Submitted 8:50am PST, 28 Feb.'10 The Toronto Star
Siddiqui: Michael Ignatieff same as Stephen Harper on key issues, Haroon Siddiqui, Feb 28 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/772319--siddiqui-michael-ignatieff-same-as-stephen-harper-on-key-issues#article p.4
Ignatieff and the Liberals the Same As Harper and the Con's - Surely, Sorry I mean, Haroon, You Jest.
In archetypes, that's like saying Micheal the Archangel is the Same as Lucifer because they Fought each Other
Stephen Harper and the Cons are extremist, right wing ideologues.
Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals are moderates
Harper's polices are based on their own agenda and the good of Canada be damned.
Liberals when in power, simply, have shown themselves as moderates whose polices are rationally based, given the circumstances and the good of all Canadians.
Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme.
Ignatieff and the Liberals are set to lead us in this new Golden Age of Human Rights.
Harper has spent a greater part of his public life with the agenda of tearing asunder Canada than Ignatieff has spent being outside Canada.
Ignatieff has the education and experience required to lead this great and culturally, socially, ideologically, religiously, economically diverse and tolerant society which makes up Canada.
Simply put, Harper does not.
(Haroon Siddiqui if you want to compare Harper and Ignatieff you should set out their Resumes for everyone to see.)
Harper and the Con's bases their policies on right wing extremist ideas as handed down to him by his American overlords. Ignatieff and the Liberals are going to the people, all the people.
Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.
Harper makes all efforts to hide what he an his government is doing. Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid having to stand up and 'face the music' regarding the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing Harper cover-up.
The Liberals under Paul Martin, stood up and took responsibility for the Sponsorship Scandal and called a public Inquiry. They did this because it was the right (morally right that is) and despite the negative political repercussions, including creating the circumstances for Harper attaining government.
Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using to the above ends no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper bases everything his does on politics and what he thinks will help him to clutch and grab onto power and nothing on what is best for Canada and our nation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 February, 2010
26 February, 2010
- Harper Appointments - You Aint Seen Nothin Yet
Michael Ignatieff objects to Tory choice
for rights-agency chief, Campbell Clark, Feb. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieff-objects-to-tory-choice-for-rights-agency-chief/article1481604/Tab 22
Harper and the Con's are right wing extremist ideologues. Their predecessor Reform and Alliance were,
of course, right wing extremist ideologues. We all know this.
The longer Harper and the Con's are in power the more Canada is transformed into an right wing extremist society, where intolerance reigns supreme.
It's as simple as that, Harper shutting down all the rocket scientists won't prevent Canadians from seeing this for themselves.
Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.
This strategy is insidious since it is taking several year to come to fruition. It is far too blunt to fire everybody and make new, partizan appointments - it would wake Canadians up to what he is doing. So, Harper must combine a shrewdly chosen combination of firings and waiting for opportunities including thru attrition.
The next few years will be vital. The Senate has of course reached that critical point. Another major Canadian Institution that protects our democracy and civil right is the Supreme Court of Canada. The pattern appears to be multiple retirements in relatively short periods of time and we may be coming up to one of these periods in the next year or two. If Iggy is complaining about the Harper and the Con government's appointment to the arms-length agency Rights and Democracy, just wait.
The only solution is to get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible, unless you like an intolerant, extremist, right wing ideologically based society run by the Executive, where Democracy is merely for show.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
for rights-agency chief, Campbell Clark, Feb. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieff-objects-to-tory-choice-for-rights-agency-chief/article1481604/Tab 22
Harper and the Con's are right wing extremist ideologues. Their predecessor Reform and Alliance were,
of course, right wing extremist ideologues. We all know this.
The longer Harper and the Con's are in power the more Canada is transformed into an right wing extremist society, where intolerance reigns supreme.
It's as simple as that, Harper shutting down all the rocket scientists won't prevent Canadians from seeing this for themselves.
Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.
This strategy is insidious since it is taking several year to come to fruition. It is far too blunt to fire everybody and make new, partizan appointments - it would wake Canadians up to what he is doing. So, Harper must combine a shrewdly chosen combination of firings and waiting for opportunities including thru attrition.
The next few years will be vital. The Senate has of course reached that critical point. Another major Canadian Institution that protects our democracy and civil right is the Supreme Court of Canada. The pattern appears to be multiple retirements in relatively short periods of time and we may be coming up to one of these periods in the next year or two. If Iggy is complaining about the Harper and the Con government's appointment to the arms-length agency Rights and Democracy, just wait.
The only solution is to get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible, unless you like an intolerant, extremist, right wing ideologically based society run by the Executive, where Democracy is merely for show.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 February, 2010
Harper + Bernier = Con'd Again !
Posted: 2/25/2010 10:59:29 AM The Globe and Mail
Maxime Bernier challenges climate science, Norman Spector, February 24, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/maxime-bernier-challenges-climate-science/article1479289/ Tab 16
Taking Action Against Global Warming is the Right (morally, that is) Thing to Do.
"What is certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about." (Norman Spector translation)
Maxime Bernier is approaching the global Warming problem on an emotional not rational basis, designed to incite the Con core-supporters concentrated West of Manitoba.
No Body or Organization that has responsibility would base their policies on such an extreme, absolutist perspective.
The only time we will be certain about Global Warming and its catastrophic impact around the world is when it happens, which will be far too late. Even then there will be Con deniers.
If there is more than a mere possibility that even a fraction of the damage predicted will occur because of our activities now in and in the past, we must do something about it. We must do it now since later it will be too late.
Of course, this is simply looking at the problem in a rational, logical 'risk management' approach.
There is no doubt that Bernier's approach is deliberate and is espousing the true attitudes of Stephen Harper, the Con Party and all the die-hard supporters of the Conservative Party. There is no doubt that the only reason Harper appeared to have 'abandoned' this position a few years ago is he wants to hold onto power and try not to look too politically motivated and self-serving in the International Community. There is no doubt that it is timed to be released just before a mayor report on the inefficiencies of the tar-sands due to royalties etc. It is easy to see where this is all headed.
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits. It will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted February 25th 2010, 12:27pm Toronto Sun
Mad Max makes sense on climate change
By LORRIE GOLSTEIN, QMI Agency
Last Updated: February 25, 2010 2:00am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/
lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/24/13013311.html
Tab 3
Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:16 AM
Harper's Mad Max headache
Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-mad-max-headache/article1480814/
tab 4
Maxime Bernier challenges climate science, Norman Spector, February 24, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/maxime-bernier-challenges-climate-science/article1479289/ Tab 16
Taking Action Against Global Warming is the Right (morally, that is) Thing to Do.
"What is certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about." (Norman Spector translation)
Maxime Bernier is approaching the global Warming problem on an emotional not rational basis, designed to incite the Con core-supporters concentrated West of Manitoba.
No Body or Organization that has responsibility would base their policies on such an extreme, absolutist perspective.
The only time we will be certain about Global Warming and its catastrophic impact around the world is when it happens, which will be far too late. Even then there will be Con deniers.
If there is more than a mere possibility that even a fraction of the damage predicted will occur because of our activities now in and in the past, we must do something about it. We must do it now since later it will be too late.
Of course, this is simply looking at the problem in a rational, logical 'risk management' approach.
There is no doubt that Bernier's approach is deliberate and is espousing the true attitudes of Stephen Harper, the Con Party and all the die-hard supporters of the Conservative Party. There is no doubt that the only reason Harper appeared to have 'abandoned' this position a few years ago is he wants to hold onto power and try not to look too politically motivated and self-serving in the International Community. There is no doubt that it is timed to be released just before a mayor report on the inefficiencies of the tar-sands due to royalties etc. It is easy to see where this is all headed.
Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits. It will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted February 25th 2010, 12:27pm Toronto Sun
Mad Max makes sense on climate change
By LORRIE GOLSTEIN, QMI Agency
Last Updated: February 25, 2010 2:00am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/
lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/24/13013311.html
Tab 3
Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:16 AM
Harper's Mad Max headache
Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-mad-max-headache/article1480814/
tab 4
22 February, 2010
- Get Rid of Harper and Stop This Extreme Abuse
The Tornoto Star (no posted were allowed)
Tories sniped at firearm data Challenges held up RCMP report backing long-gun registry until after key Commons vote, Kevin Frayer, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/769298--tories-sniped-at-firearm-data
My reading of the article:
Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan's office sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan tells us he had the Report "for several days".
***
This obscuration, obstruction, manipulation, suppression and distortion by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party, this time then - Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, just goes on and on and on. When will it stop.
This abuse of power, like so many others, has been uncovered by the paper trail, especially E-mails, obtained thru Access To Information.
No wonder Harper and his PMO are so dead set against Access To Information.
Unfortunately, as has been suggested (see my posting below "Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi", 22 Feb.'10) the PMO and government staffers will simply stop using E-mails and start doing everything by word of mouth.
There is only one way to stop this extreme abuse - get rid of Harper and his Con's and sooner rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories sniped at firearm data Challenges held up RCMP report backing long-gun registry until after key Commons vote, Kevin Frayer, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/769298--tories-sniped-at-firearm-data
My reading of the article:
Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan's office sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan tells us he had the Report "for several days".
***
This obscuration, obstruction, manipulation, suppression and distortion by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party, this time then - Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, just goes on and on and on. When will it stop.
This abuse of power, like so many others, has been uncovered by the paper trail, especially E-mails, obtained thru Access To Information.
No wonder Harper and his PMO are so dead set against Access To Information.
Unfortunately, as has been suggested (see my posting below "Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi", 22 Feb.'10) the PMO and government staffers will simply stop using E-mails and start doing everything by word of mouth.
There is only one way to stop this extreme abuse - get rid of Harper and his Con's and sooner rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper and His Con's Are Not the PC's of Old
Last best hope for democracy in Canada: An appointed Senate Upper chamber selected by blue-ribbon panel would be valuable check on excessive PM power, Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/768518--last-best-hope-for-democracy-in-canada-an-appointed-senate
Here, Here!
Anyone who tries to suggest that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party are somehow identified with the Progressive Conservative Party of old, will have a very difficult time explaining away this article.
(Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Senator's proposal is very similar to mine - see below.)
Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010:
. . .
"So let's start again. Let's take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy.
We'd still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.
It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we've accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?
The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what's best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"
As Senator John Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that's our job. "Let us take care," he said, "that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it ..."
Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.
What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard. "
***
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
. . .
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/768518--last-best-hope-for-democracy-in-canada-an-appointed-senate
Here, Here!
Anyone who tries to suggest that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party are somehow identified with the Progressive Conservative Party of old, will have a very difficult time explaining away this article.
(Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Senator's proposal is very similar to mine - see below.)
Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010:
. . .
"So let's start again. Let's take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy.
We'd still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.
It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we've accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?
The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what's best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"
As Senator John Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that's our job. "Let us take care," he said, "that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it ..."
Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.
What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard. "
***
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
. . .
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
- Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi
Submitted: 8:50am, PST, 22 Feb.'10 The Hill Times
Cabinet ministers' offices regularly interfere in ATI requests, says Tory staffer, Jeff Davis, 22 Feb.'10
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/ati-02-22-2010 Tab 1
Stephen Harper and the Con's 'P.M.O.' (Prime Modus Operandi) for damage control is never to take the moral high ground - i.e., stand up and take responsibility, but to blame someone else when one of their strategies gives bad results. If they feel that is not working they then run around claiming that the Liberals did the same thing when they were in office. This time it must be a serious issue since they seem to be doing both, at the same time.
Harper and the Con's abuse of Access To Information is on a level never experienced in Canada, not even close, and is part of their general policies of suppression, distortion, obscuration and obstruction. In fact, Harper has implemented this strategy to a level not seen in Western Democracies in recent history. Access to Information is, by necessity, one the first casualties of an extremist, right wing ideologically driven government.
