- Comments on Senate Reform , Lloyd MacIlquham, 17 Jan.’08

I was saving this for a good time to post – now seems to be good

see: Tor Star, "Big brains better than big names", James Travers, Dec 18, 2008 04:30 AM, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/555601)

Appointed senate for ‘life’ was intended to free senators from partisan politics and to have highly qualified people as opposed to those who are popular or long time party supporters

Senate is according to number of seats for each province

Custom has developed that Senate does not exercise ‘veto’ powers since not elected so limited to review and debate Change to have the province appoint representatives, selected on merit in various areas of activity, the choice procedure to be conducted open and transparently (not necessarily a committee review, not necessarily an election) with strong protocol against partisan choices.

If the term of appointment must be limited then at least 12-16 years with appointments staggered either every four year or six years to avoid large % during one party reign in government adding partisanship and undue bias towards any particular transient socio-economic trends

Number of committees established in various areas of important societal activities - e.g. children; poverty, housing, etc.; minorities; aboriginal and first nations; human rights & charter of rights; law and order, security; science – impact and development; environment; various aspects of economy – domestic, international; population growth including immigration; inter-provincial affairs; taxes; health care; culture; international affairs; (at least one for each department and Ministry of the federal government) etc. Senators appointed based on their expertise in one of these areas to serve on that committee. Each province holds a seat on each committee (or possibly two seats). Committees to deal pro-actively on the various issues as well as review of legislation with sufficient powers to initiate and conduct a review even to the point of a full blown commission. Committees open, transparent and accessible. Parliament may request such a committee and each piece of legislation subject to some kind of review and bound to consider the committee reports in open and transparent fashion.

Example:
“public benefit” products, sectors – there is a need in a segment of the population that is compelling but this need is not being taken care of by the private sector, for whatever reason for exampled, either because chances of a profit are not high enough to motivate the private sector such as too expensive to develop and the segment benefited is too small or regulations on private industry cause too long a delay in bringing to market; as well as, strategic products, simply too important to Canadian for economic, health , or whatever other reasons, that there is a public benefit in direct involvement.

Basic problems with turning to private companies to due research and take products to the market place for “public benefit” products is that they may not be profitable.
For example, pharmaceuticals are reducing the amount of research for antibiotics because of their infrequent use in the population, so can spend 100’s of million in research and never recoup it. Canada establish programs to either set up facilities to do the research or fund existing private companies.

Whenever some breakthrough in research is announced it is always followed up with “George Murphy, a study co-author and chief of dermatopathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said this proves the principle that specifically targeting and attacking cancer stem cells can work. The next step is to see if the same strategy will work in humans, he said, adding new melanoma treatment will likely be years down the road.” (See Scientists slow cancer's growth, By destroying stem cells that drive tumour's expansion, melanoma can be controlled http://www.thestar.com/living/article/294901Jan 17, 2008 04:30 AM)

Or “it will be 10 years, etc.”
If it that important then why 10 years, presumably due to costs, perhaps the regulations can be adjusted to facilitate research, but maintain safety.
Environmental research, …,
Senate committees to identify these “public benefit” products and make recommendations, then mechanism for their approval and investment

- Letter to the Liberal Party Executive Regarding Electing a New Leader

Here is the E-mail to Doug Ferguson and Greg Fergus, of the Liberal Executive in the morning of 5 Dec. regarding this issue. I have yet to receive a response.

. . .

We do not know what Harper and the Governor General talked about and whether the Governor General simply followed Harper’s advise or whether she put some kind of conditions on it.

Simply following Harper’s advise, of course, suggest strongly to me, that if Harper is defeated in a vote of non-confidence at the end of January, the Governor General will follow his advise to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

Also, if she simply followed his advise to prorogue without any kind of qualification to him, then what is to stop him from advising another prorogueing of parliament in January, assuming he calls to reconvene Parliament.

If the Governor General put conditions like “You get one chance to do something, if you come to me at the end of January after a vote of non-confidence I will invite the Opposition to form a government” then all Canadians ought to be told. For obvious reasons Harper would be highly motivated to keep this secret.

I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.


Electing a New Leader of the Liberal Party Immediately

I am sure that many people feel that if there is a showdown with Harper and the Conservatives, if Dion is leader of the Liberal party it will be a disaster. This is especially true if there is an election called in late January.

If Dion remains leader, there will, obviously, be a very strong motivation for Liberal MP’s to abstain from any confidence vote until May when the new leader is elected. . That would be a path disastrous to our country and the Liberal Party.


For these reasons, and as suggested by David Herle, yesterday, we must have a new leader by the time Parliament is reconvenes at the end of January.

It is not feasible to move up the convention to mid January, obviously.

That is why I am proposing that the Liberal Party hold a general vote, by all members. This, it is submitted, could, especially given modern technology, quite feasible to arrange by mid January. If a Canada wide general election can be held within 35 days of being called, so too, can a Liberal Party election.

If the Liberal Party Constitution cannot be satisfied within this kind of time frame; then, certainly upon the vote being tallied Mr. Dion could step down as leader and the Executive appoint the person elected as “interim” leader until that person, man or woman, can be formally confirmed as leader in satisfaction of the Liberal Party Constitution. [Clarification: The mechanism for this - the choices in this vote would be from the existing candidates in the leadership race and when one is “elected” in this fashion, the other would withdraw from the race. Then, the convention would be an “Acclimation”.]

I would certainly be quite willing to pass up my Christmas and News Years to assist in this.

Below (or refer to my Blog: http://cicblog.com/comments.html) is a copy of my comment on Broadbent’s Statements in the G&M this morning (I also submitted (as of this E-mail it hasn’t appeared) a portion (in bold) to the CTV article “Huge job losses in Ont. push up unemployment rate”, CTV.ca, Dec. 5 2008


W. Lloyd MacIlquham, B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D.
Barrister and Solicitor


*****************
Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.

However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.

Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.

Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).

I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!

Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:

71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.

Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!

The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.

Harper has refused to discuss what was said.

So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.

I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.

What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.

God save us, God save Canada


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Comments on Ed Braodbent’s statements

“Fanning the fires of national disunity”, Ed Braodbent, G&M, 4 Dec.’08
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wcobroadbent05/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest

_____

Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.

However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.

Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.

Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).

I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!

Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:

71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.

Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!

The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.

Harper has refused to discuss what was said.

So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.

I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.

What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.

God save us, God save Canada


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Wall !

If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin in order to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.

In so doing he has lost the trust of Parliament and its confidence.

And, in so doing he has wasted the very precious time required to take swift and effective steps to address these very serious and quickly deteriorating economic conditions.

Rather, Harper is doing everything he can to show his contempt and distain for the duly elected Parliament, despite deriving his authority and position of Prime Minister thru its Confidence. He has, and is, showing no respect for the time honoured Institutions that are Canadian Democracy and has deluded himself into thinking that he has somehow been anointed King as opposed to obtaining a minority. If allowed to continue he may well irreversibly harm or destroy these Institutions. One wonders if, indeed, he is taking advantage of these difficult and turbulent economic times to forward such a plan.

The Liberal-NDP coalition has the trust of Parliament and its confidence. Further it will bring stability during these very serious economic times.


Harper’s claim that this is a separatist coalition is, obviously, hyperbola, designed to scare those who blindly put their trust in the office of Prime Minister. Mr. Dion, given his past dedication to keeping Canada together in the face of real separatist threats, is amply qualified to keep any separatists at bay.

Harper is disenfranchising a very large percentage of the people of Canada and in particular, Quebec. 1,379,565 people in Quebec voted for Block candidates and 50 Block Candidates were duly elected.

That is, by saying that the Liberal-NDP coalition ought not to listen to the Block and the Block ought not to support the coalition, Harper is marginalizing these duly elected representatives of the people and effectively denying 38.1% of the Quebec voters the right to be heard in Parliament.

