I Submitted this to MacLean’s Magazine, 29 Apr.’08
Reply to: Local campaigns are largely a fiction anyway - For all the opposition hyperventilating, it's not clear the Tories did anything wrong, by Andrew Coyne, 23 Apr. '08; http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080423_16408_16408&id=8
"Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"
It seems to me that “Democracy” is, by its very meaning, ‘grass roots’. Party politics is a form of “oligarchy“ but a necessary evil, in large part dues to finances. The intention in an election is that the locally elected candidate's duty and obligation is to represent each and every individual in their constituency, no matter which candidate they may have supported. In reality when they get to Ottawa they follow 'party lines ', where it is in the best interests of their constituency, or not. Party lines are determined by the leader, and a very few of his/her appointed advisors, the leader, of course, being elected by the party and not the people. The biggest fiction is when the Primed Minister or Ministers introduce a policy that is riddled with self interest, promoting their particular ideology and with a blatant disregard of the general good, and they say "it is the will of the people".
Surely, it is the above fantasy that ought to be addressed. The Canada Elections Act is a major tool to bring our way of government back to the people (more free votes, less confidence votes, would help, too). It is done, for one, through regulating campaign expenses.
The In-and-Out financing scheme appears to fly in the face of this and in so doing undermines the democratic underpinning of our political system. Can we say that this scheme lies within Parliament 's intention in bring into force the Canada Elections Act.
By s.407(1), Canada Elections Act, a cost incurred is a "campaign expense" if it is "used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period " [to paraphrase]. It may be that this allows a local campaign to buy advertising that supports the national campaign; but, no matter what, it must be done "directly". In other words, it is submitted that a local campaign may very well be prohibited from claiming something as an election expense when it is transferred to and spent by the national party campaign, whether the nation campaign uses it to purchase national advertising, local advertising or anything else. I fail to see how s.446(c) might come into play here to save the In-and-Out scheme since it is, it seems to me, referring to whether someone who has provided services or goods can sue the local candidate if there is nothing in writing. It is also referring to "expense in relation to a candidate’s electoral campaign" and not "campaign expenses", which as suggested above has that "directness" element.
And, of course, if the local campaign submits invoices addressed to their local campaign for these ads to support their claim to the 60% rebate from the Canadian government for election expenses, then, that is something that Elections Canada may very well be interested in.
If s.407(1) allows local campaigns to incur costs for the national campaign, and as far as I am concerned this is shortcoming of the Canada Elections Act – a piece of legislation that was apparently hurridly brought into law and in parts appears to be poorly drafted, then I have no problem with Elections Canada insisting on them doing it according to the law.
I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)
(it can be found on my website: http://www.cicblog.com/comments.html, "In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme "
. . . see below
29 April, 2008
20. Sun Tsu says fight, Robin
Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" as well as the IN-and-Out (In-Out) election finance scheme.
Now, they are discussing Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party not being founded on the “Rule of Law” and what can be done to thwart there actions.
Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Hidden Agendas, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.
Batman: What’s that, Robin, don’t tell me the Joker is running for mayor, again.
Robin: If only, Batman, this is something much more insidious.
Batman: More insidious that the Joker, Robin, what could that be.
Robin: It appears Harper and his Conservative Government has included fundamental and far reaching changes to the Immigration legislation in their Budget Implementation Bill.
Batman: That’s correct, Robin, but it goes much further than that.
These changes give the Minister of Immigration the power to pick and choose, at her own discretion, who will be allowed into Canada and who will be refused. This, of course, means, given the very tight control over his Ministers, that, in reality, it would be at the discretion of Stephen Harper, himself.
This new selection process would apply even where the people affected meet the requirements, whether they have already submitted their applications and no matter how long they have been waiting to have that application processed. This is achieved with the simple changing of one word in the legislation from
[to paraphrase] if they meet the requirements they "shall" be issued a visa to they "may" be issued a visa - "may" being at the discretion of the Minister.
Robin: Holy "Too Clever by Half", Batman, what`s that have to do with the Budget.
Batman: Once again, a very good question, Robin. Many people are asking themselves the same thing. It appears the only thing it has to do with the Budget is that Dion had indicated that he was not prepared to vote down the Budget and if Harper had introduced these changes to the Immigration legislation in a
separate piece of legislation, it would have achieved very little more than embarrassing him and his party.
Robin: Holy Despots, Batman, what is Harper and the Con.`s excuse this time.
Batman: It seems, Robin, Harper is trying to excuse it by saying that something must be done about the backlog, which they blame on the Liberals while in office.
Robin: Great Caesar`s Ghost, Batman, is Harper still harping on that. When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to stand up and be judged for what they are.
Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs, I did it again] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Extremists, Batman,
certainly there must be other, more moderate, ways to deal with the backlog than simply kick out people who qualify and have been waiting, or make them wait even longer. After all, what did they do to deserve such treatment, I mean other than trust that Canada would treat them fairly and with dignity and respect.
Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly might make the International Community of Nations shake their heads in shock and disbelief. This may very well be seen not to fall within Canada’s fine traditions of fair play and honourable behaviour.
Robin: Wouldn`t allotting sufficiently more money to processing the applications and changing how the applications are processed be the obvious answer, and one which many have suggested.
Batman: That does seem transparent, Robin, and allotting
sufficiently more funds to deal with the backlog has the added benefit of being something that might actually belong in the Budget.
Robin: Holy Simpliciter, Batman, so why doesn`t Harper do just that.
Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.
Robin: Holy duplicity, Batman, wasn't it Stephen Harper who promised increased transparency in government in the last election, Batman.
Batman: That’s my recollection as well, Robin, and now we are seeing what Harper and the Con.’s are really all about, and with greater clarity.
Robin: Holy “Banana Republics”, Batman, do we really want this kind of government. Batman: Not I, Robin. And,
perhaps all the fair minded people throughout Canada should ask themselves “ is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours ”, and so doing, join together in a common cause to put this proud nation of ours back on its true course.
After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and I think it may be not unreasonable to suggest that amongst those who voted against Harper in the last election very few would approve of these actions.
Robin: Holy Lack of Oversight, Batman, it seems that the proposed changes take our Immigration system, which has always so important to the vitality of our great nation, outside the "Rule of Law".
Batman: Yes, Robin, it specifically takes it outside the "Rule Of Law" in that even if applicants
meet the requirements of Immigration legislation they it is only that they "may" be issued a visa and not "shall", as the legislation now directs. In other words, the law no longer rules it is the Minister, herself.
Robin: But, Batman, doesn't that
put the Minister above the law - et tu, Harper.
Batman: "Ergo, Harper", is more appropriate, Robin, . . . I think. Effectively, yes, Robin, she will be able to pick and choose amongst those that apply at her own discretion and without having to abide by any laws, policies, or whatever. This is
despite how qualified they are and how long they have been waiting since they applied.
Robin: Surely Parliament won't support it and since Harper only has a small minority they would not likely pass it.
Batman:That, Robin, appears to be why Harper and the Con.'s have tacked it onto the Budget Implementation Bill.
Robin: This does appear more insidious than the Joker becoming mayor.
Batman: Yes, Robin. But it gets much worse than this.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: It appears Harper and the Conservatives are playing fast and loose with our laws in other areas as well.
Robin: Say it isn't true, Batman.
Batman: No Can Do, Robin. They have also buried into the same legislation changes to the film and video tax credit program that would apparently allow the government to cancel tax credits after it is made if deemed offensive to the public.
Robin: Holy “Insidious Implementation of Extremist, Conservative, Ideology”, Batman, it sounds like good, old censorship to me, Batman. Doesn't that also make investing in and producing films more uncertain.
Batman: Not if you conform to Harper and the Con's view of what should be censored, Robin.
Robin: Immigration and censorship, they're beyond belief, Batman. Given their stance on abortion, I'm surprised Harper and the Conservative Party haven’t tried to criminalize abortion in some anfractuous fashion.
Batman: Funny, or not so funny, you should say that, Robin. As a
matter of fact Harper is amending the Criminal Code (Bill C-484) which many consider a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion (Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists - see: Montreal Gazette, 16 Apr.’08). Whether you feel abortions should not be legal, the manner in which they are doing this should gives rise to concern.
Robin: Great ethical and moral struggles, Batman, you mean, the end doesn’t justify the means.
Batman: Precisely, Robin. If the will of the Canadian people is to recriminalize abortion then it should be done thru “informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all” and not “the back-door”.
Robin: But doesn’t our Charter of Rights declare that Canada is founded on the “Rule of Law”, Batman.
Batman: You’re absolutely right, Robin. But that doesn’t mean Harper and the Conservative Party are founded on the “Rule of Law”.
The Minister of Immigration has indicated that the Charter will not be violated. However, it is not at all clear, to me anyway, that the Charter applies to the people applying for immigration, where they are neither Canadian citizens, nor permanent resident, nor on Canadian soil. So, when s.15(1), Charter, states
that “every individual is equal before and under the law” and has the right to equal benefit without discrimination based race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, it is not at all clear that “every individual” applies to everyone in the world, no matter where they live and their status vis-a-vis Canada.
Robin: Holy "regression to the Dark Ages", Batman, it seems that Harper and the Conservative government could restrict Immigration from visible minority countries in favour of those from Western countries. And, Harper doesn’t even need to apply the "Opting Out Clause". Can they do this.
Batman: The question, Robin, is, “Can we stop them”. Also, with such extreme, discretionary power, it could prove very difficult to have the Minister's decisions overturned in Court.
Robin: But how can Harper and the Con.'s justify this and putting it into the Budget Implementation Bill,
thus avoiding "informed, open and transparent discussion".
Batman: I don't know, Robin. It is very difficult to see how granting the Minister of Immigration such sweeping, arbitrary powers has anything to do with the budget. It is much more readily explained as abusing the Parliamentary System to
implement legislation that allows Harper to gradually and thru stealth implement his extreme, right wing agenda regarding immigration, censorship and abortion and through an assault on the fundamental basis of the Charter of Rights, which, if I recall from the last election, has been a serious concern about a Harper government.
Robin: Haper and the Conservative Party have a minority government, quite small at that. What about the other Parties, surely there is something they can do.
Batman: Well, Robin, for one they could join together in a common cause to save this great nation of ours, and ask the Governor General to allow them to form the government.
Robin: Holly “Better Chance of Being Struck By Lightning Three Times”, Batman.
Batman: So it appears, Robin. They could introduce Private Members Bills to bring back accountability and the rule of law to Immigration, censorship, et al. Such Bills would
not be money Bills and so not automatically Confidence Votes. If Harper declares them as Confidence votes he would have a lot of ‘xplianin’ to do to the good people of Canada in the ensuing election.
Robin: Holy “Finally Showing Their True Colours”, Batman.
Certainly this is a good course to take, on the opposing Parties will pick up on.
Batman: We shall see, Robin.
Robin: But what about Stephane Dion , surely rallying the Liberal Party to fight Harper and the Conservatives on this would stop it in its tracks.
Batman: Stephane Dion strategy appears to be to "leave a marker" on these, and other issues, presumably to bring them up during the next election campaign.
Robin: But surely he knows that a tomb stone is a marker as well, Batman.
Batman: Hopefully, Robin, and the hole Dion finds himself in may be too deep to dig himself out of. Sometimes you just got to fight and "damn the torpedoes". There is an ancient Japanese Samurai saying (to paraphrase), if you are in a life or death struggle, choose death.
Robin: Certainly, you're
not suggesting that Dion choose to lose the next election, Batman.
Batman: No, Robin. The Samurai were mongst the fiercest warriors the world has ever seen. They did not fight to lose. By 'choosing death' the Samurai freed themself from the emotional drag of
concerns for their own personal safety and freed their spirit to fight. If Dion decides to fight Liberals throughout this fair land of ours may join the fray.
Robin: What about Sun Tzu’s saying that you should not engage the enemy unless you are assured of winning.
Batman: Sun Tsu was indeed a great military commander. However, I suggest that "Sun Tsu says fight", Robin. Dion has already been engaged by Harper and the Conservatives.
Dion does not have the luxury of making that choice. This is perhaps the fundamental error in his assessment.
Robin: Holy "Stand Up and be Counted", Batman, will the universe unfold as it should.
Batman: I don't know, Robin. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 April, 2008-04-28
Now, they are discussing Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party not being founded on the “Rule of Law” and what can be done to thwart there actions.
Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Hidden Agendas, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.
Batman: What’s that, Robin, don’t tell me the Joker is running for mayor, again.
Robin: If only, Batman, this is something much more insidious.
Batman: More insidious that the Joker, Robin, what could that be.
Robin: It appears Harper and his Conservative Government has included fundamental and far reaching changes to the Immigration legislation in their Budget Implementation Bill.
Batman: That’s correct, Robin, but it goes much further than that.
These changes give the Minister of Immigration the power to pick and choose, at her own discretion, who will be allowed into Canada and who will be refused. This, of course, means, given the very tight control over his Ministers, that, in reality, it would be at the discretion of Stephen Harper, himself.
This new selection process would apply even where the people affected meet the requirements, whether they have already submitted their applications and no matter how long they have been waiting to have that application processed. This is achieved with the simple changing of one word in the legislation from
[to paraphrase] if they meet the requirements they "shall" be issued a visa to they "may" be issued a visa - "may" being at the discretion of the Minister.
Robin: Holy "Too Clever by Half", Batman, what`s that have to do with the Budget.
Batman: Once again, a very good question, Robin. Many people are asking themselves the same thing. It appears the only thing it has to do with the Budget is that Dion had indicated that he was not prepared to vote down the Budget and if Harper had introduced these changes to the Immigration legislation in a
separate piece of legislation, it would have achieved very little more than embarrassing him and his party.
Robin: Holy Despots, Batman, what is Harper and the Con.`s excuse this time.
Batman: It seems, Robin, Harper is trying to excuse it by saying that something must be done about the backlog, which they blame on the Liberals while in office.
Robin: Great Caesar`s Ghost, Batman, is Harper still harping on that. When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to stand up and be judged for what they are.
Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs, I did it again] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Extremists, Batman,
certainly there must be other, more moderate, ways to deal with the backlog than simply kick out people who qualify and have been waiting, or make them wait even longer. After all, what did they do to deserve such treatment, I mean other than trust that Canada would treat them fairly and with dignity and respect.
Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly might make the International Community of Nations shake their heads in shock and disbelief. This may very well be seen not to fall within Canada’s fine traditions of fair play and honourable behaviour.
Robin: Wouldn`t allotting sufficiently more money to processing the applications and changing how the applications are processed be the obvious answer, and one which many have suggested.
Batman: That does seem transparent, Robin, and allotting
sufficiently more funds to deal with the backlog has the added benefit of being something that might actually belong in the Budget.
Robin: Holy Simpliciter, Batman, so why doesn`t Harper do just that.
Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.
Robin: Holy duplicity, Batman, wasn't it Stephen Harper who promised increased transparency in government in the last election, Batman.
Batman: That’s my recollection as well, Robin, and now we are seeing what Harper and the Con.’s are really all about, and with greater clarity.
Robin: Holy “Banana Republics”, Batman, do we really want this kind of government. Batman: Not I, Robin. And,
perhaps all the fair minded people throughout Canada should ask themselves “ is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours ”, and so doing, join together in a common cause to put this proud nation of ours back on its true course.
After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and I think it may be not unreasonable to suggest that amongst those who voted against Harper in the last election very few would approve of these actions.
Robin: Holy Lack of Oversight, Batman, it seems that the proposed changes take our Immigration system, which has always so important to the vitality of our great nation, outside the "Rule of Law".
Batman: Yes, Robin, it specifically takes it outside the "Rule Of Law" in that even if applicants
meet the requirements of Immigration legislation they it is only that they "may" be issued a visa and not "shall", as the legislation now directs. In other words, the law no longer rules it is the Minister, herself.
Robin: But, Batman, doesn't that
put the Minister above the law - et tu, Harper.
Batman: "Ergo, Harper", is more appropriate, Robin, . . . I think. Effectively, yes, Robin, she will be able to pick and choose amongst those that apply at her own discretion and without having to abide by any laws, policies, or whatever. This is
despite how qualified they are and how long they have been waiting since they applied.
Robin: Surely Parliament won't support it and since Harper only has a small minority they would not likely pass it.