"Ms. Legault said her investigation will be examining whether or not Sec. 67.1 of the Access to Information Act was breached which is an indictable or summary offence. "
Ms. Legualt might look into possible sanctions against counseling, procuring, as well, while she's at it.
"Meanwhile, after seeing Mr. Togneri hung out to dry, the Conservative source told The Hill Times extra caution will be taken not to leave a paper trail.
'I'm a lot more careful now with any conversations I have with my ATIP officer,' the staffer said. "They're all in person now, whereas before I would sometimes send emails.' "
Therein lies the rub.
There is zero chance Harper and the Con's will change their interference with the release of information - they are simply too good at it and it is simply too effective. They will simply become more sophisticated about it.
Perhaps the Civil Service can whistle blow each time the PMO or government staffers interfere in the ATI process, whether verbally or otherwise. After all, isn't that at the heart of the Harper Whistler Blower policies. Not!
The viscous personal attack on Richard Colvin for doing his job by Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con's, was no accident. It was designed precisely to discourage proper minded Civil Servants from stepping forward - just another part of their general strategy to suppress, distort, obscure, obstruct.
There is only one solution. Give Harper and his gang of Con's the Boot and sooner, rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Cabinet ministers' offices regularly interfere in ATI requests, says Tory staffer, Jeff Davis, 22 Feb.'10
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/ati-02-22-2010 Tab 1
Stephen Harper and the Con's 'P.M.O.' (Prime Modus Operandi) for damage control is never to take the moral high ground - i.e., stand up and take responsibility, but to blame someone else when one of their strategies gives bad results. If they feel that is not working they then run around claiming that the Liberals did the same thing when they were in office. This time it must be a serious issue since they seem to be doing both, at the same time.
Harper and the Con's abuse of Access To Information is on a level never experienced in Canada, not even close, and is part of their general policies of suppression, distortion, obscuration and obstruction. In fact, Harper has implemented this strategy to a level not seen in Western Democracies in recent history. Access to Information is, by necessity, one the first casualties of an extremist, right wing ideologically driven government.
"Ms. Legault said her investigation will be examining whether or not Sec. 67.1 of the Access to Information Act was breached which is an indictable or summary offence. "
Ms. Legualt might look into possible sanctions against counseling, procuring, as well, while she's at it.
"Meanwhile, after seeing Mr. Togneri hung out to dry, the Conservative source told The Hill Times extra caution will be taken not to leave a paper trail.
'I'm a lot more careful now with any conversations I have with my ATIP officer,' the staffer said. "They're all in person now, whereas before I would sometimes send emails.' "
Therein lies the rub.
There is zero chance Harper and the Con's will change their interference with the release of information - they are simply too good at it and it is simply too effective. They will simply become more sophisticated about it.
Perhaps the Civil Service can whistle blow each time the PMO or government staffers interfere in the ATI process, whether verbally or otherwise. After all, isn't that at the heart of the Harper Whistler Blower policies. Not!
The viscous personal attack on Richard Colvin for doing his job by Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con's, was no accident. It was designed precisely to discourage proper minded Civil Servants from stepping forward - just another part of their general strategy to suppress, distort, obscure, obstruct.
There is only one solution. Give Harper and his gang of Con's the Boot and sooner, rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 February, 2010
- Mr. Harper - Canada is No Iran
Submitted: 8:56am, 21 Feb.'10 - cbc.ca
Catholic Register takes on Ignatieff, Neil Morrison, February 18, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/catholic-register-takes-on-ignatieff.html, Tab 21
It seems to me that what Michael Ignatieff asked was whether Stephen Harper intends to withdraw support for family planning. If so, it appears to be an abandonment of Canada's current position, as well as opposed to that of Britain and the G-8 generally.
I have been unable to confirm for myself (see below) that "It is astonishing and sad that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is advocating that Canada fund overseas abortions . . . 'sad to see Ignatieff making such a negative proposal.'" (as attributed to Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins by the Catholic Register)
Canada is a secular society. When I ran as the Liberal candidate in '04 I made it clear that for me abortion is a matter of personal conscience. This is, of course, based, in part, on my strong belief in the necessity of separation of State and Church, basing Government polices on the realities and not ideology, and probably most important, acknowledging that there may be many, many people in Canada, and around the world, that simply don't subscribe to one particular system of religious beliefs - i.e. Canada is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about).
We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. It is my understanding that that is the point that Ignatieff was making; that is the point that the G8 countries are making; and, this is the point that the UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. . . ."
Ignatieff
(http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/women+health+initiative+must+include+abortion+Ignatieff/2514470/story.html)
"If you're going to invest in women, you've got to invest in the full gamut of reproductive health services," he said, winning applause from an audience of Liberal MPs and representatives of about 50 non-government aid, rights and humanitarian organizations.
"This is the last place to start playing politics here and ideology here. Women are entitled to the full gamut of reproductive health services and that includes termination of pregnancy and contraception."
At a news conference later in the day, Ignatieff cited former U.S. government policy under the Bush administration which withheld federal funds from international agencies that supported abortion.
"We don't want us to go that way," he said. "We want to make sure that women have access to all the contraceptive methods available to control their fertility because we don't want to have women dying because of botched procedures, we don't want to have women dying in misery. We want women to care for themselves better and then look after their kids better . . . let's keep the ideology out of this and move forward."
"We've had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it."
***
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "
***
DFID (UK Department for International Development)
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/
14 October 2009
International Development Minister, Mike Foster, said:
"Every year a devastating number of women die because of unsafe abortion. If we ignore this issue, the stark reality is that millions more women will suffer, and back street practices will continue to increase the pressure for treatment on already overburdened health services.
"Better access to family planning information and contraception is of vital importance in eliminating unsafe abortion but the truth is that it is not always enough. That is why the Department for International Development will continue to support the prevention of unsafe abortion as part of broader efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health."
DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.
In countries where it is legal, DFID will support programmes that make safe abortion more accessible. In countries where it is illegal and mortality and morbidity is high, DFID will make the consequences of unsafe abortion more widely understood, and will consider supporting processes of legal and policy reform.
Catholic Register takes on Ignatieff, Neil Morrison, February 18, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/catholic-register-takes-on-ignatieff.html, Tab 21
It seems to me that what Michael Ignatieff asked was whether Stephen Harper intends to withdraw support for family planning. If so, it appears to be an abandonment of Canada's current position, as well as opposed to that of Britain and the G-8 generally.
I have been unable to confirm for myself (see below) that "It is astonishing and sad that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is advocating that Canada fund overseas abortions . . . 'sad to see Ignatieff making such a negative proposal.'" (as attributed to Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins by the Catholic Register)
Canada is a secular society. When I ran as the Liberal candidate in '04 I made it clear that for me abortion is a matter of personal conscience. This is, of course, based, in part, on my strong belief in the necessity of separation of State and Church, basing Government polices on the realities and not ideology, and probably most important, acknowledging that there may be many, many people in Canada, and around the world, that simply don't subscribe to one particular system of religious beliefs - i.e. Canada is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about).
We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. It is my understanding that that is the point that Ignatieff was making; that is the point that the G8 countries are making; and, this is the point that the UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. . . ."
Ignatieff
(http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/women+health+initiative+must+include+abortion+Ignatieff/2514470/story.html)
"If you're going to invest in women, you've got to invest in the full gamut of reproductive health services," he said, winning applause from an audience of Liberal MPs and representatives of about 50 non-government aid, rights and humanitarian organizations.
"This is the last place to start playing politics here and ideology here. Women are entitled to the full gamut of reproductive health services and that includes termination of pregnancy and contraception."
At a news conference later in the day, Ignatieff cited former U.S. government policy under the Bush administration which withheld federal funds from international agencies that supported abortion.
"We don't want us to go that way," he said. "We want to make sure that women have access to all the contraceptive methods available to control their fertility because we don't want to have women dying because of botched procedures, we don't want to have women dying in misery. We want women to care for themselves better and then look after their kids better . . . let's keep the ideology out of this and move forward."
"We've had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it."
***
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "
***
DFID (UK Department for International Development)
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/
14 October 2009
International Development Minister, Mike Foster, said:
"Every year a devastating number of women die because of unsafe abortion. If we ignore this issue, the stark reality is that millions more women will suffer, and back street practices will continue to increase the pressure for treatment on already overburdened health services.
"Better access to family planning information and contraception is of vital importance in eliminating unsafe abortion but the truth is that it is not always enough. That is why the Department for International Development will continue to support the prevention of unsafe abortion as part of broader efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health."
DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.
In countries where it is legal, DFID will support programmes that make safe abortion more accessible. In countries where it is illegal and mortality and morbidity is high, DFID will make the consequences of unsafe abortion more widely understood, and will consider supporting processes of legal and policy reform.
20 February, 2010
- 'Harper' = 'Hypocrite' - in the Canadian vernacular
Posted: 2/20/2010 1:52:47 PM The Globe and Mail
'An attack on Israel would be considered, an attack on Canada', Steven Chase, February 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/an-attack-on-israel-would-be-considered-an-attack-on-canada/article1470211/
Doesn't Israel normally have a co-alition government. And, in fact, they have one now.
How can Harper have such unconditional support for Israel, when he is so ideologically opposed to co-alitions and considers them such a violation of the Democratic process.
I would use the 'H' word - hypocrite, not 'Harper' (although they are fast becoming synonymous in Canadian the vernacular).
Oh, sorry, Harper doesn't have to be consistent or even be rational and he certainly wasn't 'elected' Prime Minister for his statesman qualities or by placing the good of Canada ahead of sheer partizan politicking.
Don't tell me we're being Con'd again and Harper is just doing it to pick up some votes, that wouldn't be very statesmanlike.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
'An attack on Israel would be considered, an attack on Canada', Steven Chase, February 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/an-attack-on-israel-would-be-considered-an-attack-on-canada/article1470211/
Doesn't Israel normally have a co-alition government. And, in fact, they have one now.
How can Harper have such unconditional support for Israel, when he is so ideologically opposed to co-alitions and considers them such a violation of the Democratic process.
I would use the 'H' word - hypocrite, not 'Harper' (although they are fast becoming synonymous in Canadian the vernacular).
Oh, sorry, Harper doesn't have to be consistent or even be rational and he certainly wasn't 'elected' Prime Minister for his statesman qualities or by placing the good of Canada ahead of sheer partizan politicking.
Don't tell me we're being Con'd again and Harper is just doing it to pick up some votes, that wouldn't be very statesmanlike.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: Prorogation - 'the devil made me do it' !
Comment on: National Post
Judging Giorno, Some call the chief of staff a disaster, but others call him disciplined, John Ivison, February 20, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=979a0ab8-79e6-4a3f-8476-cb95da3e957b&p=3
Harper always blames someone else when one of his strategies gives bad results. The latest is the Prorogation. Apparently, the new Harper excuse for Prorogation is that 'Oh, and by the way, did I mention, the devil made me do it . . . no, really . . . it's true . . . it was the devil . . . honest . . . no really . . . trust me . . . it was the D-E-V-I-L, DEVIL, Da-Da-Da-Da DEVIL . . . he'smaking me smile right now too' - he did not want to Prorogue Parliament but merely take a ten day break; Prorogation was someone else's fault and Harper was talked into it.
Harper, show some moral fiber, some back bone, stand up at take responsibility. For an action that is as serious as Prorogation, disbanding Parliament for so long, and such a gross display of contempt for Canadian Democracy, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility, sole and absolute.
Harper should be too embarrassed to even suggest that he was talked into it.
Also, what are we doing with a Prime Minister that can't understand that Canadian would get very upset about such a politically self-serving assault on our Democracy and Democratic Institutions.
Harper's vigorous defense of his action since Prorogation belies this new excuse.
Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Harper, the Canadian people be Damned. It is totally incredulous that he would now suggest that he didn't want to do it.
Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse.
And, perhaps in the meantime he can convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.
This, of course, is crass politicizing of a terrible tragedy to which all Canadians and people in many other countries rose to provide assistance according to their abilities. Perhaps, Harper is doing this because he is looking to run Haiti, after he and the Con's get the boot from Canada. I wouldn't wish that on even Canada's worst enemy (of course, before Harper, Canada didn't have any worst enemies and we actually quite well respected in the World, but now . . .)
Harper and the Con's have tried to convince Canadians that the reason for Proroguing Parliament and for so long, is to allow Harper and the Con's to do the serious work of Government, without the disruptions of Parliament. They need the time to 're-calibrate' and especially to seek the input from Canadians on their Throne speech and Budget.
Harper says Ottawa is doing "important work to prepare the economic agenda," without the distraction of non-confidence votes and election speculation. - http://www.bnn.ca/news/14958.html)
Harper also has suggested that non-confidence motions cause disruption in the stock market. The Prime Minster is not to give advise on the stock markets. One can only wonder why Harper is taking such an active interest in the market. Isn't he the one that feesl trunoil makes for "good buying opportunities". See my previous discussion on this issues: 10 January, 2010, - Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World (Opposite) Twin of "Open Democracy"
'On CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon yesterday, [Flanagan, Harper’s former chief of staff and mentor] said that everyone knows the only reason Mr. Harper prorogued was to “shut down the Afghan inquiry."'
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-disinclined-to-let-games-begin-in-the-house/article1428075/?service=mobile
Apparently, Harper has sent out E-mails to all the Con PM's asking for suggestions for the Throne speech.
Harper, the Opposition Parties, which represent 2/3 of Canadians, I am sure have some suggestions. Also, Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives appear to have some serious suggestions as well. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't like them, they have legitimate positions that don't agree with yours (different views in a tolerant, multi-faceted, complex society - now there's a reason not to consult with them) and the moral fiber and backbone to stand up and be counted - I can see how Harper would be turned off by that (character foil, and all that).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Judging Giorno, Some call the chief of staff a disaster, but others call him disciplined, John Ivison, February 20, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=979a0ab8-79e6-4a3f-8476-cb95da3e957b&p=3
Harper always blames someone else when one of his strategies gives bad results. The latest is the Prorogation. Apparently, the new Harper excuse for Prorogation is that 'Oh, and by the way, did I mention, the devil made me do it . . . no, really . . . it's true . . . it was the devil . . . honest . . . no really . . . trust me . . . it was the D-E-V-I-L, DEVIL, Da-Da-Da-Da DEVIL . . . he'smaking me smile right now too' - he did not want to Prorogue Parliament but merely take a ten day break; Prorogation was someone else's fault and Harper was talked into it.
Harper, show some moral fiber, some back bone, stand up at take responsibility. For an action that is as serious as Prorogation, disbanding Parliament for so long, and such a gross display of contempt for Canadian Democracy, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility, sole and absolute.
Harper should be too embarrassed to even suggest that he was talked into it.
Also, what are we doing with a Prime Minister that can't understand that Canadian would get very upset about such a politically self-serving assault on our Democracy and Democratic Institutions.
Harper's vigorous defense of his action since Prorogation belies this new excuse.
Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Harper, the Canadian people be Damned. It is totally incredulous that he would now suggest that he didn't want to do it.
Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse.
And, perhaps in the meantime he can convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.
This, of course, is crass politicizing of a terrible tragedy to which all Canadians and people in many other countries rose to provide assistance according to their abilities. Perhaps, Harper is doing this because he is looking to run Haiti, after he and the Con's get the boot from Canada. I wouldn't wish that on even Canada's worst enemy (of course, before Harper, Canada didn't have any worst enemies and we actually quite well respected in the World, but now . . .)
Harper and the Con's have tried to convince Canadians that the reason for Proroguing Parliament and for so long, is to allow Harper and the Con's to do the serious work of Government, without the disruptions of Parliament. They need the time to 're-calibrate' and especially to seek the input from Canadians on their Throne speech and Budget.
Harper says Ottawa is doing "important work to prepare the economic agenda," without the distraction of non-confidence votes and election speculation. - http://www.bnn.ca/news/14958.html)
Harper also has suggested that non-confidence motions cause disruption in the stock market. The Prime Minster is not to give advise on the stock markets. One can only wonder why Harper is taking such an active interest in the market. Isn't he the one that feesl trunoil makes for "good buying opportunities". See my previous discussion on this issues: 10 January, 2010, - Stephen Harper is the Bizzaro World (Opposite) Twin of "Open Democracy"
'On CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon yesterday, [Flanagan, Harper’s former chief of staff and mentor] said that everyone knows the only reason Mr. Harper prorogued was to “shut down the Afghan inquiry."'
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/stephen-harper-disinclined-to-let-games-begin-in-the-house/article1428075/?service=mobile
Apparently, Harper has sent out E-mails to all the Con PM's asking for suggestions for the Throne speech.
Harper, the Opposition Parties, which represent 2/3 of Canadians, I am sure have some suggestions. Also, Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives appear to have some serious suggestions as well. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't like them, they have legitimate positions that don't agree with yours (different views in a tolerant, multi-faceted, complex society - now there's a reason not to consult with them) and the moral fiber and backbone to stand up and be counted - I can see how Harper would be turned off by that (character foil, and all that).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 February, 2010
- Harper Is No J.A. MacDonald
Posted: 2/19/2010 11:08:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Harper may be iron-fisted. And so what if he is?, Bob Plamondon, 19 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harper-may-be-iron-fisted-and-so-what-if-he-is/article1473243/ Tab 6
Bob Plamondon: "Stephen Harper is an autocrat who keeps a Vise-Grip on power, bullies his opponents and runs roughshod over democratic traditions. And how different is this from his predecessors? Not much."
There is a very big and very important difference between Harper and the Con's and Canada's previous Prime Ministers
All the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. They were intent on nation building
Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation
The only similarity in ideology and agenda between MacDonald, Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark and Mulrouney and Harper is that they all had the word "Conservative" in the name of their Party. The similarities end there. The Con Party is not the PC Party. The PC were a moderate right of centre Party. Harper and the Con's are extremist right wing ideologues
A very good illustration of this is that J.A. MacDonald joined forces with the Clear Grits (for runners of the Liberal Party) to unit the colonies and form Confederation. That's, of course, why Canadian today are proud of MacDonald. It is inconceivable that Harper might join with the Liberals, or anyone else, to solve Canada's current problems, strengthen the union and make this great nation of our even greater
This is despite that the 'Mandate' given by the people of Canada is do to precisely that - join with the Opposition and work together. Harper has, in fact, betrayed the trust given to him for the sake of obtaining and wielding bald power to achieve goals that are opposed to the good of Canada and all Canadians
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of out forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm
But then, Plamondon, you must know all this
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper may be iron-fisted. And so what if he is?, Bob Plamondon, 19 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harper-may-be-iron-fisted-and-so-what-if-he-is/article1473243/ Tab 6
Bob Plamondon: "Stephen Harper is an autocrat who keeps a Vise-Grip on power, bullies his opponents and runs roughshod over democratic traditions. And how different is this from his predecessors? Not much."
There is a very big and very important difference between Harper and the Con's and Canada's previous Prime Ministers
All the previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. They were intent on nation building
Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation
The only similarity in ideology and agenda between MacDonald, Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark and Mulrouney and Harper is that they all had the word "Conservative" in the name of their Party. The similarities end there. The Con Party is not the PC Party. The PC were a moderate right of centre Party. Harper and the Con's are extremist right wing ideologues
A very good illustration of this is that J.A. MacDonald joined forces with the Clear Grits (for runners of the Liberal Party) to unit the colonies and form Confederation. That's, of course, why Canadian today are proud of MacDonald. It is inconceivable that Harper might join with the Liberals, or anyone else, to solve Canada's current problems, strengthen the union and make this great nation of our even greater
This is despite that the 'Mandate' given by the people of Canada is do to precisely that - join with the Opposition and work together. Harper has, in fact, betrayed the trust given to him for the sake of obtaining and wielding bald power to achieve goals that are opposed to the good of Canada and all Canadians
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of out forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm
But then, Plamondon, you must know all this
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 February, 2010
- Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
Excerpt Posted 2/18/2010 10:56:47 AM - The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff uses the pause , Globe and Mail, 17 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/ignatieff-uses-the-pause/article1470659/ Tab 9
Harper at all times has chosen what furthers his own and the Con's agenda, Canada be damned. Whether it is good for Canada is not a consideration.
There are many, many examples of this but one is Harper's declaring everything as non-confidence votes to force the Opposition parties to accept his policies, there is no consideration by Harper of whether it is for the good of all Canadians and no consideration by Harper for the 2/3 rds Canadians that voted against him.
Harper and the Con's being extreme right wing ideologues makes this insidious. Canada is gradually, bit-by-bit, being morphed into a right wing extremist country. Further is that it is coming to light that Harper also bases his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state (e.g. Iran) despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized. The irony is that despite the religious nature, Harper is being very dishonest about it.
The problem is that Harper and the Con's base everything on their ideology. It is right wing and extreme compared to the Canadian tradition of being an open, tolerant, multicultural, diverse, secular, Rule of Law based, Charter enshrined rights, moderate Democratic society. Rather, Harper and the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship.
Given the complexity of any developed, commerce based, diverse modern society, like Canada, making policies decisions based on ideology can never be in the best interest of Canadians and will always favour one group and marginalize another group, not because it is necessary or in the best interest of all Canadians as a whole, but because they subscribe, or don't subscribe, to the ideology. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that are favoured and the larger the group that are marginalized. Currently, it would appear that it is approx 1/3 favoured and 2/3 marginalized, with regional variations.
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
For example, Harper reduced the GST by two points based on ideology and crass grab at power by appealing to voters on an emotional bases. He did this without considering the opinions of Economists. Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. Harper is now ignoring the opinions of the Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done" (referring to increasing the GST back to what it was) in preparing the budget.
In fact, as everyone knows, Harper and the Con's have attacked Clark on a personal basis for daring to stand up and state his opinion. This is not right (morally, that is).
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
Harper and his Con's, of course, periodically call for the Supreme Court to be subject to Parliament and given the the Supreme Court is a product of legislation, perhaps they could, if Harper had a majority (that's something to think about).
Again, one can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
Iggy would be well advised to take this into consideration when he is deciding "what 21st-century Liberalism stands for" and be very wary of becoming another ideology based Party. On the other hand, at least it wouldn't be so extreme and much more inclusive.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff uses the pause , Globe and Mail, 17 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/ignatieff-uses-the-pause/article1470659/ Tab 9
Harper at all times has chosen what furthers his own and the Con's agenda, Canada be damned. Whether it is good for Canada is not a consideration.
There are many, many examples of this but one is Harper's declaring everything as non-confidence votes to force the Opposition parties to accept his policies, there is no consideration by Harper of whether it is for the good of all Canadians and no consideration by Harper for the 2/3 rds Canadians that voted against him.
Harper and the Con's being extreme right wing ideologues makes this insidious. Canada is gradually, bit-by-bit, being morphed into a right wing extremist country. Further is that it is coming to light that Harper also bases his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state (e.g. Iran) despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized. The irony is that despite the religious nature, Harper is being very dishonest about it.
The problem is that Harper and the Con's base everything on their ideology. It is right wing and extreme compared to the Canadian tradition of being an open, tolerant, multicultural, diverse, secular, Rule of Law based, Charter enshrined rights, moderate Democratic society. Rather, Harper and the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship.
