Posted: 10:55 AM on March 31, 2011
Fantino’s Liberal rival defects, throws support behind Tories
DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:10PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fantinos-liberal-rival-defects-throws-support-behind-tories/article1963805/
I guess the good people of Vaughan know a Con when they see one.
The reason the Con's won the by-election in Vaughan last December was that 10,000 Liberal voters did not go out to vote, whereas the Con's got the same as the last general election.
The question that arose, of course, is why the so low a Liberal voter turn out.
In by-elections the candidate is much more front and centre than in a general election, federally.
When the Liberal candidate stated:
“After running up a record deficit – including a billion dollars wasted on the G8 and G20 – Stephen Harper has chosen tax breaks for large corporations, untendered stealth fighter jets, and new super-prisons. Those don’t sound like Vaughan’s priorities, The choice for Vaughan is clear. Let’s send Stephen Harper a message he can’t ignore: the people of Vaughan do not support his government,”
He was right (morally, that is) but perhaps the good people of Vaughan could read:
A sense of insincerity in him,
That he really does not embrace Liberal values,
That he really believes that Harper is 'right' (in a right-wing extremist sort of way)
in recklessly squandering our hard earned tax dollars on:
- $30 billion on the F-35s', thus burdening our children with even more crippling debt for a purpose the military says is "classified",
- $6 billion dollars a year to the wealthiest corporations where a very significant amount of the money flows outside Canada and so is taken out of our economy
- $10's of billions on more prisons.
- $1 billion plus on a G-8/20 meeting that achieved nothing but bring Toronto to its knees for weekend and trash the downtown (good thing Tony Clement had it moved form his riding)
with the vast majority of all the money flowing outside Canada and so
is taken out of our economy, taken out of health care, seniors care, child care, education
That Harper is right (in a right-wing extremist sort of way) in his anti-Democratic ways and his contempt of Parliament for which he and his government was impeached.
For Harper's, in the immortal words of Gilles Duceppe, "[Harper] lied this morning."
said Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11,
If I perceived the Liberal candidate were in reality a Con I would be very tempted to not vote as well.
Also,
Isn't he the one who said he was fired from his position as chair of the regional hospital board as political payback after the by-election
'This is a real kick in the teeth,' Tony Genco told the Star of his firing from the volunteer position early Monday. “It’s bizarre to me, but they’ve decided I’ve become a political liability. I feel humiliated.”
(Toronto Star, 15 Dec.'10)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 March, 2011
30 March, 2011
- What else is Harper Hiding
9:55 am, 30 Mar.'11 - I tried posting this to the NP but,since the start of the election I haven't been able to log on - go figure
I was finally able to post it: 3:09 PM on March 30, 2011
Ignatieff vows to re-examine fighter plane deal, Matthew Sherwood for National Post, Mar 29, 2011
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/29/ignatieff-vows-to-re-examine-fighter-plane-deal/
Submitted: 10:21am, PDT, 30 Mar.'11
F-35s cost more than $100M each: U.S. official
By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Mar 29, 2011 6:13 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 29, 2011 9:34 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html
Harper: The 65 F-35's are the 'Right' plane at the 'best' price
So, then what are Canada's military's statement of operations requirements?
Oh,
"The Department of National Defence says it is hiding a key F-35 document from the public because
that type of document is classified
. . .
Statement of Operational Requirements,. " (embassy mag, 02-23-2011)
I see,
Canadians are not allowed to know what the military's intentions are that they would require the best plane available, with the "eye-watering technology".
But, isn't the whole purposes of the military to serve the people of Canada. And their agenda that which the Canadian people determine is best for us.
The Canadian military serves Canadians, not Canadians serve the military.
If the military set their own agenda, doesn't that make use a military dictatorship and not a Democracy
Wait, Stephen Harper today explained why we need to spend the 30 billion on these 65 F-35's - to protect Canadian sovereignty.
So, we're back to the inane claim that we them to chase propeller drive Russian planes from flying in International airspace.
Harper also stated today that the costs of the F-35's are well within Harper's estimates.
"buying our planes at the bottom of that [cost] curve," (through Laurie Hawn, who was parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay before the election was called)
But, the estimates are coming out to be $110 - $150 million each and counting.
Not only this but Harper plans to purchase them at the beginning of the production - at the height of the costs. (cbc 29 Mar.'11)
Harper says it is between $70 - $75 million
Harper is lying when he says these things (and other areas as well, according to Duceppe) unless he is simply not telling the good people of Canada what he knows to be the true costs of the F-35's.
Which, according to the Contempt ruling of the house is true enough.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention:
Why is it the DND is saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
So, Harper is hiding what he knows to be the true cost of the F-35's and hiding that he has committed Canada to $9 billion to the DND
What else is Harper hiding and/or lying about.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
I was finally able to post it: 3:09 PM on March 30, 2011
Ignatieff vows to re-examine fighter plane deal, Matthew Sherwood for National Post, Mar 29, 2011
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/29/ignatieff-vows-to-re-examine-fighter-plane-deal/
Submitted: 10:21am, PDT, 30 Mar.'11
F-35s cost more than $100M each: U.S. official
By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Mar 29, 2011 6:13 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 29, 2011 9:34 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html
Harper: The 65 F-35's are the 'Right' plane at the 'best' price
So, then what are Canada's military's statement of operations requirements?
Oh,
"The Department of National Defence says it is hiding a key F-35 document from the public because
that type of document is classified
. . .
Statement of Operational Requirements,. " (embassy mag, 02-23-2011)
I see,
Canadians are not allowed to know what the military's intentions are that they would require the best plane available, with the "eye-watering technology".
But, isn't the whole purposes of the military to serve the people of Canada. And their agenda that which the Canadian people determine is best for us.
The Canadian military serves Canadians, not Canadians serve the military.
If the military set their own agenda, doesn't that make use a military dictatorship and not a Democracy
Wait, Stephen Harper today explained why we need to spend the 30 billion on these 65 F-35's - to protect Canadian sovereignty.
So, we're back to the inane claim that we them to chase propeller drive Russian planes from flying in International airspace.
Harper also stated today that the costs of the F-35's are well within Harper's estimates.
"buying our planes at the bottom of that [cost] curve," (through Laurie Hawn, who was parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay before the election was called)
But, the estimates are coming out to be $110 - $150 million each and counting.
Not only this but Harper plans to purchase them at the beginning of the production - at the height of the costs. (cbc 29 Mar.'11)
Harper says it is between $70 - $75 million
Harper is lying when he says these things (and other areas as well, according to Duceppe) unless he is simply not telling the good people of Canada what he knows to be the true costs of the F-35's.
Which, according to the Contempt ruling of the house is true enough.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention:
Why is it the DND is saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
So, Harper is hiding what he knows to be the true cost of the F-35's and hiding that he has committed Canada to $9 billion to the DND
What else is Harper hiding and/or lying about.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 March, 2011
- Yet another Harper Con on the People
Submitted: 7:24am, PDT, 29 Mar.'11 Winnipeg Free Press
Harper doesn't want to talk about contempt, prefers coalition chatter, Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press, Winnipeg Free Press, 03/28/2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/families-to-get-income-splitting-tax-cut-once-federal-budget-balanced-harper-118780604.html
Harper is also being very two-faced on the coalition issue.
"[Harper] lied this morning."
said Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11, discussing Harper current description of the events in '04
Tom Flanagan, who was working for Harper's at the time, explains that "Harper was exploring whether there was 'common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.'" (NP, 28 Mar.'11)
Not whether it was democratic or legitimate, but whether the opposition parties would support him on it.
Flanagan: “I actually don’t agree with [Harper] on that point." on whether a minority government can — in certain circumstances — be formed by a second-place party. (NP, 28 Mar.'11)
Harper letter to GG in '04:
"'We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise, this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.'"
Mike Duffy said on CTV on Oct. 5, 2004.
"'It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election,'”
Harper in '04
"I would not want the prime minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another general election, that's not the way our system works.".
Harper is also being very two-faced on the coalition issue.
If Harper has the right to govern simply because he has more seats than other parties, and nowhere near a majority of Canadians
And,
if Harper is so adverse to holding an election because as he claims it will disrupt the "fragile recovery" of our economy.
___
but, "Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach says he doesn't believe the economy is being put into jeopardy because a federal election is looming. " CTV, 25 Mar.'11
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20110325/stelmach-election-economy-110325/
"'I don't think an election campaign per se is negative for the economy,' Douglas Porter, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets said.
. . .
In fact, Statistics Canada's analysis of changes in employment in the wake of the October 2008 election campaign, suggests an election would create thousands of temporary jobs." Ottawa Citizen, 25 Mar.'11
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Budget+defeat+election+hurt+economy
+analysts/4500769/story.html
___
Then how is it that a vote of non-confidence by Parliament lead to an election.
In the words of Richard Nixon, I mean Stephen Harper "Let me be perfectly clear"
It is the party that has the confidence of Parliament that governs.
You'd think that Harper would take care to cooperate with the other parties and not be in so much contempt of Parliament in order to maintain the confidence of Parliament
But Harper is the master strategist - hummm
could it be that Harper in reality wants an election and manipulated things in order to try to shift the blame on the Opposition - in other words just one more con on the people.
The solution is that the Moderate Majority consolidate and send Harper back from whence he came, under whatever system of determining a government.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper doesn't want to talk about contempt, prefers coalition chatter, Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press, Winnipeg Free Press, 03/28/2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/families-to-get-income-splitting-tax-cut-once-federal-budget-balanced-harper-118780604.html
Harper is also being very two-faced on the coalition issue.
"[Harper] lied this morning."
said Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11, discussing Harper current description of the events in '04
Tom Flanagan, who was working for Harper's at the time, explains that "Harper was exploring whether there was 'common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.'" (NP, 28 Mar.'11)
Not whether it was democratic or legitimate, but whether the opposition parties would support him on it.
Flanagan: “I actually don’t agree with [Harper] on that point." on whether a minority government can — in certain circumstances — be formed by a second-place party. (NP, 28 Mar.'11)
Harper letter to GG in '04:
"'We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise, this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.'"
Mike Duffy said on CTV on Oct. 5, 2004.
"'It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election,'”
Harper in '04
"I would not want the prime minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another general election, that's not the way our system works.".
Harper is also being very two-faced on the coalition issue.
If Harper has the right to govern simply because he has more seats than other parties, and nowhere near a majority of Canadians
And,
if Harper is so adverse to holding an election because as he claims it will disrupt the "fragile recovery" of our economy.
___
but, "Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach says he doesn't believe the economy is being put into jeopardy because a federal election is looming. " CTV, 25 Mar.'11
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20110325/stelmach-election-economy-110325/
"'I don't think an election campaign per se is negative for the economy,' Douglas Porter, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets said.
. . .
In fact, Statistics Canada's analysis of changes in employment in the wake of the October 2008 election campaign, suggests an election would create thousands of temporary jobs." Ottawa Citizen, 25 Mar.'11
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Budget+defeat+election+hurt+economy
+analysts/4500769/story.html
___
Then how is it that a vote of non-confidence by Parliament lead to an election.
In the words of Richard Nixon, I mean Stephen Harper "Let me be perfectly clear"
It is the party that has the confidence of Parliament that governs.
You'd think that Harper would take care to cooperate with the other parties and not be in so much contempt of Parliament in order to maintain the confidence of Parliament
But Harper is the master strategist - hummm
could it be that Harper in reality wants an election and manipulated things in order to try to shift the blame on the Opposition - in other words just one more con on the people.
The solution is that the Moderate Majority consolidate and send Harper back from whence he came, under whatever system of determining a government.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 March, 2011
- The Bizarro World of Stephen Harper
Posted: 10:41 AM on March 28, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Tories to unveil deficit-contingent family tax cut
Bill Curry, Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update, March 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-to-unveil-deficit-contingent-family-tax-cut/article1959518/
or,
Yet another SH-iteration (SH=Stephen Harper, of course)
"'The Stephen Harper Family Tax Cut' . . .
The measure would not be implemented until after the deficit is erased – a feat that is not scheduled to happen until 2015-2016. "
Harper announcing a plank in the Con platform that would not take effect until 2016 ???
Am I reading that 'Right'
(morally that is - perhaps in some kind of Right-wing extremist sort of way this makes some kind of sense, albeit in an emotional, 'Rationality is Irrelevant', sort of way)
Is that bizarre or what.
Someone should remind Harper of his own Fixed Term Election Law
which apparently, like so many other Con Laws, applies to everyone in Canada but Harper and the Con's,
after all there is no need to bind Harper and the Con's to any law since
Harper "makes the rules" anyways
According to the law we must be another election before this program would take effect:
Here, Stevo let me do the math for you:
The way it works is:
2 May 2011 + 4 years = 2 May 2015
Somehow Harper keeps forgetting this little gem of a law. The last time was when he dissolved Parliament for the last election.
Of course, with Harper's contempt for everything Democratic in Canada he may force another election "sooner rather than later"
On the other hand, perhaps Harper feels, in his heart of hearts (??? . . . whatever) that, and "let me make myself perfectly clear", he and the Con's may not be in power then and feels this is so important to Canadians that he wants to introduce it now.
Here's a suggestion - save it for the next election Stevo, if you're still leader of the Con's at that time.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories to unveil deficit-contingent family tax cut
Bill Curry, Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update, March 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-to-unveil-deficit-contingent-family-tax-cut/article1959518/
or,
Yet another SH-iteration (SH=Stephen Harper, of course)
"'The Stephen Harper Family Tax Cut' . . .
The measure would not be implemented until after the deficit is erased – a feat that is not scheduled to happen until 2015-2016. "
Harper announcing a plank in the Con platform that would not take effect until 2016 ???
Am I reading that 'Right'
(morally that is - perhaps in some kind of Right-wing extremist sort of way this makes some kind of sense, albeit in an emotional, 'Rationality is Irrelevant', sort of way)
Is that bizarre or what.
Someone should remind Harper of his own Fixed Term Election Law
which apparently, like so many other Con Laws, applies to everyone in Canada but Harper and the Con's,
after all there is no need to bind Harper and the Con's to any law since
Harper "makes the rules" anyways
According to the law we must be another election before this program would take effect:
Here, Stevo let me do the math for you:
The way it works is:
2 May 2011 + 4 years = 2 May 2015
Somehow Harper keeps forgetting this little gem of a law. The last time was when he dissolved Parliament for the last election.
Of course, with Harper's contempt for everything Democratic in Canada he may force another election "sooner rather than later"
On the other hand, perhaps Harper feels, in his heart of hearts (??? . . . whatever) that, and "let me make myself perfectly clear", he and the Con's may not be in power then and feels this is so important to Canadians that he wants to introduce it now.