Batman:That, Robin, appears to be why Harper and the Con.'s have tacked it onto the Budget Implementation Bill.
Robin: This does appear more insidious than the Joker becoming mayor.
Batman: Yes, Robin. But it gets much worse than this.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: It appears Harper and the Conservatives are playing fast and loose with our laws in other areas as well.
Robin: Say it isn't true, Batman.
Batman: No Can Do, Robin. They have also buried into the same legislation changes to the film and video tax credit program that would apparently allow the government to cancel tax credits after it is made if deemed offensive to the public.
Robin: Holy “Insidious Implementation of Extremist, Conservative, Ideology”, Batman, it sounds like good, old censorship to me, Batman. Doesn't that also make investing in and producing films more uncertain.
Batman: Not if you conform to Harper and the Con's view of what should be censored, Robin.
Robin: Immigration and censorship, they're beyond belief, Batman. Given their stance on abortion, I'm surprised Harper and the Conservative Party haven’t tried to criminalize abortion in some anfractuous fashion.
Batman: Funny, or not so funny, you should say that, Robin. As a
matter of fact Harper is amending the Criminal Code (Bill C-484) which many consider a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion (Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists - see: Montreal Gazette, 16 Apr.’08). Whether you feel abortions should not be legal, the manner in which they are doing this should gives rise to concern.
Robin: Great ethical and moral struggles, Batman, you mean, the end doesn’t justify the means.
Batman: Precisely, Robin. If the will of the Canadian people is to recriminalize abortion then it should be done thru “informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all” and not “the back-door”.
Robin: But doesn’t our Charter of Rights declare that Canada is founded on the “Rule of Law”, Batman.
Batman: You’re absolutely right, Robin. But that doesn’t mean Harper and the Conservative Party are founded on the “Rule of Law”.
The Minister of Immigration has indicated that the Charter will not be violated. However, it is not at all clear, to me anyway, that the Charter applies to the people applying for immigration, where they are neither Canadian citizens, nor permanent resident, nor on Canadian soil. So, when s.15(1), Charter, states
that “every individual is equal before and under the law” and has the right to equal benefit without discrimination based race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, it is not at all clear that “every individual” applies to everyone in the world, no matter where they live and their status vis-a-vis Canada.
Robin: Holy "regression to the Dark Ages", Batman, it seems that Harper and the Conservative government could restrict Immigration from visible minority countries in favour of those from Western countries. And, Harper doesn’t even need to apply the "Opting Out Clause". Can they do this.
Batman: The question, Robin, is, “Can we stop them”. Also, with such extreme, discretionary power, it could prove very difficult to have the Minister's decisions overturned in Court.
Robin: But how can Harper and the Con.'s justify this and putting it into the Budget Implementation Bill,
thus avoiding "informed, open and transparent discussion".
Batman: I don't know, Robin. It is very difficult to see how granting the Minister of Immigration such sweeping, arbitrary powers has anything to do with the budget. It is much more readily explained as abusing the Parliamentary System to
implement legislation that allows Harper to gradually and thru stealth implement his extreme, right wing agenda regarding immigration, censorship and abortion and through an assault on the fundamental basis of the Charter of Rights, which, if I recall from the last election, has been a serious concern about a Harper government.
Robin: Haper and the Conservative Party have a minority government, quite small at that. What about the other Parties, surely there is something they can do.
Batman: Well, Robin, for one they could join together in a common cause to save this great nation of ours, and ask the Governor General to allow them to form the government.
Robin: Holly “Better Chance of Being Struck By Lightning Three Times”, Batman.
Batman: So it appears, Robin. They could introduce Private Members Bills to bring back accountability and the rule of law to Immigration, censorship, et al. Such Bills would
not be money Bills and so not automatically Confidence Votes. If Harper declares them as Confidence votes he would have a lot of ‘xplianin’ to do to the good people of Canada in the ensuing election.
Robin: Holy “Finally Showing Their True Colours”, Batman.
Certainly this is a good course to take, on the opposing Parties will pick up on.
Batman: We shall see, Robin.
Robin: But what about Stephane Dion , surely rallying the Liberal Party to fight Harper and the Conservatives on this would stop it in its tracks.
Batman: Stephane Dion strategy appears to be to "leave a marker" on these, and other issues, presumably to bring them up during the next election campaign.
Robin: But surely he knows that a tomb stone is a marker as well, Batman.
Batman: Hopefully, Robin, and the hole Dion finds himself in may be too deep to dig himself out of. Sometimes you just got to fight and "damn the torpedoes". There is an ancient Japanese Samurai saying (to paraphrase), if you are in a life or death struggle, choose death.
Robin: Certainly, you're
not suggesting that Dion choose to lose the next election, Batman.
Batman: No, Robin. The Samurai were mongst the fiercest warriors the world has ever seen. They did not fight to lose. By 'choosing death' the Samurai freed themself from the emotional drag of
concerns for their own personal safety and freed their spirit to fight. If Dion decides to fight Liberals throughout this fair land of ours may join the fray.
Robin: What about Sun Tzu’s saying that you should not engage the enemy unless you are assured of winning.
Batman: Sun Tsu was indeed a great military commander. However, I suggest that "Sun Tsu says fight", Robin. Dion has already been engaged by Harper and the Conservatives.
Dion does not have the luxury of making that choice. This is perhaps the fundamental error in his assessment.
Robin: Holy "Stand Up and be Counted", Batman, will the universe unfold as it should.
Batman: I don't know, Robin. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 April, 2008-04-28
25 April, 2008
- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme
I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)
It seems to me that first:
- "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).
- also, implementing an interpretation was Conrad Black’s undoing
- as you also suggested it may depend on how it was implemented
This interpretation does in my opinion, effectively, give the Conservatives a huge advantage:
In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.
The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be
directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.
That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)
Please refer to my Youtube posting:
“Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNu_BQvlPHA
Also, a quick review of the Canada Elections Act, it seems to me (and this is not a legal opinion and a more in depth analysis could result in a different conclusion) - I have set out the provisions I am referring to below:
If the meaning of “individual” includes “person”. Then, it is submitted, a candidate is an individual and so s.405.3. Of course, s.405.2 applies.
My understanding is that the funds to the Candidate were transfers and not contributions, and so not caught by 405(1). The same goes for the funds from the Candidate to the Party, and so not to be caught by s.405(1) or 405.3, above.
If they are transfers of funds then how can the candidate claim it as an election expense which, apparently, must be used to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate. It may be that the National campaign used the transferred funds to purchased ads, but can it be said that it was used by the candidate to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate.
If the candidate purchased the ads directly and not transferred the funds to the Party, it is possible the above does not apply.
Also, if it is not an election expense then can the candidate legally claim it and get the 60% rebated.
On the other hand, it if a candidate submitted an invoice for the ads that indicated it was a “direct“ campaign expenditure, Elections Canada may very well want to look at it more closely.
It seems to me that “directly“ is very important, as can be seen above, and seems to be left out of your analysis.
If what you suggest is true, then what is stopping individuals from contributing their limit to the candidate knowing that the funds will be transferred to the Party for spending on National advertising that is attributed to the candidate, with the candidate getting the 60% rebate. The individual might then also contribute their limit to the Party directly.
As with Ken Drydan, I would be very surprised if this was the intention of the Canada Elections Act and could lead to very unlevel playing field, throwing the results into serious question.
***********
"candidate" means a person whose nomination as a candidate at an election has been confirmed under subsection 71(1) and who, or whose official agent, has not complied with sections 451 to 463 and 471 to 475 in respect of that election.
404(2.1) A transfer of funds is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to an electoral district association of the party;
(b) from a registered association to the party with which it is affiliated or another registered association of the party;
(c) from a candidate endorsed by a registered party to the party or a registered association of the party; or
(d) from a candidate to himself or herself in his or her capacity as a nomination contestant in respect of the same election.
Exclusion for funds other than trust funds — registered parties and registered associations
(2.2) A transfer of funds, other than trust funds, is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to a candidate endorsed by the party; or
(b) from a registered association to a candidate endorsed by the party with which the association is affiliated.
405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceed
(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;
(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;
(b) $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and
(c) $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.
405.2 (1) No person or entity shall
(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or
(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose
. . .
405.3 No individual shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate or a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant that comes from money, property or the services of any person or entity that was provided to that individual for that purpose.
406. An electoral campaign expense of a candidate is an expense reasonably incurred as an incidence of the election, including
(a) an election expense;
(b) a personal expense; and
(c) any fees of the candidate’s auditor, and any costs incurred for a recount of votes cast in the candidate’s electoral district, that have not been reimbursed by the Receiver General.
Election expenses
407. (1) An election expense includes any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the non-monetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period.
Exclusions — certain fund-raising and nominations
(2) Expenses for a fund-raising activity and expenses to directly promote the nomination of a person as a candidate or as leader of a registered party, other than expenses referred to in paragraph (3)(a) that are related to such fund-raising and promotional activities, are not election expenses under subsection (1).
Inclusions
(3) An election expense referred to in subsection (1) includes a cost incurred for, or a non-monetary contribution in relation to,
(a) the production of advertising or promotional material and its distribution, broadcast or publication in any media or by any other means;
(b) the payment of remuneration and expenses to or on behalf of a person for their services as an official agent, registered agent or in any other capacity;
(c) securing a meeting space or the supply of light refreshments at meetings;
(d) any product or service provided by a government, a Crown corporation or any other public agency; and
(e) the conduct of election surveys or other surveys or research during an election period.
Definition of “cost incurred”
(4) In subsection (1), "cost incurred" means an expense that is incurred by a registered party or a candidate, whether it is paid or unpaid.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)
It seems to me that first:
- "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).
- also, implementing an interpretation was Conrad Black’s undoing
- as you also suggested it may depend on how it was implemented
This interpretation does in my opinion, effectively, give the Conservatives a huge advantage:
In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.
The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be
directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.
That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)
Please refer to my Youtube posting:
“Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNu_BQvlPHA
Also, a quick review of the Canada Elections Act, it seems to me (and this is not a legal opinion and a more in depth analysis could result in a different conclusion) - I have set out the provisions I am referring to below:
If the meaning of “individual” includes “person”. Then, it is submitted, a candidate is an individual and so s.405.3. Of course, s.405.2 applies.
My understanding is that the funds to the Candidate were transfers and not contributions, and so not caught by 405(1). The same goes for the funds from the Candidate to the Party, and so not to be caught by s.405(1) or 405.3, above.
If they are transfers of funds then how can the candidate claim it as an election expense which, apparently, must be used to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate. It may be that the National campaign used the transferred funds to purchased ads, but can it be said that it was used by the candidate to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate.
If the candidate purchased the ads directly and not transferred the funds to the Party, it is possible the above does not apply.
Also, if it is not an election expense then can the candidate legally claim it and get the 60% rebated.
On the other hand, it if a candidate submitted an invoice for the ads that indicated it was a “direct“ campaign expenditure, Elections Canada may very well want to look at it more closely.
It seems to me that “directly“ is very important, as can be seen above, and seems to be left out of your analysis.
If what you suggest is true, then what is stopping individuals from contributing their limit to the candidate knowing that the funds will be transferred to the Party for spending on National advertising that is attributed to the candidate, with the candidate getting the 60% rebate. The individual might then also contribute their limit to the Party directly.
As with Ken Drydan, I would be very surprised if this was the intention of the Canada Elections Act and could lead to very unlevel playing field, throwing the results into serious question.
***********
"candidate" means a person whose nomination as a candidate at an election has been confirmed under subsection 71(1) and who, or whose official agent, has not complied with sections 451 to 463 and 471 to 475 in respect of that election.
404(2.1) A transfer of funds is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to an electoral district association of the party;
(b) from a registered association to the party with which it is affiliated or another registered association of the party;
(c) from a candidate endorsed by a registered party to the party or a registered association of the party; or
(d) from a candidate to himself or herself in his or her capacity as a nomination contestant in respect of the same election.
Exclusion for funds other than trust funds — registered parties and registered associations
(2.2) A transfer of funds, other than trust funds, is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to a candidate endorsed by the party; or
(b) from a registered association to a candidate endorsed by the party with which the association is affiliated.
405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceed
(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;
(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;
(b) $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and
(c) $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.
405.2 (1) No person or entity shall
(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or
(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose
. . .
405.3 No individual shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate or a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant that comes from money, property or the services of any person or entity that was provided to that individual for that purpose.
406. An electoral campaign expense of a candidate is an expense reasonably incurred as an incidence of the election, including
(a) an election expense;
(b) a personal expense; and
(c) any fees of the candidate’s auditor, and any costs incurred for a recount of votes cast in the candidate’s electoral district, that have not been reimbursed by the Receiver General.
Election expenses
407. (1) An election expense includes any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the non-monetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period.
Exclusions — certain fund-raising and nominations
(2) Expenses for a fund-raising activity and expenses to directly promote the nomination of a person as a candidate or as leader of a registered party, other than expenses referred to in paragraph (3)(a) that are related to such fund-raising and promotional activities, are not election expenses under subsection (1).
Inclusions
(3) An election expense referred to in subsection (1) includes a cost incurred for, or a non-monetary contribution in relation to,
(a) the production of advertising or promotional material and its distribution, broadcast or publication in any media or by any other means;
(b) the payment of remuneration and expenses to or on behalf of a person for their services as an official agent, registered agent or in any other capacity;
(c) securing a meeting space or the supply of light refreshments at meetings;
(d) any product or service provided by a government, a Crown corporation or any other public agency; and
(e) the conduct of election surveys or other surveys or research during an election period.
Definition of “cost incurred”
(4) In subsection (1), "cost incurred" means an expense that is incurred by a registered party or a candidate, whether it is paid or unpaid.
19. Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !
19. Holy " Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman ! -
Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights.
Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave, Batman and Robin are enjoying a leisurely breakfast, reading the local newspaper.
Robin: Holy revelations , Batman, what’s this I read about Elections Canada searching the Conservative party’s headquarters.
Batman: That’s right Robin, it is, apparently, regarding the Conservative Party’s spending policies during the last election on advertising, whether they nationally spent above their limit and whether certain local campaigns claimed campaign expenses for advertising in contravention of the Elections Act.
All this to the tune of over 1 million dollars.
Robin: That’s a lot of money, Batman, this sounds quite serious.
Batman: Your right, Robin, it is serious not simply because of the scale but also, as some of the opposition are pointing out,
given the closeness of the election, spending an extra million dollars on national advertising in a national campaign could, possibly, have had an impact on the outcome. Although they also point out that this could be hard to establish. However, Robin, we may have to wait until we see the results of the search.
What we can infer, however, is that Elections Canada, reputed by many around the world as an icon of integrity and stalwart upholder of democracy, is taking it very seriously.
Robin: Certainly in the case of something so fundamental to our way of life as electing the Prime Minister and ruling party,
it is not whether it can be proved to have had an impact, but whether there is more than a mere possibility it had an impact.
Batman: That’s right, Robin. "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).
In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.
The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be
directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.
That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an
advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)
Robin: Great Loop Holes, Batman, wasn't Conrad Black's undoing based on implementing an interpretation.
Batman: So say some, Robin, and sometimes it depends on how it is implemented as well. This may be part of the basis for Elections Canada’s very unusual and extreme actions.
Robin: Holy Banana Republics, Batman, surely the Conservatives have an explanation.
Batman: It seems their position is that what they did was a legal interpretation of the Elections Act and they have been up front about it all. They are apparently claiming the Liberal Party and other parties do the same thing. They also seem to be accusing Elections Canada of having a vendetta against Harper and the Conservative
Party; and, further, seem to be claiming that Elections Canada has a bias towards the Liberal Party since they didn't investigate them for the Sponsorship scandal.
Robin: Great Caesar`s ghost, Batman, are the Conservatives still Harping on that Batman.
Batman: It seems so, Robin. It must be kept in mind that being investigated does not in itself mean you are guilty. However, certainly with something so important as electing our Prime Minister, one might expect that the Conservative Party would welcome such investigation and do everything to avoid making such accusations which may give the
impression of trying to obscure and obstruct. This is especially if they are firm in their conviction that what they have done is within the law; and especially since Harper is the Prime Minister. Otherwise, are we any better than the so called "Banana Republics".