Given the complexity of any developed, commerce based, diverse modern society, like Canada, making policies decisions based on ideology can never be in the best interest of Canadians and will always favour one group and marginalize another group, not because it is necessary or in the best interest of all Canadians as a whole, but because they subscribe, or don't subscribe, to the ideology. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that are favoured and the larger the group that are marginalized. Currently, it would appear that it is approx 1/3 favoured and 2/3 marginalized, with regional variations.
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
For example, Harper reduced the GST by two points based on ideology and crass grab at power by appealing to voters on an emotional bases. He did this without considering the opinions of Economists. Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. Harper is now ignoring the opinions of the Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done" (referring to increasing the GST back to what it was) in preparing the budget.
In fact, as everyone knows, Harper and the Con's have attacked Clark on a personal basis for daring to stand up and state his opinion. This is not right (morally, that is).
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
Harper and his Con's, of course, periodically call for the Supreme Court to be subject to Parliament and given the the Supreme Court is a product of legislation, perhaps they could, if Harper had a majority (that's something to think about).
Again, one can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
Iggy would be well advised to take this into consideration when he is deciding "what 21st-century Liberalism stands for" and be very wary of becoming another ideology based Party. On the other hand, at least it wouldn't be so extreme and much more inclusive.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 February, 2010
Harper-avelli, what a "Prince"
Submitted: 2/17/2010 11:02:17 The Globe and Mail
Top adviser leaves Bev Oda's office, Steven Chase
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/political-adviser-leaves-bev-odas-office/article1470147/ Tab 8
Harper and the Con's using threats of withdrawing government funding to otherwise legitimate and qualifying organizations against anyone that they think might dare to stand up for something that they don't like or might be perceived as being against them.
That's easy to believe, especially given Harper track record.
This goes hand in hand, of course, with the viscous personal attacks we have seen, even just lately against Richard Colvin and most recently Ed Clark.
The only thing that is hard to understand is why Harper and his gang of Con's are running this, otherwise, great nation of ours.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that, there is absolutely no question that Canadians have the right (moral right that is) to know why Keith Fountain has "moved on", especially given the surrounding circumstances.
2/17/2010 12:47:47 PM
Harper-avelli, what a "Prince"
These tactics of Harper and the Con's are, of course, typical of right wing extremist groups. I have done many Refugee Claims involving third world governments and Harper's actions fit the scenario to a 'T'.
Given the incredible deficits and Harper's refusal to do anything about it, except (God help us) to wait 6 years while the Canadian economy grows out of it; and, given Harper's do nothing approach to global warming and other matters of global proportions and urgency; and, given Harper's utter disdain for Canadian Democracy; and, given Harper's expressed life goal to tear Canada asunder,
it seems Harper plan is to turn Canada into a third world country -
perhaps so he will feel more at home, politically speaking, with his Harper-avellian methods.
It would be a lot better for Canada if we simply helped find an existing third world country with which Harper can realize his potential.
PS: does this mean Harper won't be appointing me to the Senate.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Top adviser leaves Bev Oda's office, Steven Chase
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/political-adviser-leaves-bev-odas-office/article1470147/ Tab 8
Harper and the Con's using threats of withdrawing government funding to otherwise legitimate and qualifying organizations against anyone that they think might dare to stand up for something that they don't like or might be perceived as being against them.
That's easy to believe, especially given Harper track record.
This goes hand in hand, of course, with the viscous personal attacks we have seen, even just lately against Richard Colvin and most recently Ed Clark.
The only thing that is hard to understand is why Harper and his gang of Con's are running this, otherwise, great nation of ours.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that, there is absolutely no question that Canadians have the right (moral right that is) to know why Keith Fountain has "moved on", especially given the surrounding circumstances.
2/17/2010 12:47:47 PM
Harper-avelli, what a "Prince"
These tactics of Harper and the Con's are, of course, typical of right wing extremist groups. I have done many Refugee Claims involving third world governments and Harper's actions fit the scenario to a 'T'.
Given the incredible deficits and Harper's refusal to do anything about it, except (God help us) to wait 6 years while the Canadian economy grows out of it; and, given Harper's do nothing approach to global warming and other matters of global proportions and urgency; and, given Harper's utter disdain for Canadian Democracy; and, given Harper's expressed life goal to tear Canada asunder,
it seems Harper plan is to turn Canada into a third world country -
perhaps so he will feel more at home, politically speaking, with his Harper-avellian methods.
It would be a lot better for Canada if we simply helped find an existing third world country with which Harper can realize his potential.
PS: does this mean Harper won't be appointing me to the Senate.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 February, 2010
- Harper and the Cons - Problem Isolated !
Submitted: 9:40am, PST, 16 Feb.'10 - The Ottawa Citizen
Code of conduct sought for ‘amoral’ political aides, Ministerial staffers should not be allowed to give orders to public servants: experts, Kathryn May, February 16, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Code+conduct+sought+amoral+political+aides/2568225/story.html#Comments
Harper and his Con Ministers always blame someone else when something happens.
Harper never stands up and takes responsibility. A great example is, of course, the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and Ensuing Cover-Up.
Paul Martin, at least stood tall, accepted responsibility for the Sponsorship Scandal and called a Public Inquiry. He did it because it was the proper and right (morally right) thing to do. Everybody knew it wasn't the politically expedient.
And, the political repercussions for Canada have been severe - it allowed Harper and the Con's to gain power, the damage Harper has caused and is causing will take many years for Canada to recover.
This issue of Harper and his Con Ministers' political staffers interfering with civil servants carrying out their legal duties is only one problem, albeit very serious.
It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.
We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.
It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.
It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.
The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Code of conduct sought for ‘amoral’ political aides, Ministerial staffers should not be allowed to give orders to public servants: experts, Kathryn May, February 16, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Code+conduct+sought+amoral+political+aides/2568225/story.html#Comments
Harper and his Con Ministers always blame someone else when something happens.
Harper never stands up and takes responsibility. A great example is, of course, the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and Ensuing Cover-Up.
Paul Martin, at least stood tall, accepted responsibility for the Sponsorship Scandal and called a Public Inquiry. He did it because it was the proper and right (morally right) thing to do. Everybody knew it wasn't the politically expedient.
And, the political repercussions for Canada have been severe - it allowed Harper and the Con's to gain power, the damage Harper has caused and is causing will take many years for Canada to recover.
This issue of Harper and his Con Ministers' political staffers interfering with civil servants carrying out their legal duties is only one problem, albeit very serious.
It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.
We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.
It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.
It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.
The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 February, 2010
- Harper Leadership Index ??? - It's Time For Nanos to Recalibrate
2/15/2010 12:52:50 PM The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff wades into PMO versus banker fight. It's no way to run a country, Liberal Leader says, when politicians can't seek advice from experts, Jane Taber, 15 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-wades-into-pmo-versus-banker-fight/article1468522/Tab 24
The Nanos 'Leadership Index' is Very Misleading to say the least.
Harper's numbers are entirely explained by assuming a core of die-hard supporters of around 33%. How about some Demographics Nanos - that would be interesting.
And, these days with Harper's true extreme right wing 'colours' starting to bulge out over the Hype, they have to be die-hard, indeed, to still support him, despite the damage to Canadian Democracy.
The actual results of the Poll results Nanos is basing his 'Leadeship Index' (see:
nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T411E.pdf
are as follows:
The Best PM
Stephen Harper: 32.0% (-2.8)
- within the 33% point - considering margin of error (3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20) - 1/3 of Canadians like him as PM??? what's he doing running this country
The most trustworthy leader
Stephen Harper: 25.0% (-4.3)
- definitely down from the 33% point -even considering margin of error- and rightfully so, give Harper's abuse of his Office and attack on Canadian Democracy
The most competent leader
Stephen Harper: 33.6% (-1.7)
- within the 33% point - considering margin of error - there's that die-hard 33% manifesting itself!
The leader with the best vision for Canada#s future
Stephen Harper: 26.8% (-3.2)
- definitely down from the 33% point - even considering margin of error- and rightfully so - yeh, Harper's vision for most of his public life is to tear Canada asunder, apparently some people like that, or don't understand what Harper is really all about
A break down by Province would be very interesting (although I suspect that the result can be easily predicted) and perhaps Nanos would be courteous enough to provide that for us.
These number are actually down from the last time (and Harper index is down 10%) as one would expect (at least there are some die-hards that are taking a serious second thought at what Harper is doing).
To have any meaning whatsoever, any "Leadership Index' for Harper ought to be how many points away from the 33% point.
All you non-Haperites that don't take the 33% core of die-hard support for Harper seriously do so at your own peril.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Also Posted to: Nanos On The Numbers
Mon Feb 15 13:13:29 EST 2010
Nanos Leadership Index: Harper still strong (Nanos Poll Completed February 8th, 2010)
Ignatieff wades into PMO versus banker fight. It's no way to run a country, Liberal Leader says, when politicians can't seek advice from experts, Jane Taber, 15 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-wades-into-pmo-versus-banker-fight/article1468522/Tab 24
The Nanos 'Leadership Index' is Very Misleading to say the least.
Harper's numbers are entirely explained by assuming a core of die-hard supporters of around 33%. How about some Demographics Nanos - that would be interesting.
And, these days with Harper's true extreme right wing 'colours' starting to bulge out over the Hype, they have to be die-hard, indeed, to still support him, despite the damage to Canadian Democracy.
The actual results of the Poll results Nanos is basing his 'Leadeship Index' (see:
nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T411E.pdf
are as follows:
The Best PM
Stephen Harper: 32.0% (-2.8)
- within the 33% point - considering margin of error (3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20) - 1/3 of Canadians like him as PM??? what's he doing running this country
The most trustworthy leader
Stephen Harper: 25.0% (-4.3)
- definitely down from the 33% point -even considering margin of error- and rightfully so, give Harper's abuse of his Office and attack on Canadian Democracy
The most competent leader
Stephen Harper: 33.6% (-1.7)
- within the 33% point - considering margin of error - there's that die-hard 33% manifesting itself!
The leader with the best vision for Canada#s future
Stephen Harper: 26.8% (-3.2)
- definitely down from the 33% point - even considering margin of error- and rightfully so - yeh, Harper's vision for most of his public life is to tear Canada asunder, apparently some people like that, or don't understand what Harper is really all about
A break down by Province would be very interesting (although I suspect that the result can be easily predicted) and perhaps Nanos would be courteous enough to provide that for us.
These number are actually down from the last time (and Harper index is down 10%) as one would expect (at least there are some die-hards that are taking a serious second thought at what Harper is doing).
To have any meaning whatsoever, any "Leadership Index' for Harper ought to be how many points away from the 33% point.
All you non-Haperites that don't take the 33% core of die-hard support for Harper seriously do so at your own peril.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Also Posted to: Nanos On The Numbers
Mon Feb 15 13:13:29 EST 2010
Nanos Leadership Index: Harper still strong (Nanos Poll Completed February 8th, 2010)
- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Wall !
2/15/2010 10:55:59 AM
Ignatieff wades into PMO versus banker fight. It's no way to run a country, Liberal Leader says, when politicians can't seek advice from experts, Jane Taber, 15 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-wades-into-pmo-versus-banker-fight/article1468522/Tab 12
TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, discussing a recent meeting with Harper who was obviously working under the under the guise of listening to what Canadian have to say in preparing their budget.
"He doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him"
Ed Clark also stated that at a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done,". He was apparently referring to the GST - that's right, the one that Harper and his Con's went around saying how great that was and how it single handedly saved us from the ravages of the recession. Oh, it's also the one that Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. I guess Harper wasn't listening to Ed Clark or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives then either.
When it comes to the Budget, Harper and the Con;'s are obviously not listening to anyone, unless they already agree with Harper, of course.