Here's a suggestion - save it for the next election Stevo, if you're still leader of the Con's at that time.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 March, 2011
- Stevo What About the Block of Right-Wing Extremist Separatists in Alberta
[Analysis
Why Michael Ignatieff had to rule out a coalition
John Ibbitson
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/comments/
]
see post below:
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog 12:59 PM on March 27, 2011:
Phil out west replied: 12:36 PM on March 27, 2011:
"The main reason Canadians are So loathe to run the country with a coalition is because the BLOC SEPARATISTS would have far to much INFLUENCE ON THE REST OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!"
(see: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog, 12:31 PM on March 27, 2011
"[Harper] lied this morning."
Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11
. . .)
___
Hi Phil out west
That's interesting.
I have no doubt that Harper is trying to dis-enfranchise a million Canadians simply because they are not likely to vote Con.
How about the Block of Right-Wing Extremist Separatists in Alberta that Sean Mattingly
12:35 PM on March 27, 2011 is posting about - see below
What are the chances that Harper will say they do not have right to express themselves politically simply because they are right-wing extremist separatists.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
__
Sean Mattingly wrote: 12:35 PM on March 27, 2011
Western Separatism on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37965515834
Do you want to fund a western separatist party? This is one of many sites which provide links to established organizations wanting to separate.
Do they have grass roots support? Indeed they do. A CTV survey from 2006 placed support for western separatism at 33% That was before the Layton led coalition which included extortion payments.
Again Layton's hate for Harper, lust for power outweighs his love for Canada.
More on the Canadian weasel can be found here:
http://sites.google.com/site/thegospelaccordingtosaintlefty/the-canadian-weasel
Why Michael Ignatieff had to rule out a coalition
John Ibbitson
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/comments/
]
see post below:
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog 12:59 PM on March 27, 2011:
Phil out west replied: 12:36 PM on March 27, 2011:
"The main reason Canadians are So loathe to run the country with a coalition is because the BLOC SEPARATISTS would have far to much INFLUENCE ON THE REST OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!"
(see: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog, 12:31 PM on March 27, 2011
"[Harper] lied this morning."
Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11
. . .)
___
Hi Phil out west
That's interesting.
I have no doubt that Harper is trying to dis-enfranchise a million Canadians simply because they are not likely to vote Con.
How about the Block of Right-Wing Extremist Separatists in Alberta that Sean Mattingly
12:35 PM on March 27, 2011 is posting about - see below
What are the chances that Harper will say they do not have right to express themselves politically simply because they are right-wing extremist separatists.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
__
Sean Mattingly wrote: 12:35 PM on March 27, 2011
Western Separatism on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37965515834
Do you want to fund a western separatist party? This is one of many sites which provide links to established organizations wanting to separate.
Do they have grass roots support? Indeed they do. A CTV survey from 2006 placed support for western separatism at 33% That was before the Layton led coalition which included extortion payments.
Again Layton's hate for Harper, lust for power outweighs his love for Canada.
More on the Canadian weasel can be found here:
http://sites.google.com/site/thegospelaccordingtosaintlefty/the-canadian-weasel
- SH-iteration on coalition spewing from the mouth of SH - The real Harper Message "Only the Con's can rule the Country"
Posted: 12:06 PM on March 27, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Duceppe accuses Harper of lying, Les Perreaux, Globe and Mail Update, Mar. 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duceppe-accuses-harper-of-lying/article1958049/comments/
"[Harper] lied this morning."
Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11
Harper is also being very two-faced on the coalition issue.
Harper is relying on the Canadian Democratic Principles to say he has the right to rule, even if he only gets the support of 1/3 the people, as long as he has more seats than other parties
But, at the same time and in the same breath, he is rejecting the same Canadian Principles to disenfranchise the 2/3rds of Canadians and say they can not get together to rule the country, even though they are the vast majority.
Either we have a Parliamentary system or we don't
If so, the the Party with the confidence of the Parliament forms the government
If not, then let Harper rule if he and the Con's gets 50% of the vote
Otherwise,
let Canada have a Democracy and let the majority of Canadians get together, in some form or another, and run the Country for which they are the majority.
The solution is that the Moderate Majority consolidate and send Harper back from whence he came, under whatever system of determining a government.
The basic issue is:
Harper will say anything to obtain and maintain power.
It's just that simple.
this explains this endless SH-iteration on coalition spewing from the mouth of Stephen Harper
Harper simply doesn't care that in '04 he was saying the exact opposite to what he is saying now about "losers forming the government"
It has nothing to do with how comfortable Canadians feel about a coalition
Harper is supported by 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what
The Con die-hard supporters simply don't care
The only thing that matters is power
What Harper's real message is
"only the Con's can form the government"
The strategy is, of course, that this 33% will pretty much ensure Harper gets more seats that the other parties
and,
hey, if some of this SH-iteration sticks they may Con enough of the other voters to get a majority - God save Canada
Canadian democracy means nothing to Harper, except a bit of an annoyance.
Harper is also playing on Canadians identifying themselves with the US system of direct presidential elections.
A Canadian election is not an US presidential election. But, as with so much else, in Canada we are inundated with US culture and politics that we perceive our system as the same.
It is not and does not have the checks and balances that the US system has built in - including separate, independent elections for Congress and House of Representatives.
In the US there are two parties and so no chance of a "minority" government.
Also, the elected representatives belong to the Party but are very much independent and look towards benefiting their constituents. How many times has the President had to count the number of Congressmen that support what he wants, even if his Party has a majority.
These checks and balance for one thing are directly aimed at addressing and keeping under control the power of the president so that he/she does not become an autocrat.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
see also:
Posted: 12:31 PM on March 27, 2011 Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/comments/
Analysis, Why Michael Ignatieff had to rule out a coalition
John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:02AM EDT
and
Posted: 1:12 PM on March 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-would-sow-instability-harper-warns-new-canadians/article1958491/
Conservative Campaign
Coalition would sow instability, Harper warns new Canadians
STEVEN CHASE
BRAMPTON, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
Mar. 27, 2011 11:52AM EDT
and
Submitted: 10:23am (PDT) 27 Mar.'11 CBC News
Harper takes majority pitch to GTA
Harper pressed on coalition position
CBC News Posted: Mar 27, 2011 1:38 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 27, 2011 11:57 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/26/cv-campaign-sunday.html
Duceppe accuses Harper of lying, Les Perreaux, Globe and Mail Update, Mar. 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duceppe-accuses-harper-of-lying/article1958049/comments/
"[Harper] lied this morning."
Duceppe, 26 Mar.'11
Harper is also being very two-faced on the coalition issue.
Harper is relying on the Canadian Democratic Principles to say he has the right to rule, even if he only gets the support of 1/3 the people, as long as he has more seats than other parties
But, at the same time and in the same breath, he is rejecting the same Canadian Principles to disenfranchise the 2/3rds of Canadians and say they can not get together to rule the country, even though they are the vast majority.
Either we have a Parliamentary system or we don't
If so, the the Party with the confidence of the Parliament forms the government
If not, then let Harper rule if he and the Con's gets 50% of the vote
Otherwise,
let Canada have a Democracy and let the majority of Canadians get together, in some form or another, and run the Country for which they are the majority.
The solution is that the Moderate Majority consolidate and send Harper back from whence he came, under whatever system of determining a government.
The basic issue is:
Harper will say anything to obtain and maintain power.
It's just that simple.
this explains this endless SH-iteration on coalition spewing from the mouth of Stephen Harper
Harper simply doesn't care that in '04 he was saying the exact opposite to what he is saying now about "losers forming the government"
It has nothing to do with how comfortable Canadians feel about a coalition
Harper is supported by 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what
The Con die-hard supporters simply don't care
The only thing that matters is power
What Harper's real message is
"only the Con's can form the government"
The strategy is, of course, that this 33% will pretty much ensure Harper gets more seats that the other parties
and,
hey, if some of this SH-iteration sticks they may Con enough of the other voters to get a majority - God save Canada
Canadian democracy means nothing to Harper, except a bit of an annoyance.
Harper is also playing on Canadians identifying themselves with the US system of direct presidential elections.
A Canadian election is not an US presidential election. But, as with so much else, in Canada we are inundated with US culture and politics that we perceive our system as the same.
It is not and does not have the checks and balances that the US system has built in - including separate, independent elections for Congress and House of Representatives.
In the US there are two parties and so no chance of a "minority" government.
Also, the elected representatives belong to the Party but are very much independent and look towards benefiting their constituents. How many times has the President had to count the number of Congressmen that support what he wants, even if his Party has a majority.
These checks and balance for one thing are directly aimed at addressing and keeping under control the power of the president so that he/she does not become an autocrat.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
see also:
Posted: 12:31 PM on March 27, 2011 Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/comments/
Analysis, Why Michael Ignatieff had to rule out a coalition
John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:02AM EDT
and
Posted: 1:12 PM on March 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-would-sow-instability-harper-warns-new-canadians/article1958491/
Conservative Campaign
Coalition would sow instability, Harper warns new Canadians
STEVEN CHASE
BRAMPTON, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
Mar. 27, 2011 11:52AM EDT
and
Submitted: 10:23am (PDT) 27 Mar.'11 CBC News
Harper takes majority pitch to GTA
Harper pressed on coalition position
CBC News Posted: Mar 27, 2011 1:38 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 27, 2011 11:57 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/26/cv-campaign-sunday.html
26 March, 2011
- Gilles Duceppe . . . called Prime Minister Stephen Harper a liar, accused his government of fraud and influence-peddling
Posted: 12:56 PM on March 26, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duceppe-says-harper-lying/article1958049/
Duceppe says Harper lying, Les Perreaux, Globe and Mail Update, Mar. 26, 2011
"Gilles Duceppe . . . called Prime Minister Stephen Harper a liar, accused his government of fraud and influence-peddling"
'Stephen Harper did everything to provoke an election,' Mr. Duceppe said, ridiculing the prime minister’s stance that the opposition parties have forced a vote Canadians do not want.
'The Conservative leader wants to impose his ideology without bounds,' he added, responding to Harper’s plea in Ottawa earlier in the day for a majority Conservative government.
(NP, 26 Mar.'11)
Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . "
__
[Harper] “Let me be perfectly clear: unless Canadians elect a stable national majority government, Michael Ignatieff will form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québécois,”
“Imagine a coalition of arch-centralists and Quebec sovereigntists trying to work together. The only thing they'll be able to agree on is to spend more money and to raise taxes to pay for it.”
__
Reminds me of Richard Nixon
The parallels between Harper and Nixon are scary
[see below: - Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . " - Déjà vu Nixon ]
Look for Harper looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duceppe-says-harper-lying/article1958049/
Duceppe says Harper lying, Les Perreaux, Globe and Mail Update, Mar. 26, 2011
"Gilles Duceppe . . . called Prime Minister Stephen Harper a liar, accused his government of fraud and influence-peddling"
'Stephen Harper did everything to provoke an election,' Mr. Duceppe said, ridiculing the prime minister’s stance that the opposition parties have forced a vote Canadians do not want.
'The Conservative leader wants to impose his ideology without bounds,' he added, responding to Harper’s plea in Ottawa earlier in the day for a majority Conservative government.
(NP, 26 Mar.'11)
Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . "
__
[Harper] “Let me be perfectly clear: unless Canadians elect a stable national majority government, Michael Ignatieff will form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québécois,”
“Imagine a coalition of arch-centralists and Quebec sovereigntists trying to work together. The only thing they'll be able to agree on is to spend more money and to raise taxes to pay for it.”
__
Reminds me of Richard Nixon
The parallels between Harper and Nixon are scary
[see below: - Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . " - Déjà vu Nixon ]
Look for Harper looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . " - Déjà vu Nixon
Posted: 12:10 PM on March 26, 2011
Liberal campaign, Ignatieff rules out coalition, Jane Taber, Mar. 26, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/
Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . "
That reminds me of Richard M. Nixon
The parallels between Harper and Nixon are scary, when you think about it
"but when the president does it that means that it is not illegal"
Richard Nixon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
It's scary how close that is to
Harper " I make the rules"
(cbc, August 26, 2010)
How about
[Nixon] "We disagree on that.
I did not commit, in my view, an impeachable offence. Now, the House has ruled overwhelmingly that I did. . . . "
(David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon broadcast in May 1977)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1
Sound just like Harper's denial of his government's Canadian brand of Impeachment
"And I pledge to you tonight, from this office, that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice and that such abuses are purged from our political processes in the years to come . . . "
Nixon's First Watergate Speech. (30 April 1973) - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
(there's a parallel there somewhere, the irony's certainly there)
The first use I could find of “Let me be perfectly clear . . . ":
"and I want to make this particularly clear, that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaigns, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent."
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncheckers.html)
Applicable - you judge
Oh and by the way, did I mention
“He lied this morning,” Duceppe said of Harper. “He should own up.”
(Montreal Gazette, 26 Mar.'11)
Look for Harper looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Liberal campaign, Ignatieff rules out coalition, Jane Taber, Mar. 26, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/
Harper: “Let me be perfectly clear . . . "
That reminds me of Richard M. Nixon
The parallels between Harper and Nixon are scary, when you think about it
"but when the president does it that means that it is not illegal"
Richard Nixon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
It's scary how close that is to
Harper " I make the rules"
(cbc, August 26, 2010)
How about
[Nixon] "We disagree on that.
I did not commit, in my view, an impeachable offence. Now, the House has ruled overwhelmingly that I did. . . . "
(David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon broadcast in May 1977)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1
Sound just like Harper's denial of his government's Canadian brand of Impeachment
"And I pledge to you tonight, from this office, that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice and that such abuses are purged from our political processes in the years to come . . . "
Nixon's First Watergate Speech. (30 April 1973) - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
(there's a parallel there somewhere, the irony's certainly there)
The first use I could find of “Let me be perfectly clear . . . ":
"and I want to make this particularly clear, that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaigns, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent."
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncheckers.html)
Applicable - you judge
Oh and by the way, did I mention
“He lied this morning,” Duceppe said of Harper. “He should own up.”
(Montreal Gazette, 26 Mar.'11)
Look for Harper looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 March, 2011
- Harper Government Contempt Report - Found Here
Posted: 11:44 AM on March 23, 2011
Committee finds Tories in contempt for stonewalling on crime-bill costs
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Published Monday, Mar. 21, 2011 12:38PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Mar. 21, 2011 8:18PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/committee-finds-tories-in-contempt-for-stonewalling-on-crime-bill-costs/article1949891/
If you click on the link for the Report
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403_PROC_Rpt28_PDF/403_PROC_Rpt28-e.pdf
You get the message:
"DOCUMENT NOT AVAILABLE DOCUMENT NON DISPONIBLE
The Parliament of Canada Web site is dynamic and changes to the way the material is organized are sometimes unavoidable. If you have linked to this document from another site, please try to access the document you are looking for by navigating from the home page www.parl.gc.ca."