Robin: When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to cease their standard ploy of “obstructing and obscuring”, or as the G&M (2 Apr.’08, “From stridency to distractions”) has referred to it "a dizzying array of rhetorical devices", and stand up to be judged on their own actions.
Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.
Robin: Great Pink Slips, Batman, perhaps the Election Commissioner's days in office are numbered.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, that may be well within Harper's capabilities. But, perhaps Harper and the Conservative party's days in office are numbered.
Robin: Holy Proof is in the Pudding, Batman, surely if the Conservatives are so sure about the correctness of their scheme, they can demonstrate it by using it again in the next election. In fact, maybe they could call an election themselves right now.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, but with the fixed election date it may be that that would be tantamount to acknowledging a lack of confidence by the Canadian people.
Robin: Holy Show Good Faith, Batman, what can they do to demonstrate to the Canadian people their bona fides and confidence in their position.
Batman: Well Robin, Harper could, for one, go in front of the good people of Canada right now and make an unequivocal and clear statement that he and the Conservative Party will employ the exact same scheme in the next election. Certainly not doing so could raise doubts about the firmness of their convictions. It may be that their
interpretation is allowed, after all, and if so, certainly such a statement now would show leadership.
Robin: Holy Back Peddling, Batman, didn’t Harper do just the opposite yesterday, when he said if the official interpretation of the law changes then the Tories will adapt. (CTV, 22 Apr.’08, “Harper says Tories
followed spending rules”).
Batman: Apparently, Robin. We can let the people of Canada decide how solid is Harper’s conviction that their position is correct. On the other hand, it seems, we have a number of top Conservatives applying all these dizzying defenses. Perhaps this is just another “obscure and obstruct” ploy.
After all, Harper's M.O. is tight control, its hard to see this not being a very closely coordinated media blitz.
Robin: Holy Good Con – Bad Con , Batman. Didn't we see this with Flaherty's media assault on Ontario.
Batman: Evidently, Robin.
Robin: Perhaps Dion could force an election. Surely, he might find that in an election people all across this fair land asking themselves, as apparently some already are,
“is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours”, and so doing, join together in a common cause. After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and now we are seeing what they are really all about with greater clarity.
Batman: You may have a point, Robin. Harper did run on clarity and things are becoming much clearer.
Robin: Holy Ground Swell, but Dion might not be considered a good leader.
Batman: Robin, the Liberal Party has many fine members
Good leadership in a modern, democratic, economically developed society is not one person imposing his/her will on all the rest. Good leadership refers to the whole and not one part. It may seem that Dion may become Prime Minister despite himself, but it is the Liberal Party that would lead our great nation.
Robin: It would seem that Harper has missed this entirely.
Batman: Or, perhaps, Harper is finding it lonely at the top.
Robin: But, what about the Liberal Party support for Dion.
Batman: Good question, Robin. Perhaps it is time for all Liberals to join together to support Dion. Perhaps that is the signal he is waiting for.
Robin: But how, Batman, can he be convinced of this.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, the Liberal Party could join together to assist Dion in retiring his debt from the leadership race. This might demonstrate to the people of Canada just what it means to be a Liberal and that they are a united, committed party very much capable to lead. It might also free him of a distracting concern.
Robin: What can we do about the damage to our country and way of life caused by Harper and the Conservatives being in power.
Batman: Sometimes it is not possible to undo all the damage done. Everyone should keep in mind that who runs this country does matter.
Dion has indicated he may very well undo some of the damage. But, I don't know if all of it can be undone. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-04-23
Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights.
Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave, Batman and Robin are enjoying a leisurely breakfast, reading the local newspaper.
Robin: Holy revelations , Batman, what’s this I read about Elections Canada searching the Conservative party’s headquarters.
Batman: That’s right Robin, it is, apparently, regarding the Conservative Party’s spending policies during the last election on advertising, whether they nationally spent above their limit and whether certain local campaigns claimed campaign expenses for advertising in contravention of the Elections Act.
All this to the tune of over 1 million dollars.
Robin: That’s a lot of money, Batman, this sounds quite serious.
Batman: Your right, Robin, it is serious not simply because of the scale but also, as some of the opposition are pointing out,
given the closeness of the election, spending an extra million dollars on national advertising in a national campaign could, possibly, have had an impact on the outcome. Although they also point out that this could be hard to establish. However, Robin, we may have to wait until we see the results of the search.
What we can infer, however, is that Elections Canada, reputed by many around the world as an icon of integrity and stalwart upholder of democracy, is taking it very seriously.
Robin: Certainly in the case of something so fundamental to our way of life as electing the Prime Minister and ruling party,
it is not whether it can be proved to have had an impact, but whether there is more than a mere possibility it had an impact.
Batman: That’s right, Robin. "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).
In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.
The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be
directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.
That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an
advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)
Robin: Great Loop Holes, Batman, wasn't Conrad Black's undoing based on implementing an interpretation.
Batman: So say some, Robin, and sometimes it depends on how it is implemented as well. This may be part of the basis for Elections Canada’s very unusual and extreme actions.
Robin: Holy Banana Republics, Batman, surely the Conservatives have an explanation.
Batman: It seems their position is that what they did was a legal interpretation of the Elections Act and they have been up front about it all. They are apparently claiming the Liberal Party and other parties do the same thing. They also seem to be accusing Elections Canada of having a vendetta against Harper and the Conservative
Party; and, further, seem to be claiming that Elections Canada has a bias towards the Liberal Party since they didn't investigate them for the Sponsorship scandal.
Robin: Great Caesar`s ghost, Batman, are the Conservatives still Harping on that Batman.
Batman: It seems so, Robin. It must be kept in mind that being investigated does not in itself mean you are guilty. However, certainly with something so important as electing our Prime Minister, one might expect that the Conservative Party would welcome such investigation and do everything to avoid making such accusations which may give the
impression of trying to obscure and obstruct. This is especially if they are firm in their conviction that what they have done is within the law; and especially since Harper is the Prime Minister. Otherwise, are we any better than the so called "Banana Republics".
Robin: When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to cease their standard ploy of “obstructing and obscuring”, or as the G&M (2 Apr.’08, “From stridency to distractions”) has referred to it "a dizzying array of rhetorical devices", and stand up to be judged on their own actions.
Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.
Robin: Great Pink Slips, Batman, perhaps the Election Commissioner's days in office are numbered.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, that may be well within Harper's capabilities. But, perhaps Harper and the Conservative party's days in office are numbered.
Robin: Holy Proof is in the Pudding, Batman, surely if the Conservatives are so sure about the correctness of their scheme, they can demonstrate it by using it again in the next election. In fact, maybe they could call an election themselves right now.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, but with the fixed election date it may be that that would be tantamount to acknowledging a lack of confidence by the Canadian people.
Robin: Holy Show Good Faith, Batman, what can they do to demonstrate to the Canadian people their bona fides and confidence in their position.
Batman: Well Robin, Harper could, for one, go in front of the good people of Canada right now and make an unequivocal and clear statement that he and the Conservative Party will employ the exact same scheme in the next election. Certainly not doing so could raise doubts about the firmness of their convictions. It may be that their
interpretation is allowed, after all, and if so, certainly such a statement now would show leadership.
Robin: Holy Back Peddling, Batman, didn’t Harper do just the opposite yesterday, when he said if the official interpretation of the law changes then the Tories will adapt. (CTV, 22 Apr.’08, “Harper says Tories
followed spending rules”).
Batman: Apparently, Robin. We can let the people of Canada decide how solid is Harper’s conviction that their position is correct. On the other hand, it seems, we have a number of top Conservatives applying all these dizzying defenses. Perhaps this is just another “obscure and obstruct” ploy.
After all, Harper's M.O. is tight control, its hard to see this not being a very closely coordinated media blitz.
Robin: Holy Good Con – Bad Con , Batman. Didn't we see this with Flaherty's media assault on Ontario.
Batman: Evidently, Robin.
Robin: Perhaps Dion could force an election. Surely, he might find that in an election people all across this fair land asking themselves, as apparently some already are,
“is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours”, and so doing, join together in a common cause. After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and now we are seeing what they are really all about with greater clarity.
Batman: You may have a point, Robin. Harper did run on clarity and things are becoming much clearer.
Robin: Holy Ground Swell, but Dion might not be considered a good leader.
Batman: Robin, the Liberal Party has many fine members
Good leadership in a modern, democratic, economically developed society is not one person imposing his/her will on all the rest. Good leadership refers to the whole and not one part. It may seem that Dion may become Prime Minister despite himself, but it is the Liberal Party that would lead our great nation.
Robin: It would seem that Harper has missed this entirely.
Batman: Or, perhaps, Harper is finding it lonely at the top.
Robin: But, what about the Liberal Party support for Dion.
Batman: Good question, Robin. Perhaps it is time for all Liberals to join together to support Dion. Perhaps that is the signal he is waiting for.
Robin: But how, Batman, can he be convinced of this.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, the Liberal Party could join together to assist Dion in retiring his debt from the leadership race. This might demonstrate to the people of Canada just what it means to be a Liberal and that they are a united, committed party very much capable to lead. It might also free him of a distracting concern.
Robin: What can we do about the damage to our country and way of life caused by Harper and the Conservatives being in power.
Batman: Sometimes it is not possible to undo all the damage done. Everyone should keep in mind that who runs this country does matter.
Dion has indicated he may very well undo some of the damage. But, I don't know if all of it can be undone. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-04-23
18. Holy Obscuration and Obstruction, Batman !
18. Holy Obscuration and Obstruction, Batman ! -
On the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;
and, the suggestion that Stephane Dion pick up the torch of ‘freedom of information’,
incorporating its entrenchment amongst our fundamental rights and freedoms as a central principle of the Liberal Party. And, an update on "Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues".
Meanwhile, back at the Batcave
Batman and Robin have become aware of an issue central to very foundations of our democracy as we know it. But first, . . .
Batman: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.
Robin: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.
Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Jim Flaherty, in explaining why the Harper government would not come to the aid of The Ford Motor Company in Windsor, is quoted as saying “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman, that’s outrageous. Surely Flaherty is speaking for himself. Ford Motors is one of the most successful companies the world has ever seen and, in fact, a leader in the modern industrial age.
Ford has certainly and will certainly make immeasurably greater contribution to our lives and economy than Flaherty & Harper ever have or will. How many hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, in Canada have derived their livelihood directly or indirectly from the Ford Motor Company.
Batman: I agree, Robin, and it seems others do as well. Canadian Auto Workers union president Buzz Hargrove is quoted as saying "This is a big slap in the face to the auto industry, but also to Ontario". "The message is, 'too bad, you hang on, on your own, or you're gone.' "
Robin: How can Harper take such a sink or swim attitude, especially since he was supported by such a small minority in the last election. Where are our traditions, our sense of history and pride in what Canadian have built up over the many years.
Batman: Well, Robin, the Conservative party has a very short history with very little tradition. After all, it is not the Progressive Conservative Party, which has a long and proud history, one that is very much identified with Canada as a nation.
However, to the Batcave, Robin, something has come to my attention that threatens the very foundation of our free and democratic society. Something that is very subtle and insidious, Robin, which without our continual vigilance and that of every Canadian could very well lead to the curtailment of our civil liberties and human rights.
Robin: Great Scott, Batman, don't tell me they're selling the Toronto Maple Leafs?
Batman: No, Robin, we don't have to fear that, yet, anyway.
Robin: Then, they're increasing the tax on beer. That's dastardly, Batman!
Batman: Beer and hockey, both great Canadian traditions, Robin, but, no.
Robin: what could it be, Batman?
Batman: Puzzle me this, Robin. What is as common as the daily news, as reclusive as a Kremlin, as important as any University or library and as useful as any tool ever made by man.
Robin: Not the Joker, again, Batman!
Batman: That's 'Riddler', Robin, and no.
Robin: I'm stuck, Batman, give me a hint.
Batman: What common thread do all these have. What is freely and opening displayed every day in the news that we wouldn't find in a repressive political regime, that is readily accessible from all our Universities and libraries and we use to our great benefit.
Robin: Holy pecuniosity, Batman, you don`t mean "money"?
Batman: Wrong again, Robin. "Pecuniosity", Robin? We're going to have to have a long talk.
Robin: I give up, Batman, what is it?
Batman: "Information", Robin.
Robin: Holy satori, Batman, I see! But, why the concern, certainly we live in an open society, where information is readily available, where civil liberties and human rights flourish and highly cherished.
Batman: Well, Robin, it appears our society is not as open as we would like to think.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: There have been recent reports that the Harper government is obstructing the dissemination of information regarding its activities, and obscuring the process for accessing it.
Robin: Holy general patterns, Batman, didn`t we see an "Obstruct and Obscure" strategy by Harper and his government last time when we were discussing his policies on Global Warming and our economy.
Batman: Recent reports in the news
("Government stymying efforts to obtain info, commissioner failing to help: critic", Alison Auld, The Canadian Press, 5 Jan.'08) indicate that the response time for Access To Information Requests has increased dramatically from 30 to 60 days a couple of years ago to 150 or even 250 days over the last several months.
Robin: Holy Incidiosity, Batman, its certainly not "shock and awe".
Batman: "Incidiosity" ... ah, never mind ... Apparently, this is due to Stephen Harper introducing so many layers of scrutiny.
Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and expert in access to information legislation is quoted as saying "The intent is to frustrate efforts ... and ultimately you're going to go away,".
Robin: But, Batman, perhaps that's an isolated case.
Batman: Oh, there's more, Robin, clearly showing a general trend. We all should be very concerned. The article goes on to state: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."
Robin: But, Batman, perhaps there have been such huge delays since before Harper took office?
Batman: Apparently not, Robin. The article further states that: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said
the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."
Also, the G&M, in October, published an article entitled "Conservatives tightening tap on flow of information, figures show" which stated:
"Figures obtained by The Globe and Mail reveal the government is slower to respond to requests filed under the Access to Information Act, and that more information is censored when documents are finally released."
When Mr.Savoier was asked whether it was worse today than it was he stated "Yes, absolutely".
He gave specific examples, e.g., the Afghan detainees scandal that we are so familiar with, no thanks to Harper, of course. The Press is complaining that the delays are long and often they documents are blacked out.
In an article from last October by Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press "Anatomy of an Access To Information release:
'talking points' blacked out", the exampled of the talking points of one of the ministers of the Harper government being heavily censored.
Robin: Holy paranoia, Batman, aren't the talking points notes drafted for a minister for public consumption.
Batman: Yes, Robin, that's my understanding, too.
Robin: Then, Batman, why would the Harper government want to censor them, and under what exception could they possibly fall to even make the censorship legal.
Batman: Good question, Robin.
Robin: But, how can Harper cause such delays, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, for one, it appears that now most access to information requests are reviewed by the Privy Council Office
(whose role is to "provides essential advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet" and their "goal is to help the Government of Canada serve Canada and Canadians") and multiple departments now must be consulted with.
Robin: Holy breach of trust, Batman,
didn't Harper make increased transparency a central policy in the last Federal election. How can this be called increased transparency?
Batman: Yes he did, Robin, as everyone can remember. It worse though, Robin.
Harper promised to amend the Access to Information Act to increase transparency, but has failed to so do. Also, Harper has severely curtailed access by the media as well as Reports such as the one submitted by his then newly appointed advisor to the Middle-East. Stephane Dion is demanding it, apparently questioning if it indeed exists.
Robin: Holy black eye on Democracy, Batman. Isn`t it true that the existence of liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy.
Batman: That`s certainly at the core of my beliefs, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t it protect all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Batman: I agree again, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights.
Batman: Once again your reasoning is impeccable, Robin.
Robin: And shouldn`t we be ensuring these rights by placing them on the same footing as civil and human rights.
Batman: That`s something that we should surely be doing, Robin, and with great haste.
Robin: Well, Batman, can we say that the limits imposed by Harper are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Batman: No, Robin, I can’t say any such thing. In fact it appears that the Harper government is going in the opposite direction.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Instead of enshrining the right to access to information
Harper seems to be obstructing our access to information and obscuring the information that is being released.
Robin: Holy regressive-conservative, right wing ideology, Batman, what can we do.
Batman: I don`t know, Robin.
