all those that use rationality and fact based analysis to formulate and put forth positions and policies that the F-35's are far from the best equipment to fight terrorism. It also leaves Canada with $16 billions less to do what is really required.

Soudas's statements are right-wing extremist.

They are also displaying the position of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, since, after all, Soudas is speaking for Harper and the Con's, make no mistake about that. To suggest Soudas would make such statements without authorization from Harper is ludicrous.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

12:52 PM on October 28, 2010
Rob Ford bounce and ‘elite-phobic’ voters drive Harper surge, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, October 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/rob-ford-bounce-and-elite-phobic-voters-drive-harper-surge/article1775943/

It is interesting that overall support for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party remains the same: 14 Oct: 34.4 and 28 Oct: 33.9

It is interesting that this support pretty much represents the core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep Harper in power. (Jeffrey Simpson in his article, G&M,27 Oct, suggests the 'rock-solid' base is 30%).

This core support is important and must be taken into consideration since they skew any polling results.

For example:

"44.5 per cent of respondents believe the country is moving in the right direction" which suggests only 11% non die-hard Cons supporters feel that way.

"36.1 per cent say Mr. Harper’s team is headed the right way" pretty much represents that core of die-hards (within the margin or error) with very little else.

What this implies is that Harper and the Con's represent approximately 1/3 of Canadians.

As long as his policies keep this core content, and don't consolidate the opposition, Harper is able to step-by-step drag Canadian society to the extreme right.

Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.

Also, I found Toronto politics to be interesting in that people seem to be able to support different parties at different levels of government. For example, there seemed to be no problem with having an NDP Mayor, PC Premier and Liberal Prime Minister. So, I am not so sure anything can be taken from Ford voted mayor at the Federal level, although I agree if he disappoints Torontonians, conservatism in the GTA may take a shot.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

leaving only:

"Score: 4

Name withheld
10:49 AM on October 26, 2010
This comment has been removed from our system.
This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed. "

I E-mailed them yesterday:

"I am quite surprised since I didn't think I had violated any terms and conditions.

Could you please point out just what it was that caused my comment to be pulled,
if for no other reason than so I know what I doing wrong for next time."

As yet I have not received a reply.


You judge for yourself whether my Comment violated their Terms and Conditions:

The Globe and Mail policy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/community/article1340680/

"When and why are comments removed?

We reserve the right to remove comments that are not in accordance with our terms and conditions and comments that a) include personal attacks on Globe journalists or other commenters; b) make false or unsubstantiated allegations; c) quote people or sources where the quote or fact is not known or easily verified; or d) include vulgar or hateful language or libelous statements, or comments that are legally questionable. Our editors and bloggers use their best judgment in making these determinations. We try to err on the side of maintaining a civil discussion, while at the same time fostering an atmosphere in which readers can have a stimulating debate on the issues of the day. Comments may also be removed if they are not relevant to the topic, if they contain advertising, "spam" or other commercial elements, or if the person posting the comment is impersonating someone else. "

(for the actual Terms & Cionditions: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/help/termsandconditions/)


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 1:03 PM on October 27, 2010 The Globe and Mail
Jeffrey Simpson, Conservative voters: rock-solid by reflex, Oct. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/conservative-voters-rock-solid-by-reflex/article1773968/

Simpson is right in his assessment that "rock-solid is the Conservative Party’s hold on 30% of the electorate". I would say it is more like 33%, but the principle is the same.

This was also illustrated in the recent poll (Angus-Reid, 26 Oct.'10):
"Confidence in Stephen Harper’s ability to do the right thing to help the economy plummeted this month, with a third of respondents (33%, -9 since August) "

Also,
Respondents choose the Conservative Party over the Liberal Party:
- to rein in national debt (31% to 23%),
- end the recession (32% to 20%),
- control inflation (32% to 20%).
- job creation (Con. 30%, Lib. 29%).

This is not a superficial, insignificant observation.

It highlights the fact that Stephen Harper does not represent the majority of Canadians and his policies and those of the Conservative Party of Canada are not for the benefit of all Canadian.

Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.

Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.

Harper's Int'l policies are a prime example of this at work to the detriment of all Canadians. It would be folly to think that the leaders in the Int'l community don't see Harper and the Con's for what they are.

We could only have hoped that the Int'l Community was writing Harper off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' - a brief distortion in the continuum of true Canadian values. They didn't and God help Canada if it isn't.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 10:49 AM on October 26, 2010
Auditor scrutinizes stimulus as poll shows increased economic anxiety, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, October 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/auditor-scrutinizes-stimulus-as-poll-shows-increased-economic-anxiety/article1773025/

Confidence in Stephen Harper’s ability to do the right thing to help the economy plummeted this month, with a third of respondents (33%, -9 since August)

Also,
Respondents choose the Conservative Party over the Liberal Party:
- to rein in national debt (31% to 23%),
- end the recession (32% to 20%),
- control inflation (32% to 20%).
- job creation (Con. 30%, Lib. 29%).

This poll is actually more significant when you take into account that Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right-wing, extremist supporters of 33% (with epi-centre in Alberta) who will support Harper pretty much no matter what, almost.


In other words, this poll, as far as Harper and the Con's are concerned run pretty much exactly along partizan lines. This partizan support skews, of course, any such poll since they are likely to answer in support of Harper and the Con's - if anything this poll indicates that perhaps (still within the margin of error: 3.1%) job's is one area they (are not and the indications are there are a few other areas as well).

What this poll means is that the vast majority of Canadians (not die-hard supporters of Harper and the Con's) did not support Harper and the Con's in these areas pretty much to a person.

The most significant aspect of this poll is:"

the proportion of undecided respondents on this question - people who are unwilling to endorse either one of the major parties - is close to 50 per cent in three of the indicators." ( angus-reid)

They may not be coming down on the side of Ignatieff and the Liberals, but at least they are open minded about it. An interesting question is of these 50%, do they respond to emotional, ideologically based rhetoric or are they looking for cold hard facts presented in a rational fashion.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:40 PM on October 25, 2010
Canadians pick peacekeeping over combat,
Campbell Clark, Oct. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/canadians-pick-peacekeeping-over-combat/article1771103/

The Nanos poll found 52 per cent of respondents rated UN peacekeeping as an important role for Canada's armed forces - a quarter rated it a 10 on a scale of importance from one to 10. Only 21 per cent of Canadians rated overseas combat missions as an important role for the military.

Also, only 40% feel military spending is important, whereas 79% feel health care is important.

Peacekeeping is, of course, the traditional role that Canada has played and for which we became so respected in the International community. It also represents the middle of the road, peace-seeking, non-hawkish traditions of our military.

These are the roles and Canadian traditions Harper and the Con's abandoned very soon after they took office and in Spring of '06 when they cranked up the Afghan mission to one of active combat. These are also the roles and traditions Harper and the Con's are planning to change in the future with the purchasing of 65 F-35 strike force, eye-watering fighter jets.

So, why then is Harper spending 16 billion of our tax dollars on 65 F-35's Strike Force, 'eye watering' jet fighters - certainly not because that is what Canadians want, neither the 'strike force' ability, nor the incredible expense.

This poll highlights the fact that Canadians don't want our military to assume such role that would make such jet-fighters needed equipment and we don't want to spend the money on them.

It also highlight that fact that Stephen Harper does not represent the majority of Canadians and his policies and those of the Conservative Party of Canada are not for the benefit of all Canadian.

Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.

Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 10:23, PDT, 24 Oct.'10 CBC News
Campbell to focus on economy, HST in TV speech, CBC News, October 23, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/10/23/bc-campbell-tv-speech.html

It seems to me no coincidence that Campbell is going on TV now when the beginning of the Recall efforts starts 15 November. Where, in the ridging chosen, the proponents must get 40% of the voters signing the petition within 60 days of it being issued ( I think, Recall and Initiative Act)

The Recall legislation is a great innovation in Democracy and addresses two concerns - the government brings in major policies that they didn't campaign on and, the government conducts itself in a fashion that is contrary to the public good.

Campbell and the BC-Liberals are being assailed for both - introducing the HST mere weeks after an election in which this was not one of their election planks. Also, after Vander Zalm's Herculean efforts with the very successful petition, which the BC-Liberals ought to have taken as a hint, Campbell agreed to a referendum but then pushed it off for a year, something which many people might argue is not in the public good.

Obviously Campbell's strategy is to weather the storm and by the next election everyone will have resigned themselves to the HST. And, the longer a policy like the HST is in place the harder it is to reverse it.

This 'loop-hole' in our style of Democracy is exactly what the Recall and Initiative Act is intended to address.

The HST was promoted by Stephen Harper and the Federal Con's in order to claw back some of the 12 billion a year they so partizanly, and not-rightly, cut from the budget when they reduced the GST two points.

When you consider that the BC-Liberals are really Con's at the Provincial level and not a true 'Liberal' Party, it was no surprise Campbell agreed (the Ontario Liberals, a true 'Liberal' party on the other hand were simply bought off with 3 billion dollars - these payments Flaherty is now blaming for the excessively huge Federal deficit).

Given that there were apparently internal government report(s) on the HST issue before the election it is not hard to imagine that there are many people in BC that feel Campbell had this hidden agenda and did want to announce it during the election because he simply didn't want to lose it.

All I can say is 'Here, Here for Democracy!"

Now let's recall Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Harper Con-undrum raises a very good question: "Why don't we have Recall legislation Federally!"

Perhaps a private member's bill introduced by the Opposition.

Now that would be apropos.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 11:40 AM on October 23, 2010 The Globe and Mail
If Stephen Harper’s an economist, I’m the Queen of Sheba, Gerald Caplan, The Globe and Mail,Oct. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-stephen-harpers-an-economist-im-the-queen-of-sheba/article1769401/singlepage/#articlecontent

Rationality and truth plays little part in the Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada politics.

Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard (right-wing, extremist) supporters (33%), epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic. They will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.

So, with Harper and the Con's the intention is not to explain but to rouse their die-hard supporters, not to inform but to provide material for spin, not to convince but to provide an excuse, not to justify to all Canadians but to dupe.

As long as the Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take these positions, and do and say pretty much whatever he wants, and 'Canada be dam[redacted]ed'.

Simply put, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day, Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty, John Baird, and the other Con's are not interested in the least what the facts are, what the truth is.

Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are right wing extremists, with an ideological agenda.

All Harper polices are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits this small core of die-hard right wing extremists.

Ideologically based decisions will always conflict with the truth and reality, by the very definition of "ideological". 'Extremist' just refers to the degree.

The foundation of accepting such decision is a "top-down" power structure, i.e. - it is right because I say it. This was, of course, the method of rule in the Dark Ages. It is anti-democratic by its very top-down nature (compare Tom Flanagan referring to Harper's decision on eliminating the Long Form from the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." Montreal Gazette).

We cannot simply push the blame on Ignatieff and the Liberals for this Con scourge.

This is not Harper's Canada, it is not the Liberal's Canada.

This is our Canada, each and every one of us.

The media have a vital part to play by shining the light of truth on the very dark corners of the Harper government - to shine the light brightly and relentlessly.

But, it is up to us to stand up and be counted and say "I want my Canada back". If we shirk this duty, we lose, and our children lose and our children's children will suffer.

Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 11:00 AM on October 22, 2010
We want more health care, but we don’t want to pay for it, Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail, 22 Oct.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/we-want-more-health-care-but-we-dont-want-to-pay-for-it/article1767721/

"So Albertans, like other Canadians, dream on that more public money can be put into health care without finding new revenue sources, without adversely affecting spending in other areas. Very few politicians, it would appear, want to spoil the dream."

I thinks that Canadians understand the economics of health care with its sharply increasing costs both due to advanced and complex treatments and the double wammy caused by 'baby-boomers' reaching 60 years of age and more - increased odds of increased needs for health care and retirement thus negatively impacting the tax base.

If we can help it they don't want to pay any more for it, very understandable and very natural.

The problem is that we have politicians like Stephen Harper, Jim Fleherty and all the Con's who, on a totally emotional bases and devoid of rationality and fact based logic, play on this desire.

A prime example is the Fleherty line that Canada will simply grow out of the deficit (as long as we let them run the country for the next 6 years, of course) and that is even with the 6 billion in Corporate tax cuts per year the 12 billion in GST cut per year, the 16 billion on 65 F-35 Strick Force jet fighters, 10's of billions on increased prison facilities, wasteful spending of billions on thing like the G-8/G-20, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

People choose to listen to Harper because it is what they want to hear. Harper knows this and deliberately and for partizan purposes tells them that.

Harper's policies are akin to the federal government issuing a credit card to each of us - the 'heritage card' to pay for health care. What makes such a credit card different is that not only are we obliged to pay, so are our children and our children's children. The debt isn't extinguished when we are.

It is not Harper that has to pay for his 'policies'. Harper reaps the benefits.

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.

We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.

Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Parliament Hill reno [redacted], Daniel Leblanc, Oct. 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parliament-hill-reno-plagued-by-accusations-of-corruption/article1764468/

"Comments have been disabled
Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding."

Wow, that's the first time I've seen that.

Perhaps the G&M could explain exactly why they would invite comments at the head of their article then not post them.

If they can publish the Article itself and be within legal bounds, why is it that people can't voice their opinions within legal bounds, especially on such an important issue.

They might also explain exactly what legal principles are involved and how they are applicable in the case at hand. And why comments would not be protected by Canadians Charter Rights.

Generally the G&M are very good about affording ordinary people the 'soap box' upon which to express their opinions on important issues of the day and they should be commended.

That, of course, makes this whole thing that much more puzzling.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:39 PM on October 17, 2010, the Globe and Mail
U.S. pledged to back Canada's failed UN bid, minister says, Mike Blanchfield, Oct. 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-pledged-to-back-canadas-failed-un-bid-minister-says/article1758694/

First it was Ignatieff and the Liberal Party influencing the whole world.

Now it is Obama not only doing Ignatieff's bidding but co-ordinating it.

Even I don't think that Ignatieff and the Liberals have that much influence.

On the other hand, if they do then perhaps we, all Canadians, should take a serious look at why everyone else in the world is choosing Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberal Party and rebuking Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

No matter what we should take a serious, hopefully not too long, look at why Harper and his right-wing extremist policies have received such a extreme rebuke.

I think a more logical explanation is that this is 'uberic hyperbola' by right wing extremists, intended for consumption by their supporters to rationalize and animate, keeping in mind that Con'ism originates in the US and there are many, many old supporters of George W. Bush that hang their hopes on Harper the Con movement in Canada.

Richard Grenell: “Some conservatives in Canada believe that the Obama team worked with Canadian liberals to leave Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government hanging without vocal U.S. support. In the past, American ambassadors around the globe were instructed by Washington and led by the U.S. Mission to the UN to work aggressively behind the scenes rallying capitals around the world to support certain countries in crucial Security Council elections.”

How many people are surprised that a main proponent of this 'con', Richard Grenell, served during the Bush administration and his allegation were broadcast on the Fox News Website.

If Obama did, in fact, instruct his diplomats to"'to not get involved' in Canada's campaign for a temporary, two-year seat on the powerful council", and I find it implausible, (thus violates the Flanagan Spin Principle),

It is far more logical, and likely, to assume there is a simple reason -

Perhaps, Obama

- does not subscribe the the extremist, right-wing Con ideology that Harper and the Con's in Canada stand for

- does not want to be associated with the non compromising, non conciliatory, non tolerant, non flexible and certainly non looking at both sides of an issue to understand the realities and seeking a solution that is for the good of all concerned that is the basis and extent of Harper's International policies.

- rejects the "I'm right - you're wrong", "I'm good you're bad", "you do things my way" approach that is so much a hallmark of Harper's right-wing extremism

Now that would be a surprise . . . not!

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:51 PM on October 16, 2010
Laureen Harper persuaded Governor-General’s wife into role, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, October 15, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/laureen-harper-persuaded-governor-generals-wife-into-role/article1760060/

"The Prime Minister really wanted David Johnston to serve as the next governor-general "

With all due respect for the GG and not to question his integrity in the least.

If the new GG were chosen from a panel that was independent, objective and arm's length, with instruction that 'partizans need not apply', then way would Stephen Harper be so keen on this particular choice.

It is trite to say that Harper does everything for exclusively partizan purposes. Then why, exactly, was he so keen to have this GG.

This is not a 'trite' question given the likelihood that Harper will approach him to make decisions that go to the very heart of Canadian democracy.

A person need not be partizan to share the Harper views - but, perhaps this is why Harper was so keen, actually finding someone.

To suggest that someone hold such views, in and of itself, can hardly be considered an attack on their integrity. A person may come to a decision quite honestly but based on a particular ideology and so biased. In fact all decisions are based on some ideology, even if it is that decisions ought to be objective, fact based.

Keep in mind that Rainer Knopff was a member of that selecting panel.

Knopff is a "member of a group known as the Calgary School" (a group of like-minded academics from the University of Calgary’s political science and history departments in Calgary, Alberta, Canada . . .
The School is of a decidedly conservative political leaning, and has been described within The Walrus magazine as "a rambunctious, Rocky Mountain brand of libertarianism" that seeks "lower taxes, less federal government, and free markets unfettered by social programs such as medicare that keep citizens from being forced to pull up their own socks." (Wikipedia)

Sounds a lot like Harper and the Con's doesn't it.

The issue is: are decisions made by someone who shares Harper's ideology truly representative of all of Canada. Harper isn't, Con'ism isn't and the Harper ideology isn't.

Given that there is no recourse in this case; the Opposition may not be availed the opportunity to present the case for the vast majority of Canadians; Canadian would in all likelihood never even know what consideration were actually made.

This is a very important issue.

In my Post (cicblog.com/comments.html) of 12 Jul.'10 "Harper Secret Committees - Be Scared, Very Scared."
I recommended:
"Here's an American tradition that ought to be borrowed on such occasions:

PUBLIC, OPEN AND TRANSPARENT VETTING

If Mr. Johnston is such a Constitutional and legal expert where did he stand on the past four constitutional issues:
- dissolving parliament for the last election,
- Proroguing Parliament in Dec '08,
- Proroguing Parliament Dec.'09
- the refusal of Harper to abide by the Will of Parliament with regard to the Afghan Detainee documents."