However, The Contempt Report for the Harper government's failure "to fully provide documents as ordered by the House"
can be found at:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403_PROC_Rpt27_PDF/403_PROC_Rpt27-e.pdf
Generally, Committee Reports can be found at:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/committeebusiness/ReportsResponses.aspx?Cmte=PROC&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3
So, perhaps we will be able to find the Oda Report there in the next day or two - assuming Harper doesn't dissolve Parliament before that.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Committee finds Tories in contempt for stonewalling on crime-bill costs
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Published Monday, Mar. 21, 2011 12:38PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Mar. 21, 2011 8:18PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/committee-finds-tories-in-contempt-for-stonewalling-on-crime-bill-costs/article1949891/
If you click on the link for the Report
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403_PROC_Rpt28_PDF/403_PROC_Rpt28-e.pdf
You get the message:
"DOCUMENT NOT AVAILABLE DOCUMENT NON DISPONIBLE
The Parliament of Canada Web site is dynamic and changes to the way the material is organized are sometimes unavoidable. If you have linked to this document from another site, please try to access the document you are looking for by navigating from the home page www.parl.gc.ca."
However, The Contempt Report for the Harper government's failure "to fully provide documents as ordered by the House"
can be found at:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/PROC/Reports/RP5047570/403_PROC_Rpt27_PDF/403_PROC_Rpt27-e.pdf
Generally, Committee Reports can be found at:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/committeebusiness/ReportsResponses.aspx?Cmte=PROC&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3
So, perhaps we will be able to find the Oda Report there in the next day or two - assuming Harper doesn't dissolve Parliament before that.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 March, 2011
- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care . . . across our nation
Posted: 10:44 AM on March 22, 2011, Globe and Mail
Canadians don’t share Harper’s zest for fighter jets, debt reduction, poll shows, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, Mar. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-dont-share-harpers-zest-for-fighter-jets-debt-reduction-poll-shows/article1950801/
"And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . .
turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . .
across our nation"
take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics 'Woodstock'
(cicblog.com/comments.html,1 Sep.'10 )
For all those 68% of Canadians that do not think we should proceed with the purchase of F-35's consider what our Department of National Defence is saying:
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
Why are they saying this anyway,
It's not a done deal, is it?
What else is Harper hiding from us.
I'm surprised that Harper hasn't made some statement about the Libyan no fly zone is proof that we need the F-35's - à la Harper proclaiming 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.
For all those 29.9% that put Health Care as the number one priority keep in mind that the whole agreement with the Provinces, as well as equalization and social transfers payments, is coming up for renegotiation in '13 - '14.
If you think Harper is the one to represent our interests, think again - just look at Harper position in the past and that of the Con's - if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority public health care in Canada is as good as dead.
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (when you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking):
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."
Harper, National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."
oh, and by the way did I mention:
Harper: (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."
Back to the poll results:
"Even a majority (56 per cent) of voters who identified themselves as Conservative supporters oppose the acquisition. And three out of four undecided voters are opposed.
. . .
While 30 per cent of Canadians pick the Conservatives as the party they “trust the most in terms of economic policy,”
What happened to the core of 33% die-hard supporters - people who will support Harper pretty much no matter what
I guess they know a bad deal, when they decide to take an objective 'see' of it.
I would like to point out that the wording of the survey was:
"
the total cost could be as high as $30 billion"
and not, what this article seems to indicate:
"“now is not a good time” to proceed with the $16-billion purchase of the F-35 fighter aircraft"
There is a difference, John
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Canadians don’t share Harper’s zest for fighter jets, debt reduction, poll shows, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, Mar. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-dont-share-harpers-zest-for-fighter-jets-debt-reduction-poll-shows/article1950801/
"And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . .
turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . .
across our nation"
take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics 'Woodstock'
(cicblog.com/comments.html,1 Sep.'10 )
For all those 68% of Canadians that do not think we should proceed with the purchase of F-35's consider what our Department of National Defence is saying:
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
Why are they saying this anyway,
It's not a done deal, is it?
What else is Harper hiding from us.
I'm surprised that Harper hasn't made some statement about the Libyan no fly zone is proof that we need the F-35's - à la Harper proclaiming 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.
For all those 29.9% that put Health Care as the number one priority keep in mind that the whole agreement with the Provinces, as well as equalization and social transfers payments, is coming up for renegotiation in '13 - '14.
If you think Harper is the one to represent our interests, think again - just look at Harper position in the past and that of the Con's - if Harper and the Con's were to get a majority public health care in Canada is as good as dead.
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (when you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking):
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."
Harper, National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."
oh, and by the way did I mention:
Harper: (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."
Back to the poll results:
"Even a majority (56 per cent) of voters who identified themselves as Conservative supporters oppose the acquisition. And three out of four undecided voters are opposed.
. . .
While 30 per cent of Canadians pick the Conservatives as the party they “trust the most in terms of economic policy,”
What happened to the core of 33% die-hard supporters - people who will support Harper pretty much no matter what
I guess they know a bad deal, when they decide to take an objective 'see' of it.
I would like to point out that the wording of the survey was:
"
the total cost could be as high as $30 billion"
and not, what this article seems to indicate:
"“now is not a good time” to proceed with the $16-billion purchase of the F-35 fighter aircraft"
There is a difference, John
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 March, 2011
- Harper Take Heed, The Moral Right May Actually Be Moral
Posted: 11:29 AM on March 21, 2011 The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-draws-a-dual-bead-on-harpers-ethics-and-fiscal-acumen/article1949531/Ignatieff draws a dual bead on Harper’s ethics and fiscal acumen, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, March 21, 2011
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
These die-hards bias any poll since they will very likely answer and will answer in support of Harper, unless it is very repugnant for them.
So, it is not surprising to get results like:
- 37% believe that “electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues” is more important.
Which everyone knows is the Harper platform, which they are making extreme efforts to 'own'
- 28% of Canadians believe the Conservatives, if re-elected, would do the best job of “providing honest, open and trustworthy government.”
Opps, this suggests that there are die-hards that seems to be so repulsed morally as to not support Harper - wow, must be bad!
As the scandals pile up and become 'ripe' this may get more.
There are other indicators that the 'Moral Right', indeed, place morality highly in their politics and may be prepared to dump Harper and the Con's, if they cannot support him on a moral basis.
- When it comes to the party that can do the best job at “making sure our economic recovery continues,” '37% chose the Tories',
This just above the margin of error (3.1%) from 33% suggests that 1 - 3% non-die hards that think Harper can do the best job for the economy
Also, if the survey used "Tories" (either in the questions or accepted answers) for Con that in and of itself would be sufficient to invalidate the poll - but then Ipsos Reid wouldn't make that mistake, would it. It certainly throws into question the reporting.
- “keep taxes under control” 36% believe the Conservatives are best
Same comment as above
Also, There seems to be another plateau being hit here reminiscent of the results of the last election.
- 33% believe the Conservatives would do the best job at “spending taxpayers money wisely,”
Right on!
So, the only people who think Harper is spending out tax money wisely are the die-hards - that's just about 'Right'
This survey suggests
If the 'ballot' issue is economy, then these 33% die-hards are going to vote Harper
But we already knew this.
If, on the other hand, ' honest, open and trustworthy government' is the issue then Harper may ^not be able to count on the full 33%
This is interesting and if given enough time for some of these chickens to come home to roost in the voter conscious . . .
Of course, if the Moderate majority were to consolidate then Harper is pretty much done like a dinner anyway.
Oh, by the way, did I mention, the real significance of this poles is the undecideds - as have been the case for quite a while now.
As the number of undecideds (or no choice's) increases they are not likely to come from the die-hard Con supporters, if they are, which may be the case for “providing honest, open and trustworthy government”, then Harper is in real trouble.
So relatively speaking the die-hards have a greater impact on the decided's choice and thus the poll is more biased.
There appears to be a magic number above which the 'undecideds' going may be significant in an election. I wonder if the pollsters know it.
This poll not only allows for interpretation by assuming there are 33% die-hards Harper supporters that will support him pretty much no matter what (except moral issues), it supports it.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-draws-a-dual-bead-on-harpers-ethics-and-fiscal-acumen/article1949531/Ignatieff draws a dual bead on Harper’s ethics and fiscal acumen, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, March 21, 2011
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
These die-hards bias any poll since they will very likely answer and will answer in support of Harper, unless it is very repugnant for them.
So, it is not surprising to get results like:
- 37% believe that “electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues” is more important.
Which everyone knows is the Harper platform, which they are making extreme efforts to 'own'
- 28% of Canadians believe the Conservatives, if re-elected, would do the best job of “providing honest, open and trustworthy government.”
Opps, this suggests that there are die-hards that seems to be so repulsed morally as to not support Harper - wow, must be bad!
As the scandals pile up and become 'ripe' this may get more.
There are other indicators that the 'Moral Right', indeed, place morality highly in their politics and may be prepared to dump Harper and the Con's, if they cannot support him on a moral basis.
- When it comes to the party that can do the best job at “making sure our economic recovery continues,” '37% chose the Tories',
This just above the margin of error (3.1%) from 33% suggests that 1 - 3% non-die hards that think Harper can do the best job for the economy
Also, if the survey used "Tories" (either in the questions or accepted answers) for Con that in and of itself would be sufficient to invalidate the poll - but then Ipsos Reid wouldn't make that mistake, would it. It certainly throws into question the reporting.
- “keep taxes under control” 36% believe the Conservatives are best
Same comment as above
Also, There seems to be another plateau being hit here reminiscent of the results of the last election.
- 33% believe the Conservatives would do the best job at “spending taxpayers money wisely,”
Right on!
So, the only people who think Harper is spending out tax money wisely are the die-hards - that's just about 'Right'
This survey suggests
If the 'ballot' issue is economy, then these 33% die-hards are going to vote Harper
But we already knew this.
If, on the other hand, ' honest, open and trustworthy government' is the issue then Harper may ^not be able to count on the full 33%
This is interesting and if given enough time for some of these chickens to come home to roost in the voter conscious . . .
Of course, if the Moderate majority were to consolidate then Harper is pretty much done like a dinner anyway.
Oh, by the way, did I mention, the real significance of this poles is the undecideds - as have been the case for quite a while now.
As the number of undecideds (or no choice's) increases they are not likely to come from the die-hard Con supporters, if they are, which may be the case for “providing honest, open and trustworthy government”, then Harper is in real trouble.
So relatively speaking the die-hards have a greater impact on the decided's choice and thus the poll is more biased.
There appears to be a magic number above which the 'undecideds' going may be significant in an election. I wonder if the pollsters know it.
This poll not only allows for interpretation by assuming there are 33% die-hards Harper supporters that will support him pretty much no matter what (except moral issues), it supports it.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 March, 2011
- Excuse Me Mr. Harper, Have I Got This 'Right' Now: The Minster Was not The Confusee and ^not the Confusor.
Posted:1:22 PM on March 19, 2011
(see post below)
Reply to: johnnyblog 12:45 PM
by Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 Mar.'11: I posted:
One would expect a defendant being cross-examined while on trial for some criminal offence to be so 'sharp' in their answers
But, as a Minster of the Crown it is my submission that if there was more then Ms. Oda ought to have been forthcoming, whether asked to or not. It simply does not do for her to do otherwise. And certainly, in my opinion, she has a duty and obligation, as a Minister, to so explain.
By not so doing, and by the events that transpired afterward in the House of Commons and out, in particular, but not necessarily limited to this, John Baird answering her questions, one can only wonder what's going on
Baird did not do Oda any favours thereby
It only darkened the optics, along the lines of : 'if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why all the evasions'
Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion that Ms. Oda had a legitimate explanation but did not tell it because she was not asked it, is ^not, to me, a mitigating factor
Quite the opposite, it raises the specter, again to me, of an attempt to obscure thereby obstructing
If Minister Oda had further information or belief that might, reasonably, have thrown light on what happened, she ought to have been forthcoming. Not merely because it was, to me, her duty as a Minister, but because, as we saw what happened, otherwise it may cast doubt in some minds
It may be that Ms. Oda has an explanation, and I am reserving judgement on that account
But, by not volunteering it and by Baird answering for her in Parliament, I think she has brought this all upon herself, and it in and of itself might be construed as contempt for Parliament, deliberate? - you judge.
(see post below)
Reply to: johnnyblog 12:45 PM
by Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 Mar.'11: I posted:
One would expect a defendant being cross-examined while on trial for some criminal offence to be so 'sharp' in their answers
But, as a Minster of the Crown it is my submission that if there was more then Ms. Oda ought to have been forthcoming, whether asked to or not. It simply does not do for her to do otherwise. And certainly, in my opinion, she has a duty and obligation, as a Minister, to so explain.
By not so doing, and by the events that transpired afterward in the House of Commons and out, in particular, but not necessarily limited to this, John Baird answering her questions, one can only wonder what's going on
Baird did not do Oda any favours thereby
It only darkened the optics, along the lines of : 'if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why all the evasions'
Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion that Ms. Oda had a legitimate explanation but did not tell it because she was not asked it, is ^not, to me, a mitigating factor
Quite the opposite, it raises the specter, again to me, of an attempt to obscure thereby obstructing
If Minister Oda had further information or belief that might, reasonably, have thrown light on what happened, she ought to have been forthcoming. Not merely because it was, to me, her duty as a Minister, but because, as we saw what happened, otherwise it may cast doubt in some minds
It may be that Ms. Oda has an explanation, and I am reserving judgement on that account
But, by not volunteering it and by Baird answering for her in Parliament, I think she has brought this all upon herself, and it in and of itself might be construed as contempt for Parliament, deliberate? - you judge.
- Excuse Me Mr. Harper, Have I Got This 'Right' Now: The Minster Was not The Confusee and ^not the Confusor.
Posted: 12:26 PM on March 19, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Three hand-written 'nots' don’t make a right
From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Mar. 19, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/three-hand-written-nots-dont-make-a-right/article1948079/
Why it is the Con's are saying the issue is whether Oda was merely administratively confused and not in contempt of Parliament.
Confusion was the result of Oda's testimony and not the cause.
A reading of the Speaker's ruling shows that the confusion is to which of the Oda versions of events is true and whether Oda intentionally mislead, and not on whether there was confusion on her part as to the proper administrative procedure.