We are not talking about whether someone “voted for Harper or Dion to be Prime Minister”, which is not applicable in our Democratic Parliamentary System . (In our Parliamentary System, as it now stands, and has through many generations, citizens vote for the person they want to represent them in Parliament.) We are talking about denying their duly elected representatives from a voice in Parliament. This goes to the very heart of our Democratic Institutions and Principals. It is totally within Harper’s modus operandi to marginalize the Block since he is attempting to marginalize all the Opposition Parties, and, indeed Parliament itself. That Harper made a very similar agreement with the Block whilst in Opposition during the Martin minority a very short time ago goes to the questioning of Harper’s motives and intent.

The way to heel the wounds caused by past spasms of separation is not through marginalizing but by inclusion. Whether there is a coalition or not all MP from Quebec must be heard, they have the right to be heard. If they are marginalized it can only go towards feeding the flames of separation which could rent our country asunder.


Now Harper is organizing ‘rallies’ to demonstrate his support. If every single person in each of these centres that voted for the Conservative candidate in the last election (approx. 2.5 million) attended there would be no more than 18% of all voters. In other words, even if 2.5 million people attended, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn as to how Canadians, generally, are feeling about Harper and what he has done or the Liberal-NDP coalition. It would only reliably indicate how Harper loyalists are feeling and we already know that. Thus, one may only wonder what is the real purpose of these ‘rallies’.

The Governor General’s decision is not simply choosing a person to run this Country this is taking the necessary steps to protect our Democracy and save our country.

The Governor General’s primary purpose is to preserve our Democratic Institutions and protect our country. This cannot be done by granting a request by Stephen Harper to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament. Nor can we waste any more precious time, or overburden the Canadian people, in calling another election. Harper has wasted more than we have. Further, Mr. Harper’s contempt and distain for Parliament shows that even if he gave a return date, it could not be relied upon.

I shudder to have to peer into our future and the future of Canada as we know it.

- Conservatives at the height of Hypocrisy

Apparently the Con’s are also considering having Harper step down and choosing another leader, who by the way it just so happens would automatically become Prime Minister.

How can anyone take them seriously on this, given that they are spending all their efforts to convince the Canadian people that Dion has no right to become Prime Minister because he wasn’t elected.

Also, who would they choose as Prime Minister . . .
Jim Flaherty !
Or, perhaps, Stockwell Day !
Maybe, John Baird !

How about Preston Manning or Mike Harris.

What you say, they haven’t been elected by the fair voters of our great nation
Hummmm . . . . , I know, they could appoint Preston Manning or Mike Harris to the Senate then give him the Cabinet post of ‘Prime Minister’! After all there is precedent for such.

And in that vein there is always the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney !

But wait, shouldn’t it be a less extremist part of the old PC Party.
Let’s see …. I know, certainly Peter MacKay must be in line given he broke the trust the PC party put in him when they elected him leader not to join the party to the Conservative Party (then Alliance).

– God help us!!!

I don’t recall the Conservatives running on the platform that if they lose the trust and confidence of Parliament that they will at the same time claim that they can instill another as Prime Minister without election but Parliament, who right it is to choose the Prime Minster does not have the right to replace with someone that has their trust and confidence.

What unabashed Hypocrisy.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- To Stephen Harper, ‘Put Canada first and stop the nonsense’!

Harper and the Conservatives have lost the trust and confidence of Parliament.

They have done this by ignoring Parliament and refusing to take swift and effective action to address the very serious and fast developing crisis we Canadians, as with everyone else in the world, are facing right now. He decided to, instead, to ignore the crisis to take partisan advantage of the situation to hamstring the Opposition.


As Patricia Croft, Cheif Economist for RBC Global Asset management put it yesterday on CTV News Harper and the Conservatives had the ability to put something together but are "fiddling while Rome burns".


For Harper and the Conservatives to say wait until a month or two months from now is something like telling the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses in the restraining walls are so they can decide what to do. What about all those people who get hurt when the old restraining wall give way. [I know I have used this before, but I think it is right on and makes clear the current situation]


It is exactly that Harper and the Conservatives have not ‘put Canada first’ but have continued their ‘non-sense’ that has required the Opposition to unite and present themself as the only viable choice to lead Parliament.

The Canadian people elect Parliament and Parliament chooses the Governing Party, the Governing Party elects the Prime Minister. (No one who understands the Canadian Democratic system would say it would be undemocratic for a governing party to elect another leader who would, without being elected by the people take power as Prime Minster – for example, say Harper were to resign and the Con’s elected Flaherty as their leader.)

How does this give Harper the right to govern.

Quite frankly it doesn't, Parliament gives him the right to govern and Parliament has not only lost confidence in Harper and the Conservative Party it has lost trust in Harper and the Conservative Party.

If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.

Harper’s actions are outrageous.

Harper ought to have the decency to put Canada first and step aside forthwith and allow Parliament to put in place someone they have trust and confidence in to salvage what they can. By continuing and vowing to fight he is only causing worse damage to all of us and wasting the scarce and precious time available to do what is required.

[Comments on G&M “Stelmach to Ottawa: 'Stop the nonsense'“ In response to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach “Put Canada first and stop the nonsense,” ]



Lloyd MacIlquham

- "It's the People, Stupid!"

Here is something I wrote today on the G&M article, yesterday, "A well-shaped package would be worth the wait", Jack Mintz …"The real reason for their consternation is that the opposition could be kneecapped by the Conservative proposal to eliminate federal taxpayers' subsidies to political parties by April 1. "

I posted an abridged version to the G&M this morning.

_____________


To all those that think that this is all about the Conservatives eliminating the subsidies to the political parties . . .

"It's the People, Stupid!"

I can only suggest that you meet all our fellow Canadians who lose their jobs, or otherwise suffer sever economic injury, between now and the Conservatives decide to implement a meaningful and effective stimulus package and explain why it was right for Canadians to wait.

Every economy based major political entity in the world is acting immediately to attempt to reduce the damage caused not only to their economy but, much more importantly, to the people in their countries. These actions are all being taken since the Federal election. They are based on current and currently projected economic forecasts, not on something based on the situation a year ago.

To tell people to wait until sometime next year for their budget is something like saying to the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses are in the restraining walls in order to decide what to do. What about all those people that suffer because of the delay in action when the dam bursts.

Harper and Flaherty ought to have introduced a meaningful and effective stimulus package last week in their update. It was worse than negligent to do otherwise.

That Harper and Flaherty would abstain from performing their duty and instead attack public servants and the Opposition parties, is bizarre, indicative, not of a Prime Minster seriously addressing one of the worse crisis in Canada's history, but of a politician and party trying to take advantage of the serious situation to undermine the opposition parties.

This was not a miscalculation by some advisor.

This was a well thought out scheme based on the Harper and Conservative extreme right wing ideology to take advantage of the serious economic crisis to further their extreme right wing agenda. One need only listen to the very well prepared “Harper Black Friday Promulgation” and his blunt and ominous statement that the Opposition Parties do not have the right (despite having the support of almost 2/3rd of the Canadian voters) to join together to run this country without an election, but that only he, Harper, and the Conservatives, are the only ones (with only 36% support of the Canadian votes) that have right to run the country. One must ask them self just what is it, the underlying “hidden” message Harper is asserting.


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Conservative Immigration Policies – More Right Wing, Extremist Ideology

The Conservative policies on Immigration are indicative of a total misunderstanding of the significance and importance of Immigration to Canada and Canadian society. Also, statements like “Should we find that one sector is in real trouble a few months from now, we can obviously modify the instructions to reflect that” is simplistic and hopefully intended merely as “Spin” to try and sell their policies and not an indication of their lack of comprehension.