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 11:34 AM on October 16, 2010
Canada said things, but just wasn't there, Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, 16 Oct.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/canada-said-things-but-just-wasnt-there/article1759478/
Stephen Harper bases all his policies on (partizan) ideology.

This ideology is extremist, and right wing,

Which by its very nature, not compromising, not conciliatory, not tolerant, not flexible and certainly not looking at both sides of an issue to understand the realities and seeking a solution that is for the good of all concerned.

It is very much "I'm right - you're wrong", "I'm good you're bad", "you do things my way".

Such is the stuff Int'l conflict is made on and not leaders on the World stage.

"These things get noticed. And there’s a pattern to them."

It is manifest in Harper's statement:

“Our engagement internationally is based on the principles that this country holds dear; it is not based on popularity."

“We take our positions based on the promotion of our values [– freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, justice, development, humanitarian assistance for those who need it]. Those are the things we are pursuing and that does not change, regardless of what the outcome [of secret votes is].”

When Harper says "Our engagement internationally . . . promotion of our values" he is referring to the extremist, right-wing promotion of the extremist, right-wing policies of the Conservative Party and their core (33%) of die-hard supporters, i.e. Con'ism.

He is not referring to the "promotion of our values" of the vast majority of Canadians, who do so in the same moderate, conciliatory, balanced fashion that Canada has demonstrated on the International stage since the inception of the UN and for which it won the Security Counsel seat 6 time out of 6. The only real difference this time is Harper, his extremist, right-wing, policies and approach to Int'l affairs.

We could only have hoped that the Int'l Community was writing Harper off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' - a brief distortion in the continuum of true Canadian values. They didn't and God help Canada if it isn't.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

12:29 PM on October 15, 2010, The Globe and Mail
PM ignores Ignatieff, defends Canadian principles in wake of UN defeat, Martin Ouellet, The Canadian Press, Oct. 15, 2010

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-ignores-ignatieff-defends-canadian-principles-in-wake-of-un-defeat/article1757807/

To suggest Stephen Harper is not blaming Ignatieff for his, Harper's, rebuke at the UN is to totally misunderstand how Harper and the Con's operate. Everyone knows that Harper very tightly controls the message coming from him, his office, his Minister's, and all hi MP's.
To say that Lawrence Cannon did no have approval for blaming Ignatieff, especially on the International stage, flies squarely in the face of this well know fact.

It is even more unbelievable that Harper's communications director, Dimitri Soudas, would not have prior approval by Harper.

In fact, given the very short time from the UN vote and Cannon's & Soudas' accusations, it is apparent that this was a very well planned strategy to deflect the fallout of the rebuke (it also suggest Harper had a good idea this rebuke was coming, quite likely, everything considered).

Harper suggests it is was the Con government's "positions based on the promotion of our values – freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, justice, development, humanitarian assistance for those who need it." that lost the vote.

What we must understand is that when Harper says "promotion of our" he is referring to the extremist, right-wing promotion of values of the Conservative Party and their core of die-hard supporters, the Con values. He is not referring to the "promotion of our values" of the vast majority of Canadians, who do so in the same moderate, conciliatory, balanced fashion that Canada has demonstrated on the International stage since the inception of the UN and for which it won the Security Counsel seat 6 time out of 6. The only real difference this time is Harper, his policies and his extremist, right-wing, approach to International affairs.

In this vote we could only have hope that the International community was writing Harper and the Con's off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history'

Also, perhaps the International Community would bank on that by the time Canada's turn to hold the presidency come around, we will have a moderate government in line with Canada's great traditions in the International community.

Also, as some have pointed out, Harper seems to be suggesting Germany and Portugal have no values and principals. Of course, when you are looking at things from an extreme perspective, it can be easy to convince yourself that only those that share your value have values - either you're Right (ideologically) or your wrong.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posts Not Allowed
Tory spending will force Liberals to scale back social program plans, Oct 14 2010, Susan Delacourt
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/875597--tory-spending-will-force-liberals-to-scale-back-social-program-plans

There are many 'fringe' benefits to getting rid of Harper and the Con's, Saving Canadians 10 of billions of dollars is only one, pushing Harper and the Con's back to the fringe is another.

If the only thing that Ignatieff and the Liberals were to do were to cancel the 16 billion Harper and the Cons' are spending on the 65 F35's as well as canceling the 10's of billions of dollars Harper and the Con's increase prison facilities will cost us, then, it is well worth it to given Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party the boot. Although the 10's of billions in prison facilities may be costs imposed upon the Provinces it still is money out of our pockets.

If you believe Jim Flaherty that our deficit will be eliminated by 2016, based on policies implemented in last year's budget,

"The national deficit hit a record $55.6 billion in the last fiscal year, though Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he is confident that the government will be able to balance its budget in 2015-2016.

Using belt-tightening measures that the government introduced in the last budget, Flaherty said Ottawa expects that its deficit will steadily decrease each year. " (CTV, 12 Oct.'10)


then, eliminating these insane expenditures planed by Harper in the 10's of billions of dollars can only make things better, much, much better.

Of course, getting rid of Harper and the Con's has many, many other benefits as well.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:17am, PDT, 14 Oct.'10 Toronto Star - not posted - go figure
Re-Submitted: 11:22am, PDT, 14 Oct.'10 Toronto Star
Siddiqui: World passes judgment on Harper’s foreign policy, Haroon Siddiqui, Oct 14 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/874976--siddiqui-world-passes-judgment-on-harper-s-foreign-policy

This article standing head and shoulders above other articles regarding Canada's loss in the UN Security Counsel Vote, especially those trying to defend Harper and the Con's.

It is fact based and logically argued. In a word, rational and not hype.

For one, if you read some of the articles in the National Post suggesting it was the European Union voting in a block against Canada, and not Harper's policies, they don't even mention how many votes that 'block' wields. The reason may be inferred from this article - "Europe has less than 30 votes, whereas Arab and Muslim nations have 57 and Africa 51 votes, the two blocs with good reasons to oppose us". A few facts that undermines the logic in their argument.

However, this is not by accident, rationality plays little part in the Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada politics. The intention is not to explain but to rouse, not to inform but to provide material for spin, not to convince but to provide an excuse. Stephen Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard (right-wing, extremist) supporters that will support him and the Con's pretty much no matter what. They just need some talking points. What better way to get the message out to them all than by national media.

As long as the Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]ed'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 9:43am, PDT, 13 Oct.'10 CBC News - not posted
Submitted: 12:06pm, PDT, 13 Oct.'10 CBC News

Cannon blames Ignatieff for Canada's UN vote loss, Liberal leader refuses to accept blame
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 12, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/12/un-vote012.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0697062:b38308714

Stephen Harper - Some "International Player"! Step Aside and Let Ignatieff Take Over While Canada Still has Some Pride and Dignity on the International Stage.

The result of Harper, Flaherty, Cannon, "punching above their weight" in the International ring, . . . KO'd

It is ludicrous and an embarrassment on the International stage to have Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister blame Ignatieff for the loss in the vote. It is crass, totally lacking in class.

Harper, Canon and the Cons 'poor loser' attitude, in and of itself, justifies the loss. What country at the UN would want this type of petty partisanship and refusal to accept responsibility for its actions not only sitting on the Security Counsel but taking a rotation at the Presidency.

For Harper to say (thru Soudas) that Ignatieff's earlier comments had '"spread like wildfire" to diplomatic missions around the globe', is beyond ludicrous (and I strongly suspect without any factual basis whatsoever - also, as everyone is suggesting, if Ignatieff has so much more influence on the International community than Harper, then why is Harper the one running this country). Harper ought to be too embarrassed to suggest such a thing. What happened to the dignity of the office of PM for Canada. This of course is just another instance of the fundamental Harper policy of 'it is never my fault'.

Canadians have to ask a tough question: 'How much more injury ought we take from Harper and the Con's running this great and proud country of ours?'

For the record it is clear that Ignatieff was referring to Harper and the Con government when he asked the rhetorical question 'Has this government earned that place?'

Confusing 'this government' with 'Canada' demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about the Harper regime.

Quite simply, Stephen Harper does not represent Canada, he is supported by a small sector (33%) of die-hard right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta and the vast majority of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed. This is a prime example of how Harper's views on International affairs not only does not represent Canada's but is implements despite the best interests of all Canadians.

Also, it is manifestly clear that the vast majority of nations were not convinced Harper and the Con's had "earned that place".

On 10 Oct.'10, I posted:

"I agree that Canada will very likely get on of the seats on the Security Counsel, since they get one every 10 years or so plus Canada's long and proud history in International Affairs before Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada took the helm.

We can only hope that the International community is writing Harper and the Con's off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history'
. . .
Also, perhaps the International Community is banking on that by the time Canada's turn to hold the presidency come around, we will have a moderate government in line with Canada's great traditions in the International community."

Unfortunately I was mistaken.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:29 PM on October 11, 2010 Globe and Mail
Five years later, information access is still stalled,
gloria galloway and bill curry, Globe and Mail, Oct. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/five-years-later-information-access-is-still-stalled/article1750812/ Tab 6

What about Harper's appointment of Nigel Wright as his chief of staff.

How would Canadians know if a person were actually and effectively being recused or had conflict of interest screens in place when appropriate while in the PMO office.

This article demonstrates that the Access to Information legislation does not have the teeth and its spirit and intent is so easily thwarted by Harper and the Con's.

The Accountability Act, a showcase legislation of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada - and we can see why they are so pleased with themselves, cannot be relied upon:

"In a special report to Parliament, [ then Access Commissioner John Reid] wrote that the Accountability Act will 'increase the government’s ability to cover up wrongdoing, shield itself from embarrassment, and control the flow of information'.”

Stephen Harper's press secretary, said ". . . will respect all of the rules". (see: Hill Times, 11 Oct.'10)

But this is coming from the office of the PM who 'makes his own rules'.

So, the question is whose rules will be respected, those founded in the law or those founded in Harper.

If Harper respected Parliament; respected the legislation; respected the right of all Canadians to be given the truth and forthwith without stonewalling, obstruction, obscuration, obfuscation, and without MEPing; and, for whom truth does not flow from the spin of a pen.

Then, people could have some confidence in the actuality and effectiveness of this recusing, some confidence when Harper says they will "respect all of the rules".

We will likely never know if there are actual conflicts and Harper would fight bitterly to prevent us from finding out and the Access and Accountability legislation can't help.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:20am, PDT, 11 Oct.'10 Hill Times
Opposition critics warn Wright's PMO to run into too many conflicts, Tim Naumetz, October 11, 2010
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/pmo-10-11-2010

The issue here is how would anyone outside the Harper inner circle know if a person were actually and effectively being recused when appropriate while in the PMO office, or had actual and effective conflict of interest screens. And, how will anyone know once that person goes back to work for their present company.

This article indicates that the extent of participation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is to give advice on how to avoid conflicts - vis.:

"'So on those kind of cases we would be particularly vigilant to assist that person to find mechanisms such as conflict of interest screens [prevent access to discussions or government dealings with the firm] to avoid dealing with somebody they knew they wanted to work with afterwards,' said Ms. Dawson."

There is no reference to any kind of continual supervisory function to ensure that these safeguards are being properly installed or how effective they are. And once that person goes back to their present company, then what.

Stephen Harper's press secretary, said ". . . will respect all of the rules".

But this is coming from the office of the PM who 'makes his own rules'. So, the question is whose rules will be respected, those founded in the law or those founded in Harper.

Also, one very important aspect of 'respect for all the rules' is respect for the purpose and intent of all the rules. Can any Canadian honestly say that Stephen Harper and the Con's have respected all the rules, their the purpose and intent.

If Harper and the Con's were a traditional Canadian government that respected Parliament; respected the legislation, especially the ones that they themselves passed; respected the right of all Canadians to be given the truth and forthwith and without stonewalling, without obstruction, obscuration or obfuscation, and without MEP's; and, for whom truth is not found at the end of a spin.

Then, perhaps people could have some confidence in the actuality and effectiveness of this recusing, some confidence when Harper says they will "respect all of the rules".

The Opposition have to continually hold Harper's feet to the fire and Harper gives not an inch without a bitter fight. It seems to me that we will likely never know if there are actual conflicts and Harper would fight bitterly to prevent us from finding out.

Access to Information and Accountability is ineffective to obtain information, especially at the PMO level.

As noted by current Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, neither the Access to Information Act, nor the Privacy Act, has any teeth. A current example is when her office found Veterans Affairs bureaucrats violated the Privacy Act in there use of information in someone medical file, no one was punished and she is not allowed to comment on motive.
Five years later, information access is still stalled,
gloria galloway and bill curry, Globe and Mail, Oct. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/five-years-later-information-access-is-still-stalled/article1750812/

Harper and the Con's in the '06 election promised to give the access commissioner '“the power to order the release of information” and to let the commissioner see cabinet records to ensure government claims of cabinet confidentiality are justified". (IBID)

The then Access Commissioner John Reid, in a special report to Parliament, wrote that the Accountability Act will “increase the government’s ability to cover up wrongdoing, shield itself from embarrassment, and control the flow of information.” " (IBID)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Comments Closed - after 1 day ???
Security Council seat comes with 'symbolic' power, Geoff Nixon, CTV.ca News, Oct. 9, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20101008/canada-seeks-un-security-council-seat-101009/

I agree that Canada will very likely get on of the seats on the Security Counsel, since they get one every 10 years or so plus Canada's long and proud history in International Affairs before Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada took the helm.

From what I heard of Harper's speech in the UN a few weeks ago pitching Canada on the Security Counsel (you know, the one that was so purely attended - if it wasn't Harper speaking I might think it was intended as a 'message' on Canada's current efforts in International diplomacy - they do that kind of messaging at that level), Harper even based the argument on Canada long and proud history of positive contribution to International peace and comity of nations and not its track record for the past 4 years. Although I don't recall him drawing attention to the significance of this. The same goes for Canada's economy and banking system.

On the other hand, if Canada does not get a seat it will be a very significant rebuke of Harper and his right wing extremist policies, and not Canada - and the Canadian people will understand this.

Harper's, and the Con's, policy of vicious partizan attacks on the Opposition in the International arena would certainly have also played a part. We can only hope that the International community is writing Harper and the Con's off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' and it is our responsibility to not only our forefathers, who built this great country on the blood, sweat and tears, but also our children and our children's children, who will be left to deal with this condition, to ensure that it is.

Also, perhaps the International Community is banking on that by the time Canada's turn to hold the presidency come around, we will have a moderate government in line with Canada's great traditions in the International community. Someone like Michael Ignatieff would represent all Canadians well, with pride and distinction.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:23 am, PDT, 10 Oct.'10 CBC News
Poilievre urged to step aside over Hill breach, October 8, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/10/08/poilievre-rcmp-security-liberals.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0851687:b38183498

"Let's focus on the people of Canada's priorities and not these trivial matters," Baird said.

It seems whenever a highly place Con MP is criticized it is either someone else's fault or a "trivial matter".

What John Baird seems to be missing, the deliberateness of which I have no doubt, is the attitude projected here of "I'm connected to Stephen Harper, I'm a bigshot in the Conservative Party of Canada, so I'm above the law".

You know, the "I make the rules" attitude, displayed openly, by Harper himself.

If it were a traditional Canadian government that respected Parliament; respected the legislation, especially the ones that they themselves passed; respected the right of all Canadians to be given the truth and forthwith and without stonewalling, without obstruction, obscuration or obfuscation, and without MEP's; respected the right of all Canadians to be consulted on important matters especially when it comes to spending our hard earned tax money, trashing established and well respected institutions, polices, programs and servants dedicated to Canada, with which Canada has been so proud and which had the best interests of all Canadians at heart and not a small group of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centered in Alberta. Then, perhaps, we could write this off as just one-of-those-things, every-one-has-a-bad-day and go on our merry way as Baird is hoping we do.

However, I strongly suspect that this is more along the lines of a 'Freudian slip", a message from the true Pierre Poilievre, un-blocked and un-spun, an unguarded moment revealing the reality of the state of the "Harper nation" and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed mindset. As such, it is, and ought to be, a top priority of all Canadians.

It would be important to find out exactly why Pierre Poilievre was let through without inspection so as to dispel any lingering misgivings that it might have been for fear of their job.

excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

- Harper has 'let loose the hounds of Con extremism'.

Posted: 12:18 PM on October 9, 2010
Liberals threaten ‘interests’ of Canada: Harper, REUTERS/Dan Riedlhuber, 8 Oct.'10, National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Liberals+threaten+interests+Canada+Harper+says/3646225/story.html

"that element of the Canadian spectrum" Harper is referring, or course, to the vast majority of Canadians (VM).

I can see how Harper would have a problem with appealing to the VM. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have a core, about 33%, of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centred in Alberta. They also put the coin in the Con coffers. They plus the polarization of the vast majority of non-Con's are the only reason he is in power.

For Harper, this is the only Canada and all those other 67% be dam[redacted]ed. The more he 'moderates' his policies the more he risks losing this support. It is no accident that Harper made these statements in Alberta.

Harper has 'let loose the hounds of Con'ism'.

It is not a question of a coalition, it is question of the consolidating of the vast majority of Canadians and in unison saying "I want my Canada back", thus pushing Harper be to the fringe.

"The Liberals’ criticisms of the F-35s are based on several grounds. They say there was no competition in Canada among manufacturers to supply the military jet, that it’s unclear whether the country needs as many of the planes being ordered, and it is uncertain if the high-tech features of the jet are necessary for Canada’s current defence needs.

. . .

But Mr. LeBlanc said the Liberals are committed to replacing the CF-18s and merely want to ensure Harper’s deal “respects taxpayers’ money” and maximizes spinoff benefits for the Canadian aerospace industry."

Questioning the wisdom of purchasing the 65 F35's and approaching it on a rational basis is vital, especially given the 16 billion cost to Canadians. MacKay's pitch is that they have 'eye-watering technology'. Ignatieff and the Liberals, and I suggest the VM's, concern that it leave for our children to pay the 'eye-watering bill', is legitimate.