It is not a question of Oda getting her hand slapped for playing fast and loose with her "not's". It is a very serious allegation of deliberately misleading Parliament.
The Speaker concluded that he "is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case."
The "doubt", clearly, refers to the minister's assertion that she had no intention to mislead the House.
If Oda, in fact, knew who signed it and under the circumstances she is now claiming, she ought to have given this information in the first instance.
I am unable to see how that is a result of confusion by Oda
Either, it is true or it is not. If it is true, either she was forthcoming of that information or she was not
If she knew it but did not give it, how is that anything other than a deliberate and intentional act, one which clearly caused confusion and thwarted the purpose of the Committee
How is that simply administrative confusion
Knowing the information and not giving it could certainly, in and of itself, be viewed as contempt.
But, here we have: knowing it, not giving it, and, apparently, saying something that goes contrary to it and
perhaps, with the deliberate intention of misleading, and all perpetrated on Parliament -
hence the contempt allegation.
Of course,
As is always the case with apparently conflicting non-contemporaneous statements, which, if either, is reflective of the truth.
There is always the possibility that Oda's current explanation 'is ^not' and her original statement 'is not'
And, if Oda had ^not, in fact, known the circumstance surround how the "^Not" came about, then, her original statement may very well ^not be a contempt and her now statement not a contempt.
(I'm not confused, ^not).
However, that raises two issues:
- whether her current statements are in contempt
and,
- then how did the "^not" get there and who is realy responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5027930#T1540
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
(1545)
Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS Funding--Speaker's Ruling
[Table of Contents]
The Speaker:
". . .
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word 'not' in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word 'not', the minister addressed this matter by stating that the 'not' was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as 'unfortunate'. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this 'has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion'.
The Chair has faced a somewhat analogous situation before. In January 2002 the Minister of National Defence had made statements in the House regarding Afghan detainees that ultimately also caused confusion and led to a question of privilege being raised. In that case, two versions of events had been presented to the House. In that case, as in this one, the minister assured the House that there was no intention to mislead. At that time, in finding a prima facie case, I stated at page 8581 of the Debates of February 1, 2002, that I was 'prepared as I must be to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation'. I then went on to conclude that 'the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air'.
In keeping with this fairly recent precedent, and mindful of the ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome cited earlier, the Chair is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case. Accordingly, I will invite the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to move his motion in due course, but at the moment I will return to the hon. member for Kings—Hants to move his motion on the earlier case."
Three hand-written 'nots' don’t make a right
From Saturday's Globe and Mail, Mar. 19, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/three-hand-written-nots-dont-make-a-right/article1948079/
Why it is the Con's are saying the issue is whether Oda was merely administratively confused and not in contempt of Parliament.
Confusion was the result of Oda's testimony and not the cause.
A reading of the Speaker's ruling shows that the confusion is to which of the Oda versions of events is true and whether Oda intentionally mislead, and not on whether there was confusion on her part as to the proper administrative procedure.
It is not a question of Oda getting her hand slapped for playing fast and loose with her "not's". It is a very serious allegation of deliberately misleading Parliament.
The Speaker concluded that he "is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case."
The "doubt", clearly, refers to the minister's assertion that she had no intention to mislead the House.
If Oda, in fact, knew who signed it and under the circumstances she is now claiming, she ought to have given this information in the first instance.
I am unable to see how that is a result of confusion by Oda
Either, it is true or it is not. If it is true, either she was forthcoming of that information or she was not
If she knew it but did not give it, how is that anything other than a deliberate and intentional act, one which clearly caused confusion and thwarted the purpose of the Committee
How is that simply administrative confusion
Knowing the information and not giving it could certainly, in and of itself, be viewed as contempt.
But, here we have: knowing it, not giving it, and, apparently, saying something that goes contrary to it and
perhaps, with the deliberate intention of misleading, and all perpetrated on Parliament -
hence the contempt allegation.
Of course,
As is always the case with apparently conflicting non-contemporaneous statements, which, if either, is reflective of the truth.
There is always the possibility that Oda's current explanation 'is ^not' and her original statement 'is
And, if Oda had ^not, in fact, known the circumstance surround how the "^Not" came about, then, her original statement may very well ^not be a contempt and her now statement
(I'm
However, that raises two issues:
- whether her current statements are in contempt
and,
- then how did the "^not" get there and who is realy responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5027930#T1540
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
(1545)
Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS Funding--Speaker's Ruling
[Table of Contents]
The Speaker:
". . .
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word 'not' in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word 'not', the minister addressed this matter by stating that the 'not' was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as 'unfortunate'. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this 'has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion'.
The Chair has faced a somewhat analogous situation before. In January 2002 the Minister of National Defence had made statements in the House regarding Afghan detainees that ultimately also caused confusion and led to a question of privilege being raised. In that case, two versions of events had been presented to the House. In that case, as in this one, the minister assured the House that there was no intention to mislead. At that time, in finding a prima facie case, I stated at page 8581 of the Debates of February 1, 2002, that I was 'prepared as I must be to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation'. I then went on to conclude that 'the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air'.
In keeping with this fairly recent precedent, and mindful of the ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome cited earlier, the Chair is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case. Accordingly, I will invite the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to move his motion in due course, but at the moment I will return to the hon. member for Kings—Hants to move his motion on the earlier case."
18 March, 2011
- What Else Is Harper Hiding From Us - Inquiring Canadians Want To Know
Posted: 10:30am, :10-:35am, 10:43am, 10:50,11:07am, March 18th 2011
(The Toronto Sun should allow more character's per post)
Defence department says budget watchdog wrong on F-35 costs, David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief, Toronto Sun, March 17, 2011 8:06pm
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/17/17660836.html#/news/canada/2011/03/17/pf-17660836.html
It is Disingenuous of Harper to Withhold Information then Attack the PBO's Report on The F-35 Purchase
There are a few basic strategies here that Harper and the DND are employing.
- don't reveal the information, then when someone makes an estimate accuse them of "pulling numbers out of thin air"
If you are not going to release the information then how can it lie in your mouth to attack someone who makes an estimates.
If you don't like the estimate, simply solution is release all the information and let people do another estimate.
It is futile to make such recommendation and if the info were released the new estimates are probably more likely to be even higher, than lower.
- look for small things in the estimates, very vocally attack them and non-sequitur to 'therefore the whole report is faulty'.
To suggest that the Report is faulty because there is an alleged adding mistake (and it has not been pointed out here where this is) of $1 billion in a $29 billion estimate is disingenuous. Intrinsic in the word estimate is that the end result is not exact. To be off by $1 billion, whatever the source, is actually pretty good.
When one puts the PBO's Report in the context of the Auditor General's warning last October, as well as other analyses of the the F-35 purchase, the PBO's estimates are not out of wack, by any stretch.
"Fraser’s findings from her audit of the $11-billion helicopter deals couldn’t be more disturbing. She said DND officials held back crucial information about the likely escalation in the cost of 28 Cyclone and 15 Chinook choppers, which led to Treasury Board approving the purchases based on off-the-shelf cost estimates that were ridiculously optimistic.
And Fraser drew a rough parallel between the helicopter fiasco and the planned procurement, announced last June July, of 65 F-35 fighter jets for an estimated $9 billion, plus another perhaps $7 billion in maintenance costs. “I hope no one is assessing [the F-35 procurement] as low risk,” she said today."
(MacLean's, 26 Oct.'10)
and,
"Winslow Wheeler, the director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center For Defense
Information in Washington, D.C., releases written testimony he was asked to give to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on National Defence:
"'I can guarantee to you, however, that the unit cost Canada will pay for a complete, operational F-
35A will be well in excess of $70 million even taking into account whatever exclusion of American
costs to develop the aircraft your government may be able to negotiate.
the real question is what multiple of CAD$70 million will Canada have to pay? I
do not believe it unreasonable to expect a multiplication factor of two."
Cost of Operating the aircraft: ' . . . It would not be unreasonable to expect the flying hour costs to double.'"
(22 Jan.'11, Toronto Sun)
Oh, and by the way, did I mention:
Why is it the DND is saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
anyway, It's not a done deal, is it.
What else is Harper hiding from us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
(The Toronto Sun should allow more character's per post)
Defence department says budget watchdog wrong on F-35 costs, David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief, Toronto Sun, March 17, 2011 8:06pm
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/17/17660836.html#/news/canada/2011/03/17/pf-17660836.html
It is Disingenuous of Harper to Withhold Information then Attack the PBO's Report on The F-35 Purchase
There are a few basic strategies here that Harper and the DND are employing.
- don't reveal the information, then when someone makes an estimate accuse them of "pulling numbers out of thin air"
If you are not going to release the information then how can it lie in your mouth to attack someone who makes an estimates.
If you don't like the estimate, simply solution is release all the information and let people do another estimate.
It is futile to make such recommendation and if the info were released the new estimates are probably more likely to be even higher, than lower.
- look for small things in the estimates, very vocally attack them and non-sequitur to 'therefore the whole report is faulty'.
To suggest that the Report is faulty because there is an alleged adding mistake (and it has not been pointed out here where this is) of $1 billion in a $29 billion estimate is disingenuous. Intrinsic in the word estimate is that the end result is not exact. To be off by $1 billion, whatever the source, is actually pretty good.
When one puts the PBO's Report in the context of the Auditor General's warning last October, as well as other analyses of the the F-35 purchase, the PBO's estimates are not out of wack, by any stretch.
"Fraser’s findings from her audit of the $11-billion helicopter deals couldn’t be more disturbing. She said DND officials held back crucial information about the likely escalation in the cost of 28 Cyclone and 15 Chinook choppers, which led to Treasury Board approving the purchases based on off-the-shelf cost estimates that were ridiculously optimistic.
And Fraser drew a rough parallel between the helicopter fiasco and the planned procurement, announced last June July, of 65 F-35 fighter jets for an estimated $9 billion, plus another perhaps $7 billion in maintenance costs. “I hope no one is assessing [the F-35 procurement] as low risk,” she said today."
(MacLean's, 26 Oct.'10)
and,
"Winslow Wheeler, the director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center For Defense
Information in Washington, D.C., releases written testimony he was asked to give to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on National Defence:
"'I can guarantee to you, however, that the unit cost Canada will pay for a complete, operational F-
35A will be well in excess of $70 million even taking into account whatever exclusion of American
costs to develop the aircraft your government may be able to negotiate.
the real question is what multiple of CAD$70 million will Canada have to pay? I
do not believe it unreasonable to expect a multiplication factor of two."
Cost of Operating the aircraft: ' . . . It would not be unreasonable to expect the flying hour costs to double.'"
(22 Jan.'11, Toronto Sun)
Oh, and by the way, did I mention:
Why is it the DND is saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
anyway, It's not a done deal, is it.
What else is Harper hiding from us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 March, 2011
- Harper Government, Relate to This --'Impeachment'
Posted: 12:24 PM on March 17, 2011
Contempt battle sets stage for election, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Mar. 17, 2011http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/contempt-battle-sets-stage-for-election/article1944559/
Contempt of Parliament
Stages:
- allegations brought before the Speaker on Contempt of Parliament [statement of charges - Kings—Hants, 7 Feb.'11]
- Speaker find a prima facia case is made out for Contempt [vis.: indictment - 9 Mar.'11]
- Motion by Parliament to take it to Committee to determine if there was Contempt [vis.: trial]
- If so, it is brought back to Parliament to decide on how to proceed [vis.: sanctions, or 'punishment']
It is in reference to 'the government' but keep in mind:
- it is a person that commits the action or inaction and not an inanimate thing
- Harper de facto has complete control over what his Minister's and thereby their departments do or refrain form doing. It is very difficult to believe that this was all done without the direct and explicit approval and authorization of the PM given the seriousness of the allegations. However, when you consider the extreme and unprecedented control and Harper exerts over his Ministers and thereby their departments, it would be ludicrous to suggest that Harper did not approve and authorize this actions and inactions that are the basis of the Contempt allegations
It is Stephen Harper that is leading the government and so he is responsible. Also, Harper bring that responsibility home to wear it himself, personally, by demanding that it be referred to as the 'Harper' Government
- after all, it is the "Harper Government", is it ^not.
"Contempt of Parliament" - 'that which we call 'Impeachment' by any other name would smell as rotten'
The parallel to the Impeachment process in the US is in all essential aspects, pretty much exact - vis.:
"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office;
it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law.
An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Dumping 10's thousands of pages does not answer the Contempt that has already occurred, obviously.
In fact, if anything it might be viewed as an admission of transgression, given Harper's previous position on the matter
Also, it in and of itself, and the way it was done, could possibly be viewed as contemptuous by the Committee
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
9 Mar.'11 - Parliament - Hansard
[Speaker's Ruling]
" While the Chair finds this in and of itself unsettling, what is of greater concern is the absence of an explanation for the omissions. At the very least, based on the indisputable right of the committee to order these documents, this is required. Only then can the House determine whether the reasons given are sufficient or satisfactory. The need to provide reasons to the House is clear. On page 281 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, it states:
[Translation]
But is must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.
[English]
The Chair has reviewed the debates on this question, and while initially cabinet confidence was cited as a reason not to produce any of the documents, despite this, the government saw fit to partially comply with the committee order and a tabling of some material did eventually take place. Since then, no further reasons have been given as to why the balance of the documents should not or will not be tabled.
It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so. However, there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account.
For these reasons, the Chair finds that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege in this matter."
***
[Motion brought:]
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, given your finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to fully provide the documents as ordered by the House, the matter be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report back its findings and recommendations no later than March 21, 2011.
(1555)
. . .
Once again, accordingly, and given the finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to provide the documents as ordered by the House, we ask that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations back to the House no later than March 21, 2011.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5027930#T1540
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
***
7 Feb.'11 Motion by Kings—Hants [Scott Brison, Lib]
I am therefore prepared to move an appropriate motion if, Mr. Speaker, you find a prima facie question of contempt.
. . .
On November 17, 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion ordering the Government of Canada to provide the commitment with five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates from the 2010-11 fiscal year until the 2014-15 fiscal year, inclusive.
The November 17 motion also ordered the government to provide the committee with certain financial information pertaining to justice Bills C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10.
Among other things, the motion specifically requested:
detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing.
The motion established a deadline of seven calendar days, which ended on November 24, 2010.
. . .