Ignatieff is right (morally right that is), "Honest to goodness we can't run a country like this", especially if only 1/3 of Canadians voted for you.
It is a black mark on Canadian Democracy when Parliament has such little trust in the sitting Prime Minister and his party that legislation to limit the PM's powers would have to be brought in. We as a Nation have been able to get by without such legislative restriction on the sitting Prime Minister up till now. What is so different now from say Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien who had large majorities and could easily have abused their power but didn't.
The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
It would appear that the suitable remedy, everything considered, would be (along with the mea culpa and carrying out the Will of Parliament) Parliament requiring clear and concise promise from Harper that he will seek the approval of Parliament in future to any such major decisions, that are currently under the 'rule of custom of the office of PM' , as Prorogation of Parliament.
Given Harper's track record of doing everything in the extreme and for political, partizan considerations only, the good of Canada be Damned, the appointment and discharge of Parliamentary Officials and heads of bodies that are the 'prerogative' of the PM be approved by Parliament, along with their proper operation, should be covered by this requirement as well.
So too Harper ought to seek the approval of Parliament when it comes to cutting funding for various groups and those required to testify in an effort to shed light on Harper and the Con's dark corners - I should say carryings on
One need only consider the following to conclude that the above restrictions on harper and teh Con's actions is just and fair: Canada's parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff wades into PMO versus banker fight. It's no way to run a country, Liberal Leader says, when politicians can't seek advice from experts, Jane Taber, 15 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-wades-into-pmo-versus-banker-fight/article1468522/Tab 12
TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, discussing a recent meeting with Harper who was obviously working under the under the guise of listening to what Canadian have to say in preparing their budget.
"He doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him"
Ed Clark also stated that at a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done,". He was apparently referring to the GST - that's right, the one that Harper and his Con's went around saying how great that was and how it single handedly saved us from the ravages of the recession. Oh, it's also the one that Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. I guess Harper wasn't listening to Ed Clark or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives then either.
When it comes to the Budget, Harper and the Con;'s are obviously not listening to anyone, unless they already agree with Harper, of course.
Ignatieff is right (morally right that is), "Honest to goodness we can't run a country like this", especially if only 1/3 of Canadians voted for you.
It is a black mark on Canadian Democracy when Parliament has such little trust in the sitting Prime Minister and his party that legislation to limit the PM's powers would have to be brought in. We as a Nation have been able to get by without such legislative restriction on the sitting Prime Minister up till now. What is so different now from say Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien who had large majorities and could easily have abused their power but didn't.
The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
It would appear that the suitable remedy, everything considered, would be (along with the mea culpa and carrying out the Will of Parliament) Parliament requiring clear and concise promise from Harper that he will seek the approval of Parliament in future to any such major decisions, that are currently under the 'rule of custom of the office of PM' , as Prorogation of Parliament.
Given Harper's track record of doing everything in the extreme and for political, partizan considerations only, the good of Canada be Damned, the appointment and discharge of Parliamentary Officials and heads of bodies that are the 'prerogative' of the PM be approved by Parliament, along with their proper operation, should be covered by this requirement as well.
So too Harper ought to seek the approval of Parliament when it comes to cutting funding for various groups and those required to testify in an effort to shed light on Harper and the Con's dark corners - I should say carryings on
One need only consider the following to conclude that the above restrictions on harper and teh Con's actions is just and fair: Canada's parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 February, 2010
- Harper - uncontrolled and unfettered abuse of power of a dictatorial nature
Submitted: 9:56am PST, 13 Feb.'10 - CBC
Ahoy, procedural geeks! Reading between the lines of the Liberal response to Gordon O'Connor, Kady O'Malley, February 12, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/ahoy-procedural-geeks-reading-between-the-lines-of-the-liberal-response-to-gordon-oconnor.html 30 Posts
"Then again, can anyone really imagine the Liberals, at least, demonstrating sufficient collective spine to actually force the government to recognize the supremacy of Parliament before allowing the finance minister to deliver his speech?"
Come now Katty.
Can anyone really imagine that you have any basis for making such a accusation.
You're not trying to be manipulative are you.
Why not come right out and demand that Parliament make Harper and the Con's subject themselves to the Will of Parliament, formally stand up in the Commons and admit guilt and accept whatever punishment Parliament may, in its wisdom, determine just and fair.
Parliament could also (Rule of Law, Supremacy of Parliament, etc) introduce a Bill placing restrictions on the PM regarding Prorogation.
However, it is a black mark on Canadian Democracy when Parliament has such little trust in the sitting Prime Minister and his party that such legislation would have to be brought in. We as a Nation have been able to get by without such legislative restriction on the sitting Prime Minister up till now. What is so different now from say Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien who had large majorities and could easily have abused their power but didn't.
The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Much of the actions by the Prime Minister are based on 'Customary law' as opposed to legislative law. I have had numerous arguments with people who suggest that Customary law is just as binding as Legislative Law. It's not and this is a prime example of the problems with Customary Law. It works well as long as the people in office ultimately have the good of the Nation before them. The basic assumption is anyone who has spent much of their public life trying to tear asunder Confederation will not become Prime Minister. This, of course, is not the present case.
Similar reasoning applies to Harper request to the Governor General last year as well. The GG ought to have allowed the non-Confidence vote last year and then entertained all sides' arguments for what to do next. The Office of GG is subject to the Will of Parliament and not the Whim of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's power to select the GG does not mean that it answers simply to the Prime Minister. The GG's Office was not designed to be a figure head. The Governor General's function is to be a last resort to such abuse of power by the Prime Minister. When this fails we end up in the position we have today - uncontrolled and unfettered abuse of power by the PM of a dictatorial nature.
It would appear that the suitable remedy, everything considered, would be (along with the mea culpa and carrying out the Will of Parliament) Parliament requiring clear and concise promise from Harper that he will seek the approval of Parliament in future to any such major decisions, that are currently under the 'rule of custom of the office of PM' , as Prorogation of Parliament.
Given Harper's track record of doing everything in the extreme and for political, partizan considerations only, the good of Canada be Damned, the appointment and discharge of Parliamentary Officials and heads of bodies that are the 'prerogative' of the PM be approved by Parliament, along with their proper operation, should be covered by this requirement as well.
So too Harper ought to seek the approval of Parliament when it comes to cutting funding for various groups and those required to testify in an effort to shed light on Harper and the Con's dark corners - I should say carryings on
One need only consiered the following to conclude that the above restrictions on harper and teh Con's actions is just and fair: Canada's parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ahoy, procedural geeks! Reading between the lines of the Liberal response to Gordon O'Connor, Kady O'Malley, February 12, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/ahoy-procedural-geeks-reading-between-the-lines-of-the-liberal-response-to-gordon-oconnor.html 30 Posts
"Then again, can anyone really imagine the Liberals, at least, demonstrating sufficient collective spine to actually force the government to recognize the supremacy of Parliament before allowing the finance minister to deliver his speech?"
Come now Katty.
Can anyone really imagine that you have any basis for making such a accusation.
You're not trying to be manipulative are you.
Why not come right out and demand that Parliament make Harper and the Con's subject themselves to the Will of Parliament, formally stand up in the Commons and admit guilt and accept whatever punishment Parliament may, in its wisdom, determine just and fair.
Parliament could also (Rule of Law, Supremacy of Parliament, etc) introduce a Bill placing restrictions on the PM regarding Prorogation.
However, it is a black mark on Canadian Democracy when Parliament has such little trust in the sitting Prime Minister and his party that such legislation would have to be brought in. We as a Nation have been able to get by without such legislative restriction on the sitting Prime Minister up till now. What is so different now from say Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien who had large majorities and could easily have abused their power but didn't.
The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Much of the actions by the Prime Minister are based on 'Customary law' as opposed to legislative law. I have had numerous arguments with people who suggest that Customary law is just as binding as Legislative Law. It's not and this is a prime example of the problems with Customary Law. It works well as long as the people in office ultimately have the good of the Nation before them. The basic assumption is anyone who has spent much of their public life trying to tear asunder Confederation will not become Prime Minister. This, of course, is not the present case.
Similar reasoning applies to Harper request to the Governor General last year as well. The GG ought to have allowed the non-Confidence vote last year and then entertained all sides' arguments for what to do next. The Office of GG is subject to the Will of Parliament and not the Whim of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's power to select the GG does not mean that it answers simply to the Prime Minister. The GG's Office was not designed to be a figure head. The Governor General's function is to be a last resort to such abuse of power by the Prime Minister. When this fails we end up in the position we have today - uncontrolled and unfettered abuse of power by the PM of a dictatorial nature.
It would appear that the suitable remedy, everything considered, would be (along with the mea culpa and carrying out the Will of Parliament) Parliament requiring clear and concise promise from Harper that he will seek the approval of Parliament in future to any such major decisions, that are currently under the 'rule of custom of the office of PM' , as Prorogation of Parliament.
Given Harper's track record of doing everything in the extreme and for political, partizan considerations only, the good of Canada be Damned, the appointment and discharge of Parliamentary Officials and heads of bodies that are the 'prerogative' of the PM be approved by Parliament, along with their proper operation, should be covered by this requirement as well.
So too Harper ought to seek the approval of Parliament when it comes to cutting funding for various groups and those required to testify in an effort to shed light on Harper and the Con's dark corners - I should say carryings on
One need only consiered the following to conclude that the above restrictions on harper and teh Con's actions is just and fair: Canada's parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, RCMP's Public Complaints Commission and the Military Police Complaints Commission, cut off public funding for the ecumenical charitable group KAIROS, lashed out at public servants - like Richard Colvin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Gang - Escaped Con Alert !!!
Submitted: 8:55am, PST, 13 Feb.'10 - CBC
From the desk of a clearly very, very busy John Baird …, Kady O'Malley , 12 Feb.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/from-the-desk-of-a-clearly-very-very-busy-john-baird.html 36 comments
Baird, if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Sounds like we're being Con'd again.
Baird's excuse something like an escaped con saying to the judge, "but I spent the time under self imposed house arrest, so that's ok."
If you are unable to do the normal constituency work and conform to the Will of Parliament, then get out of politics. Do Canada a favour and, along with the rest of the Harper gang, get out anyway. You and your Con buddies destroyed Ontario and now you are doing it to Canada.
Baird explains that he has been busy "public events and announcements". Don't tell me, Baird's excuse for suppressing Canadian Democracy and overt contempt for the Will of Parliament is that he can, what, take personal credit for the Billions being spent on the economic stimulus, take credit for the Olympics, design a Budget based on the input from Canadians (Baird didn't even bother trying that excuse), suggest that he single handedly made the Canadian banks what they are today - oh, sorry, that' Harper and Flaherty, mea culpa, mea culpa!
I know, its the over-time designing defamatory E-mails attacking anyone who dares to stand up to him, Harper and the Con's. That would certainly explain the extra-ordinarily busy schedule.
The Con's are certainly not spending anytime making changes to their Budget based on input from Canadians. Just ask TD CEO Ed Clark or all the opposition members.
Baird, if you want to try to rectify matters try:
Calling an Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up; and, obeying the Parliamentary Order-to-Produce, are necessary; as well as, a mea culpa and conforming to any disciplinary measures as determined just by Parliament.
Harper, Baird and all the Con's government is subject to the Will of Parliament.
Harper prorogued parliament in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. One of the intended effects was to dissolve the Committee investigating this issue. And, Harper is refusing to obey the Parliament Order-to-Produce demanding that the Administration hand over confidential records on the Afghan Detainee Transfers.
Harper, Baird and the Con government has attacked and shown amazing contempt for our Democratic Way of Government, the Rule of Law, and have ruthlessly abused the office of PM.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
From the desk of a clearly very, very busy John Baird …, Kady O'Malley , 12 Feb.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/from-the-desk-of-a-clearly-very-very-busy-john-baird.html 36 comments
Baird, if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Sounds like we're being Con'd again.