Demanding that decision by our government be made in the best interest of all Canadian and be based upon rationality is not " just a political game".

For Harper everything is partizan, everything is " just a political game". That is how he thinks and operates.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

No Posts allowed
Cannon blasts Ignatieff to diplomats, says he puts party before country, Toronto Star, Oct 6 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/871792--cannon-blasts-ignatieff-to-diplomats-says-he-puts-party-before-country

“'One of the few persons who believe that Canada should not sit on the Security Council unfortunately is the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Ignatieff, who has shown himself to be unable to put the interests of this country above the interests of his political party,' Cannon said."
(Toronto Star)

Anyone else, catch the hypocrisy in Cannon's accusation, I mean other than it simply being untrue.

What Ignatieff actually said was:

“This is a government that for four years has basically ignored the United Nations and now is suddenly showing up saying, ‘Hey, put us on the council,’” Ignatieff said days before Harper delivered a major speech at the UN to support Canada’s bid.

“Don’t mistake me,” Ignatieff said. “I know how important it is for Canada to get a seat on the Security Council but Canadians have to ask a tough question: Has this government earned that place? We’re not convinced it has.” (Toronto Star)


For Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada “politics stops at the . . . nothing.”

Everything Harper and the Con's do are partizan, for their personal political gain and the good of Canada be dam[redacted]ed.

These type of things do not go unnoticed on the International scene and can do irreparable hard to Canada's reputation.

There is little doubt that Canada's reputation on the International scene has been severely injured since Harper took the helm. This is just one more instance.

We can only hope that the International community is writing it off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' and it is our responsibility to not only our forefathers, who built this great country on the blood, sweat and tears, but also our children and our children's children, who will be left to deal with this condition, to ensure that it is.

If I recall the Con's have been attacking the Opposition and the Liberals in International arena from the very start of the regime - e.g. wasn't it in '06 ('07) the Con's (then Min of Environment Ambrose) launched a vicious tirade on the Opposition and Liberals at an International Environmental conference.

That reminds me. From what I heard of Harper's speech in the UN a few weeks ago pitching Canada on the Security Counsel (you know, the one that was so purely attended - if it wasn't Harper speaking I might think it was intended as a 'message' on Canada's current efforts in International diplomacy - they do that kind of messaging at that level), Harper based the argument on Canada long and proud history of positive contribution to International peace and comity of nations and not its track record for the past 4 years. Although I don't recall him drawing attention to the significance of this.

The same goes for Canada's economy and banking system.

It seems that Harper and the Con's are proud of Canada's achievements in the past. They just want to take credit for it, despite not having participated, except for the brief period in Opposition when the opposed everything they are now so boastfully extolling.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-caving-of-three-provincial-grit-fortresses/article1742339/comments/

The caving of three provincial Grit fortresses
LAWRENCE MARTIN


Jean Charest is not a 'Liberal'.

One source of confusion is that the now the Conservative Party of Canada with Stephen Harper as leader is referred to as 'the Tories' which would make Charest look like a middle of the road Liberal.

"He is a former leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party (1993–1998) . . .

he was elected Progressive Conservative member of the Canadian Parliament for the riding (electoral district) of Sherbrooke in the 1984 election. From 1984 to 1986, Charest served as Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons. In 1986, at age 28, he was appointed to the Cabinet of then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as Minister of State for Youth.

. . .
In the 1993 election, the PCs suffered the worst defeat for a governing party at the federal level. Only two of the party's 295 candidates were elected— Charest and Elsie Wayne. As the only surviving member of what would turn out to be the last PC Cabinet, Charest was appointed interim party leader and confirmed in the post in April 1995. Charest therefore became the first (and last) leader of francophone descent of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada."
(wikipedia)

Gordon Campbell and his 'British Columbia Liberal Party' is anything but 'Liberal'.

They are literally 'Liberal' in name only. As some have phrased it "it is the Soc-Cred's in the witness protection program". My observation is that the vast majority of supporters, although Campbell has boasted that there are actually Liberal supporters as well - but without examples, are aligned with Harper and the Con's Federally. Certainly his policies are at the right wing of the political spectrum and he generally supports Harper and Con policies.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 10:17am ,PDT, 3 Oct.'10 - lets see if the post it the first ttime.

PM gave Jean pledges in prorogation crisis, Harper promised quick return of Parliament and new budget, adviser says, October 2, 2010, Louise Elliott CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/10/01/harper-jean-prorogation.html

If Mr. Russell is of the opinion that the GG had exercised her power properly and come to the proper decisions, in the proper fashion, then why does he feel the need for a "meeting of International experts to try to achieve a consensus about how a Governor General's powers should be used in future cases similar to the 2008 crisis" - the precedent has been set and according to him, properly.

With all due respect to Mr. Russel and the former Governor General, without knowing the contents of what was actually said between Stephen Harper and the GG it is very difficult to view these comments as anything more than rationalizations resulting from continued and severe criticism - something akin to Monday night quarter-backing by the quarterback of the losing team.

Mr. Russell describes the GG as requiring promises from Harper and not simply rubber stamping.

It is hard to reconcile this description of the events with the next prorogation where Harper didn't even bother to go to Rideau Hall to make a formal request.

We simply do not know what arguments Harper actually made, or what compulsions were actually upon her, if any. And this is the important part - the part that every Canada ought to know, given the importance to Canadian democracy.

"She made it clear these reserve powers of the Governor General may sometimes be used in ways that are contrary to the advice of an incumbent prime minister," Russell said.

The GG hasn't made it clear to the Canadian public and that's what counts.

Without knowing what was actually said, how can the Canadian people know that the GG forced such concessions - "that Parliament would return soon, and that his government would then produce a budget that could pass". Perhaps she might well have made the same decision even without such 'promises'.

Mr.Russell suggest the opposite, but he was not, apparently, present at the meeting and as indicated in this article is basing that statement only upon impressions, what he "thought", as opposed to what he knew, there is a difference - vis.: "I think they were extremely important in her weighing all the factors on both sides of the question," Russell said. . . . "I think she would have probably had to make the decision the other way."

There is not even any indication in this article that he discussed this issue with her directly.

Also, the GG's recent statement as set out in this article does not confirm his impressions.

"Jean told The Canadian Press earlier this week she took the time to make the right decision and was using the delay to send a message to Canadians to become more involved in the political process."

This statement does not support Russell's 'thoughts' on the matter. Perhaps she felt she had no other choice and the only power she really had was making Harper wait a bit.

Also, she did not have to make Harper wait 2 hrs to send that message to Canadians. She could simply have gone to the people and stated her case directly. All the camera's were there, with political commentators, treading water. I am sure they would have made room for such a statement.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 1 Oct.'10, 7:49am, PDT CBC News

Re-submitted: 9:13am, PDT, 1 Oct.'10 (there is approx 1 hr break in the CBC posting of Comments for this article from 10:44 - 11:42 (7:44 - 8:42 PDT) mine was submitted 10:49 - go figure)

Re-submitted: 11:23am, PDT, 1 Oct.'10 (there is approx 2/3 hr break in the CBC posting of Comments for this article from 11:53 - 12:30 (8:53 - 9:30 PDT) mine was submitted 12:13am (9:13am, PDT) - go figure)

Author defends Harper book, CBC News, October 1, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2010/09/30/harper-book-lawrence-martin.html

In Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 Stephen Harper stated that "we will fight it with every means that we have" (and Peter McKay this is in Hansard)

Perhaps Stephen Harper, John Baird, even Kory Teneycke or any other member of the Conservative Party of Canada could explain just exactly what Harper meant by these words.

Apparently Harper was not willing to reveal this extremist attitude during his address the next day - "Canada’s Government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy". One can only wonder why he added "legal" when the light of the media was shining strongly, with all Canadians watching. Also, when Harper says "our democracy", 'our' was evidently referring to his own special brand of 'democracy of the Right' as opposed to 'Canadian Democracy'.

Perhaps John Baird might explain exactly what he meant when he stated "what we want to do is . . . go over the heads of the members of Parliament; go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL76A5jUq1k at 3:20)

When you look at these two statements together, it seems to me that going to the Queen if the Governor General refused Prorogation is pretty harmless, albeit offensive to Canada as a sovereign country.

Bringing attention to Stephen Harper and the Con's attitude, approach and actions during this very critical part of Canadian democracy, or lack thereof, as apparently this book does, is very important to all Canadians, especially prior to the next election so that everyone may put in the proper context of Canadian Democracy and judge for themselves, without have to sift thru the hyper-partisan rhetoric and distortions of Harper and the Cons.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 11:59 AM on September 28, 2010
John Ivison: Why the fight over the economy is mere theatrics, John Ivison September 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/27/john-ivison-why-the-fight-over-the-economy-is-mere-theatrics/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Campaign issue will involve the economy, including taxes. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's "Orgy of Excess" (rock on Ralph) and spending with reckless abandon.

In fact, Ignatieff and the Liberals are distinguishing themselves from Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada with regards to the economy and very significant ways.

Ignatieff: "'The priorities of this government are prisons and planes. Is this what Canadians want from their government right now in the middle of a $54-billion deficit?'

Ignatieff was referring to estimates that the government's law and order agenda will cost billions because of the need for more prisons and the government's plan to spend as much as $18 billion on buying and maintaining 65 new F-35 fighter jets.

'We think Canadians' priorities right now are child care, retirement security, post-secondary education. Basic things that are going to guarantee economic security and defence of our public health-care system,' said Ignatieff. (CBC 1 Sep.'10)

Don't be surprised if the following issues don't figure prominently in an election:

- re-establish an economy that is working for all Canadians in all regions and not simply the corporate elites, many of whom are outside Canada; and not, Canadians simply working for the bottom line of big Corporations.

- re-establish prudence in government spending and eliminate the 'Orgy of Excess' (rock on Ralph)

- re-establish democracy and the 'rule of law' in how our government operates.

- re-establish rationality, reality based, moderate and tolerant, inclusive decision making and eliminate the archaic 'rule of ideology'

- consult with all Canadians before bringing in important and significant policies to ensure that they benefit all Canadians in all economic, social, cultural circumstance.

- Communicate with Canadians in an open, transparent fashion, eliminating the obstruction, obscuration and obfuscation of information, and dismantle the 'culture of MEP's'

- re-establish the Supremacy of Parliament and our elected representatives

- re-introduce Canada in the International Community as a moderate, a peacemaker and gear down on the confrontational approach.

Now that very clearly, and significantly, isolates Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada from our mainstream politics.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

the narcissism of grumpiness and the 2% solution - september 27, 2010, comments and observations by frank graves, Ottawa – September 27, 2010
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/the-narcissism-of-grumpiness-and-the-2-solution-september-27-2010/#comment-10357

I can't see Harper and the Con's calling an election on the Long Gun Registry (GR). For one thing, the voting public are already constellated, and have been for a long, long time, on the issue and not likely to shift - and it simply does not produce the numbers for a majority.

There are 3 groups:
- those that will vote Con because of their stance on the GR;
- those that will vote against the Con's for the same reason;
and,
- all the other that will vote based on things (like the deficit, Harper spending, economy)

These groups have already been very well defined and not likely to change unless Harper and the Con's actually do abolish the GR, then the:
- 2nd group will not likely change since they will be even more against Harper.
- 3rd won't change.
- 1st group may very well lose their need to support Harper and the Con's so strongly, or at all.

Further, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada seem to be going both ways on what the election issue will be. When it suites them, it is the Long Gun Registry, and when it suites them it is the economy.

The Campaign issue will involve the economy, including taxes. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's "Orgy of Excess" (rock on Ralph) and spending with reckless abandon. Harper and the Con's will tie in the issue of a coalition government with "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois" but that too will be in terms of the economy - as indicated by the Flaherty speech last week.

(cicblog.com/comments.html, 22 Sep.'10)

Two polls were released amid the heat of the vote last week. Angus Reid's poll found 46 per cent of Canadians wanted the registry gone and 40 per cent wanted it to stay. The rest weren't sure what they wanted.

Harris Decima's poll found 48 per cent of Canadians wanted to keep it compared to 38 per cent who wanted to scrap it.
(Winnipeg Free Press, 27 Sep)

However, compare this to the polls on support generally voter intention that have the Con at around 33%, Lib's around 29% , NDP 16.6%, Green 10.7%, Block 8.9% (Ekos 16 Sep.'10)

So, if you take the average between the two pols on the GR, just for argument's sake, you get 42% wanting it scrapped. However, voter intention for the Con's is 33%. There are 9% points out there that want it scrapped but definitely vote for other reasons, since they vote against Harper. It is safe to say that since the 33% represents the die-hard core of right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta that they, to a man, - sorry person - want the gun registry gone. But they all vote Con pretty much no matter what.

That is, unless Harper is seen to be compromising true Con ideology, or benefiting other demographics or regions of Canada (ahh ahh ahh Ch...Ontario/Quebec .. ooo - sorry sneezed), especially at their expense. Which could explain why Harper doesn't go after the 2% solution.

Quite simply, in order to so do, he would have to compromise true Con ideology and favour other demographics and they don't like that where they come from - in other words, perhaps Harper risks losing a point for each gained. The indications are that at least 5 of those 33 points are hard liners ready to dump Harper for his 'moderation' and that's a lot. More important or just as important is they represent a significant source of funding for the Party, which it is suggested new converts from Ontario/Quebec wouldn't. In other owrds, Harper has max'd out on the Con support.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 8:34 am, 26 Sep.'10 CBC News
G8/G20 spending an 'orgy of excess': Liberals, CBC News, September 24, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/24/g20-g20-spending-liberals.html Tab 221

Vic Toews on CBC:

"Look we are dealing with about a billion dollars cost. I consider every penny spent to be an important expenditure …

But look, lets focus on the big picture . . . We followed the advice of the security experts . . . I am quite confident we made the right decisions given the time context that we were operating under. . . .

Obviously, when I was briefed on all of these matters when I came into office I didn't go through the billion dollars expenditure line by line . . ."

But what we have done and what I consider priority was to ensure that you get the 14000 bill for glow sticks and call upon the government then and the organizers to justify why those in fact were used."


Sounds like Harper, Toews and the Cons are trying to shift the blame for the orgy of excess on the organizers and that they did not have enough time to ensure that the money was well spent.

Does anyone recall Stephen Harper or any of the Con's accepting responsibility for any of their 'Cons' that the opposition and media has shone their light upon, and there have been many.

Well, Mr. Harper, Mr. Toews

"That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."

"You had an option sir to say 'no' and you chose to say 'yes'".

(Mulroney, '84)

Mr. Harper, you chose to say "yes" to holding the G8-20 in the first place not because it benefits Canadians, but as one big photo op for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Harper, sir, if I may say respectfully, you could have said "no"

Mr. Harper, you chose to say "yes" to transferring the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to downtown Toronto (and after a goodly % of the money spent was spent in Minister Clement's riding), knowing that the downtown area of Toronto would in all likelihood be trashed. Of course, therein lies the answer - Toronto doesn't elect Con's and what would the chances of Clement being re-elected if they did to Muskoka what they did to Toronto.

Mr. Harper, sir, if I may say respectfully, you could have said "no"


As far as transparency is concerned:

Waiting for the Opposition to force it out of the Harper government; wait until the Spring for the Auditor general's report, is not transparency.

Mr. Harper, that sir, is not good enough for Canadians.

Let Mr. Harper, Mr. Toews promise to all Canadians that all the information on all the spending will be in front of all Canadians prior to the next election.

They can throw in the '09 RCMP Gun Registry Report, Afghan Detainee documents, proper accounting of the over 100 million in advertizing by the Harper government, and, of course, explain just exactly why we need to spend 16 billion on 65 F35's.

And let Harper, Toews and all the Con's do these things not in a political but an informed fashion.

Just think:

If Harper were not procuring these Strike Force jets, he may not be required to increase the EI premiums of Canadian workers

and

If Harper did not reduce the Corporate taxes, which are already lower than the US; if Harper were to eliminated the 1.4 billion subsidies to the oil and gas industry; if Harper had not reduvced the GST; and, there's more, of course.

then,

We might even be better able to afford the "Harper Orgy of Excess" - Now That's Calling an Apple An Apple, you've got that 'Right' MR. Goodale, Rock On Ralph.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:32 PDT, 23 Sep.'10
Liberals won't let Flaherty's rhetorical excesses provoke an election, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, 22/09/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/liberals-wont-take-tory-bait-wont-let-flahertys-
rhetorical-excesses-provoke-an-election--103548524.html

Harper, Flaherty and the Con's, engaging in "politics of fear, division, envy and resentment at a time when Canadians need to hear a message of hope and unity."

Harper "making up Liberal policy".

Flaherty engaging in "'bottom-feeder' brand of partisanship

Iggie, Goodale, when you're right your right (morally that is).

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have no concern about what the truth is. There are many, many examples.

Just keep in mind Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible"

Michael Ignatieff, Ralph Goodale must be very careful not to allow Harper to define Iggie and the Liberal policies. One need only recall what happened to Dion.

When it suites them, Harper and the Con's go around saying that the Liberals have no policies. Then, when it suites them, they go round telling everyone what the Liberal policies are. Sounds pretty disingenuous to me.

As far as the Harper - Flaherty GST cuts:

It seems just about any Economist, who wants to by taken seriously that is, thinks it was the wrong thing to do.

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.”;

Just think, $12 billion a years taken out of the Federal coffers - it could have paid for the 16 billion plus, price tag for 65 F16's, in just a couple years, or, better, seriously reduce the deficit or help finance important and needed social programs.

Corporate taxes - Ignatieff would not be increasing corporate taxes he would simply freeze them, for the time being. There is a difference, especially when you have such large deficits and existing low corporate taxes (. This would prevent the Federal coffers from losing another $5 - 6 billion a year.

[Ignatieff] "We believe passionately in competitive corporate tax rates. We're telling you though, we can't afford them now. There's just too much we have to do to get our fiscal house in order and make the investments that will make us a productive society." (CBC)

"Harper . . . , like Flaherty, he accused "tax-and-spend" Liberals of proposing "deep and high" increases to the GST, corporate and personal taxes, and even taxes on iPods."