The above was posted to the G&M article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLimmigration1128/BNStory/politics/home

“Tories unveil immigration reforms”, Romina Maurino, Canadian Press, 28 Nov.’08


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper “Black Friday Promulgation”

It seems that Harper is the only one that thinks that “Stephane Dion does not have the right to take office without an election”. However, one can only wonder what it is that Harper is saying exactly. Is this just rhetoric or is this a much more sinister message.

It is hard to think that Harper’s speech was simply the irrational ranting of a person soon to be dethroned. He seems to be saying that the previous vote trumps the Constitution, the will of Parliament and Governor General. Given that his minority party is the government of the day as a result of the Constitution, Will of Parliament and Governor General, his logic seems a bit self-defeating. Almost 2/3 rds of the Canadian people voted against Harper.

By his own logic, Harper would not have the right to take office. According to our Constitution however, he had the right to so do. According to our Constitution it behooves a minority government to form a consensus or it runs the risk it will fall. The Office of Prime Minster simply does not have the authority to determine whether after they fall there will be an election or not. Harper seems to be confusing Canada with the United States where they actually vote for and elect their head of the executive. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Harper, but this is Canada.

The last election did not elect him ‘Prime Minister”, it elected MP’s whose job it is to represent their constituency. According to our Parliamentary system, his party may form the government and it’s leader become Prime Minister provided, and as long as, it has the confidence of Parliament. This is not a ‘presidential’ system, where the election elects the President for a definite period of time. If one were to apply Harper’s argument our parliamentary system would be thrown out the window.

It is clear that the Governor General has the authority, and the duty, to consider, in these circumstances, whether a stable coalition can form a government and if so to invite them to so do.

It seems to me that, instead, the Constitutional experts should be deciding whether Harper would have the right to suspend Parliament until sometime after the New Year or even sine die, prior to a Confidence vote. Given his statements it seems he has backed himself into having to either reach out and work with the Opposition Parties or do something extreme like try to suspend Parliament. It seems to me that progressive, moderate, middle of the road parties would reach out and try to form a consensus. Only extremist ideologies allow for in your face government by minority.


An abridgement was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wGG29/BNStory/politics/
“GG would have little choice but to accept coalition pact, experts say”,Gloria Galloway, 29 Nov.’08


Lloyd MacIlquham


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberals should replace the leadership convention

I submitted the following to Scot’s Diatribes on 21 Nov.’08. They later truncated it saying it was too long. I am posting here in its entirety.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2008/11/21/liberals-should-replace-the-leadership-convention/#comment-17208

17208. wlloydm said on November 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm

…
In reply to “Liberals should replace the leadership convention. “
I posted a quite in depth discussion of the issue you raise on my Blog on 2 Nov.’08:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html

“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”

Also,

On 14 Nov ’08 I posted a response to the G&M article “Dropping gloves early, Rae walks out on forum”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081116.wliberalleadership1116/CommentStory/politics/
. . .
At least Bob Rae is on the right track. He should go that step further and suggest that there should be a number of votes - one for each province and where it is not the delegates that votes but the grass roots of the party. Each of these votes produces a number of delegates for each candidate. I know, it sounds familiar. But, it is a very successful formula for democratic participation and getting people at the individual level involved and [engaged]. Who knows perhaps if people feel they are involved and their opinions count they may even decide to support the party and actually vote Liberal come election day – and that’s a good thing.
and,

On or about 29 Oct I sent an E-mail to Greg Fergus, National Director, Liberal Party of Canada, upon his invitation to send feedback, regarding the very issue you mentioned:
(the essence of which is set out below see below).

If I recall I also sent a similar E-mail Douglas Ferguson, upon similar prompting.

I sent another E-mail to Greg Fergus, on around 11 Nov.’08, asking for his reply.

I have, as yet, received no reply from either to this issue

___________________

http://cicblog.com/comments.html

“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
. . .
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.

It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.

This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.

The draw backs are:

- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.

- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.

It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
___________________


contents of:

29 Oct.'08, E-mail to Greg Fergus
and,

1 Nov.'08, E-mail to Douglas Ferguson

Inability to raise funds is generally acknowledged as a major problem for the Liberal Party. I submit that there is a direct co-relation between this and the lack of direct involvement of individuals, at the grass roots as they say, in the Party and how it conducts business. It is generally observed that prior to the changes to the fund-raising provisions in the Elections Act, the Liberal Party relied to a very large extent on large donations from businesses and a relatively elite group of individuals.

Now, with the restrictions this is obviously not a viable alternative. It is submitted that the manner in which the leadership is determined – delegates selected by Riding Associations voting at a convention, was well suited and went hand-in-hand with former type of fund raising i.e. it left the selection of the leader to relatively a few, hard core Party members, which in turn allowed a more direct say by those contributing. This form of delegate convention also was well suited to the behind the scenes power brokering and, yes, “king making”. This form of electing the leader obviously leaves out the input by the individual Party members and, in fact, it is suggested, alienates them. In the case of the last leadership race, Dion was not a front runner during the campaigning and as such was not scrutinized by the media to any real extent which in turn did not allow Canadians to see who he was and respond.

Once elected of course the media attention was on him and, it is submitted he simply didn’t resonate as a leader with the grass roots Canadians. Dion suggests that the attack ads are why he did not ‘catch on’ with Canadians. Attack ads do have an impact (and I read somewhere that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious). However, it is submitted that if they resonate with what people’s instincts are telling them and put to words what people are already feeling but have not formulated into words, they have a much greater impact.

It is hard to see how a response will purge this type of impact. Being coroneted as Liberal Leader does not transform the person into a leader that will inspire the people. I find it hard to believe that Pierre Trudeau was just some run of the mill Joe who upon being made Leader transformed into this dynamic, charismatic leader. What being elected leader did was bring him to the attention of all Canadians who could see in him these leadership qualities.

Allowing all Liberals to have a direct vote allows them to vet all the candidates and support the one(s) that “inspires” them. It is submitted that this direct involvement not only tends to result in a more popular leader, generally, but promotes involvement at the grass roots which is bound to carry forward with ongoing support with respect to fundraising, volunteers and votes. It also tends to eliminate the “power brokers” and back room deals that result in a leader who only a relatively very few people want and for reasons that might not be for the best as far as the Party is concerned and promotes the electing of a leader that Canadians can identify with. With modern communications allowing all Liberals to vote is certainly quite feasible either thru the Internet or telephone calling.

Making it easy for people to join the Liberal Party, assuming they hold Liberal values and of course pay their 10 bucks, to vote would broaden the base. Modern technology and banking facilitates these large numbers of people contributing small amounts which is also in line with the Elections Act. If it is too difficult to get the powers that be in the Liberal Party to change over, then perhaps a middle ground where regional delegate are voted on in a serious of preliminary votes in various set regions of the country open to all Liberals in that region would help. It may be trhat this typ eof process has been suggested before but I am hoping that results of this last election and the difficulty ion raising finds impresses upon all the members of the Party the importance of this type of “grass roots” process in electing a leader.


The attack adds did have an impact and I read some where that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious.
____________________

- Our Dysfunctional Parliament

This was written in response to the Toronto Star article, “More polite but still dysfunctional”, Nov 22, 2008 04:30 AM , James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/541607

The Toronto Star allows only 1000 spaces in reply so I was unable to post all of this but only a small part.
___________________________

I think you [James Travers] have identified a very serious problem and the cause. Since Paul Martin's minority government Harper and the Conservatives have done everything he, and they, can, irrespective of decorum, to pull Martin down and cling to power. Their approach is completely new and different and, in my opinion, something that the Canadian people are really not totally tuned into, because, quite simply, no one and no party has acted in such a fashion before. There has never been such an extremist party in power in Canada. People may view the Harper and the Conservatives as the old Progressive Conservatives, (by name identification), who were moderate (in comparison) and employed moderate means, within the Canadian norms. The Harper and the Conservatives tactics are the Hallmark of extremists. These including walking out of the house, to the deliberate and well developed plans, (or conspiracies), by Harper and the Conservatives since in power with the only objective to maintain and increase their grip on power.