On December 1, 2010, one full week after the deadline, the committee received a letter from the Department of Justice regarding projected costs of the justice bills. Again, I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:
The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.
http://www.brison.ca/newsshow.asp?int_id=80928
Brison rise on a question of privilege in relation to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Source : Hansard
House of Commons Debates
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, February 7th, 2011
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):
Contempt battle sets stage for election, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Mar. 17, 2011http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/contempt-battle-sets-stage-for-election/article1944559/
Contempt of Parliament
Stages:
- allegations brought before the Speaker on Contempt of Parliament [statement of charges - Kings—Hants, 7 Feb.'11]
- Speaker find a prima facia case is made out for Contempt [vis.: indictment - 9 Mar.'11]
- Motion by Parliament to take it to Committee to determine if there was Contempt [vis.: trial]
- If so, it is brought back to Parliament to decide on how to proceed [vis.: sanctions, or 'punishment']
It is in reference to 'the government' but keep in mind:
- it is a person that commits the action or inaction and not an inanimate thing
- Harper de facto has complete control over what his Minister's and thereby their departments do or refrain form doing. It is very difficult to believe that this was all done without the direct and explicit approval and authorization of the PM given the seriousness of the allegations. However, when you consider the extreme and unprecedented control and Harper exerts over his Ministers and thereby their departments, it would be ludicrous to suggest that Harper did not approve and authorize this actions and inactions that are the basis of the Contempt allegations
It is Stephen Harper that is leading the government and so he is responsible. Also, Harper bring that responsibility home to wear it himself, personally, by demanding that it be referred to as the 'Harper' Government
- after all, it is the "Harper Government", is it ^not.
"Contempt of Parliament" - 'that which we call 'Impeachment' by any other name would smell as rotten'
The parallel to the Impeachment process in the US is in all essential aspects, pretty much exact - vis.:
"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office;
it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law.
An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Dumping 10's thousands of pages does not answer the Contempt that has already occurred, obviously.
In fact, if anything it might be viewed as an admission of transgression, given Harper's previous position on the matter
Also, it in and of itself, and the way it was done, could possibly be viewed as contemptuous by the Committee
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
9 Mar.'11 - Parliament - Hansard
[Speaker's Ruling]
" While the Chair finds this in and of itself unsettling, what is of greater concern is the absence of an explanation for the omissions. At the very least, based on the indisputable right of the committee to order these documents, this is required. Only then can the House determine whether the reasons given are sufficient or satisfactory. The need to provide reasons to the House is clear. On page 281 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, it states:
[Translation]
But is must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.
[English]
The Chair has reviewed the debates on this question, and while initially cabinet confidence was cited as a reason not to produce any of the documents, despite this, the government saw fit to partially comply with the committee order and a tabling of some material did eventually take place. Since then, no further reasons have been given as to why the balance of the documents should not or will not be tabled.
It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so. However, there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account.
For these reasons, the Chair finds that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege in this matter."
***
[Motion brought:]
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, given your finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to fully provide the documents as ordered by the House, the matter be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report back its findings and recommendations no later than March 21, 2011.
(1555)
. . .
Once again, accordingly, and given the finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to provide the documents as ordered by the House, we ask that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations back to the House no later than March 21, 2011.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5027930#T1540
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
***
7 Feb.'11 Motion by Kings—Hants [Scott Brison, Lib]
I am therefore prepared to move an appropriate motion if, Mr. Speaker, you find a prima facie question of contempt.
. . .
On November 17, 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion ordering the Government of Canada to provide the commitment with five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates from the 2010-11 fiscal year until the 2014-15 fiscal year, inclusive.
The November 17 motion also ordered the government to provide the committee with certain financial information pertaining to justice Bills C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10.
Among other things, the motion specifically requested:
detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing.
The motion established a deadline of seven calendar days, which ended on November 24, 2010.
. . .
On December 1, 2010, one full week after the deadline, the committee received a letter from the Department of Justice regarding projected costs of the justice bills. Again, I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:
The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.
http://www.brison.ca/newsshow.asp?int_id=80928
Brison rise on a question of privilege in relation to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Source : Hansard
House of Commons Debates
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, February 7th, 2011
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):
16 March, 2011
- Harper into the Crass Attainment of Power - The Devil You say
Posted: 12:30 PM on March 16, 2011
[see prev post]
to DBSmith:
If by "Liberal" you mean a fervent believer in Canadian Democracy, the Charter of Rights, Human Rights, tolerant society, and a government for all the people and not just a small group.
Then, sir, I am "liberal"
I eagerly await your citation of the Federal Court Case you are referring to and the passage that contradicts my statement
Perhaps, you mean:
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada v. (Gerry) Callaghan (28 Feb.'11) A-63-10 (Federal Court of Appeal)
"(vi) Conclusion
[77] The Respondents’ interpretation of subsection 465(1) would weaken compliance with the limits set by Parliament on the amount of money that candidates may spend on their election and can recover by way of reimbursement from public funds. Abuses could well proliferate, and the statutory objective of promoting a healthy democracy through levelling the electoral playing field undermined."
or perhaps the citation at para 13, referring to the majority judgement in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, when Justice Bastarache said (at para. 62):
"First, the State can provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard.
. . . Second, the State can restrict the voices which dominate the political discourse so that others may be heard as well. . . . These provisions seek to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse. This in turn, enables voters to be better informed; no one voice is overwhelmed by another."
For "Respondents" it is submitted you can read "Harper and the Con's"
Reading the Federal Court cases doesn't sound like Harper is into Democracy much, more like the crass attainment of power
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
[see prev post]
to DBSmith:
If by "Liberal" you mean a fervent believer in Canadian Democracy, the Charter of Rights, Human Rights, tolerant society, and a government for all the people and not just a small group.
Then, sir, I am "liberal"
I eagerly await your citation of the Federal Court Case you are referring to and the passage that contradicts my statement
Perhaps, you mean:
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada v. (Gerry) Callaghan (28 Feb.'11) A-63-10 (Federal Court of Appeal)
"(vi) Conclusion
[77] The Respondents’ interpretation of subsection 465(1) would weaken compliance with the limits set by Parliament on the amount of money that candidates may spend on their election and can recover by way of reimbursement from public funds. Abuses could well proliferate, and the statutory objective of promoting a healthy democracy through levelling the electoral playing field undermined."
or perhaps the citation at para 13, referring to the majority judgement in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, when Justice Bastarache said (at para. 62):
"First, the State can provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard.
. . . Second, the State can restrict the voices which dominate the political discourse so that others may be heard as well. . . . These provisions seek to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse. This in turn, enables voters to be better informed; no one voice is overwhelmed by another."
For "Respondents" it is submitted you can read "Harper and the Con's"
Reading the Federal Court cases doesn't sound like Harper is into Democracy much, more like the crass attainment of power
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- There's something just not adding up right with Harper (morally as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way)
Posted: 10:59 AM on March 16, 2011 Globe and Mail
Harper links Japanese quake, opposition threat of snap election, Ian Bailey, Globe and Mail, 15 Mar.'11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-links-japanese-quake-opposition-threat-of-snap-election/article1943122/comments/
Harper's approach to the Canadian economy has always been:
let Harper stay at the helm until 2016, he will eliminate the deficit by doing nothing.
It has recently come into the open that
the Harper's strategy is to trash Democracy it only gets in the way of his plans
(Of course, Harper doesn't explain why we can't have someone else at the helm doing nothing and who is a supporter of Canadian Democracy - now that's not being very logical, Stevo).
Now the Harper is saying
we shouldn't have any election, it would be too disruptive (in reality the only thing it would be too disruptive of is Harper plans for Harper ^not Canada - for which we can all hope)
hmmmm, there seems to be an emerging pattern here.
Also, Harper himself brought in the 4 year election laws. Although we have seen he has very little respect for it.
Still there will have to be an election in '12, won't there, am I not reading it right (grammatically as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way).
And, in '12 Canada's economy, according to Harper, will still be very fragile.
So, why wouldn't it be just as disruptive next year for an election
There's something just not adding up right with Harper (morally as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way)
If Canada were hit with a disaster like the earthquake in Japan it may have an impact on the world economy. It would certainly have one on Canada's economy
But then that is always a risk not matter when an election is held and no reason to keep the likes of Harper and his Con government in power
Unless, of course, Harper's real concern is the Con party be hit with a political tsunami like the Mulroney government was hit in '93. Then I can see him not wanting an election.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper links Japanese quake, opposition threat of snap election, Ian Bailey, Globe and Mail, 15 Mar.'11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-links-japanese-quake-opposition-threat-of-snap-election/article1943122/comments/
Harper's approach to the Canadian economy has always been:
let Harper stay at the helm until 2016, he will eliminate the deficit by doing nothing.
It has recently come into the open that
the Harper's strategy is to trash Democracy it only gets in the way of his plans
(Of course, Harper doesn't explain why we can't have someone else at the helm doing nothing and who is a supporter of Canadian Democracy - now that's not being very logical, Stevo).
Now the Harper is saying
we shouldn't have any election, it would be too disruptive (in reality the only thing it would be too disruptive of is Harper plans for Harper ^not Canada - for which we can all hope)
hmmmm, there seems to be an emerging pattern here.
Also, Harper himself brought in the 4 year election laws. Although we have seen he has very little respect for it.
Still there will have to be an election in '12, won't there, am I not reading it right (grammatically as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way).
And, in '12 Canada's economy, according to Harper, will still be very fragile.
So, why wouldn't it be just as disruptive next year for an election
There's something just not adding up right with Harper (morally as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way)
If Canada were hit with a disaster like the earthquake in Japan it may have an impact on the world economy. It would certainly have one on Canada's economy
But then that is always a risk not matter when an election is held and no reason to keep the likes of Harper and his Con government in power
Unless, of course, Harper's real concern is the Con party be hit with a political tsunami like the Mulroney government was hit in '93. Then I can see him not wanting an election.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- The Harper Tsunami of Tax Dollars rushing out of Canada's coffers and out of Canada
Posted: 11:20 AM on March 16, 2011 Globe and Mail
Harper links Japanese quake, opposition threat of snap election, Ian Bailey, Globe and Mail, 15 Mar.'11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-links-japanese-quake-opposition-threat-of-snap-election/article1943122/comments/
The recovery in Canada is directly tied to the world recovery and it is the world economy that will determine what happens in Canada (hence the only logical basis for the Harper approach of doing nothing).
The concept that an election in Canada may have a negative impact on the world economy is, of course, ludicrous.
It is along the same lines as Canada must purchase the 65 F-35's to prevent Russian prop planes from coming within 100 miles of our territory.
One thing that would happen for sure if Harper were given the boot is
the Tsunami of Tax Dollars rushing out of Canada's coffers and out of Canada through the $6 billion a years tax reduction to the big, International companies, with ownership outside Canada, especially the Alberta oil sector; $30 billion, and still counting, to the US for the F-35's - that's right the money actually goes to the US, as well as the 10's of billions on getting Tough on Crime
Each dollar that flows out of Canada is a dollar lost to our economy. There may be some back-wash but then we're only getting 10 cents on the dollar.
Each dollar spend on the Harper Crime agenda is a dollar lost to right-wing extremist ideology that could actually help those in Canada that need help.
Boy for a trained economist Harper sure does understand - perhaps his right-wing extremist ideology is blinding him to the practicalities. But then, why should all Canadians suffer for Harper's unreasonings.
Spending the money inside Canada on things that can really do some good, like health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education
not only makes our nation stronger but gives us 100 cents on the dollar.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention:
Why is it the DND is saying ""Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft" anyway, It's not a done deal, is it.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
what else is Harper hiding from us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper links Japanese quake, opposition threat of snap election, Ian Bailey, Globe and Mail, 15 Mar.'11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-links-japanese-quake-opposition-threat-of-snap-election/article1943122/comments/
The recovery in Canada is directly tied to the world recovery and it is the world economy that will determine what happens in Canada (hence the only logical basis for the Harper approach of doing nothing).
The concept that an election in Canada may have a negative impact on the world economy is, of course, ludicrous.
It is along the same lines as Canada must purchase the 65 F-35's to prevent Russian prop planes from coming within 100 miles of our territory.
One thing that would happen for sure if Harper were given the boot is
the Tsunami of Tax Dollars rushing out of Canada's coffers and out of Canada through the $6 billion a years tax reduction to the big, International companies, with ownership outside Canada, especially the Alberta oil sector; $30 billion, and still counting, to the US for the F-35's - that's right the money actually goes to the US, as well as the 10's of billions on getting Tough on Crime
Each dollar that flows out of Canada is a dollar lost to our economy. There may be some back-wash but then we're only getting 10 cents on the dollar.
Each dollar spend on the Harper Crime agenda is a dollar lost to right-wing extremist ideology that could actually help those in Canada that need help.
Boy for a trained economist Harper sure does understand - perhaps his right-wing extremist ideology is blinding him to the practicalities. But then, why should all Canadians suffer for Harper's unreasonings.
Spending the money inside Canada on things that can really do some good, like health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education
not only makes our nation stronger but gives us 100 cents on the dollar.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention:
Why is it the DND is saying ""Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft" anyway, It's not a done deal, is it.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
what else is Harper hiding from us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 March, 2011
- "Having an informed dispassionate debate" - MacKay, Isn't That What Parliament Is For - So, Why All The Contempt
Submitted: 8:53, PDT, 15 Mar.'11 CBC News
F-35 price not firm, Hawn admits, However, Conservative MP says it won't change, Laura Payton, CBC News, 14 Mar.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/14/pol-hawn-f35s.html
. . . continued
I don't think anyone, who gives it any real thought, believes Peter MacKay or what he has to say when he kept insisting that Canada would get the 65 F-35's for the budgeted $9 billion
So, where does that leave the MacKay statements that Canada "needs" the F-35's
What do you think, no more than mere 'SH iterations'
What does the DND have to say on their Website:
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft
– effectively the minimum necessary to retain a critical mass of Canadian fighter capability – “…and associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs.”
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
Wait as second:
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft" - Excuse Me
Am I Reading this Right
Since when have we 'committed' $9 billion to the F-35's
This is outrageous.
What else has Harper, MacKay, Hawn and the other Con's been hiding
Also, if the costs are going to be significantly more than $9billion and Ottawa has committed only $9billion, then what. 'Ottawa' decides its just too gosh darn expensive and cancels the whole deal.
Now that would be rational, logical
"Having an informed dispassionate debate is what I think Canadians need, not some of the rhetorical flourish and wild accusations and some of the distorted facts about the aircraft from some" Peter Mackay
But how can we with Harper concealing the information needed to so conduct such debate.