Perhaps, Harper, Flaherty might explain, in rational - not fear mongering, logical - not mud-slinging, and plane - not partizan, fashion, substantiated by facts - not slanders, and reality - not hype, just exactly what they are basing these allegation on. That would surely be interesting reading. But, don't hold your breath on this.

In fact, Harper reducing the GST by 2 points was simply the wrong thing to do. What happened to the best interest of all Canadians. Shame on you Mr. Harper.

In fact, Corporate taxes - Ignatieff stated he not be increasing corporate taxes he would simply freeze them, for the time being, because of the huge deficits. That's pretty sound financial policy to me. What's your problem with that, Mr. Flaherty.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 9/22/2010 10:21:01 AM The Globe and Mail
Outdrawn in the gun fight, Tories train sights on election, Globe and Mail, Sep. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/outdrawn-in-the-gun-fight-tories-train-sights-on-election/article1717644/ Tab 40

I can't see Harper and the Con's calling an election on the Gun Registry (GR). For one thing, the voting public are already constellated, and have been for a long, long time, on the issue and not likely to shift - and it simply does not produce the numbers for a majority.

There are 3 groups:
- those that will vote Con because of their stance on the GR;
- those that will vote against the Con's for the same reason;
and,
- all the other that will vote based on things (like the deficit, Harper spending, economy)

These groups have already been very well defined and not likely to change unless Harper and the Con's actually do abolish the GR, then the:
- 2nd group will not likely change since they will be even more against Harper.
- 3rd won't change.
- 1st group may very well lose their need to support Harper and the Con's so strongly, or at all.

Further, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada seem to be going both ways on what the election issue will be. When it suites them, it is the Long Gun Registry, and when it suites them it is the economy.

The Campaign issue will involve the economy. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's spending with reckless abandon.

If Harper thought, in the least, that it could be the basis for obtaining more seats or even a majority then it seems Harper would not have had a private members bill introduced. He would have had the government introduce it and say it is a question of confidence (yah, like he has ever done that before).

If Harper really wanted to get rid of the GR he would have had the dismantling provisions introduced in the Budget implementation bill - (yah, like he has ever done that before).

Stephen Harper who only last week said his government “is not going to rest until that long gun registry is abolished.”

The key here is not "abolish". It is "rest".

Quite simply Harper does not want to put the GR to rest, he wants to keep it going.

Harper uses the GR as a 'call-to-arms' of the party faithful (little pun) and fund raising. He has made it his and the Con's "Raison D'etre".

When it's gone, what then, dissolve the Con Party.

Perhaps all those people who support the Con's for this reason only will start to take a hard look at Harper and the Con's and decide that they and Canada can do better, much better.

Actually abolishing the RG is a losing strategy for Harper.

Keith Martin has served his riding very well over the years, it is hard to see them getting much better, especially from a 'newbe'. It is hard to see him losing because of his stance on the GR.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 9/21/2010 12:55:16 PM the Globe and Mail
"The Conservative private-member's bill to scrap the long-gun registry faces a vote in the House of Commons on Sept. 22", Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press, Gloeb and Mail, 21 Sep.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-blitz-key-ridings-in-last-ditch-bid-to-scrap-gun-registry/article1715688/Conservatives blitz key ridings in last-ditch bid to scrap gun registry Tab 45

The article didn't mention who is paying for all these ads. I hope it isn't the good tax payers of Canada - yah, like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would ever use tax money to promote him and their party.

So, has the RCMP '09 Gun Registry Report been released?

Does having the media leak it count.

"Harper initially supported long-gun registry".

What, am I reading this right (morally that is).

Stephen Harper our PM and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, who, only yesterday stood up in the House of Commons and said Conservative MPs “can be very proud” that they tell their constituents “exactly” what “they are prepared to do” in Ottawa.
[Perhaps, Harper could tell all Canadians exactly what he is prepared to do]

“I would urge the leader of the NDP and the members of the NDP to implement the same level of integrity,” the Prime Minister said.
[that's a scary thought]

Stephen Harper who only last week said his government “is not going to rest until that long gun registry is abolished.”
[then, why the private member's Bill. Can't the Harper government introduce a Bill. They could even consider it a non-confidence vote - can you do that with a Private Member's Bill].
(Toronto Star).

ON 8/31/2010 12:12:05 PM The Globe and Mail, "Jack Layton - Here's a Good Plan" I posted:

It seems to me more rational to ensure that this Private Member's Bill fails.

If for no other reason than:

- Harper should be up front about it and have the Con government introduce the Bill;
- the failure to release the '08 Gun Registry Report last November until just after the vote; and,
- the failure, so far, of releasing the '09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:

"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)

With a cost of between $2 - $4 million a year, apparently. (The $1billion Harper spentt, and in one shot, on the Con Photo Op in Toronto in Aug. would finance the registry for 250 years)

- I can understand why Harper might not want that in front of the Canadian people prior to the vote.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm

Posted: 9/21/2010 10:59:04 AM the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-spent-record-130-million-on-advertising-as-deficit-soared/article1715738/
Conservatives spent record $130-million on advertising as deficit soared

“Advertising costs for the Economic Action Plan were one-time only costs in the context of the global economic crisis, during which the [government of Canada] deemed it important to communicate with Canadians about the programs and services available to them to counter tough economic times,” the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada said in a statement.

" the government of Canada deemed it important" - therein lies the crux.

The government also deemed it important to spend a billion, and counting, on the G8-G20.

It also deems it important to spend 16 billion on 65 F35's.

It also deems it important to spend 10 of billions of dollars on increased prison facilities.

It also deemed it important to take two points off the GST.

It also deems it important to reduce corporate taxes (from 18 to 15 %).

It also deems it important to maintain the tax subsidies for the Oil Sands companies.

It also deems it important to get rid of the Long Form Registry.

It also deems it important to get rid of the Long Gun registry (what's with all the 'long's - is that some kind of Freudian thing).

It also deemed it important to prorogue Parliament last years - oh, I almost forgot, did I mention, they deemed it even more important to prorogue it the year before.

Does anyone see a trend developing here.

There seems to be a whole-lot-a what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada 'deem' is best and what is actually best for the good people of Canada as a whole plays no part.

Harper is no longer even trying to say that "the people of Canada" want this, or that. Now it is "the government of Canada deems it important"

Given that Harper and the Cons received only approx 36% of the vote and a minority of seats. And, given that they now are enjoying about 33% support, with a core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta that are keeping Harper in power.

As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]d'.

The solution is all Canadians stand up, be counted, and in unison say:

"We deem an election important, right now".

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

9/19/2010 12:21:49 PM
Tories turn Google against rural Mps in gun-registry feud, Jane Taber, September 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-turn-google-against-rural-mps-in-gun-registry-feud/article1711463/?cid=art-rail-politics Tab 129
follow-up from: "Harplet, 'To release or not to release – that is the question:', I posted to cicblog, On 23 Aug.

The article didn't mention who is paying for all these ads. I hope it isn't the good tax payers of Canada - yah, like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would ever use tax money to promote him and their party.

So, has the Report been released?

Does having the media leak it count.

'09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:

"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)

With a cost of between $2 - $4 million a year, apparently. (The $1billion Harper spentt, and in one shot, on the Con Photo Op in Toronto in Aug. would finance the registry for 250 years)

On 23 Aug. I posted to cicblog:

- Harplet, "To release or not to release – that is the question:"

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous criticisms
Or to take arms against a sea of opposition
And, by suppressing the Report, end it.

[take-off from Shakespeare's Hamlet]

It seems to me the litmus test on this one is:

Does this mean that the 'major Report' on the Gun Registry that Cheliak was going to release before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton, will still be released at the same time, or at least well before the 22 September vote on the private member's gun registry vote.

This is, as opposed to say, 2 days after the vote, which, it seems, as I recall, happened in the last Report and vote on the same Bill - vis.: "The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].

The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: wlloydm 10:47 AM on September 18, 2010 National Post
‘Orwellian’ bureaucrats shielding PM from media surprises: documents, Adrian Lam/Postmedia News, 16 Sep.'10, National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Orwellian+bureaucrats+shielding+from+surprises+documents/3535989/story.html

We all have to ask ourselves just exactly why it is that Harper and the Cons are so concerned about 'surprises'. What kind of people engaging in what kind of activities are so concerned.

It may be an explanation of the large budget increases at the PMO's office, and after all who's going to write those MAP's - sure not Harper himself, not all of them.

Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, has revealed a very fundamental point - ah, leave it to those scientists to look at truth and reality, on a rational basis.

“It’s Orwellian, . . . The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them . . . They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.”

Sound familiar, how about the way that Harper and the Con's have been spending 10 of millions of our hard earned tax dollars on media hype to have the good people of Canada identify our Stimulus spending with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. How about the billion and counting for the Con photo op in downtown Toronto in August, which caused the sacking of the Toronto core.

Mr Weaver is right (morally that is).

It is not Michael Ignatieff that suffers, it is not the Liberal Party of Canada, it is not even the NDP.

It is the people of Canada, all of us, together, that suffer and are so abused.

And the cold, hard reality also is:

Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper can do all these thing with impunity.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

How to fix QP? It’s simple, Norman Spector

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/how-to-fix-qp-its-simple/article1711228/

In that Question Period is a very important and useful aspect of our Parliamentary System. Having camera's is also very important.

Getting rid of the camera's would give the Opposition one less ability to make the government accountable and thus enhance Canadian democracy. On the other hand, given the extent to which Stephen Harper and the Cons have curtailed our democratic process already and suppressed accountability, getting rid of the cameras seems like small potatoes, indeed.

It is the people of Canada that should stand up, be counted and say in no uncertain terms of what behavior and by whom they do not approve.

The media should shine their light in clear, unequivocal and glaring fashion at behavior that is unbecoming a representative of the people of this great and proud nation.

If someone is acting like a loudmouth bully then bring that to the attention of all Canadians.

If they are evading questions and responding with insult and personal slurs, they should ring this loud and clear.

For all those MP's out there whose concept of truth is whether it is recorded in Hansard TV cameras offer one more means of holding them accountable.

In fact there should be a few more cameras panning the house and a production crew to operate the various cameras and get the good shots.

Norman, you have a forum from which to do just that and you have many years experiences involved in Federal politics. Surely, if there is any media guy around that could do this is you. Or, is it that your political affiliations get in the way.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:57am, PDT, CBC News

"NRA involved in gun registry debate"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html#socialcomments

If the truth be known . . .

It seems to me, a lot of people in Canada might be very surprised at the extent, range and degree to which Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada get instruction and direction from ultra-right conservative elements in the US. The NRA is but one facet.

I would guess that Con ideology, in all its fundamental glory, can be traced to the US.

When Harper says that he will follow the US in such important issues as Global Warming, it is no accident, simple dodging an issue, or trying to get close and personal with Obama. And, you can betcha the real motivation for the $16 billion purchase of the 65 F-35 is sourced in the US, to the extent that they made it sole source and did not allow any open bidding on it.

Of course, you can betcha Harper and the Con's will, as we have seen on many, many occasions, do his, and their, best to ensure that this truth not be known.

In cicblog: 31 Jul.'10, I opined:

Harper is part of the International (and not just the US) Con movement, epi-centre in the US (esp Southern) and especially right wing Republican's, but don't exclude the Tea Party. He takes his ideological, strategic, policy instructions from them. They also provide ideological, political analysis for Canada, as well as other areas.

You can be sure that right now, Harper is being instructed in how to further insinuate Con ideology into the very fabric of Candian society. In opening his campaign in the last election Harper proclaimed that Canadians are moving to the right (politically as opposed to morally). This is, of course, a distortion of reality (surprise, surprise). We are being dragged, by stealth and deception, farther and father to extreme right of Con'ism.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 9/13/2010 12:59:32 PM The Globe and Mail
Universal pharmacare touted as way to save billions, André Picard Public health reporter, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 13, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/universal-pharmacare-touted-as-way-to-save-billions/article1704881/ Tab 20

If you think Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada would introduce as national pharmacare program, you must be on drugs (of the kind not likely to be subsidized any time soon by any government).

Getting everybody together to do mass purchasing and thus save $10billion is certainly a great idea and a strategy that has been with us for many generations.

Isn't that what organizing into a democratic political unit all about - everyone contributing to the benefit of all, and helping those that need help. This is, of course, unless you happen to be Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada, then it is the very un-democratic, controlling the many for the benefit of the few.

If I understand this report, there is three groups, private insurance, public drug plans (over 65 and social assistance) and 'out of pocket'.

A national drug plan would be, presumably, be a Federal expenditure. So, there may be $10 billion overall saving but those saving would likely be realized mostly by individuals, whereas the Federal coffers would pay the expenses.

So, I am not sure to simply transfer to a federal (or even the Provinces as a group) program is the way to go.

If the current expenditures is $25billion and this represents a saving of $10billion there is still $15 billion for which the Federal government would be picking up the tab. Of course, part of this is the already existing expense of the public drug plan (it seems 25% or, $5billion, which, presumably is provincial expense, but could be handled) . Thus, it represents a $10billion in increased spending from the Federal coffers.

However, it seems that if it is a question of organizing and co-ordinating purchasing, then charging a premium for individuals to participate certainly would make sense. On the other hand making provisions for those that truly cannot afford to pay the premium also makes sense.

Presumably this report is saying that the premium paid under such a co-ordinated purchasing plan by individuals would be less than what they already pay, if they are on a private plan. It would presumably also be less costly for those not on plans and those that on public drug plans would have the relief available. (For those for whom their company, or otherwise, currently pay for their private plan, could continue to pay the premium for this new plan, and with the same tax implications, why not.)

There is the issue of participation, of course.

If this is truly a savings on the individual level, then I can't see the problem. If such new plan takes in more than required (this can happen, just ask insurance companies) then perhaps those that did not take advantage of it up to the premium paid can get a discount (it would not be full, obviously) on the next premium.

At first blush, it sounds ok to me.

Except: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posts were closed
Walkom: Why Harper’s government is so divorced from reality, Thomas Walkom, National Affairs Columnist, Sep 11 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/859393--walkom-why-harper-s-government-is-so-divorced-from-reality

Here's something to consider:

Moderately high unemployment being useful for right wing supporters - keeping unions in check, wages down and excuse " to stomp on public sector wages and eliminate government programs" (yah, like Harper has ever considered that) and most of all,

"it keeps the population in line. Most are too busy worrying about their jobs to pay attention to matters like climate change or the Alberta oilsands." (Toronto Star)

+
a small core of die-hard, extremist, right wing support (with epi-centre Alberta), that keeps Stephen Harper and the Con's in power . . . (cicblog)

= . . . (You do the math).

The August Labour Force Survey is not a reliable indicator of an economy that is on the mend.

There may have been a net 36,000 created. However, not only did the jobless rate go up. But, according to the Statscan report, 68,000 were in educational services "rebounded from a decline of a similar magnitude the previous month." (lets see, as lose in teaching jobs in July followed be a corresponding gain in August, what does that indicate - a stronger economy or the Summer holidays). Also, "There were increases in the public sector (+58,000) and in self-employment (+18,000) in August, while there were declines among private sector employees (-40,000)."(Statscan)

Teaching jobs are important and one of the better ways to spend tax payers money - certainly much better than a lot of the ways the Harper government 'used' the Stimulus Spending. It is not so obviously for Public sector jobs and perhaps Stephen Harper could fill us in on their nature (it seems a significant number went to the PMO office). But this is still tax payers' money, going towards deficits and not indicative of an economy that is mending.

These numbers certainly do not indicate that the economic crisis is over.

Increasing EI premiums is a tax in crease, plane and simple. Although I am sure Harper, Fleherty and the Con's will say it isn't. One sure indicator is whether EI premiums goes to a separate, marked account, dedicated to EI payments, or the the general purse. Another, is as stated that EI premiums are already more than supporting the EI program (by the tune of 55 billion).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Hébert: Stephen Harper in no-win situation on funding for Quebec City arena, Toronto Star, Sep 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/859158--hebert-stephen-harper-in-no-win-situation-on-funding-for-quebec-city-arena

"A new arena is a pre-condition for the return of an NHL franchise to the city. Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Péladeau – whose interest in buying such a franchise is widely known – also happens to be the driving force behind a new Conservative-friendly television network dubbed Fox News North."

"Last year, Harper won a long-held Bloc Québécois seat in the Lower St-Lawrence area. A subsequent Canadian Press study revealed that the riding of Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup had received record heaps of federal stimulus money. "

I didn't know that, (although, it does surprise me in the least)

Good reporting Chantal Hébert, thanks.

(Also, great pic!)

It seems, if I recall, a wise man once said . . . sorry, I meant Severely Hypocritical man once said, regarding the media in Democracies, that they should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.

I would recommend Chantal for the SH Award for Media Excellence in light shining.

Just think Stephen Harper is spending our money to buy him votes.

If Stephen Harper wants an NHL team in Quebec City then let him, and any other Con that feels that way, invest their own money. If they want to buy votes then let them spend money that has been raised by the Conservative Party of Canada. Isn't that fair, isn't that the morally right thing to do.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 9:10am, PDT, Winnipeg Free Press
Manitoba got 'more than its fair share', Toews reveals his thinking on Quebec City arena bucks, Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free Press, 11/09/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/manitoba-got-more-than-its-fair-share-dh-dh-102683319.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

See below: "Harper: By the Way, Did I Mention, This isn't 'Stimulus' Spending, It's 'Vote Buying' Spending." (11 September, 2010)

Submitted: 8:32am, PDT, 11 Sep.'10 CBC News
(posted and on the first attempt - hurray!!!)
Bernier slams PM pledge to fund arenas, September 10, 2010 , CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/10/arena-funding-conservatives.html

Didn't I hear Harper say the stimulus spending is over???

Oh, I see, this isn't 'stimulus' spending,

it's 'vote buying' spending,

my mistake.

"The International Monetary Fund has issued a secret recipe for global economic recovery that is sure to taste sour to many G20 leaders.