Their tactics which include: Secrecy, muzzelling and suppressing his cabinet and MP’s, restricting access by the Press, obstructing Access to Information, in-your-face confrontational approach as opposed to discussion, negotiation and compromise, responding in Parliament to legitimate and important questions for which the Opposition not only have a right to ask but have a duty to the people of Canada, with insults instead of answers that the Canadian people require, abusing power by making non-confidence motions confidence motions in order to force their narrow ideology on the people, to burying controversial and non-confidence type legislation that they have no hope of having pass in Bills of confidence, are all the Hallmark of extremism, in this case Right Wing.

The basis of our form of democracy is that their are a number of parties. These parties vie to form the government. But in exchanged they give the people what is beneficial to the people. That is, there is an exchange: you give us what we and a country needs and we will let you run the ship. This, of course, leads to an adversarial approach between parties and vigorous debate and holding to account in the House of Commons. Of course, this is precisely what it is designed to do and much of our society is premised on the "adversarial" approach.

However, our form of democracy works only when the Opposition and ultimately the Canadian people have knowledge of what the government is doing, i.e. transparency, and is able to hold the government to account, i.e. raising these issues in the House of Commons. The above cited tactics by Harper and the Conservatives thwarts this and, I suggest, this is no accident. For any open, free and tolerant society, the Purpose is: to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.

To me the solution is that the people of Canada become aware of what the Harper and Conservatives represent and they stand up and be counted. As long as the Opposition are so polarized it seems to me that Harpe will be able to get away with his scheme. I don't think it is a question of the Opposition Parties uniting, with leaders such as Jack Layton it is not likely to happen. The 62% of the Canadian people, who voted against Harper, will have to unite.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Innovative Research Group Poll:

Innovative Research Group – who would be worst of four possible Liberal leadership contenders to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis

My post to teh G&M article "Rae to formally launch campaign Thursday"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wrae20/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest

1. You (lloyd macilquham, from Canada) wrote: This “poll” represents much that is bad about Polls. By their own admission it was one question “tacked on” to another Poll, the substance of which - i.e. questions, sequence of asking, results, was not revealed, nor “for whom the Poll tolled” (i.e who commissioned it, who asked that this question be tacked on).

Clearly, by conducting a poll in this way, the result for the “tacked on” question can be manipulated to give just about any result – i.e the answer to the last question is dependent on the former questions – what a revelation!

Further, by not revealing who requested the question and the fact that it was a “rival Liberal camp” that released the result of the Poll for this question, makes the actual wording of the Poll in its entirety and who requested the addendum becomes even more important and tends to make the results very questionable. By saying that it was not commissioned by a rival leadership camp and was not intended to be made public does not, obviously, redeem it.

Also, asking simply one question gives meaningless results as far as who is best qualified to be the Liberal Leader and go on to lead the Liberals to victory in the next election.

Everyone has strong points and everyone has weak points. For example, for Ignatieff, it is lack of experience not only at the head of a government, but leading the Party in an election.

And, of course, as Bob Rae, himself points out, 20% saying he is the worst of the four (three now) indicates that 80% don’t think he is the worst candidate to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis. Given that, in those polled there are likely between 30 – 36% Conservative, 17 – 20% NDP some Greens and some Block. Really, can it be said that 20% has any meaning since those 20% could easily be people who are not going to vote Liberal anyway.

Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:07 PM EST

*******
continuation of Post to G&M
*******

You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:

I suggest that if the other Liberal Leaders want to play fair, and be transparent, they should demand whomever it is in their camp that leaked the poll, or have other information regarding it that is not known to the public, generally, to step forward and reveal all the details so that all Liberals may make informed and enlightened decisions.

By all the candidates insisting on muck throwers not hide behind anonymity but step forward, it will, in my opinion, reduce the amount of muck thrown. And that is a good thing. The Liberal Candidates should be ensuring that the Liberals’ put their best foot forward while the spotlight of the country is shining on them during this leadership campaign.

When you look at Ignatieff not agreeing to an open debate last weekend, one can only wonder how open and transparent he would be as Leader or even Prime Minister. We don’t know who, and from which leadership camp, leaked the results of the Poll.

I think it is safe to say that it wasn’t from Bob Rae’s camp. That leaves only Michael Ignatieff’s and Dominic LeBlanc’s camp and we can only wonder from which. At least we know what we are getting with Bob Rae and he can say he is, so far anyway, an advocate for openness and transparency. Lets have a poll on that issue.

Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:27 PM EST

Rae to focus on economy in battle with Ignatieff

Comments I posted 14 Nov to G&M in response to their article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081113.wliberals14/BNStory/politics/home

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

You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:

Bob Rae’s running the Ontario economy is history. Steven Harper and Jim Flaherty’s timely stripping the Federal government’s safety nets just prior to the world economic downturn, forcing a deficit and applying their sink or swim approach to private industry in Ontario is current. If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded, he has had 15 years to learn from his experiences.

Harper and Flaherty are still making their mistakes – perhaps they should step down and come back in 15 years so that we may benefit from the wisdom and experience they, presumably, would have gained. Certainly if either Harper or Flaherty have as an illustrious career after their stint in power and make as great a contribution to Canada as Bob Rae has, then I may consider them myself (ha ha ha).

If it wasn’t for the Liberal’s 5 point as expounded by Dion during the election, Harper and Flaherty would be continuing with their “steady as she goes”, sink or swim, formula for disaster.

The fact of the matter is that when Bob Rae took over as Premier of Ontario, Ontario, the rest of Canada and the United States were entering into recession. No matter what party was in power or who the leader was, this was the realities – the recession was unavoidable.

I just thank God that Mike Harris wasn’t the Premier and Flaherty the Finance Minister at the time.

The criticism Bob Rea’s term as Premier was and is (although the Harper criticism is conspicuously divest of rational, concrete basis) the ‘Rae Days’. The Purpose was to save 10’s of thousands of public servants from losing their jobs. It was unpopular because it cost public servants 5 days of pay. Boy what a mistake! This was actually a very bold action, especially for an NDP leader. On the other hand getting 100’s of thousands of public servant upset with you is a politically questionable strategy.

*********
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote: Armins copy of Swank from Canada writes: lloyd macilquham from Nanaimo, Canada writes: If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded,
________________
Actually, he conceded in his book that he was unprepared to win and that he DID make mistakes. I hope he "wins" the Liberal "leadership". That'll be the last nail in their coffin.
________________

[my reply]

Actually . . . as per CBC: Rae said his experience governing during tough economic times should be seen as a strength. "We made some critical decisions as a province and I'm very proud of those. Did I learn some tough lessons in the course of it? Absolutely. But I think those lessons are very, very helpful," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/13/ignatieff-leadership.html

This is hardly a “mia culpa”. Perhaps you can refer to the actual section of his book where he made his alleged concession – quoting the partagraph (within the context) would be nice.

(PS – “and this is by no means conceded” is referring, of course, to me as per the context.)

- Roy McMurtry and Alvin Curling Report on Youth Violence

I was going to post this as a comment to the following but missed the cut-off by seconds.

Youth violence tied to racism, report says
CAROLINE ALPHONSO
Globe and Mail Update
November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081114.wyouthviol1114/BNStory/National/home


Hi Alvin, nice to see you back in action – sorry I mean town.

An analysis of all the comments made here might be interesting.

I am not sure that spending a lot of money as suggested is the answer.

As far as youth gang violence is concerned it seems to me that until the communities in which they live and thrive decide to do something about it at the “grounds” level, so to speak, no amount of money or effort by any level of government will have much effect – unless, of course, you are considering a military type occupation with 4 –5 police on every street corner – compare New York City. Even this does not cure the problem but it does tend to suppresses the violence. To be clear I would not support such a “solution”. But nor do I support the government, no matter what level, simply throwing money at the problem.


Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.

The following is in part my response to:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.WBSteele20081101193706/WBStory/WBSteele#commentLatest

Apparently, Gerard Kennedy is leaning strongly to running in the leadership as the party renewal candidate.


I don’t think you can blame Kennedy since he was simply playing the game as it was defined. In other words, riding associations selecting delegates who are bound in the way they vote only on the first round of voting, is ideally suited, and I suggest designed for, the vary purpose – i.e. back room wheeling and dealing. In fact, his inner circle was, obviously, very good at it since, they say, around 92% of Kennedy’s supporters swung to Dion - who would have thought it possible. So, in other words, not only was he playing the game as it was designed, he, or should I say his inner circle, excelled at it.

Bottom line is that we must blame the delegate – convention system of voting and not Kennedy.

In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.

It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.

This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.

The draw backs are:

- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.
- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.

It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.

The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.

- Harper – Extremist Right Wing Idealogue – Canadian Election

My Comment

[as posted to G&M article, 4 Oct.’08, “Harper dismisses new plagiarism allegations”: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081004.wharperplagiarism1004/BNStory/Front/:]

This is only “standard political rhetoric” for extreme right wing conservative idealogues.

Also, Harper statement adopted from Mike Harris is extremist right wing conservative code for ignoring what is best for Canadians and imposing extreme right wing ideology – vis.: "Thinking about things from a new and different perspective IS NOT ABOUT READING THE POLLS AND HAVING FOCUS GROUP TESTS. (emphasis added)

*******

Harper’s response to accusations of plagiarizing Mike Harris:
“In this case, we're talking about a couple of sentences of fairly standard political rhetoric.”


Harper’s statement:
"Thinking about things from a new and different perspective is not about reading the polls and having focus group tests. It is never easy because it takes courage, conviction and the strength to know that taking a new and innovative course is going to make change for the better. Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing."

Harris’ Statement:
"Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing. Leaders are the ones who do what they say they are going to do, despite the opposition and protests and complaints from the special interests who support the status quo."

- Harper – Tough on Crime

Comments on:
CBC “Tories would end house arrest sentences for serious crimes: Harper”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/23/harper-house-arrest.html?Authorized=1&AuthenticationKey=2_50_57a1e73d-a238-4cdc-960e-ec0fe12abe72.pakcebhmnjlldh#socialcomments-submit

Posted 23 Sep.’08, 9:10 pm, PDT

Harpers' statement, “Listiening to ordinarty people” is obviously right wing extremist code for being based on extreme right wing conservative ideology i.e what Harper and the Conservatives want and not on what studies and professional opinion indicate is the best way to handle these matters. That this is extreme right wing ideology is bolstered when Harper goes on to elaborate that "Our party believes that …”. It is further demonstrated by his statement that “Yes, we believe they're wrong," when referring to the professionals in the field such as criminologists and police.

It is shocking to think that in this day and age we could have someone seriously running to lead this country who out of hand and categorically states, without any objective basis, that the professionals in the field are wrong. In this golden age of human rights and enlightened approaches to society’s problems, this is a throw back to the “dark ages”. Harper’s statements are indicative of the type of ‘approach’ that in a bygone era of fear, superstition and ignorance brought executions in public squares and cutting people’s hands off for stealing, witch hunts and inquisitions.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper Extremist Right Wing Agenda – Canadian Election

The Harper government’s strategy from the time it took office was to slash taxes to the point that there is no appreciable surplus. This, obviously, was not an accident but a well thought out strategy. For one thing it was intended to make people ‘Happy with Harper’ by reducing taxes. For another thing, their obvious strategy is that any programs promised by the Liberal or other parties, would be attacked on the grounds that taxes would have to be increased to support it. The more comprehensive the policy the bigger the attack. On the other hand the Cons are employing the strategy of ‘a plethora of micro policies’ – small policies that are focused on a small, well defined segments of the voter population, aimed at maximizing media attention but claiming low costs to implement and simple top understand. It also allows them to do this on a continuous basis throughout the campaign. When in power they bring in these micro-policies and claim that they are a party of action and fulfill their promises. On the other hand, their true agenda is brought in through stealth – there are many examples, for example in the last Budget regarding funding for films, the amendments to the Immigration Act (IRPA), criminal laws being extended to the fetus, and others, as well as administrative changes.

In actuality reducing taxes to the extreme is one of the objectives that the paper by Mike Harris and Preston Manning for the Fraser Institute just before Harper was elected and is part of a far reaching, well defined, Extreme Right Wing agenda. They recommend reduced government spending – which Harper does seem t have got to yet.

By slashing taxes to such an extent Harper has weakened Canada’s ability to withstand hash economic times through social policies (enshrined in the Canadian way of life and distinguishes us from the Americans). This of course will be very important in the next year or two. Disjointed ‘micro-policies’ also weakens our ability to deal with large problems like the environment and the economy in a coherent, comprehensive and effective fashion. For Harper and the Con’s this is not a bad thing since they really don’t want to ‘deal with the environment’ but would rather push it off to the individual Provinces ‘À la Firewall’. They really don’t want comprehensive Federal social programs since this detracts from their Laissez-faire, sink or swin, approach to the economy (which, of sourse, one of the major factors defining them as extremist, right wing) which again can be seen in Harper’s Firewall Letter.

Harper's reducing surpluses to zero is actually a result of his sink or swim approach to our economic activity. That is, people should not turn to the Federal government for help when they are thrown into dire need due to economic downturns, they should turn to themselves. This became very clear when Flaherty told the municipal leader to stop whining when The Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a study last November warning that much of the nation's municipal infrastructure is "on the brink of failure" and will cost $123 billion to upgrade. Flaherty responded "we're not in the pothole business in the government of Canada." (see: Toronto Star, "Cities told to stop `whining'", 22 Nov.'07).



Here is one of the Harper quotes – Scary Stuff! it is something that everyone should consider when choosing how to vote:

· Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.
o Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994


The Liberal Party has a long tradition now (since Cretien) of sound fiscal management. Further they left the state of the Government finances and the state of the economy in very good shape, far beyond reasonable expectations.

Keep in mind that in Ontario the PC government was touting sound financial management right up to the end of their reign. When the Liberals took office they found a deficit of a billion dollars which the PC had not revealed. These are a lot of the same people that are now involved with the Harper and the Con Party.

Harper saying that Bob Rae “took a slowdown and turned it into the biggest recession since the 1930s” is obvious fear mongering and very much not true ( not to use the ‘liar’ word) .

- The Harper One-Man-Show Government - Is Good for a Banana Republic – Canadian Election

Submitted:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/assign_us.html
17 Sep.’08 – 9:23pm (PDT)

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

I drafted this comment for Your Turn – 17 Sep.’08, but it ended before I was finished:.

I agree with the previous caller that suggested that it is the people the leader surrounds himself with that indicates a good leader.

To elaborate, in a modern democratic society that is based on a developed economy, running the government is simply too complex to have a “one person show” at the head of the government. Perhaps some ‘Banana Republic’ dictatorship can get by with one person making all the decisions, but not Canada.

Delegation of duties and authority is the hallmark of good leadership. Harper is very much a ‘one man show’ running the government. The Conservatives simply don’t have the depth on their bench to delegate responsibility. This may be inferred from Harper’s own actions to restrict his Ministers while Prime Minister – if they had the talent then why wouldn’t he use them. It is also made manifest with the Maxim Bernier affair. This also explains why Harper and his Conservatives avoid discussing issues head on, but try to obscure and obstruct with insults.

It is very clear, as demonstrated during the Liberal Leadership Race and after, that the Liberal Party has an abundance of talent. Further, the Liberal Party knows how to delegate authority as demonstrated during the Jean Chrétien era. The Harper style of leadership may be well suited for some third world Banana Republic but for Canada it is suggested that Stephane Dion and the Liberal Team is the best choice.