And,
Isn't that what Parliaments for, and could still be, if Harper and his Con's didn't show such contempt for this most fundamental of Canadian democratic institutions, MacKay being one of the worst offenders
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
F-35 price not firm, Hawn admits, However, Conservative MP says it won't change, Laura Payton, CBC News, 14 Mar.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/14/pol-hawn-f35s.html
. . . continued
I don't think anyone, who gives it any real thought, believes Peter MacKay or what he has to say when he kept insisting that Canada would get the 65 F-35's for the budgeted $9 billion
So, where does that leave the MacKay statements that Canada "needs" the F-35's
What do you think, no more than mere 'SH iterations'
What does the DND have to say on their Website:
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft
– effectively the minimum necessary to retain a critical mass of Canadian fighter capability – “…and associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds and project operating costs.”
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
Wait as second:
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft" - Excuse Me
Am I Reading this Right
Since when have we 'committed' $9 billion to the F-35's
This is outrageous.
What else has Harper, MacKay, Hawn and the other Con's been hiding
Also, if the costs are going to be significantly more than $9billion and Ottawa has committed only $9billion, then what. 'Ottawa' decides its just too gosh darn expensive and cancels the whole deal.
Now that would be rational, logical
"Having an informed dispassionate debate is what I think Canadians need, not some of the rhetorical flourish and wild accusations and some of the distorted facts about the aircraft from some" Peter Mackay
But how can we with Harper concealing the information needed to so conduct such debate.
And,
Isn't that what Parliaments for, and could still be, if Harper and his Con's didn't show such contempt for this most fundamental of Canadian democratic institutions, MacKay being one of the worst offenders
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
-The Con's Should get Their SH iterations Right
Submitted: 8:32, PDT, 15 Mar.'11 CBC News
F-35 price not firm, Hawn admits, However, Conservative MP says it won't change, Laura Payton, CBC News, 14 Mar.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/14/pol-hawn-f35s.html
"F-35 price not firm, Hawn admits"
Hummm . . . That's interesting
Wasn't it Peter MacKay, Harper Minister, that stated just a very short while ago, and has been say for many months:
"The F35 is the right aircraft for Canada's air force and its costs are firm"
( Niagara Falls Review, 25 Feb.'11)
Then there's the MacKay statements (G&M, 5 Nov.'10)
“What our department officials are telling us – who are in direct contact with Lockheed – is that [increases in development costs] will not affect the Canadian costs nor will it affect delivery time,” the minister said in an interview
and, “We are being told that the conventional aircraft is on time and on budget.”
But how does all this square with what Hawn is saying
Also,
Hawn: "Page should have spoken with Lockheed Martin, the company making the jet, but didn't"
But, MacKay said that Lockheed Martin has been telling him that the US budget over-runs will not affect Canada
Something's not Right here - morally that is, as far as Harper is concerned it is pretty much par for the course
Perhaps Hawn should have talked to Lockheed Martin and Peter MacKay and get his SH iterations Right.
Perhaps, MacKay 'fall-back position' is that what he said is not in Hansard and so he didn't say it
Maybe Hawn is the vanguard of Harper finally acknowledging the Supremacy of Parliament and trying to climb out from under the Contempt charges
Perhaps, but grudgingly
Harper, Hawn, MacKay and the Con's are still giving us the snow job - by saying there are millions of pages of relating to costs. Isn't that what the Harper gang said when he was found in contempt of Parliament regarding the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal - when's that coming back, anyway
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
F-35 price not firm, Hawn admits, However, Conservative MP says it won't change, Laura Payton, CBC News, 14 Mar.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/14/pol-hawn-f35s.html
"F-35 price not firm, Hawn admits"
Hummm . . . That's interesting
Wasn't it Peter MacKay, Harper Minister, that stated just a very short while ago, and has been say for many months:
"The F35 is the right aircraft for Canada's air force and its costs are firm"
( Niagara Falls Review, 25 Feb.'11)
Then there's the MacKay statements (G&M, 5 Nov.'10)
“What our department officials are telling us – who are in direct contact with Lockheed – is that [increases in development costs] will not affect the Canadian costs nor will it affect delivery time,” the minister said in an interview
and, “We are being told that the conventional aircraft is on time and on budget.”
But how does all this square with what Hawn is saying
Also,
Hawn: "Page should have spoken with Lockheed Martin, the company making the jet, but didn't"
But, MacKay said that Lockheed Martin has been telling him that the US budget over-runs will not affect Canada
Something's not Right here - morally that is, as far as Harper is concerned it is pretty much par for the course
Perhaps Hawn should have talked to Lockheed Martin and Peter MacKay and get his SH iterations Right.
Perhaps, MacKay 'fall-back position' is that what he said is not in Hansard and so he didn't say it
Maybe Hawn is the vanguard of Harper finally acknowledging the Supremacy of Parliament and trying to climb out from under the Contempt charges
Perhaps, but grudgingly
Harper, Hawn, MacKay and the Con's are still giving us the snow job - by saying there are millions of pages of relating to costs. Isn't that what the Harper gang said when he was found in contempt of Parliament regarding the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal - when's that coming back, anyway
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 March, 2011
- "Harper, Prince of Darkness" a True Canadian Tragedy
Posted: 10:13 AM & 10:29 AM on March 14, 2011 The Globe and Mail
March madness on the Hill points to early May election, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, March 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/march-madness-on-the-hill-points-to-early-may-election/article1940542/
Shakespeare couldn't have written a better play.
"Impeachment" - 'that which we call 'Contempt of Parliament' by any other name would smell as rotten';
In the US the Speaker's ruling would be called an "Impeachment" - vis.:
United States
"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
Generally,
"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity and the outcome of which, depending on the country, can lead to the removal of that official from office or other punishment."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment)
Perhaps if we call it that Harper will understand what we are dealing with here and the gravity of the whole matter - sometimes it's just easier to put things in terms the person can relate to.
The 'win-lose' game Harper is referring to is 'Autocracy v. Democracy'.
So, if Harper "wins", who is it that 'loses' - Canada and all Canadians.
For the Harper Minister to say that these very serious contempt charges are nothing but a distraction, is beyond believe.
But it is very revealing of the Harper's attitude. He just doesn't care about Democracy, Canada as a nation, or Canadian Democratic traditions.
Mulroney rolled the dice with the inalienable rights and freedoms of Canadians
Now Harper is playing a 'zero-sum' game with our Democracy which ultimately impinges on our rights and freedoms
The balance of power in Canadian Democracy is based on the assumption that the person leading, the PM, has the best interest of the country at heart. They simply did not abuse power since that would damage Canadian democracy.
This has been the case up until Harper took over.
Harper is a right-wing extremist, as has been and always will. In fact he is the leader. One need only take a look at his background. Listen to what he has said, read what he has written to see this plain fact and to know what he stands for and what his objectives are.
Harper is supported by 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what.
Harper's loyalty is to them, not to Canadians and a whole, not to Canada as a nation and not to Canadian Democracy.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
March madness on the Hill points to early May election, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, March 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/march-madness-on-the-hill-points-to-early-may-election/article1940542/
Shakespeare couldn't have written a better play.
"Impeachment" - 'that which we call 'Contempt of Parliament' by any other name would smell as rotten';
In the US the Speaker's ruling would be called an "Impeachment" - vis.:
United States
"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
Generally,
"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity and the outcome of which, depending on the country, can lead to the removal of that official from office or other punishment."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment)
Perhaps if we call it that Harper will understand what we are dealing with here and the gravity of the whole matter - sometimes it's just easier to put things in terms the person can relate to.
The 'win-lose' game Harper is referring to is 'Autocracy v. Democracy'.
So, if Harper "wins", who is it that 'loses' - Canada and all Canadians.
For the Harper Minister to say that these very serious contempt charges are nothing but a distraction, is beyond believe.
But it is very revealing of the Harper's attitude. He just doesn't care about Democracy, Canada as a nation, or Canadian Democratic traditions.
Mulroney rolled the dice with the inalienable rights and freedoms of Canadians
Now Harper is playing a 'zero-sum' game with our Democracy which ultimately impinges on our rights and freedoms
The balance of power in Canadian Democracy is based on the assumption that the person leading, the PM, has the best interest of the country at heart. They simply did not abuse power since that would damage Canadian democracy.
This has been the case up until Harper took over.
Harper is a right-wing extremist, as has been and always will. In fact he is the leader. One need only take a look at his background. Listen to what he has said, read what he has written to see this plain fact and to know what he stands for and what his objectives are.
Harper is supported by 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what.
Harper's loyalty is to them, not to Canadians and a whole, not to Canada as a nation and not to Canadian Democracy.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 March, 2011
- Harper - Tory??? If Harper Were Truly Tory, He Would Resign
Posted: 1:12 PM on March 13, 2011 The Globe and Mail
The Tell, Chris Alexander’s new battlefield, Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, Mar. 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chris-alexanders-new-battlefield/article1939590/singlepage/#articlecontent
If Chris Alexander is into nation building, how about waiting until after Harper is through with 'us, Canada as a nation', help pick up the pieces and re-build Canada up to the great nation handed down to us by our forefathers, through their blood, sweat & tears.
If Alexander thinks that the Con's are the same as the PC of old, then he has simply been outside Canada focused on other countries' affairs far too long.
Perhaps he should sit down with Joe Clarke for a while, who dedicated a considerable amount of his life fighting to maintain the great PC tradition against the onslaught of Manning, Harper and the extreme right movement out of Alberta.
The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Progressive Conservative Party. As they say there is nothing Progressive about Stephen Harper.
The Tories have a long and proud history of contributing to build this great nation of ours. They may be right of centre but underlying there policies has always been the good of the country as a whole.
The Conservative Party of Canada does not have a long and proud history and what history they do have is not anything of which I would expect someone would be proud.
We all know how the Con party was formed and by what deceit, betrayal and treachery (sounds like Harper)
[see Wikipedia:
Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)
On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance.
"In December 2003, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties voted to disband and merge into the Conservative Party of Canada." (Wikipedia)]
That is not a name change or any kind of attempt to continue the long and proud tradition of the PC party.
The Con's are not the Tories. It is not a question of 'old-style' v. 'new-style'. They are very different beasts. Although the Con's I am sure are quite pleased and make very little effort to dispel the confusion - Con's are con's, of course they'll say their Tory, they say a lot of other things that just don't square.
Quite simply, Harper is a right-wing, extremist, always has been and always will.
Harper is supported by a core of die-hard, right wing extremists (33%) with epi-centre Alberta, that will support him pretty much no matter what as long as Harper gives them what they want - and a review of Harper's background will give you a pretty clear picture of just exactly what that is.
These right-wing extremists keep Harper in power and will continue to do so as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate.
However, it is us, all Canadians, that must take responsibility. It is our country, not Harper's and not a small group of right-wing extremists.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Tell, Chris Alexander’s new battlefield, Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, Mar. 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chris-alexanders-new-battlefield/article1939590/singlepage/#articlecontent
If Chris Alexander is into nation building, how about waiting until after Harper is through with 'us, Canada as a nation', help pick up the pieces and re-build Canada up to the great nation handed down to us by our forefathers, through their blood, sweat & tears.
If Alexander thinks that the Con's are the same as the PC of old, then he has simply been outside Canada focused on other countries' affairs far too long.
Perhaps he should sit down with Joe Clarke for a while, who dedicated a considerable amount of his life fighting to maintain the great PC tradition against the onslaught of Manning, Harper and the extreme right movement out of Alberta.
The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Progressive Conservative Party. As they say there is nothing Progressive about Stephen Harper.
The Tories have a long and proud history of contributing to build this great nation of ours. They may be right of centre but underlying there policies has always been the good of the country as a whole.
The Conservative Party of Canada does not have a long and proud history and what history they do have is not anything of which I would expect someone would be proud.
We all know how the Con party was formed and by what deceit, betrayal and treachery (sounds like Harper)
[see Wikipedia:
Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)
On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance.
"In December 2003, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties voted to disband and merge into the Conservative Party of Canada." (Wikipedia)]
That is not a name change or any kind of attempt to continue the long and proud tradition of the PC party.
The Con's are not the Tories. It is not a question of 'old-style' v. 'new-style'. They are very different beasts. Although the Con's I am sure are quite pleased and make very little effort to dispel the confusion - Con's are con's, of course they'll say their Tory, they say a lot of other things that just don't square.
Quite simply, Harper is a right-wing, extremist, always has been and always will.
Harper is supported by a core of die-hard, right wing extremists (33%) with epi-centre Alberta, that will support him pretty much no matter what as long as Harper gives them what they want - and a review of Harper's background will give you a pretty clear picture of just exactly what that is.
These right-wing extremists keep Harper in power and will continue to do so as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate.
However, it is us, all Canadians, that must take responsibility. It is our country, not Harper's and not a small group of right-wing extremists.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- A True Harper Con? - Then Try This On For Size
Posted: 12:52 PM on March 13, 2011 The Globe and Mail
The Tell, Chris Alexander’s new battlefield, Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, Mar. 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chris-alexanders-new-battlefield/article1939590/singlepage/#articlecontent
Mr. Alexander will have to wear the UN's rejection of Harper by not voting Canada on the Security counsel
He will also have to wear all the other Harper right-wing extremist, my-way-or-the-highway, if they don't like you throw a billion dollar party for them (at our expense) approach to diplomacy and International affairs
And, the $30 billion (and still counting) on purchasing 65 F35's for only God, and Harper, knows why Canada 'needs' them.
Then there's the $10's of billions (oh, I forgot we can't say $10's of billions since we haven't been given the information)
Oh, I almost forgot, what about the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal, that's coming again some time, isn't it
Alexander will certainly have to wear that
hummm, now that is interesting,
I wonder if this is just one of those simple ironies of life or there is some greater, yet to be revealed, significance
Given the Harper contempt of Canadian Democracy in withholding the documents, and given his own close connection to Afghanistan and its struggles, and his sympathies towards them, one can only wonder how Alexander can choose to run Con
These all appear to be diametrically opposed to Alexander's political, ideological and moral compass, which seems more aligned with Lester Pearson and Michael Ignatieff
On the other hand,
Perhaps Alexander has chosen to be a Con because he thinks they will win the next election and it will hurtle him into a Ministerial position
Thus, throwing principle and the good of Canada, as a nation, and all Canadians, aside for the sole purpose of attaining power, Canadians be dam[redacted]ed
Perhaps Alexander really is a bird-of-a-feather with Harper and the Con's
then all the above scandals will look good on him
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Tell, Chris Alexander’s new battlefield, Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, Mar. 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chris-alexanders-new-battlefield/article1939590/singlepage/#articlecontent
Mr. Alexander will have to wear the UN's rejection of Harper by not voting Canada on the Security counsel
He will also have to wear all the other Harper right-wing extremist, my-way-or-the-highway, if they don't like you throw a billion dollar party for them (at our expense) approach to diplomacy and International affairs
And, the $30 billion (and still counting) on purchasing 65 F35's for only God, and Harper, knows why Canada 'needs' them.