Baird's excuse something like an escaped con saying to the judge, "but I spent the time under self imposed house arrest, so that's ok."
If you are unable to do the normal constituency work and conform to the Will of Parliament, then get out of politics. Do Canada a favour and, along with the rest of the Harper gang, get out anyway. You and your Con buddies destroyed Ontario and now you are doing it to Canada.
Baird explains that he has been busy "public events and announcements". Don't tell me, Baird's excuse for suppressing Canadian Democracy and overt contempt for the Will of Parliament is that he can, what, take personal credit for the Billions being spent on the economic stimulus, take credit for the Olympics, design a Budget based on the input from Canadians (Baird didn't even bother trying that excuse), suggest that he single handedly made the Canadian banks what they are today - oh, sorry, that' Harper and Flaherty, mea culpa, mea culpa!
I know, its the over-time designing defamatory E-mails attacking anyone who dares to stand up to him, Harper and the Con's. That would certainly explain the extra-ordinarily busy schedule.
The Con's are certainly not spending anytime making changes to their Budget based on input from Canadians. Just ask TD CEO Ed Clark or all the opposition members.
Baird, if you want to try to rectify matters try:
Calling an Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up; and, obeying the Parliamentary Order-to-Produce, are necessary; as well as, a mea culpa and conforming to any disciplinary measures as determined just by Parliament.
Harper, Baird and all the Con's government is subject to the Will of Parliament.
Harper prorogued parliament in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. One of the intended effects was to dissolve the Committee investigating this issue. And, Harper is refusing to obey the Parliament Order-to-Produce demanding that the Administration hand over confidential records on the Afghan Detainee Transfers.
Harper, Baird and the Con government has attacked and shown amazing contempt for our Democratic Way of Government, the Rule of Law, and have ruthlessly abused the office of PM.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 February, 2010
- Harper Panned by Canadian Banks - Is that Ironic or What
Posted: 2/12/2010 1:00:12 PM - The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff demands Harper apologize for criticism of CEO's take on raising taxes, Bill Curry and Tara Perkins, 12 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/td-chief-caught-in-deficit-crossfire/article1465325/ Tab 35
Hypocrite thy name is Harper
TD Bank CEO Ed Clark:
Apparently at the conference last week in Florida, Clark pointed out
"The Canadian population is extremely unhappy to see these deficits".
Also that at a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives,
". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done,"
Discussing a recent meeting with Harper under the guise of listening to what Canadian have to say in preparing their budget.
"He doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him"
So much for the highly touted consultations with Canadian.
Harper is not seeking any input from Opposition Parties, either.
So, just what is Harper basing the budget on - that just leaves Harper's right wing extremist ideology.
Harper may feel, and he is correct, that Canada's banks are the best in the world. But, obviously Canada's Banks do not feel Harper is the best PM or the Con's are the best government.
Harper has been going around saying how great the Canadian Banks are and trying to take credit for it on the International stage.
Is that Ironic or what!
Rather than taking what the Banks have to say seriously, i.e. the 'rational approach', Harper is viciously attacking 'the messenger' on a personal level, a-la-Colvin, et al.
These types of attacks are indicative of someone who knows they have no rational basis but refuses to admit it. We have seen this many times before with Harper and the Con's, of course. This attack was not intended to be for the benefit of all Canadians, but to rouse his core of die-hard supporters. The next level of 'alert' is mobilizing them with accusations of a 'coalition with socialists and separatists'.
Even the Conservative Party in England takes note of what Martin and the Liberals achieved in balancing the budget in the mid '90's that the Progressive Con's had straddled us with.
If anyone wants to know the difference between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Con Party now, just compare deficits - 30b to 60b and counting. When you get that big, it has to be ideological.
The PC wanted power but had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation and so doesn't care as long as he can maintain power and achieve his ends.
We should all take that seriously.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff demands Harper apologize for criticism of CEO's take on raising taxes, Bill Curry and Tara Perkins, 12 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/td-chief-caught-in-deficit-crossfire/article1465325/ Tab 35
Hypocrite thy name is Harper
TD Bank CEO Ed Clark:
Apparently at the conference last week in Florida, Clark pointed out
"The Canadian population is extremely unhappy to see these deficits".
Also that at a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives,
". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done,"
Discussing a recent meeting with Harper under the guise of listening to what Canadian have to say in preparing their budget.
"He doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him"
So much for the highly touted consultations with Canadian.
Harper is not seeking any input from Opposition Parties, either.
So, just what is Harper basing the budget on - that just leaves Harper's right wing extremist ideology.
Harper may feel, and he is correct, that Canada's banks are the best in the world. But, obviously Canada's Banks do not feel Harper is the best PM or the Con's are the best government.
Harper has been going around saying how great the Canadian Banks are and trying to take credit for it on the International stage.
Is that Ironic or what!
Rather than taking what the Banks have to say seriously, i.e. the 'rational approach', Harper is viciously attacking 'the messenger' on a personal level, a-la-Colvin, et al.
These types of attacks are indicative of someone who knows they have no rational basis but refuses to admit it. We have seen this many times before with Harper and the Con's, of course. This attack was not intended to be for the benefit of all Canadians, but to rouse his core of die-hard supporters. The next level of 'alert' is mobilizing them with accusations of a 'coalition with socialists and separatists'.
Even the Conservative Party in England takes note of what Martin and the Liberals achieved in balancing the budget in the mid '90's that the Progressive Con's had straddled us with.
If anyone wants to know the difference between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Con Party now, just compare deficits - 30b to 60b and counting. When you get that big, it has to be ideological.
The PC wanted power but had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation and so doesn't care as long as he can maintain power and achieve his ends.
We should all take that seriously.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 February, 2010
- Hypocrite thy name is Harper
Submitted: 10:31am PST, 11 Feb'10 - The Toronto Star
Not Posted - you tell me
PM's office attacks top banker in deficit spat, `Bay St. banker' lashed after urging Ottawa cut deficit with higher taxes, Les Whittington & Susan Delacourt, 11 Feb.'10
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/763673--pm-s-office-attacks-top-banker-in-deficit-spat?bn=1#article Tab 15
(Even Shakespeare had something to say about the likes of Harper.)
"[ Harper ] doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him,"
So much for the highly touted consultations with Canadian. Harper is not seeking any input from Opposition Parties, either. So, just what is Harper basing the budget on - that just leaves Harper's right wing extremist ideology. God save Canada.
"lectured Canadians from sunny Florida on our need to pay higher taxes," - Wasn't it Harper that released the Financial Update from China - Hypocrite thy name is Harper
"This government will not entertain raising taxes on hard-working Canadians or cutting transfers to provinces."
Oh, yah ! just watch them. To reduce the deficit Harper and the Con's will severely slash funding to various programs. They will also increase charges to various services, etc., which in reality amount to 'hidden' tax increases. If anyone wants to get more details on right wing ideology behind Harper's economic strategy check out the following coven of extreme right wing ideologues:
Fraser Institute - Mike Harris and Preston Manning, A Canada Strong and Free, Date Published: April 1, 2005. Reductions in payments to the Provinces of one form or another will be implemented. Whether you call it a transfer payment or not, the result is the same. "That which we call a Con by any other name would smell as much".
'Fear of reprisals from the Harper government has made some people reluctant to take part in Liberal hearings on Parliament Hill these past few weeks, Ignatieff said Wednesday.
. . .
The Liberal leader hinted, however, that some people were afraid of possible damage to their business or livelihood.'
Yah gotta love that Harper (if you're a right wing extremist, anyway).
It is outrageous that there would be people in Canada that are afraid to speak their opinion due to reprisals from the Harper and the Con's government.
What an incredible abuse of power.
This isn't some totalitarian dictatorship, . . . is it? This isn't some totalitarian dictatorship, . . . is it? Am I missing something?
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Not Posted - you tell me
PM's office attacks top banker in deficit spat, `Bay St. banker' lashed after urging Ottawa cut deficit with higher taxes, Les Whittington & Susan Delacourt, 11 Feb.'10
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/763673--pm-s-office-attacks-top-banker-in-deficit-spat?bn=1#article Tab 15
(Even Shakespeare had something to say about the likes of Harper.)
"[ Harper ] doesn't listen, but you get to chat with him,"
So much for the highly touted consultations with Canadian. Harper is not seeking any input from Opposition Parties, either. So, just what is Harper basing the budget on - that just leaves Harper's right wing extremist ideology. God save Canada.
"lectured Canadians from sunny Florida on our need to pay higher taxes," - Wasn't it Harper that released the Financial Update from China - Hypocrite thy name is Harper
"This government will not entertain raising taxes on hard-working Canadians or cutting transfers to provinces."
Oh, yah ! just watch them. To reduce the deficit Harper and the Con's will severely slash funding to various programs. They will also increase charges to various services, etc., which in reality amount to 'hidden' tax increases. If anyone wants to get more details on right wing ideology behind Harper's economic strategy check out the following coven of extreme right wing ideologues:
Fraser Institute - Mike Harris and Preston Manning, A Canada Strong and Free, Date Published: April 1, 2005. Reductions in payments to the Provinces of one form or another will be implemented. Whether you call it a transfer payment or not, the result is the same. "That which we call a Con by any other name would smell as much".
'Fear of reprisals from the Harper government has made some people reluctant to take part in Liberal hearings on Parliament Hill these past few weeks, Ignatieff said Wednesday.
. . .
The Liberal leader hinted, however, that some people were afraid of possible damage to their business or livelihood.'
Yah gotta love that Harper (if you're a right wing extremist, anyway).
It is outrageous that there would be people in Canada that are afraid to speak their opinion due to reprisals from the Harper and the Con's government.
What an incredible abuse of power.
This isn't some totalitarian dictatorship, . . . is it? This isn't some totalitarian dictatorship, . . . is it? Am I missing something?
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 February, 2010
- Harper is Outed !!!
Posted, 2/10/2010 10:50:30 AM to The Globe and Mail
Tories' hard line on criticism of Israel
could spark backlash, MP says, Campbell Clark, 9 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hard-line-on-criticism-of-israel-could-spark-backlash-mp-says/article1460865/ Tab 28
Harper basing Canada's policies on his religious beliefs but doesn't have the honesty, or integrity, to come out and say it,
is that Ironical or What!
Am I reading this right (morally that is) - see Thomas Darcy McGee (Tab 20).
Can it possibly be true that Harper, and the Con's, run our country based on his personal, narrow, restrictive religious beliefs as opposed to what is in the best interest of all Canadians.
What about Separation of the State and Church.
We are a secular society and not a religious based totalitarianism like Iran.
This, of course, explains a lot about Harper the Con's and their policies. Harper has his personal agenda and Canada be damned (literally - at least for those that oppose him).
For example, and this is certainly not the only example, now I understand when Van Loan said that “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” in reply to report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass", reagdingHarper and teh Con's Tough on Crime agenda.
The authors of the Report, Graham Stewart and Prof Michael Jackson (Van Loans's 'Profesor'), were basing their Report on rational scientific methods, empirical data and pragmatic anaysis - i.e. rational thought. Van Loan's 'philosophy' is manifestly opposite, deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy. The revelation that Harper is basing Canada's policies on his personal, narrow, restrictive religious beliefs certainly goes a long way to explain this.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories' hard line on criticism of Israel
could spark backlash, MP says, Campbell Clark, 9 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hard-line-on-criticism-of-israel-could-spark-backlash-mp-says/article1460865/ Tab 28
Harper basing Canada's policies on his religious beliefs but doesn't have the honesty, or integrity, to come out and say it,
is that Ironical or What!
Am I reading this right (morally that is) - see Thomas Darcy McGee (Tab 20).
