- Harper's Right Wing Extremism Rears its Ugly Head, Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soudas's statements are right-wing extremist.

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper "I Get By With a Lot of Help From My … Die-Hard Core Supporters"

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Breaking News: My comment (see: "Confidence In Harper Hits Rock Bottom", 26 Oct.'10, below ) was pulled down from the Taber article

leaving only:

"Score: 4

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

I E-mailed them yesterday:

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

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

As yet I have not received a reply.


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

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

"When and why are comments removed?

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

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


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Simpson, Turn On Your Light, Let It Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine on Harper and His Con's

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

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

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

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

This is not a superficial, insignificant observation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Confidence In Harper Hits Rock Bottom

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

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

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

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


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

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

The most significant aspect of this poll is:"

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, Could You Explain Again Your Authority To Spend 16 Billion on 65 F-35's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that would be apropos.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- There are Lies, Damned Lies and Harper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- You Heard It Here First Folks, The New Harper Con to Pay For Health Care, and Everything Else - 'The Heritage Card'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything.

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper on Credibility Article by G&M - "Comments have been disabled"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Obama Doesn't Subscribe to the Harper Right-Wing Extremism? The Devil You say!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps, Obama

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

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

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

Now that would be a surprise . . . not!

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Vetting of Important Political Appointments Only In America, You Say . . . Pity!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very important issue.

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

PUBLIC, OPEN AND TRANSPARENT VETTING

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, a brief distortion in the continuum of true Canadian values? We can only Pray.

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

This ideology is extremist, and right wing,

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

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

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

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

It is manifest in Harper's statement:

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's Tragic (for Canada, that is) Flaw: either you're Right (ideologically) or your wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Pushing Harper and the Con's back to the fringe is a benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Siddiqui, Turn On Your Light, Let It Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine on Harper and His Con's

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper, I Know Canada and You, Sir, Are Not Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 10 Oct.'10, I posted:

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

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

Unfortunately I was mistaken.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, For Whom Truth Flows From the Spin of a Pen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Whose Rules Will be Respected, Those Founded in the Law or Those Founded in Harper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper: "I am the President"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- 'Harper Nation' Mindset Reveal Itself, Once Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: “politics stops at whose water’s edge???”

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

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

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

What Ignatieff actually said was:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Jean Charest is not a 'Liberal', Gordern Campbell is not a 'Liberal'

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

The caving of three provincial Grit fortresses
LAWRENCE MARTIN


Jean Charest is not a 'Liberal'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper, What Canadian Minds Need To Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper, I knew Canadian Democracy and You are Not Canadian Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html