Then there's the $10's of billions (oh, I forgot we can't say $10's of billions since we haven't been given the information)
Oh, I almost forgot, what about the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal, that's coming again some time, isn't it
Alexander will certainly have to wear that
hummm, now that is interesting,
I wonder if this is just one of those simple ironies of life or there is some greater, yet to be revealed, significance
Given the Harper contempt of Canadian Democracy in withholding the documents, and given his own close connection to Afghanistan and its struggles, and his sympathies towards them, one can only wonder how Alexander can choose to run Con
These all appear to be diametrically opposed to Alexander's political, ideological and moral compass, which seems more aligned with Lester Pearson and Michael Ignatieff
On the other hand,
Perhaps Alexander has chosen to be a Con because he thinks they will win the next election and it will hurtle him into a Ministerial position
Thus, throwing principle and the good of Canada, as a nation, and all Canadians, aside for the sole purpose of attaining power, Canadians be dam[redacted]ed
Perhaps Alexander really is a bird-of-a-feather with Harper and the Con's
then all the above scandals will look good on him
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 March, 2011
- Harper: 'Parliament, How Do I Obstruct Thee, Let Me Count The Ways'
Posted: 11:17 AM on March 12, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Tart, Want a Tory's straight answer? First guess the secret correct question, Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail, Mar. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/want-a-torys-straight-answer-first-guess-the-secret-correct-question/article1939575/
(take off of from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Sonnet 43, although if she knew Harper, like we know Harper, perhaps she would have written it that way)
[Lukiwski:
"Precise answers to questions do not constitute contempt," said Lukiwski, who blamed Liberal MP John McKay for not questioning Oda with enough diligence.
"The minister's response referenced an activity within CIDA, which was the subject of the inquiry," he added.
"She was not asked about the decision process, insofar as the minister and officials were concerned."
However, transcripts of the foreign affairs committee on Dec. 9 suggest that McKay was cut off by Tory chairman Dean Allison.
http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/harper_govt_answers_to_accusations_against_oda/6b9495b7
(CTV, 18 Feb.'11)]
Tabatha Southey:
"Perhaps some of you are now remembering these words from the Oliphant commission: “For Mr. Mulroney to attempt to justify his failure to make disclosure in those circumstances by asserting that Mr. Sheppard did not ask the correct question is, in my view, patently absurd…” Replace the word “patently absurd” with the word “trailblazing” and I think we have our official rules down.
The current custodian of those rules seems to be Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who, interestingly enough, has done everything he can to distance himself from Mr. Mulroney."
Tabatha Southey, interesting article, a bit slow off the start.
One would expect a defendant being cross-examined while on trial for some criminal offence to be so 'sharp' in their answers as you so parody, and it would likely be on the sound advise of their counsel
But, as a Minster of the Crown it is my submission that if there was more then Ms. Oda ought to have been forthcoming, whether asked to or not. It simply does not do for her to do otherwise. And certainly, in my opinion, she has a duty and obligation, as a Minister, to so explain.
By not so doing, and by the events that transpired afterward in the House of Commons and out, in particular, but not necessarily limited to this, John Baird answering her questions, one can only wonder what's going on
Baird did not do Oda any favours thereby
It only darkened the optics, along the lines of : 'if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why all the evasions'
Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion that Ms. Oda had a legitimate explanation but did not tell it because she was not asked it, is ^not, to me, a mitigating factor
Quite the opposite, it raises the specter, again to me, of an attempt to obscure thereby obstructing
If Minister Oda had further information or belief that might, reasonably, have thrown light on what happened, she ought to have been forthcoming. Not merely because it was, to me, her duty as a Minister, but because, as we saw what happened, otherwise it may cast doubt in some minds
It may be that Ms. Oda has an explanation, and I am reserving judgement on that account
But, by not volunteering it and by Baird answering for her in Parliament, I think she has brought this all upon herself, and it in and of itself might be construed as contempt for Parliament, deliberate? - you judge.
Perhaps there is another question to ask the Minister:
"Were you given advice, instruction, recommendation, suggestion in how to answer the questions put to her by the Committee. Or, did at any time prior to appearing in front of this Committee have any discussion with anyone regarding what may transpire at this Committee or give or get, whether directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently, any information regarding same, or discuss with anyone any of the circumstances surrounding the placement or insertion or addition of any markings on said document of any nature, whether before or after you had signed it, no matter how it was done or by whom?"
Anyway, that's my effort and perhaps with a few follow up questions of like nature in response to the answer, the Minister would be forthcoming. That would certainly be interesting but somehow I doubt she would have been forthcoming.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tart, Want a Tory's straight answer? First guess the secret correct question, Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail, Mar. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/want-a-torys-straight-answer-first-guess-the-secret-correct-question/article1939575/
(take off of from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Sonnet 43, although if she knew Harper, like we know Harper, perhaps she would have written it that way)
[Lukiwski:
"Precise answers to questions do not constitute contempt," said Lukiwski, who blamed Liberal MP John McKay for not questioning Oda with enough diligence.
"The minister's response referenced an activity within CIDA, which was the subject of the inquiry," he added.
"She was not asked about the decision process, insofar as the minister and officials were concerned."
However, transcripts of the foreign affairs committee on Dec. 9 suggest that McKay was cut off by Tory chairman Dean Allison.
http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/harper_govt_answers_to_accusations_against_oda/6b9495b7
(CTV, 18 Feb.'11)]
Tabatha Southey:
"Perhaps some of you are now remembering these words from the Oliphant commission: “For Mr. Mulroney to attempt to justify his failure to make disclosure in those circumstances by asserting that Mr. Sheppard did not ask the correct question is, in my view, patently absurd…” Replace the word “patently absurd” with the word “trailblazing” and I think we have our official rules down.
The current custodian of those rules seems to be Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who, interestingly enough, has done everything he can to distance himself from Mr. Mulroney."
Tabatha Southey, interesting article, a bit slow off the start.
One would expect a defendant being cross-examined while on trial for some criminal offence to be so 'sharp' in their answers as you so parody, and it would likely be on the sound advise of their counsel
But, as a Minster of the Crown it is my submission that if there was more then Ms. Oda ought to have been forthcoming, whether asked to or not. It simply does not do for her to do otherwise. And certainly, in my opinion, she has a duty and obligation, as a Minister, to so explain.
By not so doing, and by the events that transpired afterward in the House of Commons and out, in particular, but not necessarily limited to this, John Baird answering her questions, one can only wonder what's going on
Baird did not do Oda any favours thereby
It only darkened the optics, along the lines of : 'if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, why all the evasions'
Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion that Ms. Oda had a legitimate explanation but did not tell it because she was not asked it, is ^not, to me, a mitigating factor
Quite the opposite, it raises the specter, again to me, of an attempt to obscure thereby obstructing
If Minister Oda had further information or belief that might, reasonably, have thrown light on what happened, she ought to have been forthcoming. Not merely because it was, to me, her duty as a Minister, but because, as we saw what happened, otherwise it may cast doubt in some minds
It may be that Ms. Oda has an explanation, and I am reserving judgement on that account
But, by not volunteering it and by Baird answering for her in Parliament, I think she has brought this all upon herself, and it in and of itself might be construed as contempt for Parliament, deliberate? - you judge.
Perhaps there is another question to ask the Minister:
"Were you given advice, instruction, recommendation, suggestion in how to answer the questions put to her by the Committee. Or, did at any time prior to appearing in front of this Committee have any discussion with anyone regarding what may transpire at this Committee or give or get, whether directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently, any information regarding same, or discuss with anyone any of the circumstances surrounding the placement or insertion or addition of any markings on said document of any nature, whether before or after you had signed it, no matter how it was done or by whom?"
Anyway, that's my effort and perhaps with a few follow up questions of like nature in response to the answer, the Minister would be forthcoming. That would certainly be interesting but somehow I doubt she would have been forthcoming.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 March, 2011
- "Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead!"
Sorry, a bit premature.
I can dream, dare I, of the day we are all basking in the warmth of a free and democratic society once again.
But, hopefully one day, soon, real soon.
Motion in the House of Commons Last Night:
That this House denounce the conduct of the government, its disregard for democracy and its determination to go to any lengths to advance its partisan interests and impose its regressive ideology, as it did by justifying the Conservative Party’s circumvention of the rules on election spending in the 2005-2006 election campaign, when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism used public funds to solicit donations to the Conservative Party, when the Party used taxpayers’ money to finance a pre-election campaign under the guise of promoting Canada’s Economic Action Plan, when it changed the wording in government communications to promote itself, when it showed that it is acceptable for a minister to alter a document and make misleading statements to the House, when it refused to provide a parliamentary committee with the costs of its proposals, and when it improperly prorogued Parliament.
Passed: 145 - 135 (who would vote against democracy in canada)
see:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5035186#SOBQ-3800231
and
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5035186#SOBQ-3803699
see:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/11/the-house-passes-judgment-again/
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
I can dream, dare I, of the day we are all basking in the warmth of a free and democratic society once again.
But, hopefully one day, soon, real soon.
Motion in the House of Commons Last Night:
That this House denounce the conduct of the government, its disregard for democracy and its determination to go to any lengths to advance its partisan interests and impose its regressive ideology, as it did by justifying the Conservative Party’s circumvention of the rules on election spending in the 2005-2006 election campaign, when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism used public funds to solicit donations to the Conservative Party, when the Party used taxpayers’ money to finance a pre-election campaign under the guise of promoting Canada’s Economic Action Plan, when it changed the wording in government communications to promote itself, when it showed that it is acceptable for a minister to alter a document and make misleading statements to the House, when it refused to provide a parliamentary committee with the costs of its proposals, and when it improperly prorogued Parliament.
Passed: 145 - 135 (who would vote against democracy in canada)
see:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5035186#SOBQ-3800231
and
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5035186#SOBQ-3803699
see:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/11/the-house-passes-judgment-again/
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Democracy and an Economy are not mutually exclusive as concepts, except to the likes of Harper.
Posted: 12:12 PM on March 11, 2011 The Globe and Mail
You win some, you lose some,’ PM says of Speaker's double-blow to Tories, James Bradshaw and John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, March 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/you-win-some-you-lose-some-pm-says-of-speakers-double-blow-to-tories/article1937178/
Why can't we have both Democracy and an economy.
In fact, Democracy not only aids the economy since it looks towards all in the country to assist according to their talents, but it is for the benefit of all in the country and not a small group.
An economy in a Democracy is so much more, how shall I say . . . Democratic
Harper government is the law of the jungle where only the strong survive. It is not to help those that need help.
"you win some, you lose some" is simply a manifestation of this ideology, not surprising coming from Harper
Also, if you take the time to cut thru the SH iterations you realize that the Harper approach to the economy is, in actuality, "do nothing", in 5 - 6 years it will sort itself out (the corollary is, of course, with Harper at the helm)
Well why can't we have someone in power that is for Canada as a whole, believes in his/her heart of hearts in democracy and let them "do nothing".
Wouldn't we all be better off.
Of course, the irony of it all is, "do nothing" implies leaving it the way they found it. In other words don't interfere with what the past Liberal government did to establish and maintain a strong economy, a major part banking of course.
Also, Harper and the Con's are, in reality, not doing nothing, they just don't want us to focus on how they are spending our tax dollars - 10's of billions on unneeded prisons, unneeded 5th generation strike force jets with "eye-watering technology, reducing taxes for the already most profitable corporations. They are so concerned about us learning the truth that Harper and the Con's put themselves in contempt of Parliament for hiding the real numbers.
Not only is withholding information from Parliament an assault on Democracy.
But, and this is the real reason behind the Harper contempt:
Harper and the Con's simply do not want Canadians to know just how many $10's of billions the implementation of their right-wing extremist policies will cost Canadians before the next election.
The reason, apparent:
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, previous information commissioner).
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
You win some, you lose some,’ PM says of Speaker's double-blow to Tories, James Bradshaw and John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, March 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/you-win-some-you-lose-some-pm-says-of-speakers-double-blow-to-tories/article1937178/
Why can't we have both Democracy and an economy.
In fact, Democracy not only aids the economy since it looks towards all in the country to assist according to their talents, but it is for the benefit of all in the country and not a small group.
An economy in a Democracy is so much more, how shall I say . . . Democratic
Harper government is the law of the jungle where only the strong survive. It is not to help those that need help.
"you win some, you lose some" is simply a manifestation of this ideology, not surprising coming from Harper
Also, if you take the time to cut thru the SH iterations you realize that the Harper approach to the economy is, in actuality, "do nothing", in 5 - 6 years it will sort itself out (the corollary is, of course, with Harper at the helm)
Well why can't we have someone in power that is for Canada as a whole, believes in his/her heart of hearts in democracy and let them "do nothing".
Wouldn't we all be better off.
Of course, the irony of it all is, "do nothing" implies leaving it the way they found it. In other words don't interfere with what the past Liberal government did to establish and maintain a strong economy, a major part banking of course.
Also, Harper and the Con's are, in reality, not doing nothing, they just don't want us to focus on how they are spending our tax dollars - 10's of billions on unneeded prisons, unneeded 5th generation strike force jets with "eye-watering technology, reducing taxes for the already most profitable corporations. They are so concerned about us learning the truth that Harper and the Con's put themselves in contempt of Parliament for hiding the real numbers.
Not only is withholding information from Parliament an assault on Democracy.
But, and this is the real reason behind the Harper contempt:
Harper and the Con's simply do not want Canadians to know just how many $10's of billions the implementation of their right-wing extremist policies will cost Canadians before the next election.
The reason, apparent:
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, previous information commissioner).
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
-If Harper "wins", who is it that 'loses' - Canada and all Canadians
Posted: 12:12 PM on March 11, 2011 The Globe and Mail
You win some, you lose some,’ PM says of Speaker's double-blow to Tories, James Bradshaw and John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, March 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/you-win-some-you-lose-some-pm-says-of-speakers-double-blow-to-tories/article1937178/
The 'win-lose' game Harper is referring to is 'Autocracy v. Democracy'.
So, if Harper "wins", who is it that 'loses' - Canada and all Canadians.
For the Harper Minister to say that these very serious contempt charges are nothing but a distraction, is beyond believe.
Shakespeare couldn't have written a better play, albeit tragedy -e.g. "Harper, Prince of Darkness"
But it is very revealing of the Harper's attitude. He just doesn't care about Democracy, Canada as a nation, or Canadian Democratic traditions.