Can it possibly be true that Harper, and the Con's, run our country based on his personal, narrow, restrictive religious beliefs as opposed to what is in the best interest of all Canadians.
What about Separation of the State and Church.
We are a secular society and not a religious based totalitarianism like Iran.
This, of course, explains a lot about Harper the Con's and their policies. Harper has his personal agenda and Canada be damned (literally - at least for those that oppose him).
For example, and this is certainly not the only example, now I understand when Van Loan said that “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” in reply to report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass", reagdingHarper and teh Con's Tough on Crime agenda.
The authors of the Report, Graham Stewart and Prof Michael Jackson (Van Loans's 'Profesor'), were basing their Report on rational scientific methods, empirical data and pragmatic anaysis - i.e. rational thought. Van Loan's 'philosophy' is manifestly opposite, deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy. The revelation that Harper is basing Canada's policies on his personal, narrow, restrictive religious beliefs certainly goes a long way to explain this.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 February, 2010
- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Propaganda Machine
Posted to The Globe and Mail - 2/9/2010 12:48:07 PM
Tories' hard line on criticism of Israel
could spark backlash, MP says, Campbell Clark, 9 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hard-line-on-criticism-of-israel-could-spark-backlash-mp-says/article1460865/ Tab 19
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Jason Kenny saying that Canada had '“defunded organizations, most recently like Kairos, who are taking a leadership role” in boycott campaigns against Israel' is just one example.
The fact that they backtracked does not mean that what Kenny said was a 'slip-up'.
Allegations made by Harper and the Con's to a particular group then later spinning it away to Canadians as a whole are no accident. What's the point of have the greatest propaganda machine in recent history if you don't use it.
They are a deliberate and well thought out strategies to hide their true nature to Canadians but to show particular groups that they haven't lost their true right wing extremism.
For another example, look at the speech by Jim Prentice in Calgary recently where he slammed Quebec for its action on the Global Warming front. Also, there is the well know speech by Harper a while ago to the Party faithful, that was 'leaked'. These are no accidents.
The anti-semitism insinuations of the 10%'er against one of Canada most long standing and respected Parliamentarians, Irwin Cotler, resulting in Parliament's Speaker of the House of Commons ruling that it "constitutes interference with his ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and credibility" is, of course, another example.
After being chastised by the Speaker, did Harper and the Con's do the decent thing and apologies. No, they tried to say that what they said was true and the other Parties do it. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'.
Instead of bald accusations and defamations perhaps the Con's could approach the Canadian people with some honesty, openness and integrity for a change.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories' hard line on criticism of Israel
could spark backlash, MP says, Campbell Clark, 9 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hard-line-on-criticism-of-israel-could-spark-backlash-mp-says/article1460865/ Tab 19
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Jason Kenny saying that Canada had '“defunded organizations, most recently like Kairos, who are taking a leadership role” in boycott campaigns against Israel' is just one example.
The fact that they backtracked does not mean that what Kenny said was a 'slip-up'.
Allegations made by Harper and the Con's to a particular group then later spinning it away to Canadians as a whole are no accident. What's the point of have the greatest propaganda machine in recent history if you don't use it.
They are a deliberate and well thought out strategies to hide their true nature to Canadians but to show particular groups that they haven't lost their true right wing extremism.
For another example, look at the speech by Jim Prentice in Calgary recently where he slammed Quebec for its action on the Global Warming front. Also, there is the well know speech by Harper a while ago to the Party faithful, that was 'leaked'. These are no accidents.
The anti-semitism insinuations of the 10%'er against one of Canada most long standing and respected Parliamentarians, Irwin Cotler, resulting in Parliament's Speaker of the House of Commons ruling that it "constitutes interference with his ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and credibility" is, of course, another example.
After being chastised by the Speaker, did Harper and the Con's do the decent thing and apologies. No, they tried to say that what they said was true and the other Parties do it. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'.
Instead of bald accusations and defamations perhaps the Con's could approach the Canadian people with some honesty, openness and integrity for a change.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 February, 2010
- Harper - to Con or not to Con - Us Into an Election
Submitted: 02/08/10 at 12:02 pm - The Hill Times
Liberals not ready to defeat Tories in spring , Harris MacLeod, 8 Feb.'10
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/spring-02-08-2010
. . . seems to have left out the euphoric love-in effect for Harper and the Con's coming off the Winter Olympics. This factor should not be overlooked and by that time the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up may very well refer to 'bygone days'.
Another factor, which may work against an election is the current downward trend in Harper and the Con's in the Polls. However, it may very well be that the fading into the pages of history of the Afghan Scandal and the Olympics will cause an upturn, and it probably will.
But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.
So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.
7 Jan.'10
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Liberals not ready to defeat Tories in spring , Harris MacLeod, 8 Feb.'10
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/spring-02-08-2010
. . . seems to have left out the euphoric love-in effect for Harper and the Con's coming off the Winter Olympics. This factor should not be overlooked and by that time the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up may very well refer to 'bygone days'.
Another factor, which may work against an election is the current downward trend in Harper and the Con's in the Polls. However, it may very well be that the fading into the pages of history of the Afghan Scandal and the Olympics will cause an upturn, and it probably will.
But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.
So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.
Combine this with a perception that Ignatieff and the Liberals are weak (and if the Liberals don't think this is so, they just have to go out and talk to people) and Harper will, in the New Year, start changing his tune to "Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Canadians do want an election" and perhaps poison the budget to force an election - yah, like he's ever done that before.
7 Jan.'10
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 February, 2010
- Harper, How about Some Honesty
Submitted : 8:14am, PST, 7 Feb.'10, CBC
G7 Iqaluit meeting ends, CBC, 6 Feb.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/06/g7-iqaluit-finance-banks.htmlTab 42
How about some honesty from Flaherty, Harper and the Con's. Everyone knows that Harper and the Con's do everything for the political optics only and without regard to the best interest of Canada. This is no different.
"Flaherty has said that the robust Canadian banking system does not need the fixes proposed by other countries."
Thanks to the previous Liberal government and Jean Chrétien - funny that Flaherty didn't give credit where credit was due.
Another factor, as "A Child of the Canadian Shield" pointed out, Harper, Flaherty and the Con's simply did not have enough time to dismantle Federal Regulations of Banking and abdicate to the Provinces - so when they do this for things like taxes, transfer payments, child care, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and the environment, keep this in mind. But, just give them some more time!
Why no discussion on the real problems facing Western countries right now like potential defaulting on debt payments by Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and the risk these financial problems will cause runs on the markets like last year and a new one, increases interest rates due to increased cost of borrowing on the International markets.
There is a significant chance of a second wave to the recession, one that Canada will simply not be able to avoid. And, like the first one, Harper, Flaherty and the Con's will deny any problem and tout "steady as she goes" until forced to action by the Opposition.
The problem is that Harper and the Con's polices have stripped Canada of its defenses and left us totally exposed to this. A prime indicator is their current Con that "Canada will grow out of deficit" - i.e. Harper do nothing, wrap everything in hype, when it all collapses go back to Alberta.
The only things that is holding us together is our banking system, which fortunately they haven't yet destroyed.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
G7 Iqaluit meeting ends, CBC, 6 Feb.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/06/g7-iqaluit-finance-banks.htmlTab 42
How about some honesty from Flaherty, Harper and the Con's. Everyone knows that Harper and the Con's do everything for the political optics only and without regard to the best interest of Canada. This is no different.
"Flaherty has said that the robust Canadian banking system does not need the fixes proposed by other countries."
Thanks to the previous Liberal government and Jean Chrétien - funny that Flaherty didn't give credit where credit was due.
Another factor, as "A Child of the Canadian Shield" pointed out, Harper, Flaherty and the Con's simply did not have enough time to dismantle Federal Regulations of Banking and abdicate to the Provinces - so when they do this for things like taxes, transfer payments, child care, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and the environment, keep this in mind. But, just give them some more time!
Why no discussion on the real problems facing Western countries right now like potential defaulting on debt payments by Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and the risk these financial problems will cause runs on the markets like last year and a new one, increases interest rates due to increased cost of borrowing on the International markets.
There is a significant chance of a second wave to the recession, one that Canada will simply not be able to avoid. And, like the first one, Harper, Flaherty and the Con's will deny any problem and tout "steady as she goes" until forced to action by the Opposition.
The problem is that Harper and the Con's polices have stripped Canada of its defenses and left us totally exposed to this. A prime indicator is their current Con that "Canada will grow out of deficit" - i.e. Harper do nothing, wrap everything in hype, when it all collapses go back to Alberta.
The only things that is holding us together is our banking system, which fortunately they haven't yet destroyed.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper was allowed into China. Wow! That's great news
Posted: 2/7/2010 10:04:07 AM Globe and Mail
Prorogation a curve bender, not a game changer,
Bruce Anderson, 7 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bruce-anderson/prorogation-a-curve-bender-not-a-game-changer/article1458829/Tab 7
Harper's Prorogation is a serious assault on Canadian Democracy and demonstrates a deep seated contempt of Canadian Federalism. No amount of spin will render it into a harmless 'curve ball'.
In Proroguing Parliament Harper has also sent a deliberate messages to the Con core supporters that although Harper and the Con's pay lip service to moderation and the greater good of Canada "we are still the same old right wing extremist ideologues capable of ruthlessly attacking our 'enemy', building the Alberta 'firewall', dismantling Canada bit by bit, we just need a majority, so be patient".
"In recent months he's pursued our economic interests with successful visits to India, and China, and some dogged diplomacy with the United States resulted in a notable win on the Buy American policy file."
Harper was allowed into China. Wow! That's great news.
Anderson, you fail to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in Jan.'05 and it was Harper himself with his in-your-face, 'Insult Diplomacy' that caused the Chinese to drop it.(see: David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government" (ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)
Any Liberal PM would have achieved ten times as much as Harper in India and China, and in the past have.
One need only look at Harper's 'in-your-face' 'Insult Diplomacy' that delayed implementation of the Approved Destination Status by China for 4 years and compelled its President to publicly, while in the International spotlight, rebuke Harper.
As far as the Agreement just made with the US. Anderson you seem to be the only person, except the Con-Core that support Harper not matter what, that suggests it is a good deal for Canada. The general consensus is that Canada is by far the loser on that one, just like the softwood lumber Agreement.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
Prorogation a curve bender, not a game changer,
Bruce Anderson, 7 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bruce-anderson/prorogation-a-curve-bender-not-a-game-changer/article1458829/Tab 7
Harper's Prorogation is a serious assault on Canadian Democracy and demonstrates a deep seated contempt of Canadian Federalism. No amount of spin will render it into a harmless 'curve ball'.
In Proroguing Parliament Harper has also sent a deliberate messages to the Con core supporters that although Harper and the Con's pay lip service to moderation and the greater good of Canada "we are still the same old right wing extremist ideologues capable of ruthlessly attacking our 'enemy', building the Alberta 'firewall', dismantling Canada bit by bit, we just need a majority, so be patient".
"In recent months he's pursued our economic interests with successful visits to India, and China, and some dogged diplomacy with the United States resulted in a notable win on the Buy American policy file."
Harper was allowed into China. Wow! That's great news.
Anderson, you fail to point out that the Liberal government had obtained Approved Destination Status in Jan.'05 and it was Harper himself with his in-your-face, 'Insult Diplomacy' that caused the Chinese to drop it.(see: David Emerson on the Industry Canada Website, dated 21 Jan.'05, where he announced "Canada Granted Approved Destination Status by Chinese Government" (ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02331.html)
Any Liberal PM would have achieved ten times as much as Harper in India and China, and in the past have.
One need only look at Harper's 'in-your-face' 'Insult Diplomacy' that delayed implementation of the Approved Destination Status by China for 4 years and compelled its President to publicly, while in the International spotlight, rebuke Harper.