Perhaps Stephane Dion will pick up the torch of freedom of information and incorporate it as a central principle of the Liberal Party. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-17
On the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;
and, the suggestion that Stephane Dion pick up the torch of ‘freedom of information’,
incorporating its entrenchment amongst our fundamental rights and freedoms as a central principle of the Liberal Party. And, an update on "Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues".
Meanwhile, back at the Batcave
Batman and Robin have become aware of an issue central to very foundations of our democracy as we know it. But first, . . .
Batman: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.
Robin: I see that the Harper government, just as we have discussed, Robin, in our last two readings, is refusing to assist a sector of our society that requires assistance.
Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Jim Flaherty, in explaining why the Harper government would not come to the aid of The Ford Motor Company in Windsor, is quoted as saying “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman, that’s outrageous. Surely Flaherty is speaking for himself. Ford Motors is one of the most successful companies the world has ever seen and, in fact, a leader in the modern industrial age.
Ford has certainly and will certainly make immeasurably greater contribution to our lives and economy than Flaherty & Harper ever have or will. How many hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, in Canada have derived their livelihood directly or indirectly from the Ford Motor Company.
Batman: I agree, Robin, and it seems others do as well. Canadian Auto Workers union president Buzz Hargrove is quoted as saying "This is a big slap in the face to the auto industry, but also to Ontario". "The message is, 'too bad, you hang on, on your own, or you're gone.' "
Robin: How can Harper take such a sink or swim attitude, especially since he was supported by such a small minority in the last election. Where are our traditions, our sense of history and pride in what Canadian have built up over the many years.
Batman: Well, Robin, the Conservative party has a very short history with very little tradition. After all, it is not the Progressive Conservative Party, which has a long and proud history, one that is very much identified with Canada as a nation.
However, to the Batcave, Robin, something has come to my attention that threatens the very foundation of our free and democratic society. Something that is very subtle and insidious, Robin, which without our continual vigilance and that of every Canadian could very well lead to the curtailment of our civil liberties and human rights.
Robin: Great Scott, Batman, don't tell me they're selling the Toronto Maple Leafs?
Batman: No, Robin, we don't have to fear that, yet, anyway.
Robin: Then, they're increasing the tax on beer. That's dastardly, Batman!
Batman: Beer and hockey, both great Canadian traditions, Robin, but, no.
Robin: what could it be, Batman?
Batman: Puzzle me this, Robin. What is as common as the daily news, as reclusive as a Kremlin, as important as any University or library and as useful as any tool ever made by man.
Robin: Not the Joker, again, Batman!
Batman: That's 'Riddler', Robin, and no.
Robin: I'm stuck, Batman, give me a hint.
Batman: What common thread do all these have. What is freely and opening displayed every day in the news that we wouldn't find in a repressive political regime, that is readily accessible from all our Universities and libraries and we use to our great benefit.
Robin: Holy pecuniosity, Batman, you don`t mean "money"?
Batman: Wrong again, Robin. "Pecuniosity", Robin? We're going to have to have a long talk.
Robin: I give up, Batman, what is it?
Batman: "Information", Robin.
Robin: Holy satori, Batman, I see! But, why the concern, certainly we live in an open society, where information is readily available, where civil liberties and human rights flourish and highly cherished.
Batman: Well, Robin, it appears our society is not as open as we would like to think.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: There have been recent reports that the Harper government is obstructing the dissemination of information regarding its activities, and obscuring the process for accessing it.
Robin: Holy general patterns, Batman, didn`t we see an "Obstruct and Obscure" strategy by Harper and his government last time when we were discussing his policies on Global Warming and our economy.
Batman: Recent reports in the news
("Government stymying efforts to obtain info, commissioner failing to help: critic", Alison Auld, The Canadian Press, 5 Jan.'08) indicate that the response time for Access To Information Requests has increased dramatically from 30 to 60 days a couple of years ago to 150 or even 250 days over the last several months.
Robin: Holy Incidiosity, Batman, its certainly not "shock and awe".
Batman: "Incidiosity" ... ah, never mind ... Apparently, this is due to Stephen Harper introducing so many layers of scrutiny.
Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and expert in access to information legislation is quoted as saying "The intent is to frustrate efforts ... and ultimately you're going to go away,".
Robin: But, Batman, perhaps that's an isolated case.
Batman: Oh, there's more, Robin, clearly showing a general trend. We all should be very concerned. The article goes on to state: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."
Robin: But, Batman, perhaps there have been such huge delays since before Harper took office?
Batman: Apparently not, Robin. The article further states that: "Donald Savoie, chair of public administration at the Universite de Moncton, said
the delays are part of a broad strategy to control what information gets out and protect material that could prove damaging."
Also, the G&M, in October, published an article entitled "Conservatives tightening tap on flow of information, figures show" which stated:
"Figures obtained by The Globe and Mail reveal the government is slower to respond to requests filed under the Access to Information Act, and that more information is censored when documents are finally released."
When Mr.Savoier was asked whether it was worse today than it was he stated "Yes, absolutely".
He gave specific examples, e.g., the Afghan detainees scandal that we are so familiar with, no thanks to Harper, of course. The Press is complaining that the delays are long and often they documents are blacked out.
In an article from last October by Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press "Anatomy of an Access To Information release:
'talking points' blacked out", the exampled of the talking points of one of the ministers of the Harper government being heavily censored.
Robin: Holy paranoia, Batman, aren't the talking points notes drafted for a minister for public consumption.
Batman: Yes, Robin, that's my understanding, too.
Robin: Then, Batman, why would the Harper government want to censor them, and under what exception could they possibly fall to even make the censorship legal.
Batman: Good question, Robin.
Robin: But, how can Harper cause such delays, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, for one, it appears that now most access to information requests are reviewed by the Privy Council Office
(whose role is to "provides essential advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet" and their "goal is to help the Government of Canada serve Canada and Canadians") and multiple departments now must be consulted with.
Robin: Holy breach of trust, Batman,
didn't Harper make increased transparency a central policy in the last Federal election. How can this be called increased transparency?
Batman: Yes he did, Robin, as everyone can remember. It worse though, Robin.
Harper promised to amend the Access to Information Act to increase transparency, but has failed to so do. Also, Harper has severely curtailed access by the media as well as Reports such as the one submitted by his then newly appointed advisor to the Middle-East. Stephane Dion is demanding it, apparently questioning if it indeed exists.
Robin: Holy black eye on Democracy, Batman. Isn`t it true that the existence of liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy.
Batman: That`s certainly at the core of my beliefs, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t it protect all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Batman: I agree again, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, doesn`t access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights.
Batman: Once again your reasoning is impeccable, Robin.
Robin: And shouldn`t we be ensuring these rights by placing them on the same footing as civil and human rights.
Batman: That`s something that we should surely be doing, Robin, and with great haste.
Robin: Well, Batman, can we say that the limits imposed by Harper are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Batman: No, Robin, I can’t say any such thing. In fact it appears that the Harper government is going in the opposite direction.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Instead of enshrining the right to access to information
Harper seems to be obstructing our access to information and obscuring the information that is being released.
Robin: Holy regressive-conservative, right wing ideology, Batman, what can we do.
Batman: I don`t know, Robin.
Perhaps Stephane Dion will pick up the torch of freedom of information and incorporate it as a central principle of the Liberal Party. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-17
17. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman ! (Continued)
17. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman ! -
Continued ... Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Stephen Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation; as well as, similarities between Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty and their policies with Mike Harris, Preston Manning and the current Republican Regime in the United States as lead by G.W. Bush.. . .
Robin: Jeepers Batman, it seems Flaherty must have read our “Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues”.
Batman: It’s nice to think somebody is reading us, Robin, but why do you say that.
Robin: Well Batman, in a recent Toronto Star article (27 Dec.’07) Flaherty appears to be responding to some of our points regarding the impact of the Harper tax cuts on Canada as a nation.
Batman: Yes, Robin. But it is interesting that he makes no attempt
to distance himself from Mike Harris or Preston Manning. In fact it was those two who called for huge reductions in taxes along with huge reductions in government spending and downsizing in their report “Building Prosperity in a Canada Strong and Free”, released last November by the Fraser Institute.
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, just who is running our country, Batman.
Batman: That’s a very good question, one that will be hopefully answered soon enough, Robin. Both Harper and Flaherty will be given ample opportunity to explain themselves.
Robin: Holy predictions, Batman, are you suggesting an early election.
Batman: We shall see. But not matter what, Robin, the chickens will surely come home to roost. Robin: That’s great. Batman, but what about the way Harper and Flaherty are changing the very fabric of our society.
Batman: Harper and Flaherty he just doesn’t get it, or, perhaps, don't want to get it. Flaherty talks about the various sectors of our economy restructuring according to international market pressure without the help of the government.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, according to the article “in years past, Canadians used to look to Ottawa for help in challenging economic times, Flaherty said. But that era is over.”
Robin: Holy Cop-out, Batman, does that mean what I think: Harper and Flaherty are dismantling the Federal Government structure and
deliberately exposing all Canadians to the raw forces of international capitalism to sink or swim.
Batman: You are starting to see the realities, Robin. Harper and Flaherty’s rhetoric appears to be obstructing the clear effect of what ‘restructuring’ means on a personal level.
For example, the people in the sector being phased out lose their jobs. It may be that other people get jobs in the new sector so that overall the employment rate stays similar. But, this is a shift, a shift that favours some groups at the expense of others, the result of which is an increase in the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Robin: But, Batman, surely they could be retrained to fill these new jobs. And there must be other things that can be done.
Batman: Yes, Robin, but the whole point is that in the past Canadians from all parts of the country have joined together to
help in this type of situation, through various programs. But, for the Harper government “that era is over”.
Robin: But, with such a big surplus even Harper’s heart would soften, wouldn’t it Batman?
Batman: Unfortunately, Robin,
Harper may make token gestures here or there, but that is the point about extent of his tax cuts. As can be gleaned from what Flaherty himself is saying, Canada will simply not have the surplus in the future since it has been eliminated by the 200 billion in tax cuts. According to a recent G&M article (27 Dec.’07),
“Mr. Flaherty said he would ‘like to do more’ to reduce personal income taxes further, but said there is little room for substantial action, due to a slowing economy and the previous tax cuts.
Robin: But what about all the reports about employment increases and increased trade with other countries like China.
Batman: Elementary my dear, Robin … Erh… anyway … In order to see what is really going on we must look at these things in more detail, on a sector-by-sector, region-by-region, level.
Robin: I think I see, Batman. You mean that it could simply be that the rich are getting richer than the poor are getting poorer.
Batman: Something like that, Robin. It may be that exports of raw materials, coal, oil and gas, minerals, and the like, are increasing and at a greater rate than manufacturing is decreasing. In such a scenario the overall result could very well be that trade with other countries is increasing and the employment rate is increasing.
But, tell that to those in the manufacturing sector who are losing their jobs and the companies that are going out of business.
Robin: But, Batman, what about Harper’s predictions of a slowing economy?
Batman: ‘Obscure, Obstruct ’ seems to be a basic strategy for Harper and his government, Robin - their rhetoric obscuring the reality, their posturing obstructing resolution.
Robin: Holy abdication of responsibility, Batman.
Batman: This appears to be the case with the environmental issues as well.
Robin: Holy cataclysm, Batman, it’s one thing to lose a sector of the economy, but the environment is our future and that of our children. How can we allow its destruction in the future to simply to benefit one part of economy now.
Batman: That is a question we all must ask ourselves. But, it is worse than that, Robin. By dismantling the federal government and granting 200 billion in tax cuts, two very important means to combat global warming and help the sectors hit by it are seriously restrained.
We need a strong federal government with the resources to fight global warming. Our future and that of our children depend on it. If ever there was a time that all Canadians must band together under one banner and act for the good of all it is to fight Global Warming.
Robin: Holy Call-to-Arms, Batman, what can we if we all join together as one federation.
Batman: Secure our future, Robin. England has recently announced a major, nation wide project to create offshore wind farms that would generate enough power to light every home in the United Kingdom by 2020.
This is expected to result in very significant reductions in CO2 production.
Without a federal government to oversee such a project and the funds to finance it, Canada has no hope of anything of this nature.
Robin: If England is doing it, why don’t we. After all, Canada
has winds as well, Batman, just look at our great white north.
Batman: Well Robin, the calls for such projects appear to be falling on deaf ears. According to a recent article in the G&M (3 Jan.’08) the “vice-president of Nunavut's Qulliq Energy
Corporation, said Nunavut is also interested in alternative energy sources such as wind. However, he said, nothing is moving quickly, partly because of the lack of federal money for research and projects. “They don't seem to have any interest in any alternative-energy projects,” he said.
Robin: Maybe, Dion and the Liberals or even Elizabeth May and the Green Party will announce their intention to create a project similar to that in England, Batman. Maybe they will make it a central cause to unite all Canadians together in this, our most important endeavour.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, I don’t know. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-08
Continued ... Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Stephen Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation; as well as, similarities between Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty and their policies with Mike Harris, Preston Manning and the current Republican Regime in the United States as lead by G.W. Bush.. . .
Robin: Jeepers Batman, it seems Flaherty must have read our “Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues”.
Batman: It’s nice to think somebody is reading us, Robin, but why do you say that.
Robin: Well Batman, in a recent Toronto Star article (27 Dec.’07) Flaherty appears to be responding to some of our points regarding the impact of the Harper tax cuts on Canada as a nation.
Batman: Yes, Robin. But it is interesting that he makes no attempt
to distance himself from Mike Harris or Preston Manning. In fact it was those two who called for huge reductions in taxes along with huge reductions in government spending and downsizing in their report “Building Prosperity in a Canada Strong and Free”, released last November by the Fraser Institute.
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, just who is running our country, Batman.
Batman: That’s a very good question, one that will be hopefully answered soon enough, Robin. Both Harper and Flaherty will be given ample opportunity to explain themselves.
Robin: Holy predictions, Batman, are you suggesting an early election.
Batman: We shall see. But not matter what, Robin, the chickens will surely come home to roost. Robin: That’s great. Batman, but what about the way Harper and Flaherty are changing the very fabric of our society.
Batman: Harper and Flaherty he just doesn’t get it, or, perhaps, don't want to get it. Flaherty talks about the various sectors of our economy restructuring according to international market pressure without the help of the government.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, according to the article “in years past, Canadians used to look to Ottawa for help in challenging economic times, Flaherty said. But that era is over.”
Robin: Holy Cop-out, Batman, does that mean what I think: Harper and Flaherty are dismantling the Federal Government structure and
deliberately exposing all Canadians to the raw forces of international capitalism to sink or swim.
Batman: You are starting to see the realities, Robin. Harper and Flaherty’s rhetoric appears to be obstructing the clear effect of what ‘restructuring’ means on a personal level.
For example, the people in the sector being phased out lose their jobs. It may be that other people get jobs in the new sector so that overall the employment rate stays similar. But, this is a shift, a shift that favours some groups at the expense of others, the result of which is an increase in the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Robin: But, Batman, surely they could be retrained to fill these new jobs. And there must be other things that can be done.
Batman: Yes, Robin, but the whole point is that in the past Canadians from all parts of the country have joined together to
help in this type of situation, through various programs. But, for the Harper government “that era is over”.
Robin: But, with such a big surplus even Harper’s heart would soften, wouldn’t it Batman?
Batman: Unfortunately, Robin,
Harper may make token gestures here or there, but that is the point about extent of his tax cuts. As can be gleaned from what Flaherty himself is saying, Canada will simply not have the surplus in the future since it has been eliminated by the 200 billion in tax cuts. According to a recent G&M article (27 Dec.’07),
“Mr. Flaherty said he would ‘like to do more’ to reduce personal income taxes further, but said there is little room for substantial action, due to a slowing economy and the previous tax cuts.
Robin: But what about all the reports about employment increases and increased trade with other countries like China.
Batman: Elementary my dear, Robin … Erh… anyway … In order to see what is really going on we must look at these things in more detail, on a sector-by-sector, region-by-region, level.
Robin: I think I see, Batman. You mean that it could simply be that the rich are getting richer than the poor are getting poorer.
Batman: Something like that, Robin. It may be that exports of raw materials, coal, oil and gas, minerals, and the like, are increasing and at a greater rate than manufacturing is decreasing. In such a scenario the overall result could very well be that trade with other countries is increasing and the employment rate is increasing.
But, tell that to those in the manufacturing sector who are losing their jobs and the companies that are going out of business.