The confidential report, obtained by The Canadian Press, says advanced countries must make government spending cuts their top priority — the same message Prime Minister Stephen Harper and some other leaders are pushing at this weekend's G20 summit. "(G&M)

(by the way, I don't recall Harper referring to this IMF Report when he was grandstanding in the media, lecturing the other G20 countries about stopping stimulus spending and reducing deficits)

“Advanced countries must send a clear message that as their stimulus plans expire, they will focus on getting their fiscal houses in order,” Harper said. (Toronto Star)

Perhaps the way around this apparent inconsistency is that Harper doesn't consider Canada to be one of those 'advanced' countries - it seems I recall Harper referring to Canada as becoming a 'second-tier socialist country . . . [with] second rate status" (National Post)

Maxime Bernier is right on this one, no, not just politically but morally as well (I never thought I would be saying that).

Just think Stephen Harper is spending my money to buy him votes.

If Stephen Harper wants an NHL team in Quebec City then let him, and any other Con that feels that way, invest their own money. If they want to buy votes then let them spend money that has been raised by the Conservative Party of Canada. Isn't that fair, isn't that the morally right thing to do.

In my blog "Harper: I Get By With a Lot of Help From My Friends (Core of Die Hard Supporters Epi-centre Alberta)", discussing the possible erosion of die-hard support for Harper, I wrote:
"One question is, of course, where has this core die-hard support eroded. According to this poll it may be Quebec. However, I am no so sure of this, their support has decreased there but that doesn't mean their core die-hard support has decreased there. Also, there is some suggestion that if Stephen Harper builds a hockey arena in Quebec City to bring in a NHL franchise the Con's may very well pick up 5 or 6 seats - sounds pretty cynical to me.
(05 August, 2010)

On 16 July, 2010, I wrote ("Eye watering technology"??? - Peter MacKay, how about the "eye watering bill")

"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 or the military-industrial complex, perhaps with Dick Cheney.

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.

We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.

Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm." (cicblog, 16 Jul.'10)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

No cash, no signs: Tories made stimulus funds contingent on erecting billboards, Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-signs-no-cash-tories-made-stimulus-funds-contingent-on-erecting-billboards/article1700043/ Tab 43

Access to Information nets 'secret memo'???

I'm surprised that we didn't require a ruling from the Speaker of the House, with a Committee to vet each such documents to protect national security.

How many people out there think this is all a bit 'over the top' even for Stephen Harper and all the Con's running this great country of ours.

How many cynically believe that this is a self-serving, partizan 'action plan' by Harper and the Con's to have the Stimulus funds identified with the Conservative Party of Canada, and at the tax payer's expense.

"Dimitri Soudas said. 'But ultimately, signs for projects under the Economic Action Plan is a sign of transparency and accountability.'"

How many out there think that when Harper and the Con's say it is simply 'transparency' and 'accountability' what they are really referring to is trying to make Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada transparent and make people feels that they are accountable to Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada party for these funds, as opposed to all the people of Canada, united as one great nation, helping those that need help.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention . . . if you notice, Dimitri Soudas is not saying that the reason it is being done is for 'transparency and accountability', simply that is the, alleged, result.

Also, lets be rational here. If it is being done for ' transparency and accountability', why the secrecy.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

9/9/2010 10:00:54 AM The Globe and Mail

Government study reveals significant errors in voluntary census, Steven Chase, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 09, 2010

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-study-reveals-significant-errors-in-voluntary-census/article1700566/ Tab 17

"A study conducted by Statistics Canada weeks before Ottawa revealed its plan to scrap the mandatory long-form census found that significant errors can creep into survey results gathered on a voluntary basis.

. . .

The Statscan study, Potential Impact of Voluntary Survey on Selected Variables, was prepared with full knowledge of Ottawa’s census change plans."


Here's a few questions for which all those statisticians out there might hazard a guess.

- what are the odds that Tony Clement was not aware of this study:
- prior to announcing getting rid of the Long Form census
- by the time of the resignation of Munir Sheikh
- until today's newspaper

- what are the odds that Tony Clement come out and make a statement that he was aware of it and when.

- If you were required to complete the Long Form Census (under the current regime, by threat of law)
would you:
a) - bite the bullet and fill it out
b) - leave it blank and make them force you
c) - lie
d) - put your religion down as 'Jedi'

- If there is a change would you rather:
a) get rid of the Long Form entirely and just go with the regular
census
b) get rid of the sanctions and rely on the good will of Canadians
to fill it out.
c) Have no problems with it if they paid you:
- $10.00 (hey, ten bucks, is ten bucks)
- $50.00
- $100.00
- other [please fill in]

- Given there are:
There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation. This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.

What are the odds of any Canadian violating one of these on any given day.

- If Harper and the Con's got rid of every one of these, based on Canadians should not be compelled by force of law, how long would it take to get rid of all of them.

- What are teh odds we are being Con'd by Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and the Conservative Party of Canada

Also, how does this study square with everything Tony Clement has said regarding the Long Form Registry - anyone hazard a guess.

PS: Harper attacking the 'Long' Form Census and 'Long' Gun Registry, what is this, some kind of Freudian thing.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 9/8/2010 12:37:27 PM The Globe and Mail
Tories, Liberals and NDP get bad news in latest poll, John Ibbitson and Jane Taber, Sep. 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-liberals-and-ndp-get-bad-news-in-latest-poll/article1699082/ Tab 68



It seems to me the important aspect of the current Polls is the provincial numbers. Unfortunately the margins of error for the Provinces is quite large to the extent that the Liberals and The Conservative Party are statistically equal everywhere except the Prairies (what can you do). Also important is the undecided.

The Con's have 33% - but see below - die-hard, extremist right wing, with epi-centre in Alberta, support, which keeps Stephen Harper and the Con's in power, (I refer to it as the 'core con number'). This ought to be taken into account in any analysis since it can be assumed they will support Harper in any Poll (as long as he stays on program and produces the goods)

Normally one might take the undecideds and distribute them pro-rata (I refer to it as the 'Keith Davies' adjustment) . However, given the core con number one must assume that the 33% essentially represents all the die-hard supporters and so there are disproportionately much fewer Con's in the undecided, to the point of it being statistically insignificant.

To see how this core con number number skews results, take for example, the Leadership Index:

Trust: Nanos gives Stephen Harper: 25.5

i.e., of the 33% die-hard 25.5 points choose him as the most trusted.

So, at least 7.5 points of core con's are not choosing Harper as the most trusted. And, if you assume that some of the 25.5% are not die-hards, then it is even worse for Harper. Same for the undecideds, if there are an appreciable number of die-hards in the undecideds that bodes ill for Harper.

So, the trust score for Harper should be more accurately set at: - 7.5%, or less

Similarly,

- Competence for Harper should be more accurately set at: -2.7%

- Vision for Harper should be more accurately set at: - 5.5%

In other words, Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada may be in trouble with his core of supporters and we may see an adjustment of the core con number in the coming months. The big question is why. This may be that some simply disagree with the many things Harper has done in the past while and it has built up to them starting to question their support (undecideds) or have actually been pushed over the top (gone to other Parties). It could also be basically the opposite and some are displeased with Harper's watering down policy and doing everything by stealth, not coming right out and stating exactly what he stands for and what his policies are. The indications are that they represent as much as 5 - 7% of the core con number.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

If you were required to (under the current regime, by threat of law)

would you:
a) - bite the bullet and fill it out
b) - leave it blank and make them force you
c) - lie
d) - put your religion down as 'Jedi'

If there is a change would you rather:
a) get rid of the Long Form entirey and just go with the regular
census
b) get rid of the sanctions and rely on te good will of Canadioans
to fill it out.
c) Have no problems with it if they paid you:
- $10.00 (hey, ten bucks, is ten bucks)
- $50.00
- $100.00
- other [please fill in]

Also,

Harper and the Con's attacking the
'Long' Form Census
'Long' Gun Registry

What is this, some kind of Freudian, macho, 'my-way-or-the-high-way' thing, or what.

and,

The threat of jail time and/or fines for things like not completing

the Long Form is considered by governments as a necessary evil.

Criminal sanctions including jail time and fines are the strongest

method the Federal government has to ensure that a thing is done or

not done.

There are many, many examples in our society that could be pointed

to and the same criticisms made.

Only the Federal Government can make something a criminal offence.

There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets

of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant

regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution

for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing

something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation.

This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.

This makes an awful lot of opportunities to be thrown in jail. And

from this 'criminal offence pool' I am very confident that there

could be found many, many examples that, if brought to the

attention of Canadians, would illicit the type of response that

Tony Clement is giving to the Long Form. So why would Harper and

the Con's be so firm on this one - it's all in the Ideology.

Next time you use a stamp to mail a letter keep in mind that:
Canada Post Corporation Act
60. Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act or the

regulations . . .
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.

A Canada Post employee suggest to me that if someone where to put a

stamp with a picture of the Queen upside down on the envelope, they

would be violating the legislation, and so committing a criminal

offence (I didn't do it, of course, we were just talking)

Next time you use a penny to replace that blown fuse keep in mind

you may be committing a criminal office (of course, you may have

the defence of insanity available to you).

Currency Act

11. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a licence

granted by the Minister, melt down, break up or use otherwise than

as currency any coin that is current and legal tender in Canada.

Offence and punishment

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) . . . is liable on

summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty

dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months

or to both, and, in addition to any fine or imprisonment imposed,

the court may order that the articles by means of or in relation to

which the offence was committed be forfeited to Her Majesty.

One solution may be keeping the fine, with the threat of jail time

for failing to pay, but eliminating the criminality - à la

Provincial Legislation (vis.: illegal parking is not a criminal

offence, but don't pay the fine and find out what happens).

Another, is pay the people who are given the Long Forms for their

time to complete them. There is a certain amount of 'nature

justice' to this, considering they are the ones who are spending

all their time to provide information that many, many people will

make money from. Clement could use the 30 million he has ear-marked

for a media campaign (although Harper and the Con's would lose the

opportunity to put themselves front and centre at the tax-payer's

expense as when they spent over 50 million identifying the Con

party with the billions spent on the stimulus program)

Criminal sanctions is a very blunt, harsh method of co-ercing the

'masses' to obey the law. It originated in a time long past, a

harsh and intolerant past where human rights was non-existent and

dignity and integrity of the person simply didn't apply as a

universal principle, political rule was top-down and authoritarian

and not democratically based. It was a time where this (along with

torture, of course) was essentially the only way to enforce the law

- there was no point in simply fining someone since the vast

majority had no money. With the development of a commercially based

society, human right and the integrity and dignity of the person,

and democracy, the 'masses' are no longer 'masses' they are members

of our society. And, they have more 'disposable' money, but are

just as reluctant to 'throw it away on fines'.

Revamping the whole law regime to bring us out of the dark ages and

reflect these developments of humanity would be a good thing.

However, it is not likely to occur with Harper and the Con's. They

are, in fact, dragging us back and undoing what our forefathers

with their blood sweat and tears have achieved over many years.

Stephen Harper and the Con's 'tough on crime' policies are a

direct, and harmful, throwback to this harsh, authoritarian, top-

down, ideologically based, anti-democratic exercise of political

power.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 July, 2010, "Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid!"

********************

Do I perceive an inconsistency with the Harper policies:

- if it furthers Harper's hyper-partizan, right-wing extremist

agenda, then the sky's the limit on spending.

But, if it goes against the Harper hyper-agenda then any amount is'

wasteful and ineffective', despite how much it benefits Canada as a

whole and our way of life.

If the Con on the Long Form census is: get rid of the sanctions,

make it voluntary.

Then Harper, wouldn't it be consistent to do the same for the Long

Gun Registry.

. . . Oh, I see, then people would decline to register their guns

and the information as a resource would be unreliable - now why

didn't I see that argument coming.

But then, even with the current sanction on the Gun Registry they

could simply put down "Jedi" for 'use' (or is it 'religion'),

couldn't they Mr. Harper, I mean applying your neo-rational

pseudo-reasons.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 August, 2010, "Careful, It's Another a Harper Con"

***************

If it is the potential criminal charges that is his concern, then

simply suggest other methods. I think they should pay the people to

fill the form out, after all StatsCan does sell the information and

people use it to make money and we are in a Commerce based society.

That is likely to get a better response than the threat of criminal

sanctions.

Also, Flanagan should point out all the other places that abiding

by the legislation is re-inforced by criminal sanctions. I can't

wait to see Harper and the Con's get to dealing with each of these,

one-by-one.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 August, 2010, "Harper's 'Right' Knight To The Rescue"

Posted: 9/7/2010 11:23:35 AM The Globe and Mail
Why does the Harper government do what it does? Beats us, Jonathan Malloy, Globe and Mail, Sep. 07, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-does-the-harper-government-do-what-it-does-beats-us/article1694280/

Trying to fit Harper and the Con's into pre-existing and traditionally defined boxes won't work. A big example is referring to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada as the 'Tories'. The reason that this is problematic is that, in a word, 'they're not the Tories'.

There are a number of things that underlying Harper and the Con's and make it difficult to fit that into one of Malloy Boxes.

- Harper has dedicated his public life to tearing our Canada - the one that our forefather built through their blood, seat and tears, the free, open, tolerant society, whose purpose was to unit and build all of Canada for the good of all of Canadians - asunder.

- Harper has a core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters with epi-centre Alberta (up until very recently 33%) that he can count on to support him just about no matter what, as long as they feel he will deliver the goods.

- the Harper strategy is to chip away at the underpinnings of our nationalism and Parliamentary form of government with the purpose of defaulting to the Provinces. He is doing it in an stealth fashion, keeping it just low enough, or under the radar so as not to wake Canadians up to what he is doing. To this end Harper is playing a game of inches (more like football than hockey). His targets are either small, with little chance of uniting Canadians in opposition, but with very significant impact, or appeals to people on an emotional basis with rationality suppressed.

- As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.

- Harper pushes the limits with these small steps with the intention of demonstrating to the die-hard core that he is still their man. But, sometimes he miscalculates in the reaction to these incremental steps, or simply doesn't care as long as it doesn't unit the opposition, as long as it is not a ballot issue that would go against him.

- Harper cannot simply come out and let all Canadians know exactly what he intends as far as Canada is concerned since it would unite the opposition and he would get the boot, post haste, and that just wouldn't do.

- It is not simply implementing ultra conservative values, reduction of federalism ad absurdum, but also stopping the flow of oil profits from Alberta to the rest of Canada, and that simply wouldn't do, now would it.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 9/6/2010 12:15:11 PM The Globe and Mail
Police made mistakes in G20 tactics, chief admits for first time, Gobe and Mail, Sep. 03, 2010 8:55PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-made-mistakes-in-g20-tactics-chief-admits-for-first-time/article1694815/

So, $160 million, and counting, in law suits. This is not to say legal fees and costs, on both sides, as well as to the administration of justice.

I wonder what other post-G8-20 costs we will have to add to over one billion in security costs already admitted (I think admitted anyway, or is it $250 million admitted and over $1billion actual, I have to check).

As I blogged 20 June: 'Harper the Master Strategist - Give them Toronto':

"In an interview with CTV's . . . Canada AM Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the violence that he called 'pretty disturbing and pretty deplorable.'

[Stephen Harper]
'That said, these leaders, we attend summits all the time and we know the unfortunate reality is that these summits attract a certain thuggish criminal element. And that's just the reality,' he said.

'Unfortunately, when you have peaceful protests, there are some who use it for other purposes… So leaders understand, we've seen it in other cities, we're going to see it again in the future.'

. . .

[So, it seems Harper knew in advance the likelihood of such destruction in downtown Toronto.]

One need only ask themselves why Harper changed the location of the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to Toronto.

If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see.[Clement] would surely get the boot in the next election had this [trashing of downtown area] happened in his riding. Toronto doesn't vote Con anyway so what Con cares. To add injury to injury, apparently Harper and the Con's are refusing to cover the damage (which the individual owners explain this type of damage is not normally covered by insurance).

Anyone in Canada who thinks that Harper and the Con's do anything for the good of all of Canada ought to take this statement very seriously."

"Chief Blair also acknowledged the problems his force faced the previous day, when the small group of black-bloc anarchists splintered off a larger peaceful march. He said he was 'taken by surprise' by the anarchists’ moves, and that it was “extremely difficult” to police a march and a mob at the same time. He said Saturday’s anarchy had an effect on Sunday’s police tactics. "

Chief Blair explains that they were 'taken by surprise' by the splintering from the main, peaceful protest.

Perhaps Harper should have briefed Chief Blair on the risks.

An interesting question is whether this is a new tactic by G8-20 protestors or something that has been used before, and if so how common is it.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Not Yet Posted:

"RACE DEADLOCKED AS CONSERVATIVES FALTER ON CENSUS DECISION - September 2, 2010, Ekospolitics
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/race-deadlocked-as-conservatives-falter-on-census-decision-september-2-2010/

By the way - I disagree with the analysis put forward by Ekos (see below) at least to the extent that it tells the whole story. When you look at a Province by Province breakdown, what you find, in my opinion, is a migration to the Green and Block parties (which is heavily environmental). It may be that University educated people are more 'enlightened' about the environment (I am not commenting on that). They seem to be shifting away from the Con's due to the Long Form Census and Gun Registry, etc., etc., etc., but they seem to be choosing their new 'tent' based on environmental issues. This would explain why the Liberals are the same over the last two Ekos Polls.

A couple of years ago, prior to the last election, I suggested that Dion announce that if the Liberal were to win he would ask Elizabeth May to be Environment Minister. Ignatieff wouldn't likely do this, but he should make it very clear, and soon, that the Liberal Big Tent is big enough to welcome Green Party supporters, and make them feel at home, whom, I would think, are every bit as eager to give Harper and the Con's the boot as any others in Canada.

Also, the 29.4% for Harper and the Con's nationally is only a bit under the 'mythical' 33% considering the margin of error (2.7% nationally). If you look at Alberta you see that if anything the die-hards are still there and with a bit bigger numbers (2.8 points). The big difference seems to be BC where the Con's dropped 15.4 points, the Lib's were essentially the same, GP up 6.3% and NDP up 7.6. Atlantic shifted from the Con's to the GP with a per centage sticking to the Lib's as the went by (Con's down 12.4, Lib's up 9.2 and GP up 13.4 points) - but you must keep in mind differences in sizes of populations, which will affect the overall.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

****
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/race-deadlocked-as-conservatives-falter-on-census-decision-september-2-2010/
. . .