As far as the Agreement just made with the US. Anderson you seem to be the only person, except the Con-Core that support Harper not matter what, that suggests it is a good deal for Canada. The general consensus is that Canada is by far the loser on that one, just like the softwood lumber Agreement.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
06 February, 2010
- Harper and the Con's True Colours - Right Wing Extremists
Comments were closed:
Tory déjà vu: It's Quebec vs. Alberta, Hébert, 5 Feb.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/760875--hebert-tory-d-eacute-j-agrave-vu-it-s-quebec-vs-alberta#article
Jim Prentice in his Calgary speech was simply catering to the Con Core supporters. It has nothing to do with the truth or in the best interest of the country. It is simply Quebec bashing.
This is not the first time that Harper and the Con's have had one message to give to their core supporters in Alberta and another to everyone else in other regions.
In fact such things as introducing legislation last year to strip Political Parties of Federal subsidies is a prime example. Proroguing Parliament this time is another.
Everyone says what a great tactician Harper is. Yet they are quick to suggest that he made mistakes by taking these actions. On the contrary these actions are deliberate messages to the Con core supporters that although Harper and the Con's pay lip service to moderation and the greater good of Canada "we are still the same old right wing extremist ideologues capable of ruthlessly attacking our 'enemy', building the Alberta 'firewall', dismantling Canada bit by bit, we just need a majority, so be patient".
Some suggest that whenever Harper gets ahead of the Opposition in the Polls and closing in on majority territory he does something to shoot himself in the foot. This is no character flaw. It is a cold calculating step to demonstrate to the Con Core they are still the same old gang, knowing they will drop in the Polls, but also knowing that their support will not drop below around 33%, because of the Con Core, and knowing they are not going to loss power because the Opposition is divided.
Keep in mind that one of Harper and the Con's chief objectives is to tear Federalism asunder and abandon the legislative fields to the Provinces. This is especially true for the Environment where Harper is so afraid to take an real action he is paralyzed into doing nothing. In actuality Harper and the Con's are very happy to have Quebec do its own thing. It lets them off the hook.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tory déjà vu: It's Quebec vs. Alberta, Hébert, 5 Feb.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/760875--hebert-tory-d-eacute-j-agrave-vu-it-s-quebec-vs-alberta#article
Jim Prentice in his Calgary speech was simply catering to the Con Core supporters. It has nothing to do with the truth or in the best interest of the country. It is simply Quebec bashing.
This is not the first time that Harper and the Con's have had one message to give to their core supporters in Alberta and another to everyone else in other regions.
In fact such things as introducing legislation last year to strip Political Parties of Federal subsidies is a prime example. Proroguing Parliament this time is another.
Everyone says what a great tactician Harper is. Yet they are quick to suggest that he made mistakes by taking these actions. On the contrary these actions are deliberate messages to the Con core supporters that although Harper and the Con's pay lip service to moderation and the greater good of Canada "we are still the same old right wing extremist ideologues capable of ruthlessly attacking our 'enemy', building the Alberta 'firewall', dismantling Canada bit by bit, we just need a majority, so be patient".
Some suggest that whenever Harper gets ahead of the Opposition in the Polls and closing in on majority territory he does something to shoot himself in the foot. This is no character flaw. It is a cold calculating step to demonstrate to the Con Core they are still the same old gang, knowing they will drop in the Polls, but also knowing that their support will not drop below around 33%, because of the Con Core, and knowing they are not going to loss power because the Opposition is divided.
Keep in mind that one of Harper and the Con's chief objectives is to tear Federalism asunder and abandon the legislative fields to the Provinces. This is especially true for the Environment where Harper is so afraid to take an real action he is paralyzed into doing nothing. In actuality Harper and the Con's are very happy to have Quebec do its own thing. It lets them off the hook.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 February, 2010
- Con'd again by Harper
CBC
submitted: 5:32pm, PST, 5 Feb.'10
'Buy American' deal exempts Canadian firms, 'Too little, too late,' say Liberals,February 5, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/05/ott-buy-american-deal.html#socialcomments
"Because Mr. Obama cannot rely on Congress to pass legislation exempting Canada from Buy American provisions, the complicated deal will rely on the President using his executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American, by claiming supply chains are so integrated they cannot be separated." ( National Post, 28 Jan.'10)
This sounds a lot like GW Bush's treating oil as part of the American reserves.
Anyone get the idea that Harper has 'negotiated away' a significant part of Canadian sovereignty.
Also, the 'Agreement' seems on a par with the 'Agreement' Harper so loudly touted regarding the softwood lumber issue - exceedingly in favour of the Americans.
Everyone knows that Harper does everything for the political optics only and without regard to the best interest of Canada. These 'agreements' are no exception. Anyone can 'negotiate' a deal if they make it so one sided in favour of the other side. Harper is literally selling out Canadian sovereignty for his own self-serving interests.
Van Loan today went out of his way to avoid the question about whether this Agreement is too little too late for Canadians to benefit from the US Stimulus Package ending on 17 Feb.'10, and instead went into some vague and nebulous 'future benefits'.
One need only look at Harper's connections with the US, especially the Conservative elements, to see what he is doing - selling off Canada to the US, to the benefit of his US friends. Perhaps he wants to be Governor of Alberta when Canada falls apart and Alberta joins the US.
Everyone agrees that any benefit to Canadians out of work is something that must be considered.
But, for God's sake lets get someone in office that has not spent the major part of his public life dedicated to tearing asunder Canadian Federalism. We will then at least have a chance at a better deal.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Globe and Mail
posted: 2/6/2010 11:52:15 AM
Ottawa hails Buy American deal, Jane Taber, Friday, February 5
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/ottawa-hails-buy-american-deal/article1457313/
The Globe and Mail
posted: 2/5/2010 8:48:02 PM
'Too little, too late' on trade: Ignatieff,
Jane Taber, Friday, February 5, 2010 1:28 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/too-little-too-late-on-trade-ignatieff/article1457714/
CTV
Submitted: 11:33am,PST, 5 Feb.'10, but not posted???
U.S., Canada make it official on Buy American, CTV.ca News Staff, Feb. 5 2010 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100204/buy_american_100205/20100205?hub=Canada#commentSection
Toronto Star
We have secured access to U.S. market, PM says,Les Whittington, Friday, February 6
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/761540--we-have-secured-access-to-u-s-market-pm-says
submitted: 5:32pm, PST, 5 Feb.'10
'Buy American' deal exempts Canadian firms, 'Too little, too late,' say Liberals,February 5, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/05/ott-buy-american-deal.html#socialcomments
"Because Mr. Obama cannot rely on Congress to pass legislation exempting Canada from Buy American provisions, the complicated deal will rely on the President using his executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American, by claiming supply chains are so integrated they cannot be separated." ( National Post, 28 Jan.'10)
This sounds a lot like GW Bush's treating oil as part of the American reserves.
Anyone get the idea that Harper has 'negotiated away' a significant part of Canadian sovereignty.
Also, the 'Agreement' seems on a par with the 'Agreement' Harper so loudly touted regarding the softwood lumber issue - exceedingly in favour of the Americans.
Everyone knows that Harper does everything for the political optics only and without regard to the best interest of Canada. These 'agreements' are no exception. Anyone can 'negotiate' a deal if they make it so one sided in favour of the other side. Harper is literally selling out Canadian sovereignty for his own self-serving interests.
Van Loan today went out of his way to avoid the question about whether this Agreement is too little too late for Canadians to benefit from the US Stimulus Package ending on 17 Feb.'10, and instead went into some vague and nebulous 'future benefits'.
One need only look at Harper's connections with the US, especially the Conservative elements, to see what he is doing - selling off Canada to the US, to the benefit of his US friends. Perhaps he wants to be Governor of Alberta when Canada falls apart and Alberta joins the US.
Everyone agrees that any benefit to Canadians out of work is something that must be considered.
But, for God's sake lets get someone in office that has not spent the major part of his public life dedicated to tearing asunder Canadian Federalism. We will then at least have a chance at a better deal.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Globe and Mail
posted: 2/6/2010 11:52:15 AM
Ottawa hails Buy American deal, Jane Taber, Friday, February 5
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/ottawa-hails-buy-american-deal/article1457313/
The Globe and Mail
posted: 2/5/2010 8:48:02 PM
'Too little, too late' on trade: Ignatieff,
Jane Taber, Friday, February 5, 2010 1:28 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/too-little-too-late-on-trade-ignatieff/article1457714/
CTV
Submitted: 11:33am,PST, 5 Feb.'10, but not posted???
U.S., Canada make it official on Buy American, CTV.ca News Staff, Feb. 5 2010 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100204/buy_american_100205/20100205?hub=Canada#commentSection
Toronto Star
We have secured access to U.S. market, PM says,Les Whittington, Friday, February 6
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/761540--we-have-secured-access-to-u-s-market-pm-says
04 February, 2010
- Harper Is Not Above the Rule of Law
Posted: 2/4/2010 10:57:38 AM
Harper sets a trap for the opposition, Steven Chase, 4 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/harper-sets-a-trap-for-the-opposition/article1455530/ Tab 57
The damage to our Democracy has been done.
For Harper to suggest that all that need be done is tack on a couple extra weeks of sitting of Parliament is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians.
There is no guarantee that Harper will not do this, or some other such act of contempt, again next time he is being made accountable.
Harper and the Con's must clearly demonstrate that they are Accountable to the Will of Parliament.
Harper prorogued parliament in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. One of the intended effects was to dissolve the Committee investigating this issue. And, Harper is refusing to obey the Parliament Order-to-Produce demanding that the Administration hand over confidential records on the Afghan Detainee Transfers.
Harper has attacked and shown amazing contempt for our Democratic Way of Government, the Rule of Law, and he has ruthlessly abused the office of PM.
Harper has made it very clear that he feels he is above the Will of Parliament.
Calling an Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up; and, obeying the Parliamentary Order-to-Produce, are necessary; as well as, a mea culpa and conforming to any disciplinary measures as determined just by Parliament.
It is outrageous and an insult to all Canadians, even those core supporters of Harper that are the reason he is in a position to do this, that Parliament would have to pass legislation curtailing the Prime Minister and the government of the day from exercising its power arbitrarily.
Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien had large majorities, yet this contempt for Parliament was not an issue. We all must take a serious look and ask ourselves why. The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper sets a trap for the opposition, Steven Chase, 4 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/harper-sets-a-trap-for-the-opposition/article1455530/ Tab 57
The damage to our Democracy has been done.
For Harper to suggest that all that need be done is tack on a couple extra weeks of sitting of Parliament is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians.
There is no guarantee that Harper will not do this, or some other such act of contempt, again next time he is being made accountable.
Harper and the Con's must clearly demonstrate that they are Accountable to the Will of Parliament.
Harper prorogued parliament in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up. One of the intended effects was to dissolve the Committee investigating this issue. And, Harper is refusing to obey the Parliament Order-to-Produce demanding that the Administration hand over confidential records on the Afghan Detainee Transfers.
Harper has attacked and shown amazing contempt for our Democratic Way of Government, the Rule of Law, and he has ruthlessly abused the office of PM.
Harper has made it very clear that he feels he is above the Will of Parliament.
Calling an Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up; and, obeying the Parliamentary Order-to-Produce, are necessary; as well as, a mea culpa and conforming to any disciplinary measures as determined just by Parliament.
It is outrageous and an insult to all Canadians, even those core supporters of Harper that are the reason he is in a position to do this, that Parliament would have to pass legislation curtailing the Prime Minister and the government of the day from exercising its power arbitrarily.
Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien had large majorities, yet this contempt for Parliament was not an issue. We all must take a serious look and ask ourselves why. The previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart. Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)