Robin: But, Batman, what about Harper’s predictions of a slowing economy?
Batman: ‘Obscure, Obstruct ’ seems to be a basic strategy for Harper and his government, Robin - their rhetoric obscuring the reality, their posturing obstructing resolution.
Robin: Holy abdication of responsibility, Batman.
Batman: This appears to be the case with the environmental issues as well.
Robin: Holy cataclysm, Batman, it’s one thing to lose a sector of the economy, but the environment is our future and that of our children. How can we allow its destruction in the future to simply to benefit one part of economy now.
Batman: That is a question we all must ask ourselves. But, it is worse than that, Robin. By dismantling the federal government and granting 200 billion in tax cuts, two very important means to combat global warming and help the sectors hit by it are seriously restrained.
We need a strong federal government with the resources to fight global warming. Our future and that of our children depend on it. If ever there was a time that all Canadians must band together under one banner and act for the good of all it is to fight Global Warming.
Robin: Holy Call-to-Arms, Batman, what can we if we all join together as one federation.
Batman: Secure our future, Robin. England has recently announced a major, nation wide project to create offshore wind farms that would generate enough power to light every home in the United Kingdom by 2020.
This is expected to result in very significant reductions in CO2 production.
Without a federal government to oversee such a project and the funds to finance it, Canada has no hope of anything of this nature.
Robin: If England is doing it, why don’t we. After all, Canada
has winds as well, Batman, just look at our great white north.
Batman: Well Robin, the calls for such projects appear to be falling on deaf ears. According to a recent article in the G&M (3 Jan.’08) the “vice-president of Nunavut's Qulliq Energy
Corporation, said Nunavut is also interested in alternative energy sources such as wind. However, he said, nothing is moving quickly, partly because of the lack of federal money for research and projects. “They don't seem to have any interest in any alternative-energy projects,” he said.
Robin: Maybe, Dion and the Liberals or even Elizabeth May and the Green Party will announce their intention to create a project similar to that in England, Batman. Maybe they will make it a central cause to unite all Canadians together in this, our most important endeavour.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, I don’t know. But what I do knows is we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-01-08
16. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman !
16. Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman ! -
Meanwhile back in the Batcave . . .
Batman and Robin are back from their extended vacation at the posh and very exclusive Fortress of Solitude Resort and are making ready for the new season of defending all that we hold dear in our fair country.
Robin can hear singing from the Bat cave “...If I had Two hundred billion dollars. . .”
Robin: Holy Barenaked Ladies, Batman, is that you singing?
Batman: Yes, Robin, I’m preparing a new problem to give to the Batcomputer.
Robin: Not the Joker again, Batman.
Batman: No, Robin. It’s the Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation.
Since forming the government it seems Harper, Flaherty and the Conservatives have announced tax cuts that over the next 5 years will add up to approximately $200 billion.
Robin: Holy crass politicking, Batman, it sounds like vote buying to me. But don’t all parties do that?
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, to some extent. However, when the tax cuts add up to so much, it suggests something more may be going on.
Robin: You mean the Harper Hidden Agenda.
Batman: Riddle me this, Robin
‘What well know conservative think tank issued a report late last year concluding that now is the ideal time to move forward on reducing spending, cutting taxes and eliminating provincial trade barriers. Robin: Holy premonitions, Batman, it sounds just like Harper’s speech from the throne and following mini-budget.
Batman: You may be on to something there, Robin, and that’s the point. The above quote is from Fraser Institute’s Report written by Mike Harris’ and Preston Manning’s and released late last year.
Robin: Holy déjà vu, Batmen, you don’t mean
Batman: Yes, Robin, it’s the same Mike Harris that as Premier of Ontario in the mid ’90 to late ‘90’s many consider ruthlessly slashed spending with such reckless abandon, reaping havoc in Ontario’s Educational System from which they are now just recovering and played an important role to the Walkerton tragedy.
Robin: Then Preston Manning must be the same Preston Manning who helped start and was leader of the Reform Party, considered by many to be on the extreme right wing of Canada’s political spectrum.
Batman: That’s right Robin, they are one and the same.
Robin: But, Batman, don’t these policies reflect American Republican values.
Batmen: Well, Robin, each one of us as Canadians must ask ourselves that question. But to illustrate one need only go to
American.com and read their article of 22 May’07,“Canada’s Problem:Domestic Trade Barriers”
Robin: 200 billion dollars over 5 years seems like a awful lot. Wouldn’t it be better to use a portion of that money to help Canadians.
Batman: Many would consider that an important part of true Canadian values, Robin.
Robin: After all, Batman, isn’t the primary purpose of the Canadian Federal Government to facilitate all Canadians in all parts of our fair lands to join together to help those that need help
and to protect those that need protecting. Especially groups of Canadians in any particular region, socio-economic situation, demographic, etc., for example, child poverty and development; the deteriorating infrastructure of all our cities; the manufacturing industry in Ontario and Quebec; and, of course, healthcare.
Batman: I think you are getting a clear understanding of the issue.
Evidently, Robin, the Harper Government and the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s, vision of Canada does not include these same values as is manifested by Mr. Flaherty’s recent comments to our Cities on the problem of deteriorating infrastructure.
Robin: But, Batman, wasn’t Jim Flaherty a Minister in Mike Harris’ cabinet when he was Premier of Ontario in the mid ‘90s’.
Batman: Very astute, Robin. In fact, Jim Flaherty was Minister of Finance near the end of Mr. Harris’ regime
Indeed, Robin, Mr. Flaherty actually “became identified as one of the most right-wing figures in the Harris administration” according to the Wikipedia entry.
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman! What were his comments, or dare I ask.
Batman: We must always dare to question, Robin, so as to guard our Canadian way of life.
Mr. Flaherty was quoted in a recent Globe and Mail article as saying: "What's not right is for municipalities or provinces to look to be bailed out on their responsibilities by another level of government."
Robin: Holy revelations, Batman, it is hard to believe one of Canada's leaders and a person we have vested the authority and responsibility could take such an opposite approach, and, in the same breath, try to suggest that the individual groups of Canadians seeking the help from all Canadians are somehow wrong for so doing;
Batman: Unfortunatedly it gets worse, Robin. Mr. Flaherty is quoted as further adding: "Canadians are tired of that. They expect each level of government to do its own work and to balance budgets and to act like responsible people who are elected and [not] … blame this government over there or that government over there”
Robin: But, Batman, how can he say that Canadians are tired of joining together to help a segment of our society that need help, especially since the Conservatives received on 36% of the vote and have a small minority.
Batman: Good question, Robin. I don't think even the BatComputer could solve that riddle. But we must try, Robin, we must try.
BatComputer:
But, I can-no do-er, Captain
Oh, sorry, wrong genre
Let me see, here. Ah, Yes!
Warning! Warning!
Danger! Danger!
This does not compute!
This does not Compute!
Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! Won’t this type of attitude change the whole fabric of our society and Canada as a nation.
Batman: That’s right, Robin, not only do we have the immediate effects like the bridges we use every day in our Cities collapsing. But,
Batman: The long term effects are much more serious, Robin.
Robin: Surely, Batman, we as Canadians can’t allow things like this to happen, can we?
Batman: No, Robin. The long term effects are to weaken the social fabric that holds Canada together as one great nation.
By dismantling Federalism we, in reality, are migrating towards a society based more on survival of the fittest and where the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens.
Robin: Holy Clone, Batman, that sounds just like the United States.
Batman: Many think that that is the case, Robin, at least for the current Republican regime lead by George W. Bush.
Robin: What can we do, Batman?
Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 10 December, 2007
Meanwhile back in the Batcave . . .
Batman and Robin are back from their extended vacation at the posh and very exclusive Fortress of Solitude Resort and are making ready for the new season of defending all that we hold dear in our fair country.
Robin can hear singing from the Bat cave “...If I had Two hundred billion dollars. . .”
Robin: Holy Barenaked Ladies, Batman, is that you singing?
Batman: Yes, Robin, I’m preparing a new problem to give to the Batcomputer.
Robin: Not the Joker again, Batman.
Batman: No, Robin. It’s the Harper tax cuts and what they mean to the social fabric of Canada as a nation.
Since forming the government it seems Harper, Flaherty and the Conservatives have announced tax cuts that over the next 5 years will add up to approximately $200 billion.
Robin: Holy crass politicking, Batman, it sounds like vote buying to me. But don’t all parties do that?
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, to some extent. However, when the tax cuts add up to so much, it suggests something more may be going on.
Robin: You mean the Harper Hidden Agenda.
Batman: Riddle me this, Robin
‘What well know conservative think tank issued a report late last year concluding that now is the ideal time to move forward on reducing spending, cutting taxes and eliminating provincial trade barriers. Robin: Holy premonitions, Batman, it sounds just like Harper’s speech from the throne and following mini-budget.
Batman: You may be on to something there, Robin, and that’s the point. The above quote is from Fraser Institute’s Report written by Mike Harris’ and Preston Manning’s and released late last year.
Robin: Holy déjà vu, Batmen, you don’t mean
Batman: Yes, Robin, it’s the same Mike Harris that as Premier of Ontario in the mid ’90 to late ‘90’s many consider ruthlessly slashed spending with such reckless abandon, reaping havoc in Ontario’s Educational System from which they are now just recovering and played an important role to the Walkerton tragedy.
Robin: Then Preston Manning must be the same Preston Manning who helped start and was leader of the Reform Party, considered by many to be on the extreme right wing of Canada’s political spectrum.
Batman: That’s right Robin, they are one and the same.
Robin: But, Batman, don’t these policies reflect American Republican values.
Batmen: Well, Robin, each one of us as Canadians must ask ourselves that question. But to illustrate one need only go to
American.com and read their article of 22 May’07,“Canada’s Problem:Domestic Trade Barriers”
Robin: 200 billion dollars over 5 years seems like a awful lot. Wouldn’t it be better to use a portion of that money to help Canadians.
Batman: Many would consider that an important part of true Canadian values, Robin.
Robin: After all, Batman, isn’t the primary purpose of the Canadian Federal Government to facilitate all Canadians in all parts of our fair lands to join together to help those that need help
and to protect those that need protecting. Especially groups of Canadians in any particular region, socio-economic situation, demographic, etc., for example, child poverty and development; the deteriorating infrastructure of all our cities; the manufacturing industry in Ontario and Quebec; and, of course, healthcare.
Batman: I think you are getting a clear understanding of the issue.
Evidently, Robin, the Harper Government and the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s, vision of Canada does not include these same values as is manifested by Mr. Flaherty’s recent comments to our Cities on the problem of deteriorating infrastructure.
Robin: But, Batman, wasn’t Jim Flaherty a Minister in Mike Harris’ cabinet when he was Premier of Ontario in the mid ‘90s’.
Batman: Very astute, Robin. In fact, Jim Flaherty was Minister of Finance near the end of Mr. Harris’ regime
Indeed, Robin, Mr. Flaherty actually “became identified as one of the most right-wing figures in the Harris administration” according to the Wikipedia entry.
Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues, Batman! What were his comments, or dare I ask.
Batman: We must always dare to question, Robin, so as to guard our Canadian way of life.
Mr. Flaherty was quoted in a recent Globe and Mail article as saying: "What's not right is for municipalities or provinces to look to be bailed out on their responsibilities by another level of government."
Robin: Holy revelations, Batman, it is hard to believe one of Canada's leaders and a person we have vested the authority and responsibility could take such an opposite approach, and, in the same breath, try to suggest that the individual groups of Canadians seeking the help from all Canadians are somehow wrong for so doing;
Batman: Unfortunatedly it gets worse, Robin. Mr. Flaherty is quoted as further adding: "Canadians are tired of that. They expect each level of government to do its own work and to balance budgets and to act like responsible people who are elected and [not] … blame this government over there or that government over there”
Robin: But, Batman, how can he say that Canadians are tired of joining together to help a segment of our society that need help, especially since the Conservatives received on 36% of the vote and have a small minority.
Batman: Good question, Robin. I don't think even the BatComputer could solve that riddle. But we must try, Robin, we must try.
BatComputer:
But, I can-no do-er, Captain
Oh, sorry, wrong genre
Let me see, here. Ah, Yes!
Warning! Warning!
Danger! Danger!
This does not compute!
This does not Compute!
Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! Won’t this type of attitude change the whole fabric of our society and Canada as a nation.
Batman: That’s right, Robin, not only do we have the immediate effects like the bridges we use every day in our Cities collapsing. But,
Batman: The long term effects are much more serious, Robin.
Robin: Surely, Batman, we as Canadians can’t allow things like this to happen, can we?
Batman: No, Robin. The long term effects are to weaken the social fabric that holds Canada together as one great nation.
By dismantling Federalism we, in reality, are migrating towards a society based more on survival of the fittest and where the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens.
Robin: Holy Clone, Batman, that sounds just like the United States.
Batman: Many think that that is the case, Robin, at least for the current Republican regime lead by George W. Bush.
Robin: What can we do, Batman?
Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 10 December, 2007
06 April, 2008
2. Liberal Convention - Rallying Cry
He shoots ... He scores ... Ken Dryden did something tonight that he was never able to do during his illustrious hockey career.
That is, score, and in the dying seconds of his speech at that.
Just as his microphone was being cut off because the time for his speech was ending he came out with what could be the rallying cry of all Liberals in the next election and something that all Canadians might take to heart:
"I want my Canada Back"
But it was heard and, I am sure, is still, reverberating amongst all Liberals at the Convention and those watching.
Scott Brison also gave insight into the complexity of the issue of the environment and the degree to which the current government lacks understanding.
He pointed out the great potential we Canadians have to take the lead in the world in developing technology to be applied to the war against global warming and pollution and how this is, in reality, a boost for our economy and not a drag on it.
He was able to do all this by taking off from the Clinton [Campaign of 1996] now famous iteration:
"Its the Green economy, stupid"
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 21 November, 2006
That is, score, and in the dying seconds of his speech at that.
Just as his microphone was being cut off because the time for his speech was ending he came out with what could be the rallying cry of all Liberals in the next election and something that all Canadians might take to heart:
"I want my Canada Back"
But it was heard and, I am sure, is still, reverberating amongst all Liberals at the Convention and those watching.
Scott Brison also gave insight into the complexity of the issue of the environment and the degree to which the current government lacks understanding.
He pointed out the great potential we Canadians have to take the lead in the world in developing technology to be applied to the war against global warming and pollution and how this is, in reality, a boost for our economy and not a drag on it.
He was able to do all this by taking off from the Clinton [Campaign of 1996] now famous iteration:
"Its the Green economy, stupid"
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 21 November, 2006
Liberal Convention - Quebec as a Nation Motion
I hope Ignatieff, Rae, Kennedy, Dion, Brison, Volpe, Dryden, Hall-Findlay, and those voting at the convention consider it.
To me anyway, and I am sure a lot of other people, the Quebec as a nation motion is a very divisive issue.
My proposal...given: - the importance of this issue,
- the relatively few members of the Liberal Party that will be debating it at the Convention and they will not have been given instructions, nor bound to follow any such, from their respective
Riding and other Associations
- the apparent geographical diversity in opinion
- my firm belief in what I refer to as my Basic Philosophy (and what I believe to be at the heart of
Liberalism in Canada).
That is: to build a great nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
and, (my) Fundamental Approach:
Which is: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all Canadians it is proposed that: introduction of the resolution at the Convention be postponed so that the issue may be presented to all the members of the Liberal Party to be discussed in an informed, open, transparent fashion.
Thus, leading to a truly democratic principle upon which the Liberal Part may contribute to the building and strengthening of this great nation of ours and then to be voted on by the Membership on an individual basis by mail-in vote (or other such).
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 21 November, 2006
To me anyway, and I am sure a lot of other people, the Quebec as a nation motion is a very divisive issue.
My proposal...given: - the importance of this issue,
- the relatively few members of the Liberal Party that will be debating it at the Convention and they will not have been given instructions, nor bound to follow any such, from their respective
Riding and other Associations
- the apparent geographical diversity in opinion
- my firm belief in what I refer to as my Basic Philosophy (and what I believe to be at the heart of
Liberalism in Canada).
That is: to build a great nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
and, (my) Fundamental Approach:
Which is: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all Canadians it is proposed that: introduction of the resolution at the Convention be postponed so that the issue may be presented to all the members of the Liberal Party to be discussed in an informed, open, transparent fashion.