"RACE DEADLOCKED AS CONSERVATIVES FALTER ON CENSUS DECISION - September 2, 2010
In the last week of polling, the Conservatives and the Liberals were in an almost exact tie at 29.4% and 29.1%, respectively. The NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc show little change (although the Greens and the Bloc are up modestly). The demographics show that the Liberal move to a tied position is almost exclusively a product of a major shift in how the university educated are leaning. The Conservatives have shed many of their university educated supporters and the Liberal Party has picked them up (as well as some possible gains from other university educated voters)."

Submitted: 9/2/2010 10:59:46 AM The Globe and Mail
Where is Ignatieff’s plan to restore our democracy?,
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Sep. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/where-is-ignatieffs-plan-to-restore-our-democracy/article1693052/ Tab 17

Many of the reforms Lawrence Martin suggest are important and interesting.

Protecting ourselves from the type of government of Harper and the Cons is vital to maintaining the Canada that was forged by the generations of the blood sweat and tears of those that came before us - the tolerant, complex, multi-faceted nation, with an open, rationally based modern Democratic government bent solely to the good of all Canadians, to help all those that need help and protect all those that need protection.

Harper strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society, catering to a small segment, 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 like minded to every administrative position in sight.

However, changes in law, codification of rules, is a mug's game that plays into the hands of rulers of the likes of Harper. Just look at the fixed term elections legislation that Harper himself brought in. A leader that does not have the best interest of the nation at heart can find any excuse to ignore the true meaning and purpose of a piece of legislation and twist and 'interpret' its provisions to their own ends. Also consider the 'Accountability Act', which is no more than an elaborate media campaign for Harper.

The weakness in our system is that it assumes that the leader acts for the benefit of all Canadians and for the good of the nation. Up till Harper we had that and that is why these problems are arising at this juncture.

Harper has dedicated his public life to tears this great nation of ours asunder. His polices are designed to benefit the core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters with epi-centre in Alberta and the rest of Canada be dam[redacted]ed.

Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" (Ken Dryden, Liberal leadership convention) Harper can do all these thing with impunity.

As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]d'.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

submitted: 9:16 am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10 CBC
10:56am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10
(let's see if they post it this time on the first try, last time it took three tries)
re-submitted: 10:56am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10
(let's try again)
Harper priorities 'prisons and planes': Ignatieff, September 1, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/01/ignatieff-wrap-up.html#socialcomments

- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics "Woodstock')

Rock on Iggy

excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

Posted: 9/1/2010 11:53:13 AM The Globe and Mail

Military sees F-35’s stealth as way to assert sovereignty, Campbell Clark, Sep. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-sees-f-35s-stealth-as-way-to-assert-sovereignty/article1692076/

With all due respect, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, that's not the reason Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the other Con's have been giving, not until that so-called 'Russian invasion' last week, that is.

Peter MacKay's reasons appears to be that it is 'eye watering technology' (and that is in Hansard) and it is a great recruiting tool

"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.

'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)

I think making DS's standard issue would fit MacKay's bill much better and be cheaper (depending on the number of games issued)

Also,

I think more to the point is as Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)

I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.

Our current, recently upgraded, arsenal of F-18's seemed to be more than adequate to meet the recent, apparent, threats to Canadian sovereignty by the Russians. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawa Citizen)

So, there appears to be no historical basis for the assertion that we need to upgrade from the F-18's to the F-35's to protect our sovereignty.

Also, there is a serious flaw in the logic in asserting that we need to upgrade from F-18's to F-35's for such purpose.

The F-35's may be able to sneak up on Russian Bombers. But, as the F-18's showed I suspect just about any fighter jet could get 'up close and personal' with these planes.

However there are a number of things:

- why is it important to sneak up on them, if the objective is deterrence. One would think 'the more visible the better'

What is the likelihood that they would not refrain from entering our air space even if we were very visible about it.

On the other hand, if they did, we would not likely shoot them down and so why the need to sneak up on them. Unless Harper and the Con government is preparing our military for war, I can't see it. If they are, I think all Canadians ought to know and forthwith.

- If an enemy is going to incur into Canadian air space, they are very likely to do it with at least the same technology as the F-35's and, after all, there are few possible threats to our Arctic sovereignty that are not part of the 'Joint Strike Fighter' (perhaps Mr. Deschamps could explain why they use the adjective 'strike') program.

"The United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey have formally joined the U.S. and contributed money toward the program. These partners are either NATO countries and/or close US allies, and peacekeeping and war fighting more recently have been done by coalitions. " (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-int.htm)

That leaves the Russians and the Chinese - I don't see them violating our air space and I don't see them without comparable technology - this suggests a scene of opposing fighter jets flying all over the place trying to find each other.

On the other hand, if terrorists get hold of comparable 'eye-watering technology' then I might agree and shoot them down on sight.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/31/2010 12:26:41 PM The Globe and Mail

Jack Layton's refusal to crack whip bodes ill for gun registry, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, August 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ Tab 52

"'In effect, rhetoric aside, both Coalition leaders intend to keep the wasteful and ineffective $2 billion long-gun registry,’ the Tories say. "

I thought the (soon to be released - soon after the vote, perhaps) RCMP '09 Gun Registry Report states that it cost no more than approx. 4 million a year.

If you want to see wasteful and ineffective in the $billions just look at the G-8 and G20 costs to Canadians taxpayers this Summer in Toronto. For a couple days of Harper and Con photo-op's we are responsible for over a billion dollars in costs.

This is enough to cover the Long Gun registry for over 250 years (if the billion were set aside now, with interest compounds, hey perhaps a 1000 years), which Canadians would benefit to a much, much, much greater extent (even a little benefit is better than zero, or negative, benefit).

Oh, and did I mention that these 'security costs' by Harper make the cost of setting up the Gun Registry look like kid's stuff. And we are still waiting for the full costs of increasing prison facilities for 'unreported crimes'.

Do I perceive an inconsistency with the Harper policies:

- if it furthers Harper's hyper-partizan, right-wing extremist agenda, then the sky's the limit on spending.

But, if it goes against the Harper hyper-agenda then any amount is' wasteful and ineffective', despite how much it benefits Canada as a whole and our way of life.

If the Con on the Long Form census is: get rid of the sanctions, make it voluntary.

Then Harper, wouldn't it be consistent to do the same for the Long Gun Registry.

. . . Oh, I see, then people would decline to register their guns and the information as a resource would be unreliable - now why didn't I see that argument coming.

But then, even with the current sanction on the Gun Registry they could simply put down "Jedi" for 'use' (or is it 'religion'), couldn't they Mr. Harper, I mean applying your neo-rational pseudo-reasons.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/31/2010 12:12:05 PM The Globe and Mail

Jack Layton's refusal to crack whip bodes ill for gun registry, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, August 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ Tab 52

Mr. Layton should explain just exactly how he would be able to " introduce his own legislation – possibly in the form of a private-member’s bill – to address rural concerns." if the private member's bill is passed.

For one thing, you can betcha Harper and the Con's will dismantle it, forthwith, to at least the full-extent allowed by the Bill.

- Compare: "This private member's bill will require the destruction of more than 8,000,000 firearms records." (William Blair, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and head of Toronto's police department, Globe and Mail, Nov. 03, 2009).

It seems to me more rational to ensure that this Private Member's Bill fails.

(If for no other reason than:

- Harper should be up front about it and have the Con government introduce the Bill;
- the failure to release the '08 Gun Registry Report last November until just after the vote; and,
- the failure, so far, of releasing the '09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:

"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)

- I can understand why Harper might not want that in front of the Canadian people prior to the vote.)

Then, once this Bill is defeated " introduce his own legislation".

Ignatieff is right (morally that is) if this Bill passes, Jack Layton may very well be the cause of Canadians not getting changes to the Gun Registry that are rationally based, taking into account the good of all Canadians, in all demographics.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/30/2010 11:28:18 AM The Globe and Mail
Opposition undeterred by Tory refusal to hand over emails, Globe and Mail, Aug. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-undeterred-by-governments-refusal-to-hand-over-emails/article1689506/

Sorry Mr. Baird, but you do not make the rules, no matter what Stephen Harper thinks, Parliament does.

'Protect My Bu[redacted]t' may be a long standing political principle but it has never been elevated to Constitutional Convention.

The Fundamental Constitutional Convention is that Parliament is Supreme, as Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, so dramatically and emphatically re-inforced a mere few months ago.

Why do Canadians have to spend months fighting tooth and nail to force Harper and the Conservative government to release information - I mean other than it might incriminate Harper or some other Con.

Rather than simply ranting and raving that "constitutional convention dictates" perhaps John Baird, Stephen Harper or any other Con state exactly what law, what convention, what precedent (other than one generated by them) they are relying on to withhold this information.

Another fundamental Constitutional Convention in Canada is the rule of law (not to be confused with the rule of Harper).

Thus, we arrive at a Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy:

Parliament has the right to the information + no law to bar release to Parliament = hand over the documents

The above is based on rationality, logic, law, and not the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Harper, Baird, Tony Clement and all the other Con's.

This Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy is in stark contrast to

The Fundamental Con of the Harper Government:

a core of die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta, who are the ones keeping him in power
+
polarized, non-consolidated opposition
=
Harper's 'I make the rules'

with corollary:

'Canadians be d[redacted]'.

"But constitutional expert C.E.S. (Ned) Franks does not believe the government can withhold the e-mails. 'I think the Parliament is entitled to know what instructions the minister’s office staff gives,' Mr. Franks said, 'and I also think the Parliament is entitled to know whether the minister has any knowledge of this.'

(Ned) Franks is right (morally that is) Parliament, and all Canadians, are entitled know what Harper and his Ministers' are doing; and, why they go to such great lengths to obscure, obstruct, obfuscate it.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/29/2010 11:22:40 AM
Witness compares veracity of census data to information obtained through torture, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Aug. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/witness-compares-veracity-of-census-data-to-information-obtained-through-torture/article1688516/

This article reveals no actual evidence to support that allegation that Canadians lie on the Long Form Census because they are compelled to answer by threat of criminal prosecution to the extent of torture, or to any extent, for that matter.

These 'Con-icisms' smacks of all the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and all the other Con's - all hype and no content, designed to appeal to our emotions, to incite, and not to address an issue rationally, to determine the best for all Canadians.

It is so much like the Con's, the only actual example is the same one that was used by Harper earlier this Summer - vis.: " 21,000 Canadians registered Jedi as their religion in the 2001 census"

The answer "Jedi" indicates that exact opposite to someone 'confessing under torture".

It has the hallmark of a joke (unless, of course, the bases of the alleged deception is that it is actually a philosophy and not a religion).

Someone being tortured is not likely to say something that is so obviously a joke - just ask some of the refugees that Canada has accepted over the years who had been tortured and fled their country because of it. There are lots of them around due to Canada's humanitarian policies, pre-Harper, anyway.

With due respect to all those Jedi in the galaxy, giving the answer 'Jedi' is so obviously wrong that it would very likely draw attention to it. This, it is submitted, is exactly the intention by so responding.

I would think the reason people put this is either as a lark (and, hay, it is funny), or, perhaps, a protest, something that they want to draw attention, and is done with very little fear of reprisal (this proposition, one would expect, would be very easy to verify).

When I read this article, one question that comes to mind is, "I wonder if Harper has any more Senate positions, or perhaps, some top government appointment, coming open."

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/28/2010 12:31:59 PM
Stephen Harper’s northern renaissance, John Ibbitson,
Globe and Mail, Aug. 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/stephen-harpers-northern-renaissance/article1686928/ Tab 52

Stephen Harper on the ATV - think: Stockwell Day and Jet Ski.

Everything does Stephen Harper is hyper-partizan.

You betcha his 'holiday' in the North is for partizan, political purposes and the million(s) spent on the military exercises was to provide a backdrop for a Harper photo-op. Harper has no qualms about spending billion(s) of our hard earned taxes in a two day photo-op in Toronto, a million seems like boy scouts.

It is beyond credibility that the Russians planes that came within 30 kl Canadian air space and met by 2 F-18's is justification for spending 16 billion on 65 F-35's as apparently offered up for Canadian consumption by Harper's press spokesman, Dimitri Soudas. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawacitizen)

These Russian aircraft obviously had no intention of entering Canadian air space and, if they did, the F-18's were easily up to the task.

More likely they were Russian Paparazi looking for some footage of the Harper holiday - now, I see what Harper meant by making Canada an International player, a pic of the Canada PM riding a ATV on the front page of Pravda is nothing to shake a stick at, just ask Vladimir Putin.

Harper: "We're not going to win or lose an election in the North, . . .We're doing it because this is about nation-building, this is the frontier, this is the place that defines our country."

yah, 'Con Nation' building.

Harper doesn't specify just exactly what 'nation' or just exactly 'who' when he says 'our'.

Given Harper's career long ambition to tear Canada as a nation asunder, sounds like code for his right-wing, extremist, die-hard supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, for an Alberta - North West Territories nation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

submitted: 9:54am, PDT, 28 Aug.'10
Nation-building, not politics, behind week-long Arctic tour: Harper, Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press, 27/08/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/harper-says-choice-in-next-election-is-tory-majority-or-opposition-coaltion-101629833.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

Submitted: 8/26/2010 12:44:37 PM The Globe and Mail
Is there an old-style Tory in the House?, Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Aug. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/is-there-an-old-style-tory-in-the-house/article1685364/

One of the big problems is of perception.

People continually confuse the current Conservative Party of Canada with the Progressive Conservative Party, even to the point of calling them 'Tory'. This has been especially propagated in the media.

The fact of the matter is that The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Con's and not the Tories. It is not a question of 'old-style' v. 'new-style'. They are very different beasts. Although the Con's I am sure are quite pleased and make very little effort to dispel the confusion.

Substantively, one of the big differences is that Stephen Harper and the Con's, are dedicated to tearing this great nation we are proud to call Canada apart. Harper has dedicated a greater % of his public career to this end than Ignatieff has spent outside Canada.

Harper's support consists of a core die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta. They are the ones keeping him in power and they are the ones that Harper caters to. As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.

The Tories, on the other hand, have a long and proud history of contributing to build this great nation of ours. They may be right of centre but underlying there policies has always been the good of the country as a whole.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not have a long and proud history and what history they do have, as pointed out in the article, is not anything I would expect someone would be proud - vis.:

Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)

On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance.

"In December 2003, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties voted to disband and merge into the Conservative Party of Canada." (Wikipedia)
That is not a name change or any kind of attempt to continue the long and proud tradition of the PC party.

However, it is us, all Canadians, that must take responsibility. It is our country, not Harper's and not a small group of right-wing extremists.

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

Posted: 8/25/2010 10:43:42 AM Globe and Mail
continued . . .

"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force." (Toronto Star)

Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about.

Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.

"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'" (IBID)

And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/25/2010 10:38:15 AM The Globe and Mail
Critics set to launch new attacks on untendered deal to buy fighter jets, Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, Aug. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/critics-set-to-launch-new-attacks-on-f-35-deal/article1684112/

16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets? . . .

Mr. Stephen Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.

Peter MacKay presented the procurement in Parliament as "eye-watering technology"
(and this is in Hansard) . . .

Hey Peter how about the 'eye-watering' costs.

"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.

'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)

If it is all the latest 'eye watering' gadgets MacKay wants to equip our troops with, make DS's standard issue - although the cost of the games may rack up a billion or two as anyone with kids will know, this should reduce the 'eye-watering' bills for these toys.

"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force."

Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about. Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.

"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'"

And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???

As Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)

I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.

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.

We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.

Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:03am, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News
Re-submitted: 2:50pm, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News
Re-Re-submitted: 4:39pm, PDT, 24 Aug.'10 CBC News (go figure)
Police chiefs endorse long-gun registry, August 24, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/23/gun-registry-police-chiefs.html

I thought that Cheliak was going to release the '09 Report on the Gun registry. You, know, the '09 version of the one that somehow didn't get released by the Harper government until 2 days after the vote last year - vis.:

"The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].

The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)

Don't tell me that it is somehow going to get lost in the shuffle. Or, perhaps the new guy taking Cheliak's place will have to review it before it is released and so it will be pushed back to say, 24 Sep (2 days after the next vote on the private member's bill).

The big surprise is that the media doesn't seem to be giving the Report and the delay in its release any attention.

Come on Media: shine that light into dark corners of government and assist the process of holding governments accountable. Let it shine, shine, shine, shine, shine

excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

Submitted: 7:48am, 23 Aug.'10, CBC News

Gun program head's ouster not political: Elliott, RCMP chief says it's 'fairly self-evident' senior Mounties trying to push him out, CBC News, August 20, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/20/rcmp-elliott-long-gun-registry.html

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous criticisms
Or to take arms against a sea of opposition
And, by suppressing the Report, end it.

[take-off from Shakespeare's Hamlet, of course]

"'There is not one iota of truth in that,' [RCMP Commissioner William] Elliott said. 'The media and others just made this up. It's not true, it's not true, it's not true.'

Before his quiet removal, Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton and receive a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry."

It seems to me the litmus test on this one is:

Does this mean that the 'major Report' on the Gun Registry that Cheliak was going to release before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton, will still be released at the same time, or at least well before the 22 September vote on the private member's gun registry vote.

This is, as opposed to say, 2 days after the vote, which, it seems, as I recall, happened in the last Report and vote on the same Bill - vis.: "The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].

The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)

I think that RCMP Commissioner William Elliott announcing that this Report, in toto, un-abridged, un-redacted, un-amended, un-edited, will be released to the general public well in advance of the vote on 22 September, and then so releasing it of course, would go a long way to underlining his statement "The media and others just made this [allegation of political interference by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party] up. It's not true, it's not true, it's not true."

comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

Posted: 8/22/2010 11:35:51 AM, The Globe and Mail
om Flanagan, Globe and Mail, Aug. 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/should-we-just-shut-up-and-do-what-statistics-canada-tells-us-to-do/article1678999/ Tab 37

Flanagan is obfuscating the real issue here and given his connections to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, it seems to me likely deliberately and perhaps as part of his effort to the cause.