Lloyd MacIlquham

24. Great Balls of Fear Mongering, Batman - Canadian Election

Meanwhile, in the Batcave, Batman and Robin are discussing the Canadian Election including the Speech by Danny Williams, Harper extremist right wing,conservative Hidden Agenda, the In-and-out election financing scheme and the Harper strategy of addressing important issues with insults.

Robin: Holy forebodings, Batman, I see Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland is warning that “a majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”

Batman: That’s right, Robin,

Mr. Williams is very upset because of promises made by Harper in the last election which he promptly broke after gaining power.

Robin: Didn’t we cover that in our segment “Holy Flip-Flops Batman! When Is A Promise Not A Promise”, Batman, back in January ‘07

Batman: Good memory, Robin! Harper tried to explain away his broken promise by suggesting that he had only been expressing a preference during the election.

Robin: Holy Duplicity, Batman, did anyone fall for this somewhat simplistic deception.

Batman: Certainly the Premier of Newfoundland didn’t, Robin and, as I recall, at the time he vowed to expose Harper during the election, which he is doing.

Robin: He certainly is not mincing words, Batman. He’s coming right out and calling Harper a ‘Fraud’.

Batman: Good observation, Robin. This is based on Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaiming, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Robin: But Harper and the Con’s have broken other promises as well, Batman.

Batman: Yes, Robin, in my count, Harper has broken numerous promises since acquiring power, not the least of which, aside from Mr. Williams’ complaint is the Income Trust disaster, to the point of indicating an underlying design.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, by promising the people of Canada whatever he thinks they want to hear, without the intention of keep it if elected, and saying whatever he thinks is necessary, without the concern for its truth, in order to get them to vote for him and the Con’s.

Robin: Holy “Blue Shaft”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.

Batman: “Blue Shaft”, Robin? That’s Williams’ line, perhaps you can use something like “Holy Con-Job”. Robin: Thanks, Batman.

Holy “Con-Job”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.

Batman: By not voting them into power, Robin, and that is exactly what Mr. Williams is talking about and why he refers to a majority Harper government

as “one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”

Robin: Batman, what are others saying about all this?

Batman: Well, Robin, many people are speaking out.

Robin: Who, who, Batman?

Batman: At the start of this election Campaign Harper said that Dion would increase the GST.

Robin: Not the insidious GST, brought in by the last Conservative government.

Batman: Yes, Robin. Dion immediately responded by, quite unequivocally, stating that Harper was a liar.

Robin: Was he, … I mean, lying, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, one might expect that most people would,

when accused of lying, be quick to defend their statement, if indeed it is defensible. Harper has simply seemed to have shrugged it off

- a further indication that these are not mistakes but well thought out and executed attacks with total disregard for whether there is any truth to it.

Robin: Holy ‘Dirty Politics’, Batman, you mean there’s more.

Batman: There are more examples than bats in a belfry, Robin.

When the Harper team attacked the integrity of the father of a fallen war hero, Robin, even Layton felt compelled to point out that “the public only has to listen to the way that Conservative MPs and Harper conduct themselves in the House of Commons.

If you disagree with them, you are open season for an insult.” (Toronto Star, 11 Sep’08).

Then there’s the In-and-Out Election financing scheme, Robin. Harper and the Con’s response was to not only attack the integrity of other Parties, by asserting that they did the

same thing, which is apparently not the case at all, but also that of one of Canada’s most internationally respected institutions – Elections Canada, by accusing them of being biased towards the Liberals.

If Harper and the Con’s really believe that they are not

running afoul of election financing rules then perhaps Harper can show some leadership by stating that the Con’s will be doing the same thing in this election. By not so doing one might infer that these are carefully contrived and executed attacks designed to deflect attention from the real issue.

When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, the Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime

Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”.

Robin: Great Ball of Fear Mongering, Batman. How can the Prime Minister of our great land respond to such important issues with such vulgarities,

devoid of any considered, enlightened or informed thought, but focused entirely on insults and fear mongering.

Batman: These are not slips of the tongue, Robin, but carefully contrived and executed attacks with the intention of playing on people’s fears and

thereby acquiring power, of deflecting attention away from an open and informed discussion of the issues and, of dealing with matters to the benefit of a few and detriment of many.

Robin: Holy, right wing extremism, Batman. Why all the obstruction and obscuration.

Why doesn’t Harper encourage open, informed and transparent discussion of the issues.

Batman: Well, Robin, perhaps they fear people will see them for what they really are – extremist, right wing conservative.

Robin: Great Fraudian Slips, Batman. Then Harper saying the other day that he and the Cons’ “want to pull Canadians towards conservatives” is really a concern that Canadians will begin to realize the extent of their “Hidden Agenda” to make Canada extreme, right wing, conservative.

Batman: Yes, you have something there, Robin. It is how they think and approach everything.

Robin: And when Harper says in his new Ad “investments that will produce results”, ‘results’ refers to implementing the their extreme Conservative Agenda and make our great nation conservative.

Batman: You’re catching on, Robin. And there’s more, Robin. Now Harper is saying the Green Shift will plunge Canada into a recession and destroy national unity causing “all kinds of political tensions across the country."

Robin: Holy ‘hidden meaning’,

Batman, just what does Harper mean by “all kinds of political tensions across the country." It sounds like some kind of right wing extremist code to me.

Batman: Well, Robin, ever since the Firewall letter it has become clearer and clearer that Harper’s intention is to

shift power to the Provinces, in particular, Alberta and weaken Federalism. It appears, that it plays well in Quebec is a bonus for them and they use Quebec as a cover to obscure their real agenda and shift power to Alberta and isolate it from the rest of Canada.

Harper’s inaction on Green House Gas issues, is a prime example of this overall strategy.

Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: Well, Robin, by not taking action Federally it forces each Province to enact their own policies to reduce

Green-House-Gases, including Alberta. That, in turn gives the Federal government an excuse not to get involved and makes it much more difficult to implement any plan for the overall good of the country.

Robin: Holy ‘Clarity’, Batman, you might say it’s an issue of:

“Each Province acting unilaterally and in its own interest does not a Nation make.”
Robin: What can we do, Batman.

Batman: We can only beseech each and every Canadian to think carefully before casting their vote, especially giving Harper and the Con’s a majority gov’t.

We've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 15 September, 2008 (2008-09-15)

- Canadian Election – Fear Mongering by Harper and Layton

Canadian Election...

here is my Comment on the G&M article, 11 Sep, "Green Shift touted as both saviour and damnation"
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlede0911/BNStory/politics/home)

“Fear Mongering” – blatant and misleading – is my response to Harper’s and Layton’s claim that the Green Shift will plunge the economy into recession.

If Harper and Layton are concerned about wealth and power being concentrated they should look at the high price of oil. If they are concerned about our economy going into recession they should look at the large number of manufacturing jobs being lost in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They should also look at the unfair treatment Ontario receives regarding the distribution of our tax dollars as Ontario’s Premier so justly pointed out just a few days ago and the anti-Ontario attitude of Harper and the Conservative Party.

So far Harper’s response to the Green Shift:

When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. Now he is saying it will plunge Canada into a recession.

This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base on fear mongering and insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian.

Jack Layton is trying to tell us that his environmental polices are “identical” to those of Obama (Toronto Star: “NDP to take aim at PM, shrug off Dion” September 05, 2008.

In reality Layton and the NDP is diametrically opposed to this policy of Obama.. A Foxnews article on 4 Aug., states that “A new Obama ad released Monday trumpets his proposal to revive the windfall profits tax on energy companies . . .

The tax would target “big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says. Obama has pushed for such a tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.”

This is clearly along the same lines as the Dion Green Shift and has nothing to do with a ‘cap-and-trade system’, which is the heart of the Layton’s environmental polices.

Danny Williams suggested the Liberal have the ‘Green Shift’ and the Conservatives have the ‘Blue Shaft’ now we have the NDP ‘Orange Sham’.

- Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

I grew up in the Beaches and went to Grade School and High School there. This Summer I came back to visit and went to the Beaches Jazz Festival. It was almost like I never left. It is very much ‘you can take the boy out of the Beaches but you can’t take the Beaches out of the boy’.

One thing I learned growing up, both inside and outside school, was to view things with an open mind, not to have preconceived notions about how things should be and to be able to adjust my thinking as I am confronted with new information and a new context.

I grew up in a very much an open, free and tolerant community, where informed, open and transparent discussion was always the order of the day. And, I know I wasn’t the only one.

I am saying this now because I think that all those living in the Beaches ought to consider this when deciding how to vote.

Any party that is ideologically driven can, by definition, not be free in their views since their views are based on preconceived notions about what is right and what is wrong and not open to change.

They can not have open discussions since invariably someone will confront them with a reality that is diametrically opposed to their way of thinking and which might require them to somehow admit that their position is wrong.

They cannot be transparent since that would expose the weakness in their position. They can only obscure and obstruct. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right – you’re wrong”. They are very reluctant to expose themselves to rational analysis and attempt to keep the discussion at an irrational, emotional level.

They consider implementing their ideology without consideration to anything else as being ‘decisive’; and, taking time to listen to the other side of an issue and perhaps adapting and adjusting their position as called for to be a sign of weakness and lacking in leadership.

You can see all this with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party which is motivated by extreme right wing ideology. It seems to me that there are many examples of Harper and the Conservative party obscuring issues and obstructing attempts to get at the truth. Harper and the Conservatives deal with issues not by open, free and transparent debate but by appealing to people emotions and, of course, hurling insults. Their attacks are designed on an emotional level.

I was listening to a Conservative strategist on 6 Sep. (Geoff Norquay, I believe) who stated that Harper [is someone] “who knows where he wants to take the country”. It seems to me that his type of statement is indicative of extreme right wing ideology. First of all it is referring to where “he [Harper]” wants to take the country and leave no room for debate, consultation or consideration of other points of view. That a majority of people in Canada may not want to go where he wants to take them is not a consideration to Harper or the Conservatives. That a majority of people in Canada are not made privy to where Harper and the Conservatives want to go is no accident.

Second, it is anything but transparent – it is based on the belief that the important thing is that Harper knows and whether we, the people, know is not a consideration. This statement is designed to be dynamic and decisive. But, it is appeals to the emotions and not the intellect. This statement is not a slip of the tongue either, since last October he was quoted as saying “After 18 months, I think the PM and the cabinet have a much clearer sense of what the issues are and the direction that they want to take the country" (Toronto Star, “Harper, Tories riding high”, October 22, 2007). It is where they want to take the country that has any significance to them. Given that Harper and the Conservative had a minority government it is actually quite startling to see things phrased in such one-sided, uncompromising terms. It is clearly a manifestation of extreme ideology, in this case right wing.

Global Warming is, of course, a prime example. Nothing in my lifetime, except in the ‘60s with the threat of nuclear war, has there been such a grave threat to our fundamental way of life than Global Warming. It’s seriousness is heightened by the fact that it may be decades before the full extent of the impact will be felt. It is not my generation that will suffer the most but our children and their children.

Any political leader that proposes significant steps be taken ought to be considered with the utmost seriousness. When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian. It is deliberately aimed to play on people’s emotions and fears. When Dion recently explained that after consultation with many people throughout the country he would, within the Green Shift policy, increase benefits for farmers, etc., to offset their use of diesel fuel, the Harper and Conservative response was that Dion is indecisive, flip-flopping and not a leader. How can anyone suggest that informed, open and transparent discussion to the benefit of all Canadians is indecision and lacking in leadership, unless of course they are motivated be extremist beliefs.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien criticized Harper for his in-your-face [my words] diplomacy with China. This is a very important issue. For example, many billions of dollars flow from Canada to China every year. Tourism from China would allow us to recoup some of this and would offset the loss of tourists from the US and from within Canada (due to the high price of gasoline and the Canadian dollar). The main obstacle to the floodgates of tourists from China coming to Canada is the Harper approach to diplomacy with the Chinese government. Rather than engaging in an open, informed and rational discussion of this very important matter to which Chrétien was drawing attention, the response by the Conservative Party was to attack Chrétien’s integrity (by asserting that Chretien’s China policy was influenced by his post-politics business plans, and the interests of rich and powerful friends - G&M, “Personal financial interest behind Chrétien attack on PM's China policy, Kenney says”, August 20, 2008). Chrétien pointed out that Harper not attending the Olympics would have been considered an insult by the Chinese government and that it was likely politically motivated. Rather than explain his decision not to attend, something that all Canadian have a right to know, we are left wondering why. Perhaps, when it gets right down to it, the Chinese government simply did not invite him because of his approach to them and he didn’t want Canadians to know the true impact of his ‘in-your-face’ diplomacy.

This response was no slip of the tongue by a rogue MP. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct. For example, when Elections Canada executed a search warrant of Conservative Party headquarters. The Conservative Party’s response was to attack the integrity of Elections Canada. When confronted with the Cadmen tape, their response was to challenge the integrity of the tape.

Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 3

I also submitted this (after editing slightly to meet the 2000 character limitation) for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/CommentStory/specialComment/home)

With all due respect, I found your opinion as set out in "The request the G-G can't refuse" to be quite weak (see comments by “Lloyd MacIlquham”).

However, of much greater concern is the possibility (see comment by R Miller from Halifax) that perhaps you might have ties to the Conservatives in that you may have ties to the Fraser Institute a (in my view) very right wing conservative think tank boasting amongst its ranks, Preston Manning (Senior Fellow) and Mike Harris (Senior Fellow) and so your opinion may be biased. Of course, everyone is entitled to express their opinions, even if it is biased and politically motivated. However, when they are presented as being the head of a prestigious academic institution, especially in Law, it seems to me that people look for an objective, disinterested assessment of the situation (see comment by: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada) and not someone using their position to promote their personal, subjective views and interests.

Please clarify. Lloyd MacIlquham

R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Slightly off topic, but as an academic, would Professor Monahan have to publically disclose whether he has had an association or financial assistance from any of the following groups ?
-The Civitas Society,
-The Fraser Institute
-The Atlantic Institute of Market Studies
-The Donner Institute
It would seem somewhat relevant before presenting an opinion piece arguing that a Governor General cannot refuse a Prime Minister's request for an election which is certainly far from clear from precedent, Bill C-16 or this discussion.

If Professor Monahan was printing this article for a reputable legal journal, would he not have to disclose possible conflicts of interest as is done for publications in medical journals ?

brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: It would be in everyone's best interest to read Patrick Monahan's bio before posting frivolous uneducated rebuttals towards his article! …

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 2

I submitted this for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:

[Monahan, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/BNStory/specialComment/home/

"The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election.”]

It seems to me that one must be very careful when comparing our system to the English (“Westminster” systems) since they differ in one very important aspect which is central to the issue at hand. We have a Constitution (and a Charter) which is the Paramount Law of the Land. Tradition does not trump the Constitution in Canada. In England, to my understanding anyway, Tradition is the constitution and there is no “Constitution” to trump it. In Canada, Tradition may be persuasive provided it does not go contrary to the Constitution or the Laws of Canada, both in the letter and the intent, otherwise our Constitution and Laws become ancillary and whole basis for the rule of law collapses into anarchy. Your opinion does not seem to touch on this, essential difference at all.