Thus, leading to a truly democratic principle upon which the Liberal Part may contribute to the building and strengthening of this great nation of ours and then to be voted on by the Membership on an individual basis by mail-in vote (or other such).
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 21 November, 2006
6. When is a Promise not a Promise -
Batman: Puzzle me this, Robin! When is a Promise not a Promise?
Robin: I don’t know Batman, a promise is a promise is a promise!
Batmen: Apparently not always, Robin, it seems a promise is not a promise when it is a “preference”!
Robin: Holy doubletalk Batmen, how could that be!
Batman: Well, Robin, it seems that on 26 January this year, at the Harar news conference The Right Hon. Steven Harper was asked by a reporter whether campaign promises were something that are somehow less important than promises made other times.
This was after the reporter had explained, amongst other things, that Mr. Harper had in the last election campaign promised to allow Saskatchewan to keep 100% of its revenues but was now willing to consider giving something less than 100%.
The Right Honourable Steven Harper responded by saying that these are important promises that he stands by. He then went on to say, after discussing health care wait times, that on the question of a new equalization formula, you know full well the government expressed its preferences in the campaign.
Robin: Holy flip flop, Batman, that tops even the Joker. Can he do that?
Batman: I hope not Robin. We’ve got to get our Canada back before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 27 Januray, 2007
Robin: I don’t know Batman, a promise is a promise is a promise!
Batmen: Apparently not always, Robin, it seems a promise is not a promise when it is a “preference”!
Robin: Holy doubletalk Batmen, how could that be!
Batman: Well, Robin, it seems that on 26 January this year, at the Harar news conference The Right Hon. Steven Harper was asked by a reporter whether campaign promises were something that are somehow less important than promises made other times.
This was after the reporter had explained, amongst other things, that Mr. Harper had in the last election campaign promised to allow Saskatchewan to keep 100% of its revenues but was now willing to consider giving something less than 100%.
The Right Honourable Steven Harper responded by saying that these are important promises that he stands by. He then went on to say, after discussing health care wait times, that on the question of a new equalization formula, you know full well the government expressed its preferences in the campaign.
Robin: Holy flip flop, Batman, that tops even the Joker. Can he do that?
Batman: I hope not Robin. We’ve got to get our Canada back before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 27 Januray, 2007
8. When is it Fair to be Unfair?
Batman: To the Bat Cave Robin
Robin: What’s up, Batman. The Joker again?
Batman: No Robin, something much more insidious.
But first, we must solve the following riddle:
'When is it Fair to be Unfair?'
Robin: Holy down-is-up Batman! Unfair is unfair. How can it be fair?
Batman: I don't know, Robin. But we’ve got to try to sort this logic out.
On 30 January we were told by the Harper government why they broke their campaign promise not to tax Income Trusts.
Robin: Why Batman?
Batman: it seems, Robin,
because they think it's fair.
Robin: Holy breach-of-trust, Batman!
Isn’t it unfair to promise not to do something in order to get people to vote for you then after being elected break that promise.
Batman: I think you might be on to something, Robin.
Added to that, the Harper government’s broken promise resulted in the loss of up to 25 billions in investment dollars from Canadian companies.
Robin: I don’t understand how that’s fair.
Batman: Neither do I, Robin.
The Harper government says that not taxing the Income Trusts means that they may not be able to give Canadians the tax breaks they are planning in their upcoming budget. Their logic apparently is that these tax breaks will benefit the majority of Canadians and so it is fair to break their promise since it only hurts a minority of people, even though the damage is so great.
Robin: But Batman, they only received a bit more than one third of the votes, where is their moral authority.
Batman: I don’t know, Robin.
Let’s feed this information into the Bat Computer, Robin, and see what comes out.
Bat Computer:
. . . . . .
Warning!
Warning!
Danger!
Danger!
This does not
compute!
This does not
Compute!
Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! What can we do.
Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 31 Januray, 2007
Robin: What’s up, Batman. The Joker again?
Batman: No Robin, something much more insidious.
But first, we must solve the following riddle:
'When is it Fair to be Unfair?'
Robin: Holy down-is-up Batman! Unfair is unfair. How can it be fair?
Batman: I don't know, Robin. But we’ve got to try to sort this logic out.
On 30 January we were told by the Harper government why they broke their campaign promise not to tax Income Trusts.
Robin: Why Batman?
Batman: it seems, Robin,
because they think it's fair.
Robin: Holy breach-of-trust, Batman!
Isn’t it unfair to promise not to do something in order to get people to vote for you then after being elected break that promise.
Batman: I think you might be on to something, Robin.
Added to that, the Harper government’s broken promise resulted in the loss of up to 25 billions in investment dollars from Canadian companies.
Robin: I don’t understand how that’s fair.
Batman: Neither do I, Robin.
The Harper government says that not taxing the Income Trusts means that they may not be able to give Canadians the tax breaks they are planning in their upcoming budget. Their logic apparently is that these tax breaks will benefit the majority of Canadians and so it is fair to break their promise since it only hurts a minority of people, even though the damage is so great.
Robin: But Batman, they only received a bit more than one third of the votes, where is their moral authority.
Batman: I don’t know, Robin.
Let’s feed this information into the Bat Computer, Robin, and see what comes out.
Bat Computer:
. . . . . .
Warning!
Warning!
Danger!
Danger!
This does not
compute!
This does not
Compute!
Robin: Holy, lost in space, Batman! What can we do.
Batman: We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 31 Januray, 2007
10. Next Episode: When is it Fair to be Unfair?
Last time, in the Bat Cave . . .
Batman and Robin were trying to understand the logic in Stephen Harper breaking his campaign promise not to tax the Income Trusts.
It seems that Harper and the Conservatives think it is fair to break their promise since it only hurts a minority of people, even though the damage is so great, and it will free up money to allow them to give tax breaks that will benefit the majority.
Batman: We have some new clues Robin to the puzzle “When is it Fair to be Unfair?”
Robin: What are they, Batman?
Batman: Well Robin, we have seen that Harper is doing this to free up money to finance their tax breaks. So, Robin, lets look at these tax breaks and the upcoming budget.
Robin: The old “follow the money” principle, Batman.
Batman: That’s right, Robin. It seems obvious, but, sometimes the obvious approach is the best.7 February, a tax break to assist tobacco processors was unveiled by Harper and his Conservatives. It is not at all clear that this tax break will benefit any companies outside one of the Harper Conservative Cabinet Minister’s riding. It is thought that the Conservatives may be in danger of losing this riding in the next election.Apparently the Finance Minister’s office commented that “it’s an issue of tax fairness”.
Also, it seems that Harper’s next budget will be announced on 20 March, just 6 days before the Quebec election, 26 March.It also seems that Harper may be intending to give the Quebec Liberals a big boost in his upcoming budget. This could be to increase the Harper Conservatives’ profile in Quebec and increase the Conservatives' chances of gaining seats in Quebec in the next Federal election, which may possibly be within a few months later.
Robin: Holy enlightenment, Batman! Does that mean that Harper broke his promise not to tax Income Trusts which cost up to 25 billion in investment dollars from Canadian companies, to fund Conservative tax breaks designed to boost their chances in specific ridings that are expected to be tough fights in the next election?
Batman: There does seem to be a pattern here, Robin.
Robin: And Harper’s rational is that it is only fair since it will benefit the majority?
Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Apparently so.
Robin: How does Harper breaking his campaign promises benefit the majority. Harper and the Conservatives had only a little more than a third of the vote in the last election.
Batman: Well, Robin, maybe that is a clue as to their reasoning in saying that's its fair.
That is, maybe they think that since a majority voted against them, a majority do not want him to do what he promised and so he has a moral obligation to break his promises.
Robin: Holy twisted logic, Batman, surely Harper wouldn't think that way?
Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.
What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.To be continued
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 February, 2007
Batman and Robin were trying to understand the logic in Stephen Harper breaking his campaign promise not to tax the Income Trusts.
It seems that Harper and the Conservatives think it is fair to break their promise since it only hurts a minority of people, even though the damage is so great, and it will free up money to allow them to give tax breaks that will benefit the majority.
Batman: We have some new clues Robin to the puzzle “When is it Fair to be Unfair?”
Robin: What are they, Batman?
Batman: Well Robin, we have seen that Harper is doing this to free up money to finance their tax breaks. So, Robin, lets look at these tax breaks and the upcoming budget.
Robin: The old “follow the money” principle, Batman.
Batman: That’s right, Robin. It seems obvious, but, sometimes the obvious approach is the best.7 February, a tax break to assist tobacco processors was unveiled by Harper and his Conservatives. It is not at all clear that this tax break will benefit any companies outside one of the Harper Conservative Cabinet Minister’s riding. It is thought that the Conservatives may be in danger of losing this riding in the next election.Apparently the Finance Minister’s office commented that “it’s an issue of tax fairness”.
Also, it seems that Harper’s next budget will be announced on 20 March, just 6 days before the Quebec election, 26 March.It also seems that Harper may be intending to give the Quebec Liberals a big boost in his upcoming budget. This could be to increase the Harper Conservatives’ profile in Quebec and increase the Conservatives' chances of gaining seats in Quebec in the next Federal election, which may possibly be within a few months later.
Robin: Holy enlightenment, Batman! Does that mean that Harper broke his promise not to tax Income Trusts which cost up to 25 billion in investment dollars from Canadian companies, to fund Conservative tax breaks designed to boost their chances in specific ridings that are expected to be tough fights in the next election?
Batman: There does seem to be a pattern here, Robin.
Robin: And Harper’s rational is that it is only fair since it will benefit the majority?
Batman: Apparently so, Robin. Apparently so.
Robin: How does Harper breaking his campaign promises benefit the majority. Harper and the Conservatives had only a little more than a third of the vote in the last election.
Batman: Well, Robin, maybe that is a clue as to their reasoning in saying that's its fair.
That is, maybe they think that since a majority voted against them, a majority do not want him to do what he promised and so he has a moral obligation to break his promises.
Robin: Holy twisted logic, Batman, surely Harper wouldn't think that way?
Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.
What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.To be continued
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 February, 2007
11. Strange uncharted political constellation
In the Bat Cave Batman and Robin consider a strategy where Dion and the Liberal Party announce right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that Dion will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals win
Robin: Did I hear right Batman, Elizabeth May, newly elected leader of the Green Party, is planning to run in Central Nova (Nova Scotia)?
Batman: Apparently so, Robin
Robin: But isn’t that Peter McKay’s riding?
Batman: Right Robin, and he is, of course, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Harper Conservative government
Robin: Holy apparitions, Batman. How can this be true.
Batman: Well Robin, we are in a strange uncharted constellation right now, politically speaking.
Robin: How so, Batman
Batman: Harper is saying that he doesn’t want an election, yet he and the Conservative party are doing everything one would expect if he were planning to call an election.
Robin: But why would Harper want an election right now, surely he would rather simply continue in power.
Batman: That’s right Robin, it would seem that the longer Harper stays in power the more he and his policies shift to the centre. Recently, he appears to be re-working centralist, pragmatic liberal policies and programs. This, it would appear, is a well thought out strategy.
Robin: What strategy is that, Batman?
Batman: It's what I refer to as the “If you can’t beat them, be them, until you can”. If you project this trend to a year from now the Conservative party may in reality be perceived as a centrist, liberal party and so more palatable to the general public. At that time they may very well be ripe for a majority.
Robin: But Batman, why all the preparations now?
Batman: Well Robin, any Hawk could answer that with ease – ‘deterrence’. The negative ad campaign launched against Dion can be considered a pre-emptive strike intended to weaken the enemy so as to reduce their appetite for war, I mean an election campaign. This and the recent convention could be a show of strength, i.e. they have the organization and they have funds to burn, so to speak.
These are pre-budget actions so as to convince the opposition not to vote it, and the government, down.
Take a centrist and pragmatic budget and policies that are allowed to run for a year and “Bob’s your uncle”.
There is even suggestions that Harper may be pressuring the opposition to support the bill calling for elections every four years.
Robin: So Batman, Harper says he doesn't want an election, but makes people think he does, so that in actuality he won't!
But, what about Dion and the Liberals?
Batman: Dion, also is saying he doesn’t want an election right now. However, it may be that in reality he does.
Robin: But, why Batman?
Batman: Well, Robin, if Harper and the Conservatives are assuming the central ground more and more and in reality want to wait a year, then, it would seem reasonable to counter this with an election right now. In other words, given a year, Harper may be able to turn things around for himself and the Conservatives on the environment and Afghanistan and his recent policies, if allowed to take root, might do just that.
Then there is always the possibility that with time Dion may fall out of favour with the electorate.
Robin: So, how does Elizabeth May come into play.
Batman: Well Robin the talk is that the Liberals and Green Party may get together.
Robin: But how will that help May beat McKay?
Batman: It probably won’t, but then it doesn’t have to!
Robin: Is this another riddle, Batman?
Batman: No, Robin, even if May loses, but the Liberals win, Dion could, simply, bring her and others in the Green Party into his cabinet.
Robin: Can he do that?
Batman: Well according to Harper, he can.
In fact, Dion may wish to consider a strategy where he announces right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that he will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals form the government.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 17 March, 2007
Robin: Did I hear right Batman, Elizabeth May, newly elected leader of the Green Party, is planning to run in Central Nova (Nova Scotia)?
Batman: Apparently so, Robin
Robin: But isn’t that Peter McKay’s riding?
Batman: Right Robin, and he is, of course, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Harper Conservative government
Robin: Holy apparitions, Batman. How can this be true.
Batman: Well Robin, we are in a strange uncharted constellation right now, politically speaking.
Robin: How so, Batman
Batman: Harper is saying that he doesn’t want an election, yet he and the Conservative party are doing everything one would expect if he were planning to call an election.
Robin: But why would Harper want an election right now, surely he would rather simply continue in power.
Batman: That’s right Robin, it would seem that the longer Harper stays in power the more he and his policies shift to the centre. Recently, he appears to be re-working centralist, pragmatic liberal policies and programs. This, it would appear, is a well thought out strategy.
Robin: What strategy is that, Batman?
Batman: It's what I refer to as the “If you can’t beat them, be them, until you can”. If you project this trend to a year from now the Conservative party may in reality be perceived as a centrist, liberal party and so more palatable to the general public. At that time they may very well be ripe for a majority.
Robin: But Batman, why all the preparations now?
Batman: Well Robin, any Hawk could answer that with ease – ‘deterrence’. The negative ad campaign launched against Dion can be considered a pre-emptive strike intended to weaken the enemy so as to reduce their appetite for war, I mean an election campaign. This and the recent convention could be a show of strength, i.e. they have the organization and they have funds to burn, so to speak.
These are pre-budget actions so as to convince the opposition not to vote it, and the government, down.
Take a centrist and pragmatic budget and policies that are allowed to run for a year and “Bob’s your uncle”.
There is even suggestions that Harper may be pressuring the opposition to support the bill calling for elections every four years.
Robin: So Batman, Harper says he doesn't want an election, but makes people think he does, so that in actuality he won't!
But, what about Dion and the Liberals?
Batman: Dion, also is saying he doesn’t want an election right now. However, it may be that in reality he does.
Robin: But, why Batman?
Batman: Well, Robin, if Harper and the Conservatives are assuming the central ground more and more and in reality want to wait a year, then, it would seem reasonable to counter this with an election right now. In other words, given a year, Harper may be able to turn things around for himself and the Conservatives on the environment and Afghanistan and his recent policies, if allowed to take root, might do just that.
Then there is always the possibility that with time Dion may fall out of favour with the electorate.
Robin: So, how does Elizabeth May come into play.
Batman: Well Robin the talk is that the Liberals and Green Party may get together.
Robin: But how will that help May beat McKay?
Batman: It probably won’t, but then it doesn’t have to!
Robin: Is this another riddle, Batman?
Batman: No, Robin, even if May loses, but the Liberals win, Dion could, simply, bring her and others in the Green Party into his cabinet.
Robin: Can he do that?
Batman: Well according to Harper, he can.
In fact, Dion may wish to consider a strategy where he announces right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that he will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals form the government.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 17 March, 2007
12.Part 2: Strange uncharted political constellation
Last time, in the Bat Cave Batman and Robin were discussing the strategy where Dion and the Liberal Party announce right at the beginning of the election, or even sooner, that Dion will ask Elizabeth May to assume Minister of Environment if the Liberals win.