"The Conservative government was, indeed, wrong in the way it started the great census debate. Its reforms were not thought through, it should have consulted the user groups created through so many decades of providing cheap data, and it should have had a more coherent communications plan. (Any plan would have been an improvement.)"

Flanagan is, of course, correct here but he is watering down his original position to an incredible extent and one can only ask themselves why.

If I recall what Flanagan, at the start of all this, said was "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette).

Flanagan asks "What’s worse than ill-advised political interference in public administration?"

The Answer really is: 'Exemption of the Harper government from political oversight'

This is not Statcan trying to break free and run amuck with our privacy.

This is all about Canadians finally starting to stand up and be heard regarding the manner in with Harper and his Con's are destroying our Canada and undermining our Democratic way of life.

If Flanagan's true objective were to fix something, the rational approach would be to suggest how the questions could be changes to improve the results. If it's one thing Flanagan knows it's polls and surveys.

The real issue Harper and the Con's in a very deliberate and inch-by-inch fashion surreptitiously destroying the very social fabric of Canada to establish their right-wing extremist ideology as well as dismantle Canadian federalism. He is doing it in a very anti-demoncratic fashion through the executive powers of the office of Prime Minister to corrupt and manipulate the Administrative Branch. Firing those at the top who oppose him, or simply are 100%'ers, is one method Harper is using, over and over. Installation of political appointments is another. Viscous attacks while avoiding the real issue is another. Controlling the message given by anyone under Harper control, including the civil service is another - referred to as the MEPs. Changing the rules is another. This was, apparently, at Flanagan's advise, as he revealed in his recent book. Getting rid of the Long Form in the census is a particularly insidious example of the above, since its true and far reaching effect is indirect.

Rather than using rationality to try to convince his readers that the Long Form is an example of bureaucracy at its worst, Flanagan try to connect on an emotional, non-rational basis by giving an example of a question that his portrays as silly or useless, or poorly crafted.

If his true objective were to fix something that he perceives needs fixing, the rational approach would be to suggest how the questions could be changes to improve the results. If it's one thing Flanagan knows it's polls and surveys.

If it is the potential risk to our privacy, perhaps Flanagan could explain why it is at any greater risk than the very extensive and intrusive information we are compelled to give to Revenue Canada, and other such.

If it is the potential criminal charges that is his concern, then simply suggest other methods. I think they should pay the people to fill the form out, after all StatsCan does sell the information and people use it to make money and we are in a Commerce based society. That is likely to get a better response than the threat of criminal sanctions.

Also, Flanagan should point out all the other places that abiding by the legislation is re-inforced by criminal sanctions. I can't wait to see Harper and the Con's get to dealing with each of these, one-by-one.

[There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation. This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.

This makes an awful lot of opportunities to be thrown in jail. And from this 'criminal offence pool' I am very confident that there could be found many, many examples that, if brought to the attention of Canadians, would illicit the type of response that Tony Clement is giving to the Long Form. So why would Harper and the Con's be so firm on this one - it's all in the Ideology.

Next time you use a stamp to mail a letter keep in mind that:
Canada Post Corporation Act

Next time you use a penny to replace that blown fuse keep in mind you may be committing a criminal office (of course, you may have the defence of insanity available to you).

See my post: 28 July, 2010, - Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid! ]

Also, Flanagan states as an example of how bad the current system is: "And Statistics Canada has no clear idea of the number of status Indians because 22 first nations refused full co-operation with the 2006 census". However, he fails to inform us of how many were prosecuted, thrown in jail or even received a fine - sound familiar - vis.: Tony Clement, Stockwell Day, and the other Con's.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: August 19th, 2010 at 11:10 am
tories claw back small lead - august 19, 2010
defecting university educated voters propel grits into a much more competitive race, August 19, 2010
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/08/tories-claw-back-small-lead-august-19-2010/#comment-10077

Click here for the full_report_august_19
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_august_19.pdf


Hi Ekos Politics,

I have a few questions

- What about undecideds? I find that these numbers are generally left out, except some polls give result for second choice.

Your Detailed Table: National Federal Vote Intention: August 11 - 17 (week 2), at p. 8, seems to suggest that these results are only amongst decided voters (support for the parties ads up to 99.9%, not 100% presumably due to rounding). Am I reading this wrong and if not why do it this way.

How can we make any kind of analysis of voter trends without these numbers. You may have them in your full 17 page report but I don't have time to read it so carefully. Perhaps in your press releases, summaries and tables, you could set them out as well.

- If 50.4% feel the country is going in the right direction and 44% feel the government is going in the right direction, why would the Con's get only 32.5% for voter intention? Do you any suggestions as to what this is all about and why this is happening.

- The results for Ontario are essentially identical, not just statistically, as the results nationally, except for the Lib's and the Block. Is this just a co-incidence, a result of the poll design, or a reflection of actual voter intentions, or otherwise?

Also, your margins of error for all the other regions are double that for Ont & Que, where these two are within the normal margins of error for these types of polls. It seems your poll is very heavily weighted to Ontario and Quebec.

Why do you do this, especially given the perceived East-West schism? I understand that the pop of Ontario is so large that it has big influence on the result but is it really that pronounced and given this why allow the big difference in margins of error.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
wlloydm@hotmail.com

Submitted: 8:14am, PDT, 18 Aug.'10 CBC News
Federal gun program head ousted, CBC News, August 17, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/17/long-gun-registry-cheliak.html
"'I question why he's been transferred and who has made this decision to transfer him,' said Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association. 'But it seems interesting that all of a sudden this transfer occurs when we know the vote is coming on this bill'.

. . .

CBC's Brian Stewart reported that Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at their annual general meeting in Edmonton and get a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry."

Confucius say: "If it looks like a Con and smells like a Con, it's likely a Con" (well he might if he were able to take a look at what Harper and the Con's are doing).

What is it with Harper and the Con's and reports on the long gun registry. The article doesn't mention what will happen to this 'major report'. Don't tell me that its release will be delayed by a month, or so - I'm getting déjà vu here - till after any vote on the Private Member's Bill (C-391) on 22 Sep. Wasn't that the Con on the first vote.

"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'."
(posted to cicblog: 22 February, 2010)

Compare:
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
"The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009,] but "apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09]."

The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. "

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/17/2010 11:40:25 AM

Should Tories, Liberals and New Democrats just give up on Quebec? Jane Taber, August 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/should-tories-liberals-and-new-democrats-give-up-on-quebec/article1674396/ Tab 62

"The results show, too, that 50 per cent opposed the government’s decision to do away with it while 35 per cent supported the government’s decision. "

The results of this poll are very interesting.

35% support Harper's decisions to get rid of the Long Form in the census.

However, 31% think Harper should stick by his decisions to get rid of it.

And, 24% agree with Harper that it is intrusive and Canadians should not be forced to answer it.

My initial reaction is that what we are experiencing here is something like the levels in Dante's Inferno - concentric circles, decreasing in size, of increasing dedication until you reach the absolute bottom, (where Harper and his minions sit - to carry out the allusions to its logical conclusion) of the degrees of commitment to Harper and the Conservative Party.

The above indicates that there are die-hards and then there are dei-harders and finally at the bottom, the core of core's.

That there would be 35% supporting Harper's decision and 31% think Harper should stick by his decision to get rid of the Long Form is not surprising at all.

Generally, Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, of 33% that are the reason Harper is running this great nation of ours.

With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.

However, other results of the Poll seems to suggest that support for, and opposition to Harper's move, is not exactly along Party lines, especially for the Con supporters.

"Clear majorities of respondents who voted for the Bloc Québécois (74%), the Liberal Party (73%), the Green Party (68%) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) (55%) in the 2008 federal election oppose the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census. Conversely, almost three-in-five Conservative Party voters (57%) agree with the decision."
"Hostility Towards Census Changes Remains the Norm in Canada No signs of controversy dying down, as a majority of Canadians continue to call on the federal government to back down.", Angus Reid, Aug. 16, 2010,
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010.08.16_Census_CAN.pdf

It is very difficult to analyze the results as presented since for example, which level of the Inferno does "agree with the decision fall into", is it "support", "stick by his decisions", "feel it is intrusive". Or, is it a new level - then, how far done into the Inferno is it.

I think there may have been a problem with the questioning in this Poll which may be distorting the results. Or, there may be results that resolve the concerns which are not being releases (sometimes, non-committed, etc., play a part). Also, if it is an on line survey then what checks and balances does it have to ensure accurate results, given Harper's negativity to sound statistic research, and his desire to demonstrate support for his move to eliminate the Long Form form the Census.

Also, what about the 43% Con's that did not say they agreed with the Harper move. What about all those that didn't vote Con but support/agree with/ the Harper move.

These results appear to account for only 20 points of the 33 points die-hard Harper supporters and so, 15 points are people that didn't vote Con but agree with the decision. Now that is interesting.

I would suggest that the 31% that say Harper should stick by the decision is a manifestation of the die-hard core (within the margin of errors and being the Summer time and all). What that suggest is that there are 13 points of die-hards that do not agree with the decision but want Harper to stick by it. Now that sounds about Right! Although I suspect the margin is actually wider.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 8:50am, PST, 14 Aug.'10
Travers: Liberals look on as Tories vandalize Canada, James Travers, Aug 14 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/847738--travers-liberals-look-on-as-tories-vandalize-canada#comments

- James Travers, when you're right you're right (morally that is).

"Another is for Michael Ignatieff to screw Liberal courage to the sticking point and declare enough is enough.

. . .
Conservatives go too far when they trample widely shared Canadian values by twisting truth to fit narrow ideology."

This is almost the one year anniversary of Ignatieff's "enough is enough" and the backlash by Canadians.

It is not Ignatieff and the Liberals that must stand up be counted and say "enough is enough", it is the people of Canada, each and every one of us (except that 33% core die-hard supporters epi-centred in Alberta that are the reason Harper is able to tear this great country of ours asunder).

As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.

If Canadians are not willing to give Harper the boot, the Liberals if they force an election run the risk of allowing Harper and the Con's to get a majority and if you think Harper is vandalizing Canada now, that's kid's stuff if he gets a majority.

Lloyd MacILquham

Siddiqui: Day, Clement expose Harper’s kingdom, Aug 12 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/846793--day-and-clement-expose-harper-s-kingdom

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party getting rid of the Long Form could violate International Treaties - interesting point.

The problem is that it is clear that Harper and the Con's simply don't care. With his refusal to bend unless forced to, unless the UN passed a Security Counsel Resolution to constitute a mission to enter Canada and liberate Canadians, I can't see it making much difference - except this may explain Harper spending 16 billion on 65 F-35's (at least it would give it some rationality, albeit twisted).

Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government, one that is for the good of all Canadian - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.

All Harper polices are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits the small core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.

In reality, for Harper and his Con's it's very much 'our way and the good of Canada and Canadians be damned'.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can implement his ideological policies, whether they may violate International Treaties and Conventions, or not.

Throwing Harper out of power and putting another, non extremist, party in power, could not be so bad as to compel us to allow Harper to continue down the path he is taking us.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

Posted: 8/11/2010 11:34:59 AM, the Globe and Mail
Web-exclusive commentary, Information must be Canada’s bedrock, Roy Romanow Canadian Press, Globe and Mail Update, Aug. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/information-must-be-canadas-bedrock/article1668377/

"Information must be the bedrock on which we build public policy in areas that matter to Canadians. Trying to get a snapshot of our country with inaccurate and unreliable data is like using a camera without enough pixels. The blurrier the picture gets, the harder it becomes to recognize the face of our nation.

Roy Romanow is chair of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing’s advisory board and a former premier of Saskatchewan. "

Mr. Romanow, when you're right, you're right (morally that is).

Senators standing up and shining their, what can be quite bright, light on the dark corners of the Harper government without concern for their jobs is certainly a function that our Senators are in a unique position to fulfill - 'sober second thought' - now that's a catchy phrase.

This applies more generally: 'Information is the bedrock of democracy - of government by the people for the people'.

Harper and the Conservative government is neither by the people nor for the people.

Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, of 33% that are the reason Harper is running this great nation of ours.

With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be d[redacted]'.

Perhaps StatsCan can analyze Harper's Long Form to confirming that he has spent a greater % of his public career bent on tearing Canada asunder than Ignatieff has spent his outside Canada. - that would be violating Harper's privacy, wouldn't it?, or is this something we ought to know of our PM.

Harper, and the Con's have a policy of hiding, refusing to release, obstructing, obscuring, distorting, and MEP'ing information in order to surreptitiously implement their right wing extremist ideology. Apparently Harper is extending personal privacy rights to running the very public job of running this country.

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. This assumes there is information to access, if you undermine the information then there is no fear in giving people access to it.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Now cometh the strong men, Alec Bruce, August 11th, 2010
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1171329

Bruce, when you're right you're right (morally that is).

"In the waning days of a long, hot summer, Canada is coming perilously close to that which its history, traditions and civic sensibilities utterly despise: a nation ruled by a smug, self-satisfied coterie of
partisan strong men whose coarse manipulation of facts and rational argument supplants intelligent debate and resists effective opposition."

(Alec Bruce, www.thebrucereport.com)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

McQuaig: F-35 jets are useless without war, Linda McQuaig, Aug 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/845780--mcquaig-f-35-jets-are-useless-without-war


McQuaig, when you're right you're right (morally that is).

"What makes this purchase bizarre is how little use the jets will be, unless we’re waging all-out war.

. . .

Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.

'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said. 'That is a very important part of our regeneration of personnel and pilots in particular. So having that platform capacity is something that is of great importance to the continued growth of the Canadian Forces and the development of our pilots.'"

The Star did not allow posts to this article and besides they have refrained from posting my submissions the last few times. I thought they were good - go figure.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:06 PM on August 10, 2010 the Calgary Herald
Tories, Liberals in near dead heat: Poll, Norma Greenaway, Postmedia News August 9, 2010,
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Tories+Liberals+near+dead+heat+Poll/3378094/story.html

Stephen Harper and the Con's have a 33% (within the margin of error) core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. The last Ekos Polls is the first time in a long time that suggests that this may have some cracks in it. More likely they got caught on holidays and have now rallied around the cause. (Caught in a disproportionate degree that is, perhaps they have a higher disposable income even in this recession, being in Alberta and all that, or they simply reduced their contributions to the Conservative Party for a month and so can afford holidays in higher proportions that say Liberals, NDP or Green.)

This core support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power.

With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority.

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.

This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, etc.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 8:15am, PDT, 9 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
PM has some explaining to do, Toronto Star, August 09, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/845338--pm-has-some-explaining-to-do#comments

"But first he has some explaining to do. "

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then he doesn't have to answer these questions, in a rational fashion based on facts, anyway.


The core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epicentre in Alberta, is the important thing since they are keeping Harper in power. They do not require logic.

"Harper may want to present himself to Canadians as a strong financial manager who has steered the economy to recovery."

Harper's approach to the economy is let Canada grow out of it. Oh yah, and this will take 6 years, and, hey, we better not change course or scuttle this 'recovery' (i.e. we must keep Harper in power for 6 more years).

The recent Conference Board report indicates if we throw overboard the bizarre F-35's purchases, insane spending on prisons and fanatical 15% reduction in corporate taxes we may be out of deficit years earlier (assuming that Harper will ever get us out of deficit given the extreme spending with free abandon to entrench their extreme right wing agenda) - i.e. if you want to get out of deficit - get rid of Harper.

Lloyd MacILquham

Submitted: 7:23am, PDT, 9 Aug.'10 the Toronto Star
Hébert: Michael Ignatieff’s tour recasts his image, August 09, 2010, Chantal Hébert
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845356--hebert-ignatieff-s-tour-recasts-his-image#article

"The four-way split in the opposition vote that acts as a damper on Liberal fortunes is not going to be resolved by a summer tour. But the Liberals can only maximize their votes in the next election if they are seen as the only realistic alternative to Stephen Harper and the Conservative party. At this point, they enjoy enough of a lead on the New Democrats to at least sustain that assertion."

As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.

The core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. These supporters do not require logic.

With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.

This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, etc.

The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall

Lloyd MacILquham

Submitted (4 parts): 9:00, 9:02, 9:04, 9:05 am, PDT, 8 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star - it was not posted - go figure!
Siddiqui: Harper’s Ottawa becomes Republican la-la land, Haroon Siddiqui, Aug 8 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/article/845013--siddiqui-harper-s-ottawa-becomes-republican-la-la-land

Siddiqui, When you're right, you're right (morally that is).

The indicators leave little doubt that Harper and the Con's are not simply in 'Republican la-la land'. Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party that is running Canada and making decisions that affect all Canadians get their marching orders, as they say, and political analysis, policy instructions, strategies and even tactics (not the least of which is viscous personal character assassinations of anyone that dares stand up to them and their obstruction and disruption of the proper functioning of Parliament) for implementing their extremist right wing ideology from the extremist conservative Republican elements in the US, either directly or indirectly. Ask Harper what good books (and/or essays, memos, reports, briefs, directives, etc) he read on his 'holidays'.

And as you point out the similarities between Harper regime and the GW Bush regime are too close that even a statistical analysis by a de-rationalized StatsCan could not help but conclude the same.

You are also right (morally) to point out that all Canadians should " wonder what [Stephen Harper] plans to slash and burn to get there", especially those living Ontario.

You are also right (morally) to point out the connection between the Harper gang and the Harris gang, and conclude: "If you thought Harris wreaked devastation on Ontario, Harper may have bigger plans — and on a national scale", although I would use the future tense.

There is no room for Ontario in their Canada.

The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall.

I posted to my blog (cicblog) on 25 May:
"It's hard to imagine that Harris dreamed it up himself (reality check: Mike Harris, single handedly in the 90's - early 2000's laid waste the Ontario infrastructure with a, typical, extreme right-wing heavy hand, resulting in tragedies like Walkerton, Ipperwash. Sorry, it wasn't exactly single handedly, he did have help from Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clement, Peter Van Loan, Guy Giorno)."

"These policies of Harper and the Con's are directed exactly for the benefit of their core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what.

This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.