You assert “a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister”. However, this is the issue. It may be that this tradition may not go against the letter of the Constitution (although this is debatable) but it certainly goes against the application of Bill C-16 in both its meaning and intent. If the provisions of Bill C-16 are to mean anything and there is a presumption that they do, then they must free the GG hands to dissolved parliament under these circumstances. One of the things that the GG ought to determine is if, in fact, the government does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament and this can only, in this circumstance anyway, be determined while Parliament is sitting. It would seem prudent that the Governor general obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, if the government of the day requests that parliament be dissolved and does not co-operate in resolving this issue, the GG could turn to the opposing parties to see if they could form a government, if only long enough to have this issue resolved.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election

Comment on the G&M article dated 29 August by Patrick Monahan, "The request the G-G can't refuse" (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wcoessay30/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=2)

With all due respect I can�t agree with your [Patrick Monahan's - see above] assessment of Bill C-16 and the current situation regarding the dissolution of parliament.

It seem that you are suggesting that it is the �letter of the law� that is applicable at the expense of the true intent (as in part expressed, as you point out, by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, I will refrain from the quote).

If one looks at the letter of the law then, it is submitted:

Clearly Bill C-16 cannot impinge on the Governor-Generals Constitutional powers in this regard and any provisions so purporting would be of no force or effect. It is not required that any piece of legislation have a �saving� provision to assert this. Any legislation is read and applied within this context, as in accordance with the Paramountcy of the Constitution.

However, the above principle of Paramountcy applies to Constitutional powers but not traditions. In other words, the tradition that the Governor General follow the advise of the Prime Minister can be impinged by law.

To give the provision of Bill C-16 that states �Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor-General�s discretion� any meaning whatsoever (and lift it from pre-amble to provision) one ought to interpret it as explicitly freely the Governor-General from such traditions. In other words, had Bill C-16 not had this provision, then, perhaps your analysis would stand on better ground.

On the other hand, if government of the day does not, in actual fact, enjoy the confidence of parliament then the Governor General has no option but to either dissolve Parliament. Or, of course, she may approach the other parties regarding forming a government. In the unusual circumstances as we find them, it seems to me that this latter choice is the appropriate course of action and it would look better for Harper if she did (vis.: the other parties not being able to get it together adds support to his contention that parliament is dysfunctional).

Also, I can�t agree that how long the government in question has been in power is relevant and I am unable to find any basis for your assertion.

And, I can not concur with your conclude that the Harper government still enjoys the confidence of the House. This is very unclear and something that can only be determined when while the House is sitting. You base your conclusion on events during the last session. I don�t think that is valid. Whether a government enjoys the confidence of the House can change in the space of a day, and, obviously does (since Parliament is then forthwith dissolved or changed). I cannot see how one can state that Harper government still enjoys the confidence of the House before Parliament is resumed, especially given the current positions of the various parties.

It appears to me that everything points to having Parliament called and whether the Harper government enjoys the confidence of the House made manifest before Harper should approach the Governor-General to dissolve parliament and if he were to do that before then, not only are the Governor-General�s hands not bound but she ought to wait until the will of parliament is made manifest.


Lloyd MacIlquham, 31 Aug'08, all rights reserved

- Respect

Query: "Respect cannot be demanded it must be earned. Respect is earned only by giving it away."

Like so many so called "truisms" its acceptance is based on sounding nice but, in reality, is simply not true:

Every human being, by the very nature of their existence, is entitled to basic, fundamental respect. Whether this flows from being God's creations and everyone equal in his eyes or, whether simply because we are all the same and "in it together", it is an inalienable right that lies at the very heart of human rights and the dignity of mankind. This fundamental respect need not be earned and may not be lost. However, it can be denied by others at their own peril of doing irreparable harm to the dignity not to those being subjected but to their inner souls and their own self-respect. Also, it is not a question of giving it away but it flows automatically and freely by simply "doing onto other as you would have the do onto you".

Most human abuse and certainly wars, repression by those ruling countries, and the like, is sourced in denying others this basic, fundamental respect. Most animosity between individuals can be traced to originating from one person denying this basic, fundamental respect. When one denies another this basic, fundamental respect, the other has a right to demand otherwise and a duty to so do. By not standing up to such tyranny on a grand scale, or bullying on a personal level, one is abdicating the special place in nature we all have been granted and leaving future generations just that much closer to the law of the jungle.

A philosophy of "Respect cannot be demanded it must be earned. Respect is earned only by giving it away" makes human relations and interaction into a "zero sum game". It converts "respect" into the currency of exchange, used to manipulate, coerce and extort. But much worse, as with all such things, it is relied upon for the foundation of rationalizing one's actions and treatment of other thus obscures truth, blurring reality and killing the soul, one cut at a time.

W. Lloyd MacIlquham, 15 July, 2008 (all rights reserved)

22. Have You Had Enough ! Robin - The Maxim Bernier Affair

Previously (episode 21, 18) Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Revelations, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: You opened with that line last time, Robin, what could possibly be more outrageous than what Harper has been doing to curtail the free flow of information.

Robin: I’ve just been reading about the resignation of the Honourable Maxime Bernier from the Foreign Affairs portfolio. What’s going on, Batman. It seems it just one thing after another with Harper and the Conservative Government

Batman: That’s right, Robin. The big concerns here are, why have Harper and the Con.’s been stonewalling any questions about security, despite how legitimate they are; why did Harper choose Bernier anyway; and, why are they so resistant to an independent investigation into the whole affair.

Robin: Holy, Obscure and Obstruct, Batman, perhaps they have something to hide, you know, a cover-up.

Batman: Well, Robin, you may have something there. Harper went on for 5 weeks stonewalling the Opposition when they asked questions about Canada’s security while all the time confidential documents had apparently gone out of and remained out of Bernier’s control.

Robin: But, Batman, wouldn’t that come to the attention of Foreign Affairs, or whomever else is in charge of such matters.

Batman: That certainly must be the case and that is what is so concerning about all this. It

seems that, perhaps, something is rotten in the state of Canada, Robin.

Robin: Great Shakespeare’s ghost, Batman. Didn’t Bernier make a number of serious gaffs while Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Batman: Apparently so, Robin, and that raises another issue, that is 'Why

was Bernier chosen for such a senior Ministerial portfolio'. Many people feel it was because Harper and the Con.’s wanted to promote their chances in Quebec in the next election.
Robin: Holy Serious compromise of our great nation’s security, Batman. You mean to say that Harper appointed Bernier to such

a sensitive and important position, not because of ability, but to get votes. I though Harper was supposed to be a political strategic genius and the man to bring integrity and transparency to our government.

Batman: Things are becoming much more transparent, Robin.

Robin: Well what does Harper have to say for himself.

Batman: Well, Robin, apparently Harper has said that he doesn’t believe national security was compromised.

Robin: But, isn’t stonewalling and refusing to do anything when our national interest is at

stake, a breach of national security in and of itself, Batman.
Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly is to me. Harper as Prime Minister had an obligation to investigate and disclose to the Canadian people, immediately, when the possibility of a situation where national security could be breached was raised.

Robin: Batman, what is Harper`s response. He stonewalled for 5 weeks. Certainly it doesn`t lie in Harper`s mouth to say he didn`t know of any compromised confidential documents.
Batman: His response, apparently, was trying to say that it was strictly a personal affair and asserting "I don't take this subject seriously."

Now that things are coming to light his position seems to be that he knew nothing of the missing confidential documents until a couple of days ago, just a few hours before this matter was made public. Now he seems to be ignoring the Opposition calls for a Public Inquiry saying that the External Affairs Department will investigate.

Robin: But surely they are involved in all this, Batman, since it is their confidential documents that was apparently unaccounted for 5 weeks.

Batman: Your right, Robin, that is certainly one question that needs answering as well. This is not to say that they couldn`t do a good job, but it is the

appearance of the government investigating itself. It seems to me that it is better that some independent body do the investigating.

Robin: It just seems to be one thing after another with Harper government that throws his and the Con. Party`s integrity,

transparency and clarity into question. We've got to get our Canada back, Batman, before it's too late.

Batman: "Have you had enough" is all I can suggest to the people in this great nation of ours, Robin.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 May, 2008-05-28