Robin: Well, Batman, it looks like you were right about the Harper budget being very centrist and pragmatic.
Batman: That’s right, Robin. There does not seem to be any overall principles at play there. It does not seem to be intended to strengthen Canada and all it stands for. It appears to have been craftily drafted to target very specific sectors of out society with benefits at the expense of others.
Robin: But why would he want to favour only certain groups in Canada at the expense of others
as opposed to promoting an over all plan for the future of all Canadians.
Batman: Well Robin, when you look at what sectors are benefited it would appear that the Budget was drafted with the intention of gaining votes so as to increase the number of seats in the next election in an attempt to gain majority.
Robin: Holy Machiavellianism, Batman. Isn’t that a pure power grasp at the expense of Canada’s social fabric and future.
Batman: You may have a point there Robin, it is liberal spending without the underlying liberal principles. In fact, Harper seems to have jettisoned all principles, including conservative.
Robin: Holy Déjà vu, Batman, haven't we see this kind of approach by Harper already, Batman, where Harper's broke promise not to tax Income Trusts resulted in a devaluation in the affected companies by up to $25 billion dollars.
Batman: A trend seems to be emerging, Robin.Now we have the broken promise regarding allowing the Provinces to keep 100% of their non- renewable resource revenues in the Equalization formula. It appears that the Premiers of 5 Provinces, including three Atlantic Provinces, are very upset.
Robin: But during his budget speech didn't the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, proclaim, “The long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the Provincial and Federal governments is over!”
Batman: Ironically so, Robin.It reminds me a lot of President Bush when he announced in May ’03 that the Iraqi war was over.
Robin: How so Batman?
Batman: It may be that it should have been over, but due to inept handling of the situation it only got worse.
Robin: so, you mean, instead of putting Canada on course for harmony between all the various and diverse regions of Canada, the Harper government has chose favouritism and distortions purely for personal political gain.
Batman: It seems so, Robin.
Robin: But, how does that affect Elizabeth May?
Batman: Well, Robin, it may very well give her efforts to defeat Peter Mackay and get elected in Nova Scotia a real boost. And so, Dion would not have to pull a “Harper” and appoint May to the Senate first before making her Minister of the Environment.
Robin: Holy, turn-arounds, Batman. Do you think May will win?
Batman: I don’t know, Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 17 March, 2007
Robin: Well, Batman, it looks like you were right about the Harper budget being very centrist and pragmatic.
Batman: That’s right, Robin. There does not seem to be any overall principles at play there. It does not seem to be intended to strengthen Canada and all it stands for. It appears to have been craftily drafted to target very specific sectors of out society with benefits at the expense of others.
Robin: But why would he want to favour only certain groups in Canada at the expense of others
as opposed to promoting an over all plan for the future of all Canadians.
Batman: Well Robin, when you look at what sectors are benefited it would appear that the Budget was drafted with the intention of gaining votes so as to increase the number of seats in the next election in an attempt to gain majority.
Robin: Holy Machiavellianism, Batman. Isn’t that a pure power grasp at the expense of Canada’s social fabric and future.
Batman: You may have a point there Robin, it is liberal spending without the underlying liberal principles. In fact, Harper seems to have jettisoned all principles, including conservative.
Robin: Holy Déjà vu, Batman, haven't we see this kind of approach by Harper already, Batman, where Harper's broke promise not to tax Income Trusts resulted in a devaluation in the affected companies by up to $25 billion dollars.
Batman: A trend seems to be emerging, Robin.Now we have the broken promise regarding allowing the Provinces to keep 100% of their non- renewable resource revenues in the Equalization formula. It appears that the Premiers of 5 Provinces, including three Atlantic Provinces, are very upset.
Robin: But during his budget speech didn't the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, proclaim, “The long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the Provincial and Federal governments is over!”
Batman: Ironically so, Robin.It reminds me a lot of President Bush when he announced in May ’03 that the Iraqi war was over.
Robin: How so Batman?
Batman: It may be that it should have been over, but due to inept handling of the situation it only got worse.
Robin: so, you mean, instead of putting Canada on course for harmony between all the various and diverse regions of Canada, the Harper government has chose favouritism and distortions purely for personal political gain.
Batman: It seems so, Robin.
Robin: But, how does that affect Elizabeth May?
Batman: Well, Robin, it may very well give her efforts to defeat Peter Mackay and get elected in Nova Scotia a real boost. And so, Dion would not have to pull a “Harper” and appoint May to the Senate first before making her Minister of the Environment.
Robin: Holy, turn-arounds, Batman. Do you think May will win?
Batman: I don’t know, Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 17 March, 2007
13. Holy Witch Hunt, Batman !
Meanwhile back at the Bat Cave, Batman and Robin are having their morning coffee and reading the newspaper.
Robin: Batman, is it true what I’m reading, that the Harper government has just a announced that they are commencing an investigation of government opinion polling practices.
Batman: Well yes and no, Robin.
Robin: How so, ‘yes and no’, Batman?.
Batman: yes there is an investigation into government opinion polling practices, but no, it is not current practices but those from 4 to 17 years ago and by previous governments. Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, announced yesterday that he is appointing Daniel Paillé as an Independent Advisor to investigate government practices in using public opinion research from 1990 until 2003. The report should be presented after 6 months and he may recommend a judicial inquiry similar to the Gomery Commission.
Robin: Holy public expenditures Batman, why in the world would they decide to initiate such an action, aren’t there more important matters to look into.
Batman: Yes Robin, you would think so, but then it depends on what you mean by important and to whom.
Robin: Another Riddle Batman?
Batman: Yes Robin. Lets look at what we have. Fortier says the reason they are commencing this action is found in the Auditor General’s Report of Feb.’04. He is quoted as saying at the press conference of 11 April, “Questions have been raised about how the previous government used this research tool”. So, he has initiated this action to ensure “that public opinion research practices are open, transparent, and fair, as well as provide value for Canadian taxpayers”.
Robin: But Batman, how can investigating activities that occurred so long ago and under a different governments ensure open, transparent and fair practices ‘are’, as in now, being employed, under their own government rule. Don’t they simply have to ask themselves what they, themselves, are doing.
Batman: Yes Robin. It would appear that if you take the Harper government’s statements at their face value they do not seem to add up. Further, Robin, to add to this puzzle the person they appointed as the “independent adviser” was a former Minister in the PQ cabinet during the 1995 Quebec referendum, which is right in the middle of the time period covered by the investigation.
Robin: Holy conflict of interest, Batman. Why would Harper choose someone with such a background. Isn’t there anyone else in Canada qualified to do the job.
Batman: This great nation of ours has many good and fair people qualified to conduct such an investigation. This includes the Auditor-General, Shiela Fraser, herself, who actually did conduct an investigation and concluded in her Feb.’04 Report that “Based on our review of a sample of transactions and management practices, we found that the government managed its public opinion research activities adequately."Of course, Robin, it is not a question that Daniel Paillé is biassed. It is a question of his being perceived bias, especially when he, himself, refuses to state whether he still supports Quebec separation.
Robin: But Batman, how is this action by the Harper government transparent? And, how can the Canadian people consider it fair?
Batman: I don’t know Robin, I just know it gets even worse. The Minister under whose portfolio this investigation is being conducted, Michael Fortier, is not even elected but was appointed to the Senate by Harper. What’s more he does not seem to have any ambition to try to get himself elected.
Robin: Holy lack of Accountability, Batman. So, Harper, under the pretext of ensuring accountability in the government now, has initiated this action to investigate activities from 4 to 14 years ago, by the previous Liberal government, by hiring a minister in the former PQ cabinet that conducted the ’95 referendum for which the same Liberal government was instrumental in defeating to present a report in 6 months with the possibility of a judicial review to follow.
Batman: Yes Robin, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.
Robin: But why Batman, what possible good could it achieve.
Batman: political advantage for Harper and the Conservative Party. It seems, Robin, that much of the political gains in the last election by the Conservative Party in Quebec was due to the Sponsorship Scandal and now even every time it makes headlines Liberal support in Quebec decreases and Conservative support increases. Harper may very well be planning to call the next election to coincide with the report or possibly once a judicial inquiry has had time to make headlines.
If on the other hand nothing comes out of it, he simply lets is slide and searches for the next possibility.
Robin: Holy Witch Hunt, Batman. So, if he doesn’t dig up any dirt here he will hunt for something else It appears Harper is converting the executive branch of the government towards his own political dirty work. What can we do, Batman?
Batman: I don’t know Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 12 April, 2007
Robin: Batman, is it true what I’m reading, that the Harper government has just a announced that they are commencing an investigation of government opinion polling practices.
Batman: Well yes and no, Robin.
Robin: How so, ‘yes and no’, Batman?.
Batman: yes there is an investigation into government opinion polling practices, but no, it is not current practices but those from 4 to 17 years ago and by previous governments. Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, announced yesterday that he is appointing Daniel Paillé as an Independent Advisor to investigate government practices in using public opinion research from 1990 until 2003. The report should be presented after 6 months and he may recommend a judicial inquiry similar to the Gomery Commission.
Robin: Holy public expenditures Batman, why in the world would they decide to initiate such an action, aren’t there more important matters to look into.
Batman: Yes Robin, you would think so, but then it depends on what you mean by important and to whom.
Robin: Another Riddle Batman?
Batman: Yes Robin. Lets look at what we have. Fortier says the reason they are commencing this action is found in the Auditor General’s Report of Feb.’04. He is quoted as saying at the press conference of 11 April, “Questions have been raised about how the previous government used this research tool”. So, he has initiated this action to ensure “that public opinion research practices are open, transparent, and fair, as well as provide value for Canadian taxpayers”.
Robin: But Batman, how can investigating activities that occurred so long ago and under a different governments ensure open, transparent and fair practices ‘are’, as in now, being employed, under their own government rule. Don’t they simply have to ask themselves what they, themselves, are doing.
Batman: Yes Robin. It would appear that if you take the Harper government’s statements at their face value they do not seem to add up. Further, Robin, to add to this puzzle the person they appointed as the “independent adviser” was a former Minister in the PQ cabinet during the 1995 Quebec referendum, which is right in the middle of the time period covered by the investigation.
Robin: Holy conflict of interest, Batman. Why would Harper choose someone with such a background. Isn’t there anyone else in Canada qualified to do the job.
Batman: This great nation of ours has many good and fair people qualified to conduct such an investigation. This includes the Auditor-General, Shiela Fraser, herself, who actually did conduct an investigation and concluded in her Feb.’04 Report that “Based on our review of a sample of transactions and management practices, we found that the government managed its public opinion research activities adequately."Of course, Robin, it is not a question that Daniel Paillé is biassed. It is a question of his being perceived bias, especially when he, himself, refuses to state whether he still supports Quebec separation.
Robin: But Batman, how is this action by the Harper government transparent? And, how can the Canadian people consider it fair?
Batman: I don’t know Robin, I just know it gets even worse. The Minister under whose portfolio this investigation is being conducted, Michael Fortier, is not even elected but was appointed to the Senate by Harper. What’s more he does not seem to have any ambition to try to get himself elected.
Robin: Holy lack of Accountability, Batman. So, Harper, under the pretext of ensuring accountability in the government now, has initiated this action to investigate activities from 4 to 14 years ago, by the previous Liberal government, by hiring a minister in the former PQ cabinet that conducted the ’95 referendum for which the same Liberal government was instrumental in defeating to present a report in 6 months with the possibility of a judicial review to follow.
Batman: Yes Robin, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.
Robin: But why Batman, what possible good could it achieve.
Batman: political advantage for Harper and the Conservative Party. It seems, Robin, that much of the political gains in the last election by the Conservative Party in Quebec was due to the Sponsorship Scandal and now even every time it makes headlines Liberal support in Quebec decreases and Conservative support increases. Harper may very well be planning to call the next election to coincide with the report or possibly once a judicial inquiry has had time to make headlines.
If on the other hand nothing comes out of it, he simply lets is slide and searches for the next possibility.
Robin: Holy Witch Hunt, Batman. So, if he doesn’t dig up any dirt here he will hunt for something else It appears Harper is converting the executive branch of the government towards his own political dirty work. What can we do, Batman?
Batman: I don’t know Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 12 April, 2007
14. Holy Hypocrisy, Batman!
I has come to Robin's attention that Harper and Layton are criticizing Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May on their recently announced agreement to co-operate in their efforts to defeat Harper and promote the environment.
Robin: It seems that Stephane Dion might be following your suggestion to make Elizabeth May Minister of Environment if the Liberal win the election
Batman: Well, not quite Robin. He and May jointly announced that their parties will not be fielding candidates in the other leader’s riding.This is quite different than what we discussed previously.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: Well Robin, what Dion is doing goes to the fundamental structure of the Liberal Party.It also seems to run contrary to the “308-riding strategy” expounded last December by Gerard Kennedy, Dion's adviser on election preparations. Not fielding a candidate exposes the Liberals to the accusations of not being “National” and dis-enfranchising voters.
Robin: And that is what is happening.
Batman: Yes Robin, but you must keep in mind that no matter what Dion and the Liberals do the NDP and Harper will criticize. So, we must discount their comments if we want to get to the truth of the matter. One thing we can infer, though, from their reactions is that the longer and louder they cry the more they feel it hurts their chances for power.
Robin: Holy Hypocrisy, Batman, you mean Harper and the NDP are really criticizing because they feel Dion’s move will hurt them at the polls? How might it do that?
Batman: Well not running a candidate will likely increase the seriousness of Elizabeth May’s challenge to Peter MacKayin Central Nova, to the extent even of displacing the NDP.
Also, the Green Party and the Liberals being able to work together in the common purpose of protecting the environment and defeating Harper threatens to unite the centre and left and squeezing out Jack Layton and the NDP.
Robin: But, this is only one riding. How can that make a difference?
Batman: Well, Robin, it make be a case of leading by example. This may be a signal to the grass roots of each Party to co-operate. They then leave it to the individual party members.
Robin: But, isn’t it necessary to unite the centre and left in order to ensure that Harper doesn’t form a majority.
Batman: Once again, Robin, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.
Robin: Then, why doesn’t Jack Layton join in with the Liberals and Green Party.
Batman: Good question, Robin. In the last election it seemed Layton had visions of himself equalling or bettering Broadbent’s achievements, squeezing the Liberals out and even forming the Official Opposition.This, of course, didn’t happen and for good reason, not the least of which may be Jack Layton himself. It would appear that Layton is not yet ready to concede this dream, in other words his quest for power and influence. Also, Layton seems to think that he and the NDP benefit from a minority government in that it gives him and the party increased stature.This is, of course, despite its inhibiting effect on good government and allowing Harper to rule.
Robin: You mean, Batman, Layton does not join in with the Liberal and the Green because of sheer desire for power and influence, even if it means that Harper and the Conservatives run the country.
Batman: That would appear to be so, Robin. And the situation may not change until leadership in the NDP changes.
Robin: Holy the Pot-Calling-the Kettle-Black, Batman, isn’t the NDP accusing the Liberals of power mongering.
Batman: Apparently, Robin, this is an example of a basic principle that they, and Harper as well, seem to be applying, that is ‘project your own shortcomings onto your enemy’.
Robin: Well Batman, that sheds light on Layton and the NDP. But, what about Harper and the Conservatives?
Batman: Well, Robin, Peter MacKay, is Harper’s general in the Atlantic Provinces and he will be campaigning in all these ridings and so not as much his own. On the other hand, if he were to lose the riding it would be a huge defeat for Harper and the symbolism would not be lost on Canadians. So, MacKay is forced to spend more energy and time in his own riding disrupting the Conservative campaign in the Atlantic Provinces.
Robin: But does Elizabeth May really have a chance even with this agreement between her and Dion.
Batman: Good question Robin, it can’t be said that this agreement will definitely 'put it over the top' for May.
Robin: Then why do it, Batman, especially with the kind of backlash that they should have foreseen.
Batman: Well Robin, if this agreement represents the full extent of their efforts to unite the centre and left, then it may be a failure Robin, and for the reason you suggest.
Robin: Holy left-in-the-dark, Batman, what could this all mean?
Batman: Another basic principle in politics when you are deciding on a controversial courses of action is to “run it up the flag pole and see how it flies”.