This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'."
(see my post to cicblog 06 Aug)

The solution is give Harper and his Con's the boot, and now, before he reeks more havoc on Canadian society. And you can bet'cha he's got something special planned for this Fall.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 10:10 & 10:16am, PDT, 7 Aug.'10 The Winnipeg Free Press

There are statistics, then Tory statistics, by: Staff Writer, 7/08/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/there-are-statistics-then-tory-statistics-100178469.html

Simply put, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day, Tony Clement and the other Con's are not interested in the least what the statistics, or more generally, the fact, are.

All their polices and actions are solely ideologically based, what furthers the cause, what benefits the small core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what, as long as Harper leads the cause, that is.

Throwing out numbers and asserting 'statistics' they fail to substantiate is only to present a facade of rationality based government, one that is for the good of all Canadian - in a word a 'Con'. To call them on it each time is a mug's game, they simply ignore the realities they are being confronted with and go to the next 'Con'.

In reality, for Harper and his Con's it's very much 'our way and the good of Canada and Canadians be damned'.

When you detach government policies from the underlying facts and base them on ideology, when your motivation is to further that ideology and not what is for the good of the country and all its people as a whole, you create an environment where politically based 'crimes' and politically based criminal charges, arrests and detentions, witch hunts, kangaroo courts, in a word using the criminal justice system as an instrument for further political objectives, can take root.

I have done refugee claims from many 'third world' countries over many years and have seen much of this kind of thing, enough to be very concerned and to understand the need to stem it at the beginning before it gets enough momentum as we slide down that slippery slope.

It is difficult to believe that this kind of thing could happen in Canada. But, it could only 'not happen' if we don't let it, and we must be vigilant.

Throwing Harper out of power and putting another, non extremist, party in power, could not be so bad as to compel us to allow Harper to continue down the path he is taking us.

Their Tough on Crime is only one front that they are advancing their extremist campaign on. Harper and the Con's have been using administrative power to impose extremist values and polices without democratic consideration since elected - vis Tom Flanagan commenting on the elimination of the Long Form in the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)." You need only read his book, published right after the '06 election, to understand the cold, calculating deliberateness of it all. Then there is the contemptible approach of Harper and the Con's towards our Parliamentary Democracy.

These actions by Harper illustrate just how much power the office of Prime Minster has in our system of government and why. However, the presumption is that the Prime Minister can be trusted to act in the best interests of the country and all Canadians. This is precisely where this system breaks down. Harper and the Con's simply do not operate in the best interest of the country or all Canadians, but only a small group - the die-hard Con supporters. Our Parliamentary system, (and to lesser extents, the Senate and ultimately the office of the Governor General) was designed to keep the Prime Minister in check. This polarization of opposition, this extreme resistance to consolidation, undermines Parliament and tends to render it ineffective. Our Parliamentary system was not designed for such uncompromising polarization, it was designed for compromise, for minorities to compromise to form majorities, just look at England in the last election, it took them less than two weeks to do this. This wasn't a media driven event, it was based on the many hundreds of years experience, knowing the importance of so doing and the damage of not.

This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.

This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized.

This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, mega-billion dollar spending to increase prison capacity not only for their 'tough on crime policies that have been passed, but now, incredibly, for the "Day-Crimes'' - all those unreported crime as alleged by Stockwell Day.

On the other hand, perhaps Harper, Day, Vic Toews and all the other right wing extremists running this great country of ours are on the verge of implementing, without the support of the majority of Canadians, new, intrusive, extremist policies on crime that will tear out the very heart of our society and make us all criminals, or at least the 2/3rds that voted against them. And this is their way of 'softening us up'. It is hard to imagine that these statements by Stockwell Day, same for Tony Clement, were not very closely vetted by Harper before release, controlling the message is very important to them and it is incredulous that they would let these slip by somehow.

Just think if we spent all these billions of dollars on programs and implementing policies that went to the real root of the problem behind crime. Increased child care, child education, child poverty, increase universal health care are two.

Now that would be taking a liberal view on crime a liberal approach. But don't hold your breath while Harper and the Con's are running this country, as Stockwell Day admits, Harper and the Con's "can't take a liberal view to crime"

As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.

Surely, it time we got 'Tough on Con's' and gave Harper and his Conservative Party the boot.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 12:07, 12:50 & 12:53 pm, 6 Aug.'10 The Ottawa Citizen
Stephen Harper's magical departure from reality, Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen August 6, 2010 10:43 AM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Stephen+Harper+magical+departure+from+reality/3365546/story.html

Commenting on Stephen Harper and his Con's reasons for eliminating the Long Form census and spending 10 billion on building new prisons for all the up-reported 'crime'
"But all that is so reality-based. Facts, evidence, logic. Irony. We're moved beyond that. I might even say we've evolved, but some of the guys in the purple van might not like that. So let's just say we've opened the doors of perception. We make reality, man. "


Right on Dude!

Ideologically based decision will always conflict with the truth and reality, by the very definition of "ideological". 'Extremist' just refers to the degree.

The foundation of accepting such decision is a "top-down" power structure, i.e. - it is right because I say it. This was, of course, the method of rule in the Dark Ages. It is anti-democratic by its very top-down nature (compare Tom Flanagan referring to Harper's decision on eliminating the Long Form from the census: "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." Montreal Gazette).

These policies of Harper and the Con's are directed exactly for the benefit of their core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta. These supporters do not require logic they will support Harper no matter what.

This core of die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He will not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.

This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons for unreported crime, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 8:35am, PDT, 5 Aug.'10 CBCNews
Conservative lead dries up, poll suggests, CBC News, August 5, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/04/ekos-poll.html

If this poll is not simply an anomaly, it is very interesting.

It suggests not only is Con support decreasing but more importantly core die-hard support for the Con's may be eroding, even taking into account the margin of error.

One question is, of course, where has this core die-hard support eroded. According to this poll it may be Quebec. However, I am no so sure of this, their support has decreased there but that doesn't mean their core die-hard support has decreased there. Also, there is some suggestion that if Stephen Harper builds a hockey arena in Quebec City to bring in a NHL franchise the Con's may very well pick up 5 or 6 seats - sounds pretty cynical to me.

Alberta is the important region, next being Saskatchewan and parts of BC. There are no numbers on Alberta and so you cannot conclude that it is eroding there. That the Con support is from core die-hards can be inferred by the how many gave a second choice. There are no numbers on this (although I am sure this forms part of the actual results). However, 57.5% overall gave a second choice (add those for each party), implying that 42.5% didn't. Certainly this does not exclude Con die-hards not giving second choice and perhaps there are some other die-hards as well out there supporting other parties.

Another aspect that can affect the numbers is the % of those that answer the poll (no numbers on this, either) . This increasing amongst non Con's could account for the decrease of Con's in the poll, especially when the decrease is small. This can indicate a mobilization against Harper and the Con's, something that may take a poll of two for the Con die-hards to adjust to.

The core die-hard Con support is the important thing since they are the ones keeping Harper and the Con's in power. Up till now, it could be assumed they would vote Con no matter what, unless perhaps Harper changed his Party's name to Liberal. With their support Harper can introduce pretty much anything he wants that furthers his Con agenda and benefits his core support, to the detriment of Canada and Canadians as a whole. He would not lose the die-hards and perhaps even attract a few others hear and there - who knows even get a majority, God forbid.

This applies as long as the opposition remains so polarized, which this poll indicates it is. This, of course, explains Harper polices regarding the Long Form census, mega-billion dollar spending on 65 F35 jets, the G8-20 conference, increases in prisons, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

As long as these polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canada be d[redacted]'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Submitted: 7:02 & 7:26 am, PDT, 3 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
PM’s actions, words at odds, Tue Aug 3 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/842900--pm-s-actions-words-at-odds

This article mentions nothing of the ideologically based 15% reduction in Corp taxes (the Conference Board came out last week with an analysis that emphasizes the important of Corp taxes to addressing the deficit - G&M 30 Jul.'10).

In fact, this does not benefit Canadians as a whole, but a small sector of our society, not the least of which being the large International oil companies in Alberta, where this reduction, along with maintaining the subsidies, can only mean a great percentage of profits will flow outside Canada,

Stephen Harper, Jim Fleherty's strategy to eliminate the deficit was essentially a do-nothing and we will grow out of it in 6 years (5 now, I guess).

First, why should we wait 6 years to eliminate the deficit. If Harper and the Con's were talking about the debt, then I could see this. But, the deficit simply adds to the debt and will continue to do so with Harper and his Con's for at least an additional 5 years.

However, as far as propaganda is concerned the message of 'we will grow out of the deficit' seems to have placated Canadian and lulled us into a false sense of security - he is telling us what we want to believe. This has given Harper the opportunity to spend like crazy.

The worst part is that this spending is totally partizan, designed to benefit a small per centage of people - Con supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, or enhance Harper's chances of getting a majority.

As Laurie Hawn is quoted: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35"

You Got that 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally) Laurie.

Harper admonishing the other Western countries about reducing spending was, obviously, just Harper acting the 'big-shot' while in the International spotlight.

That the elimination of the Long Form in the Census is wholly ideologically based hardly needs stating at this point and is wholly for the consumption of Con supporters.

As far as this spending is concerned, Harper certainly wouldn't lose any of his core die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, and who knows perhaps he would pick up a few additional supporters here and there.

Mega billion dollar price tag? what does that matter, it is not Harper or the Con party that is paying the bill.

The question here is how much of Canadians' hard earned money can Harper and the Con's spend for partizan purposes before Canadians put a stop to it. Apparently, we have not reached that threshold yet.

If we really want to get rid of the deficit, give Harper and the Con's the Boot, and the sooner the better.

PS: this post number 500 - thanks Steve.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

Submitted: 8:37 & 8:38am, PDT, 2 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
Why Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Bob Rae, 2 Aug.'10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/842632--why-afghanistan-is-not-vietnam

"Corruption is deep and widespread, but curtailing it will depend on the Afghan people themselves insisting that things need to change, as well as our willingness to remain engaged."

I think Bob Rae is getting to the heart of the matter here. As in any country the government is always at the will of the people. One expression of this is democracy, but that is not the only expression (Harper runs Canada only because Canadians allow it, if the 2/3rds that voted against him got together he would be gone and quickly). A dictatorship can only exist if the people allow it - ask Marcos, and many others.

It seems that the time honoured strategy is to go in and 'defeat' the enemy. Afghanistan and Vietnam are similar in demonstrating that, for this to work, you must, "do as the Romans did" and conduct a full scale invasion and occupation, and no less, with all the devastation and misery associated with war. A long drawn out 'measured' military/police actions don't work, its like cutting off the Hydra's head. Also, modern International laws make this kind of military operation very difficult, unless of course you chose to ignore them.

When the troops go into the country the main objective should be to expose the people to the benefits of a higher standard of living, including education, health care and, yes, even Internet and other communications and entertainment. It should also demonstrate the possibilities of achieving these things and the importance democracy play in keeping them going and the destructiveness of war and the enemy.

Just think what might have been achieved if the United State, Europe, Canada Australia had taken the money spent on military actions and simply given it to the Afghan people, with a string attached here or there. I'll bet'ya there would be very few Taliban that would refuse to trade in their IED's for plows. And without support those 'hard-cores' can be dealt with.

With the people so empowered, I find it difficult that the corruption in government could persist, after all isn't this the reason we don't have corruption in Western countries. Afghanistan is unique because of the poppy trade. But this offers a good example, what if the UN forces had destroyed the poppy fields right at the beginning and given the farmers the means to grow and sell other crops. This in itself would have delivered a crippling blow to the Taliban. One can only wonder why this was never done, especially with GW Bush's drug wars.

You may criticize this suggestion all you want, but not matter what, would the Afghan situation have been any worse at this point and with an lot less losses by the UN forces.

The recently discovered trillion in natural resources for Afghanistan (see my post 16 Jun.'10, "Harper's Afghan Policy - If He Can't Play Soldier, He Wants to Takes His Marbles and Go Home":
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe",NYT, 13 Jun.'10)

could clearly play a huge role in a country like Canada coming up with a plan to draw on our experience and expertize in this field of endeavour and help the Afghan's in precisely the manner described (That this wealth is recently discovered is open to a lot of questions, as far as I am concerned).

Of course, the real question is whether the US wanted to put a quick resolution to Vietnam, and Afghanistan for that matter (at least while GW Bush was in office). If one assumes that it was the military-industrial complex (e.g. Dick Cheney's Halliburton) that was the driving force behind the US involvement in Vietnam (plus natural resources for Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter) then a long drawn out military action that goes on and on without 'winning' makes an awful lot of sense. You don't need to occupy them, you just need to keep them occupied.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Conference Board Think Tank Report - Tanks, but Think Again
Posted: 8/1/2010 12:55:09 PM The Globe and Mail
Deficit battle may end early: think tank, Julian Beltrame Ottawa — The Canadian Press, Jul. 30, 2010 4:18PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/deficit-battle-may-end-early-think-tank/article1656411/ Tab 4
(see also: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/10-07-29/Canadian_Feds_Ahead_of_Plan_on_Fiscal_Rebalancing.aspx)

"The key point is that government revenues are much more directly tied to nominal GDP by way of higher corporate tax and income tax receipts

. . . nominal GDP has exploded thanks to a quick rebound in global commodity prices that has brought additional wealth into the country.


But he says that Ottawa can keep achieve its goals by reducing the size of the public service by 11,000 over the next three years.

Mr. Stewart cautioned that the estimates assume Ottawa will stick to its spending plans, including withdrawal of stimulus after this year."

There are a few things that are not clear in this report.

Harper and the Con's are implementing a Corporate tax reduction of 15%. So, if their projections are based on the nominal GDP and nominal GDP is so much directly tied to the Corporate tax rate, one can only wonder why they would not mention this very key factor and how they take it into account.

Perhaps, what they mean is, if Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are elected soon enough, the deficit will be eliminated a year earlier - since Ignatieff has announced he would put a freeze on Corporate taxes (at 18%).

Also, it sounds like they are saying that their projection is based on the loss of 11,000 jobs in the public sector. If this is a Stephen Harper policy then he ought to come out and say it (yah, right, when h[redacted] freezes over, perhaps).

And, what does "stick to its spending plans" mean. Does this include the 16 billion on the 'eye-watering' (eye-watering? - MacKay you shouldn't stick your head out the window) 65 F-35's.

If it does take the Corp tax reduction and insane F35 procurement into account then does that mean if we give Harper and the Con's the boot, like right away, and put a freeze on these things that we will be able to eliminate the deficit two or three years earlier.

Also, these projections seem to be based on revenues from the sale of Alberta oil and gas - what if Alberta decides it doesn't want to support the rest of Canada so much, directly through oil revenues and indirectly through transfer payments (yah, like that would ever happen, especially with Stelmach now talking about a deficit), how will that impact their projections. And, if Alberta is facing a deficit, then what exactly is this report referring to by " commodity prices that has brought additional wealth into the country".

If this report by the Conference Board of Canada is supporting the Harper do nothing approach to reducing the deficit how does that help provinces like Ontario, which they are so considerate as to state it has a structural deficit, except perhaps implying that health care become private.
Keep in mind that the Conference Board of Canada is not without it controversies over the "independent, objective, and non-partisan" nature of its reports (Conference Board's Digital Economy Report, c. early '09).

Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa :
May 26, 2009 (first report):
"Indeed, they made no reference to the deBeer study in their report, a curious decision given that the Conference Board claims to be 'independent, objective, and non-partisan.'"
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4003/125/

but,

10 Feb.'10 (second report):
"While there is much to consider in this report, it certainly appears to be a good faith effort to examine the issues from a non-partisan perspective.  The Conference Board points to the need for copyright reform, but does so in a manner with far more context and balance than was found in the withdrawn, plagiarized reports."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4783/125/


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted: 8/1/2010 11:35:32 AM the Globe and Mail
Russian jet confrontation a 'close one,'
Defence official says, Daniel Leblanc, 30 Jul.'10, The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/russian-jet-confrontation-a-close-one-defence-official-says/article1657338/ tab 94

[Tory talking points: "More proof that Michael Ignatieff isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself. "]

Anyone see the irony in this.

In fact, this is

"More proof that Stephen Harper isn't in it for Canadians. He's just in it for himself, the Con's and their small core of die-hard supporters with epi-centre in Alberta."

Spending 16 billion - as one person pointed out, before interest charges (and what about the HST? Oh, sorry, I mean import duties) - is for the benefit of this small core of die-hard right wing extremists.

As Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (I'm a little bleary-eyed on Sunday morning), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35,"

I guess in a way there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.

Also, MacKay is stretching, severely, when he tries to use this as an excuse for spending 16 billion of our hard earned tax dollars, oh sorry, Alberta's hard earned oil revenues, on the 65 F-35's. He is trying to appeal to us on an emotional basis, as opposed to any type of rationality.

There is no indication that the Russian violated Canadian airspace, or Canadian sovereignty, to any extent. This was with the current jets, CF-18's, which by the way were just modernized to be good to go until 2017 (if it is all the latest 'eye watering' gadgets MacKay wants to provide our troops with, make DS's standard issue - although the cost of the games may rack up a billion or two as anyone with kids will know, this should reduce the 'eye-watering' bill for these toys).

So, doesn't this incident demonstrates very visibly that what we have now is sufficient.

Perhaps, Peter MacKay could do a rational analysis of this incident and why spending 16 billion, triple net, on 65 F-35 fighter jets would change this type of behaviour by the Russians, Canada's reaction to it, or the end result, one iota.

Unless, perhaps, MacKay is suggesting that we could have shot them out of the air.

In fact, if the Russian are doing it to see what our capabilities are, one might suspect that they would increase their activities if we have the F-35's.

And, it is not likely that we would try to shoot them out of the air, no matter what vintage jets we have.

The Russians were outside Canadian airspace, apparently had no intention of violating our airspace and apparently according to them they had a right to be there and had informed the Canadians before hand.

Also, these are propeller driven planes and why would our current jets not be able to 'intercept' them, or force/shoot them down if so desired. I don't care how fast a prop plane is it simply can't compare to a jet fighter, of any post war vintage.

This Con talking point is just another example of Con-MEP's.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html