The balance of power in Canadian Democracy is based on the assumption that the person leading, the PM, has the best interest of the country at heart. They simply did not abuse power since that would damage Canadian democracy.
This has been the case up until Harper took over.
You may have disagreed with Brian Mulroney and his policies but even with him, you can't accuse him of abusing his power not having the best interests of all Canadians at heart, albeit a bit distorted.
Mulroney may have looked at governing like a game as well and "rolled the dice" but he didn't refer to Democracy as "you win some and you lose some"
Harper, in fact, and a brief delving into his background is sufficient to expose this, is set on the dismantling of Canada as a nation, tearing Canada asunder, abdicating power to the Provinces.
Harper is a right-wing extremist, in fact the leader. He is supported by 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what.
Harper's loyalty is to them, not to Canadians and a whole, to Canada as a nation and not to Canadian Democracy.
But as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate against this Harper can do anything he wants
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
You win some, you lose some,’ PM says of Speaker's double-blow to Tories, James Bradshaw and John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail Update, March 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/you-win-some-you-lose-some-pm-says-of-speakers-double-blow-to-tories/article1937178/
The 'win-lose' game Harper is referring to is 'Autocracy v. Democracy'.
So, if Harper "wins", who is it that 'loses' - Canada and all Canadians.
For the Harper Minister to say that these very serious contempt charges are nothing but a distraction, is beyond believe.
Shakespeare couldn't have written a better play, albeit tragedy -e.g. "Harper, Prince of Darkness"
But it is very revealing of the Harper's attitude. He just doesn't care about Democracy, Canada as a nation, or Canadian Democratic traditions.
The balance of power in Canadian Democracy is based on the assumption that the person leading, the PM, has the best interest of the country at heart. They simply did not abuse power since that would damage Canadian democracy.
This has been the case up until Harper took over.
You may have disagreed with Brian Mulroney and his policies but even with him, you can't accuse him of abusing his power not having the best interests of all Canadians at heart, albeit a bit distorted.
Mulroney may have looked at governing like a game as well and "rolled the dice" but he didn't refer to Democracy as "you win some and you lose some"
Harper, in fact, and a brief delving into his background is sufficient to expose this, is set on the dismantling of Canada as a nation, tearing Canada asunder, abdicating power to the Provinces.
Harper is a right-wing extremist, in fact the leader. He is supported by 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what.
Harper's loyalty is to them, not to Canadians and a whole, to Canada as a nation and not to Canadian Democracy.
But as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate against this Harper can do anything he wants
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 March, 2011
- Shine That Light on the Harper Regime
(see previous post today)
kim may 1:58 PM on March 10, 2011 wrote:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29529380865
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3163180401&ref=ts
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Canadians-Rallying-to-Unseat-Stephen-Harper/105827632806305
http://www.facebook.com/catch22campaign?sk=info
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=239078884660
***
This is great research work Kim May
Please keep me and us informed.
Thanks,
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
[not to steal any of your thunder, but I think it is important to give the titles of the Facebook Posting so they know what it is relating to and more readily go read them
The Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party need your support, but they also need your donations if they are to bring down Stephen Harper's Conservative government.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29529380865
Unite Facebook Against Stephen Harper's Government
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3163180401&ref=ts
Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Canadians-Rallying-to-Unseat-Stephen-Harper/105827632806305
Catch 22 Harper Conservatives
http://www.facebook.com/catch22campaign?sk=info
Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (Kingston Chapter)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=239078884660]
kim may 1:58 PM on March 10, 2011 wrote:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29529380865
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3163180401&ref=ts
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Canadians-Rallying-to-Unseat-Stephen-Harper/105827632806305
http://www.facebook.com/catch22campaign?sk=info
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=239078884660
***
This is great research work Kim May
Please keep me and us informed.
Thanks,
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
[not to steal any of your thunder, but I think it is important to give the titles of the Facebook Posting so they know what it is relating to and more readily go read them
The Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party need your support, but they also need your donations if they are to bring down Stephen Harper's Conservative government.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29529380865
Unite Facebook Against Stephen Harper's Government
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3163180401&ref=ts
Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Canadians-Rallying-to-Unseat-Stephen-Harper/105827632806305
Catch 22 Harper Conservatives
http://www.facebook.com/catch22campaign?sk=info
Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (Kingston Chapter)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=239078884660]
- The devil Incarnate, SH itself, You Say
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
2:08 PM on March 10, 2011
(see 2 posts below)
Marcus1947:
For someone that doesn't even have the conviction of their opinions to use your real name
you certainly feel free to hurl the insults.
It is easy to attack someone personally when you do not have to take personal responsibility for what you say.
This, of course, is what Harper and the Con's have been doing in Parliament since the beginning of the Harper Regime
- vicious attacks on the person's character instead of answering legitimate questions and doing it with parliamentary immunity - until yesterday.
Your not the devil incarnate, SH itself, are you
(My Response, 2:02 PM on March 10, 2011, to Marcus1947, 1:50 PM,
reply to my post: 12:51 PM, 10 Mar.'11)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
2:08 PM on March 10, 2011
(see 2 posts below)
Marcus1947:
For someone that doesn't even have the conviction of their opinions to use your real name
you certainly feel free to hurl the insults.
It is easy to attack someone personally when you do not have to take personal responsibility for what you say.
This, of course, is what Harper and the Con's have been doing in Parliament since the beginning of the Harper Regime
- vicious attacks on the person's character instead of answering legitimate questions and doing it with parliamentary immunity - until yesterday.
Your not the devil incarnate, SH itself, are you
(My Response, 2:02 PM on March 10, 2011, to Marcus1947, 1:50 PM,
reply to my post: 12:51 PM, 10 Mar.'11)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Impeachment, 'that which we call 'Contempt of Parliament' by any other name would smell as rotten'
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
12:51 PM on March 10, 2011
(see previous post)
I'd say that the Speaker's ruling is pretty much the same thing as Impeachment in the US,
certainly to point out the close parallel,
Reading Wikipedia's description of Impeachment in the US system.
There are, of course, many, many other references to what Impeachment means in the US
But, when it gets right down to it:
Impeachment, 'that which we call 'Contempt of Parliament' by any other name would smell as rotten';
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment)
United States
"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
Generally,
"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity and the outcome of which, depending on the country, can lead to the removal of that official from office or other punishment."
Perhaps, Marcus1947 you might actually research what Impeachment means in the US system.
Then, you may not so quick to say I am wrong.
Lets take a rational approach,
First you give no logical or rational basis for your bald denial.
You make no reference to the meaning of Impeachment generally or the US specifically.
Marcus1947 perhaps you could let us know
for Wikipedia if it's ^not Right on this:
(My Response, 12:40 PM, to Marcus1947, 11:20 AM, reply to my post: 10:51 AM
"Let me know if I'm not 'Right' (as in ^not wrong) on this
But isn't the Speaker's Ruling the same as an Impeachment in the US)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12:51 PM on March 10, 2011
(see previous post)
I'd say that the Speaker's ruling is pretty much the same thing as Impeachment in the US,
certainly to point out the close parallel,
Reading Wikipedia's description of Impeachment in the US system.
There are, of course, many, many other references to what Impeachment means in the US
But, when it gets right down to it:
Impeachment, 'that which we call 'Contempt of Parliament' by any other name would smell as rotten';
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment)
United States
"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
Generally,
"Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity and the outcome of which, depending on the country, can lead to the removal of that official from office or other punishment."
Perhaps, Marcus1947 you might actually research what Impeachment means in the US system.
Then, you may not so quick to say I am wrong.
Lets take a rational approach,
First you give no logical or rational basis for your bald denial.
You make no reference to the meaning of Impeachment generally or the US specifically.
Marcus1947 perhaps you could let us know
for Wikipedia if it's ^not Right on this:
(My Response, 12:40 PM, to Marcus1947, 11:20 AM, reply to my post: 10:51 AM
"Let me know if I'm not 'Right' (as in ^not wrong) on this
But isn't the Speaker's Ruling the same as an Impeachment in the US)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Perhaps we should be calling it an Impeachment so Harper will understand what is going on here.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/speakers-contempt-rulings-add-ammunition-to-election-minded-opposition/article1935375/
Speaker’s contempt rulings add ammunition to election-minded opposition
JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Mar. 09, 2011 10:30PM ESTLast updated Thursday, Mar. 10, 2011 8:25AM
Let me know if I'm not 'Right' on this
But isn't the Speaker's Ruling the same as an Impeachment in the US.
“There is no doubt” that the government had failed to comply with a parliamentary committee’s demand for costs related to the Conservatives’ crime bills, Mr. Milliken concluded. “This is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.”
There has been "no doubt" that Harper and the Con's have been in contempt of Parliament from the first time they got up in the House in '06, evading real answers to the questions and their duties as representatives of the Canadian people, and made fierce and outrageous personal attacks on MP's doing their jobs asking question about Afghanistan.
The fundamental problem is that Harper simple just doesn't care. He's got the power and is using it whether legitimately or not. If you don't like it too bad for you.
And Harper and the Con's can take this position for a number of reasons:
- Harper is kept in power by a core (33% , the Silent Minority) of like minded people that provide the funds and blindly support him - as long as he 'delivers the goods' - much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians as a whole.
- Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the Moderate Majority (66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's) that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
- Harper and the Con's have seemingly unlimited resources of funds, much of it Canadian taxpayers money the purpose of which is to benefit all Canadians and not get Harper re-elected, to wage a media campaigns the likes and degradations of which have never before been seen in Canadian politics.
- this also allows Harper and the Con's can wage any number of election campaigns withing any time period and so simply say "if you don't like it, lets have an election".
- Harper and the Con's have built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western Democracies in recent history and we are seeing signs of it and will see more, much much more.
Because of the 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists will not only support Harper in any election campaign they will go out and vote,
With a divided opposition, who don't support and don't go out and vote (look at the Vaughan by-election, the Con's got the same number of votes as last time, the Liberals 10,000 less), Harper is pretty much guaranteed to get more seats than any other Party.
This of course is the reason behind the very contemptuous, and simply wrong and dishonest, statement that the Opposition Parties do not have the right to form a government.
Don't hold your breath for the Harper appointed Governor General to go against Harper on this or Harper proroguing parliament before Parliament can find them in contempt - now there's a thought.
The only solution is for the Moderate Majority to consolidate and give Harper the boot.
(This is one area where Canadian politics is different from US politics and is Harper's weakness, in the US the split is approx 50-50, Right Wing and Moderates, here it is 1/3 - 2/3 so there's hope. On the other hand, in the US the Moderates participate)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Speaker’s contempt rulings add ammunition to election-minded opposition
JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Mar. 09, 2011 10:30PM ESTLast updated Thursday, Mar. 10, 2011 8:25AM
Let me know if I'm not 'Right' on this
But isn't the Speaker's Ruling the same as an Impeachment in the US.
“There is no doubt” that the government had failed to comply with a parliamentary committee’s demand for costs related to the Conservatives’ crime bills, Mr. Milliken concluded. “This is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.”
There has been "no doubt" that Harper and the Con's have been in contempt of Parliament from the first time they got up in the House in '06, evading real answers to the questions and their duties as representatives of the Canadian people, and made fierce and outrageous personal attacks on MP's doing their jobs asking question about Afghanistan.
The fundamental problem is that Harper simple just doesn't care. He's got the power and is using it whether legitimately or not. If you don't like it too bad for you.
And Harper and the Con's can take this position for a number of reasons:
- Harper is kept in power by a core (33% , the Silent Minority) of like minded people that provide the funds and blindly support him - as long as he 'delivers the goods' - much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians as a whole.
- Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the Moderate Majority (66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's) that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
- Harper and the Con's have seemingly unlimited resources of funds, much of it Canadian taxpayers money the purpose of which is to benefit all Canadians and not get Harper re-elected, to wage a media campaigns the likes and degradations of which have never before been seen in Canadian politics.
- this also allows Harper and the Con's can wage any number of election campaigns withing any time period and so simply say "if you don't like it, lets have an election".
- Harper and the Con's have built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western Democracies in recent history and we are seeing signs of it and will see more, much much more.
Because of the 33% die-hard, right-wing extremists will not only support Harper in any election campaign they will go out and vote,
With a divided opposition, who don't support and don't go out and vote (look at the Vaughan by-election, the Con's got the same number of votes as last time, the Liberals 10,000 less), Harper is pretty much guaranteed to get more seats than any other Party.
This of course is the reason behind the very contemptuous, and simply wrong and dishonest, statement that the Opposition Parties do not have the right to form a government.
Don't hold your breath for the Harper appointed Governor General to go against Harper on this or Harper proroguing parliament before Parliament can find them in contempt - now there's a thought.
The only solution is for the Moderate Majority to consolidate and give Harper the boot.
(This is one area where Canadian politics is different from US politics and is Harper's weakness, in the US the split is approx 50-50, Right Wing and Moderates, here it is 1/3 - 2/3 so there's hope. On the other hand, in the US the Moderates participate)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 March, 2011
- With Harper we can all kiss our 'social safety-net' goodbye
Submitted: 6:58am, PST, 9 Mar.'11 Winnipeg Free Press - not posted - who knows???
re-submitted: 12:38pm, PST, 9 Mar.11
The 'state' of Harper affairs, Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, 03/9/2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/the-state-of-harper-affairs-117634863.html
. . . continued
One need only look at Harper's background to predict how he would negotiate Health Care, equalization and social transfers when they become open in a couple years, especially if he had a majority.
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (when you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking):
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."
Harper, National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."
oh, and by the way did I mention:
Harper: (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."
Further, this pervasive and insidious movement to the extreme right is representative of the values of only a small minority of Canadians.
Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But, for two reasons:
Harper has 33% core of die-hard, right-wing extremists, that would support him just about no matter what.
and
As long as the 66% Moderate Majority don't consolidate then Harper can continue like he owns it, like it's the "Harper Government"
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
re-submitted: 12:38pm, PST, 9 Mar.11
The 'state' of Harper affairs, Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, 03/9/2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/the-state-of-harper-affairs-117634863.html
. . . continued
One need only look at Harper's background to predict how he would negotiate Health Care, equalization and social transfers when they become open in a couple years, especially if he had a majority.
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (when you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking):
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."
Harper, National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."
oh, and by the way did I mention:
Harper: (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be."
Further, this pervasive and insidious movement to the extreme right is representative of the values of only a small minority of Canadians.
Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But, for two reasons:
Harper has 33% core of die-hard, right-wing extremists, that would support him just about no matter what.
and
As long as the 66% Moderate Majority don't consolidate then Harper can continue like he owns it, like it's the "Harper Government"
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)