Apparently Dion did not do this. Given the impact on the Liberal Party, itself, if this were the extent of their plans, this really should have been done. However, it may be that this agreement itself was announced to see what the reaction would be in order to gage further, more extensive, actions in co- operation between the Parties.
Robin: You mean, like Dion announcing that he will ask Elizabeth May to be Minister of Environment if the Liberals win.
Batman: Possibly, Robin, but given the nature of the agreement, it may be that there is something else afoot.
Robin: Just one more thing, if there won’t be an election for a year or so, why make this announcement now. Couldn’t they simply hold off on a nomination meeting in Central Nova, let rumours start to rise about such a deal and thus applying your flag-pole principle.
Batman: Well, Robin, if Dion foresees an election in the very near future, then there would be no time for this.
Robin: Well that goes back to our previous discussion that it is better for Dion to have the election in now rather than a year from now, which would likely benefit Harper. Does the agreement between Dion and May mean that the Liberals are going to press for an election now.
Batman: I don’t know, Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 16 April, 2007
Robin: It seems that Stephane Dion might be following your suggestion to make Elizabeth May Minister of Environment if the Liberal win the election
Batman: Well, not quite Robin. He and May jointly announced that their parties will not be fielding candidates in the other leader’s riding.This is quite different than what we discussed previously.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: Well Robin, what Dion is doing goes to the fundamental structure of the Liberal Party.It also seems to run contrary to the “308-riding strategy” expounded last December by Gerard Kennedy, Dion's adviser on election preparations. Not fielding a candidate exposes the Liberals to the accusations of not being “National” and dis-enfranchising voters.
Robin: And that is what is happening.
Batman: Yes Robin, but you must keep in mind that no matter what Dion and the Liberals do the NDP and Harper will criticize. So, we must discount their comments if we want to get to the truth of the matter. One thing we can infer, though, from their reactions is that the longer and louder they cry the more they feel it hurts their chances for power.
Robin: Holy Hypocrisy, Batman, you mean Harper and the NDP are really criticizing because they feel Dion’s move will hurt them at the polls? How might it do that?
Batman: Well not running a candidate will likely increase the seriousness of Elizabeth May’s challenge to Peter MacKayin Central Nova, to the extent even of displacing the NDP.
Also, the Green Party and the Liberals being able to work together in the common purpose of protecting the environment and defeating Harper threatens to unite the centre and left and squeezing out Jack Layton and the NDP.
Robin: But, this is only one riding. How can that make a difference?
Batman: Well, Robin, it make be a case of leading by example. This may be a signal to the grass roots of each Party to co-operate. They then leave it to the individual party members.
Robin: But, isn’t it necessary to unite the centre and left in order to ensure that Harper doesn’t form a majority.
Batman: Once again, Robin, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.
Robin: Then, why doesn’t Jack Layton join in with the Liberals and Green Party.
Batman: Good question, Robin. In the last election it seemed Layton had visions of himself equalling or bettering Broadbent’s achievements, squeezing the Liberals out and even forming the Official Opposition.This, of course, didn’t happen and for good reason, not the least of which may be Jack Layton himself. It would appear that Layton is not yet ready to concede this dream, in other words his quest for power and influence. Also, Layton seems to think that he and the NDP benefit from a minority government in that it gives him and the party increased stature.This is, of course, despite its inhibiting effect on good government and allowing Harper to rule.
Robin: You mean, Batman, Layton does not join in with the Liberal and the Green because of sheer desire for power and influence, even if it means that Harper and the Conservatives run the country.
Batman: That would appear to be so, Robin. And the situation may not change until leadership in the NDP changes.
Robin: Holy the Pot-Calling-the Kettle-Black, Batman, isn’t the NDP accusing the Liberals of power mongering.
Batman: Apparently, Robin, this is an example of a basic principle that they, and Harper as well, seem to be applying, that is ‘project your own shortcomings onto your enemy’.
Robin: Well Batman, that sheds light on Layton and the NDP. But, what about Harper and the Conservatives?
Batman: Well, Robin, Peter MacKay, is Harper’s general in the Atlantic Provinces and he will be campaigning in all these ridings and so not as much his own. On the other hand, if he were to lose the riding it would be a huge defeat for Harper and the symbolism would not be lost on Canadians. So, MacKay is forced to spend more energy and time in his own riding disrupting the Conservative campaign in the Atlantic Provinces.
Robin: But does Elizabeth May really have a chance even with this agreement between her and Dion.
Batman: Good question Robin, it can’t be said that this agreement will definitely 'put it over the top' for May.
Robin: Then why do it, Batman, especially with the kind of backlash that they should have foreseen.
Batman: Well Robin, if this agreement represents the full extent of their efforts to unite the centre and left, then it may be a failure Robin, and for the reason you suggest.
Robin: Holy left-in-the-dark, Batman, what could this all mean?
Batman: Another basic principle in politics when you are deciding on a controversial courses of action is to “run it up the flag pole and see how it flies”.
Apparently Dion did not do this. Given the impact on the Liberal Party, itself, if this were the extent of their plans, this really should have been done. However, it may be that this agreement itself was announced to see what the reaction would be in order to gage further, more extensive, actions in co- operation between the Parties.
Robin: You mean, like Dion announcing that he will ask Elizabeth May to be Minister of Environment if the Liberals win.
Batman: Possibly, Robin, but given the nature of the agreement, it may be that there is something else afoot.
Robin: Just one more thing, if there won’t be an election for a year or so, why make this announcement now. Couldn’t they simply hold off on a nomination meeting in Central Nova, let rumours start to rise about such a deal and thus applying your flag-pole principle.
Batman: Well, Robin, if Dion foresees an election in the very near future, then there would be no time for this.
Robin: Well that goes back to our previous discussion that it is better for Dion to have the election in now rather than a year from now, which would likely benefit Harper. Does the agreement between Dion and May mean that the Liberals are going to press for an election now.
Batman: I don’t know, Robin. What I do know is that we’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 16 April, 2007
15. Holy Bizzaro World, Batman! -
Meanwhile, back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin and Batman discuss the possible decline and fall of the Harper empire based on recent events regarding Harper's handling of the Afghanistan issues as well as the Environmental issue.
Robin: Holy allergies, Batman! are my eyes deceiving me, or does Steven Harper look tired.
Batman: It is allergy season, Robin, but I am not so sure that its pollen that’s got to him.
Robin: Another riddle Batman?
Batman: Well, Robin, it may be that we’re seeing a crack in the dam so to speak.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: Apparently Harper right from the start of his term as Prime Minister has insisted on doing everything himself and not leaving anything to his Ministers or others.
Robin: But he is the leader, Batman.
Batman: That’s right Robin, but today’s societies, especially in developed, economy based, societies, are very complex. The issues are complex and the solutions even more so. Quite simply, one man cannot run an economy and society the size of Canada’s.
Robin: But why do you say there are cracks in the dam?
Batman: Well, Robin, it seems that he has made a number of mistakes, lately, some which may prove quite serious down the road.
Robin: So, you mean, Batman, the dam could burst!
Batman: That’s the possibility, Robin. Recently the Minister of Defence announced the purchase of 100 tanks that the Dutch government had mothballed. He touted that Canada needed them now for the Afghanistan war and would be able to use them for the next 10 to 15 years.
Robin: But, Batman, Canada’s present tank situation is in great disrepair.
Batman: Well, Robin, so is Canada’s intercontinental ballistic missile program.
Robin: But, we don’t have one and as a society we don’t want one. Further, it doesn’t make sense in the post Cold War environment.
Batman: That’s the point, Robin. These tanks could only be used in all-out-ground combat i.e. war. In 2003 Gen. Hillier was apparently quite happy to get rid of the tanks in favour of a single wheeled-vehicle platform since tanks had little utility in post Cold War operations. Use of tanks represents a serious escalation in fighting in Afghanistan.Also, our mission in Afghanistan was extended by Harper until 2009, if Canada’s needs tanks in Afghanistan, then it would make sense to make some kind of arrangement until then, for example, leasing them for two years.
Robin: But, isn’t that what Canada is doing for 20 tanks from Germany?
Batman: That’s right Robin, and the question is why couldn’t they do that to fill all their requirements.
Robin: But, how is that a blunder by Harper
Batman: Well, Robin, the Liberal party will probably raise Afghanistan as a key issue in the upcoming election.Buying tanks for use in Afghanistan and for the next 10 to 15 years raises the implication that the Harper government is looking to extend the war there past 2009. In fact they voted against the recent bill brought forward by the Liberals to end the mission by 2009.
Robin: But so did the NDP
Batman: Yes, Robin, but as we have discussed before, that may just be Layton trying to maintain what power and influence he has and so we should probably discount that.
Robin: Thanks for the insight, Batman. Please continue.
Batman: If the election were in the near future, Afghanistan would be a big problem for Harper. However, if the election were in a year or more, so in mid to late 2008, Harper would simply have to sit tight since any criticism could be answered by pointing out that the mission was only extended to 2009.By the Minister of Defence making the announcement about tanks and their use for the next 10 to 15 years, it will be very difficult for Harper to take this position.
Robin: Holy, losing your grip, Batman.
Batman: Of course, the current situation with respect to Canada upholding its Geneva Convention obligations is a prime example of things getting out of control for Harper and he now has two of his Minister’s in on it, with all three making statements that don’t seem to fit in with what the others are saying. It may be that he should have lefteverything to the Minister of Defence with clear instructions for others to keep out.
Robin: But, Batman, the Minister of Defence was being pounded. Shouldn’t other Ministers come to his defence.
Batman: Not when it confuses and obscures the real issues, Robin. The Canadian people have a rightto know and the Harper government has an obligation to tell them, and in a clear and timely fashion.
Robin: Holy lack of Clarity, Batman!
Batman: Harper appears to be losing his grip with respect to the issue of the environment as well.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Harper introduced the Clear Air Act which received a very negative re-action. He then invited the other parties to make amendments, which they did. It would seem that if Harper re- introduced the amended Clean Air Act it would very likely passed into legislation.Then, if the election were a year from now or so, when the current dust has settled, he might very well respond to criticism on the environmental issues by saying that he was the one that brought all parties together on this, the most important and non partisan of issues facing us, not only as a nation, but all humanity.
This is what the Canadian people expect of their leader and this is how a minority government ought to work. However, now, it appears, that Harper will not bring this bill as amended forward and so let it die.
The Minister of Environment, just yesterday introduced new regulations under the existing legislation regarding pollution and global warming.
Robin: But, Batman, didn’t Harper reject Stephane Dion’s argument that the existing legislation is sufficient to deal with these issues, when he introduced his ill-fated Clear Air Act.
Batman: Apparently, so, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, now they are using the existing legislation to make regulations to give the impression that they are “tough” on pollution and try to justify not re-introducing the new version of his Clean Air Act, which he himself, invited the other parties to amend.
Batman: Once again you seem to have a clear assessment of the situation.
Robin: Holy Bazzaro World, Batman, what is going on?
Batman: Maybe Harper is trying to convince everyone that the Conservatives, in reality, have a chaotic agenda and not a hidden agenda.
We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 27 April, 2007
Robin and Batman discuss the possible decline and fall of the Harper empire based on recent events regarding Harper's handling of the Afghanistan issues as well as the Environmental issue.
Robin: Holy allergies, Batman! are my eyes deceiving me, or does Steven Harper look tired.
Batman: It is allergy season, Robin, but I am not so sure that its pollen that’s got to him.
Robin: Another riddle Batman?
Batman: Well, Robin, it may be that we’re seeing a crack in the dam so to speak.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: Apparently Harper right from the start of his term as Prime Minister has insisted on doing everything himself and not leaving anything to his Ministers or others.
Robin: But he is the leader, Batman.
Batman: That’s right Robin, but today’s societies, especially in developed, economy based, societies, are very complex. The issues are complex and the solutions even more so. Quite simply, one man cannot run an economy and society the size of Canada’s.
Robin: But why do you say there are cracks in the dam?
Batman: Well, Robin, it seems that he has made a number of mistakes, lately, some which may prove quite serious down the road.
Robin: So, you mean, Batman, the dam could burst!
Batman: That’s the possibility, Robin. Recently the Minister of Defence announced the purchase of 100 tanks that the Dutch government had mothballed. He touted that Canada needed them now for the Afghanistan war and would be able to use them for the next 10 to 15 years.
Robin: But, Batman, Canada’s present tank situation is in great disrepair.
Batman: Well, Robin, so is Canada’s intercontinental ballistic missile program.
Robin: But, we don’t have one and as a society we don’t want one. Further, it doesn’t make sense in the post Cold War environment.
Batman: That’s the point, Robin. These tanks could only be used in all-out-ground combat i.e. war. In 2003 Gen. Hillier was apparently quite happy to get rid of the tanks in favour of a single wheeled-vehicle platform since tanks had little utility in post Cold War operations. Use of tanks represents a serious escalation in fighting in Afghanistan.Also, our mission in Afghanistan was extended by Harper until 2009, if Canada’s needs tanks in Afghanistan, then it would make sense to make some kind of arrangement until then, for example, leasing them for two years.
Robin: But, isn’t that what Canada is doing for 20 tanks from Germany?
Batman: That’s right Robin, and the question is why couldn’t they do that to fill all their requirements.
Robin: But, how is that a blunder by Harper
Batman: Well, Robin, the Liberal party will probably raise Afghanistan as a key issue in the upcoming election.Buying tanks for use in Afghanistan and for the next 10 to 15 years raises the implication that the Harper government is looking to extend the war there past 2009. In fact they voted against the recent bill brought forward by the Liberals to end the mission by 2009.
Robin: But so did the NDP
Batman: Yes, Robin, but as we have discussed before, that may just be Layton trying to maintain what power and influence he has and so we should probably discount that.
Robin: Thanks for the insight, Batman. Please continue.
Batman: If the election were in the near future, Afghanistan would be a big problem for Harper. However, if the election were in a year or more, so in mid to late 2008, Harper would simply have to sit tight since any criticism could be answered by pointing out that the mission was only extended to 2009.By the Minister of Defence making the announcement about tanks and their use for the next 10 to 15 years, it will be very difficult for Harper to take this position.
Robin: Holy, losing your grip, Batman.
Batman: Of course, the current situation with respect to Canada upholding its Geneva Convention obligations is a prime example of things getting out of control for Harper and he now has two of his Minister’s in on it, with all three making statements that don’t seem to fit in with what the others are saying. It may be that he should have lefteverything to the Minister of Defence with clear instructions for others to keep out.
Robin: But, Batman, the Minister of Defence was being pounded. Shouldn’t other Ministers come to his defence.
Batman: Not when it confuses and obscures the real issues, Robin. The Canadian people have a rightto know and the Harper government has an obligation to tell them, and in a clear and timely fashion.
Robin: Holy lack of Clarity, Batman!
Batman: Harper appears to be losing his grip with respect to the issue of the environment as well.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Harper introduced the Clear Air Act which received a very negative re-action. He then invited the other parties to make amendments, which they did. It would seem that if Harper re- introduced the amended Clean Air Act it would very likely passed into legislation.Then, if the election were a year from now or so, when the current dust has settled, he might very well respond to criticism on the environmental issues by saying that he was the one that brought all parties together on this, the most important and non partisan of issues facing us, not only as a nation, but all humanity.
This is what the Canadian people expect of their leader and this is how a minority government ought to work. However, now, it appears, that Harper will not bring this bill as amended forward and so let it die.
The Minister of Environment, just yesterday introduced new regulations under the existing legislation regarding pollution and global warming.
Robin: But, Batman, didn’t Harper reject Stephane Dion’s argument that the existing legislation is sufficient to deal with these issues, when he introduced his ill-fated Clear Air Act.
Batman: Apparently, so, Robin.
Robin: And, Batman, now they are using the existing legislation to make regulations to give the impression that they are “tough” on pollution and try to justify not re-introducing the new version of his Clean Air Act, which he himself, invited the other parties to amend.
Batman: Once again you seem to have a clear assessment of the situation.
Robin: Holy Bazzaro World, Batman, what is going on?
Batman: Maybe Harper is trying to convince everyone that the Conservatives, in reality, have a chaotic agenda and not a hidden agenda.
We’ve got to get our Canada back, Robin, before its too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 27 April, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)